<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_19_1232200</id>
	<title>Health Care Reform</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269002880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>It appears that today might be the end of a very long road to health care reform.  There's been a lot of debate on the subject really leading back before the election.  The mainstream sounds like an echo chamber, so I'm hoping you guys have better insight.  Will this bill do what the administration claims to do, or is it as bad for the future of America as Fox says?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that today might be the end of a very long road to health care reform .
There 's been a lot of debate on the subject really leading back before the election .
The mainstream sounds like an echo chamber , so I 'm hoping you guys have better insight .
Will this bill do what the administration claims to do , or is it as bad for the future of America as Fox says ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that today might be the end of a very long road to health care reform.
There's been a lot of debate on the subject really leading back before the election.
The mainstream sounds like an echo chamber, so I'm hoping you guys have better insight.
Will this bill do what the administration claims to do, or is it as bad for the future of America as Fox says?</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539560</id>
	<title>Seriously screwed up bill</title>
	<author>Sheik Yerbouti</author>
	<datestamp>1269019380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a bad bill even liberals should concede that. It basically says the federal government will MANDATE that you buy health insurance in exchange for their corporate masters in the insurance industry agreeing to not withhold coverage due to a pre-existing condition. Never mind that you are self employed or can't afford health coverage unless you are incredibly poor and qualify for Medicaid you will get no help.  There will be no public option so there will be no pricing pressure on private insurance providers. And if you don't get coverage how will they enforce it? The IRS of course, and since IRS agents carry guns and have the authority to charge you with crimes that could get you sent to one of America's humane pound me in the ass anal rape prisons. It is basically enforced by the threats of the barrel of a gun and potential anal rape and complete loss of freedom, USA USA USA!</p><p>I am betting most people reading this think I am trolling and don't believe that's what it says. Don't take my word for it go read the bill. And you might be thinking why would sane reasonable senators vote for that? I think they know it's a badly broken piece of legislation. I think even Obama knows that. I am guessing the point is to get something anything passed. And if it is broken so be it the resulting cluster fuck and outcry will create the real crisis necessary to pass a real healthcare bill with some public option and maybe eventually work towards single payer or a national health service type of situation. It's totally fucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a bad bill even liberals should concede that .
It basically says the federal government will MANDATE that you buy health insurance in exchange for their corporate masters in the insurance industry agreeing to not withhold coverage due to a pre-existing condition .
Never mind that you are self employed or ca n't afford health coverage unless you are incredibly poor and qualify for Medicaid you will get no help .
There will be no public option so there will be no pricing pressure on private insurance providers .
And if you do n't get coverage how will they enforce it ?
The IRS of course , and since IRS agents carry guns and have the authority to charge you with crimes that could get you sent to one of America 's humane pound me in the ass anal rape prisons .
It is basically enforced by the threats of the barrel of a gun and potential anal rape and complete loss of freedom , USA USA USA ! I am betting most people reading this think I am trolling and do n't believe that 's what it says .
Do n't take my word for it go read the bill .
And you might be thinking why would sane reasonable senators vote for that ?
I think they know it 's a badly broken piece of legislation .
I think even Obama knows that .
I am guessing the point is to get something anything passed .
And if it is broken so be it the resulting cluster fuck and outcry will create the real crisis necessary to pass a real healthcare bill with some public option and maybe eventually work towards single payer or a national health service type of situation .
It 's totally fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a bad bill even liberals should concede that.
It basically says the federal government will MANDATE that you buy health insurance in exchange for their corporate masters in the insurance industry agreeing to not withhold coverage due to a pre-existing condition.
Never mind that you are self employed or can't afford health coverage unless you are incredibly poor and qualify for Medicaid you will get no help.
There will be no public option so there will be no pricing pressure on private insurance providers.
And if you don't get coverage how will they enforce it?
The IRS of course, and since IRS agents carry guns and have the authority to charge you with crimes that could get you sent to one of America's humane pound me in the ass anal rape prisons.
It is basically enforced by the threats of the barrel of a gun and potential anal rape and complete loss of freedom, USA USA USA!I am betting most people reading this think I am trolling and don't believe that's what it says.
Don't take my word for it go read the bill.
And you might be thinking why would sane reasonable senators vote for that?
I think they know it's a badly broken piece of legislation.
I think even Obama knows that.
I am guessing the point is to get something anything passed.
And if it is broken so be it the resulting cluster fuck and outcry will create the real crisis necessary to pass a real healthcare bill with some public option and maybe eventually work towards single payer or a national health service type of situation.
It's totally fucked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535414</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>Kludge</author>
	<datestamp>1269008100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> In the UK we have 1.5 doctors per 1,000 people, </p><p>Where did you get that?  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health\_care\_system" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health\_care\_system</a> [wikipedia.org] says 2.5 per 1000.  UK has more doctors per capita than US.  France has 3.4 per 1000. Sweden 3.6.  The reality is greater supply leads to lower prices of anything period.</p><p>Also liability would be much less of a problem if doctors in the US made less money.  #1 rule of lawsuits:  Only sue people who have money.  Half of all doctors in the US are millionaires.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK we have 1.5 doctors per 1,000 people , Where did you get that ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health \ _care \ _system [ wikipedia.org ] says 2.5 per 1000 .
UK has more doctors per capita than US .
France has 3.4 per 1000 .
Sweden 3.6 .
The reality is greater supply leads to lower prices of anything period.Also liability would be much less of a problem if doctors in the US made less money .
# 1 rule of lawsuits : Only sue people who have money .
Half of all doctors in the US are millionaires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In the UK we have 1.5 doctors per 1,000 people, Where did you get that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health\_care\_system [wikipedia.org] says 2.5 per 1000.
UK has more doctors per capita than US.
France has 3.4 per 1000.
Sweden 3.6.
The reality is greater supply leads to lower prices of anything period.Also liability would be much less of a problem if doctors in the US made less money.
#1 rule of lawsuits:  Only sue people who have money.
Half of all doctors in the US are millionaires.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535850</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>dammy</author>
	<datestamp>1269009360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what Obama claims as the first phase of health care reform.  There are more phases to come including government run health insurance which will kill off the 13,000 health insurance companies.  As a former Federal employee (and I do miss my benefits), the idea of the Feds controlling health care from womb to tomb has me very scared.</p><p>Let me put it to you this way, if your employer had a choice of paying 8\% tax to cover your health care to Medicaid or paying more to pay for your current health care insurance, what do you think they are going to decide on?  That will be their choice in the coming years under Obamacare.  Worse yet, more GPs are looking to exit the health care field if this goes through because they will not be making the money they are use to.  Is it a bluff or are they telling us the truth of what will happen?<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what Obama claims as the first phase of health care reform .
There are more phases to come including government run health insurance which will kill off the 13,000 health insurance companies .
As a former Federal employee ( and I do miss my benefits ) , the idea of the Feds controlling health care from womb to tomb has me very scared.Let me put it to you this way , if your employer had a choice of paying 8 \ % tax to cover your health care to Medicaid or paying more to pay for your current health care insurance , what do you think they are going to decide on ?
That will be their choice in the coming years under Obamacare .
Worse yet , more GPs are looking to exit the health care field if this goes through because they will not be making the money they are use to .
Is it a bluff or are they telling us the truth of what will happen ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what Obama claims as the first phase of health care reform.
There are more phases to come including government run health insurance which will kill off the 13,000 health insurance companies.
As a former Federal employee (and I do miss my benefits), the idea of the Feds controlling health care from womb to tomb has me very scared.Let me put it to you this way, if your employer had a choice of paying 8\% tax to cover your health care to Medicaid or paying more to pay for your current health care insurance, what do you think they are going to decide on?
That will be their choice in the coming years under Obamacare.
Worse yet, more GPs are looking to exit the health care field if this goes through because they will not be making the money they are use to.
Is it a bluff or are they telling us the truth of what will happen?
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535304</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The federal government is doing it through the tax code. They have the power/right to impose taxes and distribute funds. Similar to how the No child left behind act gives the federal government the power to influence education.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The federal government is doing it through the tax code .
They have the power/right to impose taxes and distribute funds .
Similar to how the No child left behind act gives the federal government the power to influence education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The federal government is doing it through the tax code.
They have the power/right to impose taxes and distribute funds.
Similar to how the No child left behind act gives the federal government the power to influence education.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180</id>
	<title>Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>Nautical Insanity</author>
	<datestamp>1269007260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable.</p><p>However, too many people have been making money hand over fist in the US to let any system where they would be the cut cost pass. Overall, it's an opportunity for the government to provide what the market cannot. Either affordable healthcare or writing into law corporate profits. I don't trust our congressmen to avoid the latter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable.However , too many people have been making money hand over fist in the US to let any system where they would be the cut cost pass .
Overall , it 's an opportunity for the government to provide what the market can not .
Either affordable healthcare or writing into law corporate profits .
I do n't trust our congressmen to avoid the latter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable.However, too many people have been making money hand over fist in the US to let any system where they would be the cut cost pass.
Overall, it's an opportunity for the government to provide what the market cannot.
Either affordable healthcare or writing into law corporate profits.
I don't trust our congressmen to avoid the latter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535236</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhere in between.</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269007500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Insurance companies may not reject customers," (like you) is the ONLY part of the bill I support, and that only needed to be 1-2 pages long.  The rest of the bill is filled with nonsense like fines against poor and middle income citizens, shortchanging Medicare by about 500 billion, increasing our national debt another 1/2 trillion per year, and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Insurance companies may not reject customers , " ( like you ) is the ONLY part of the bill I support , and that only needed to be 1-2 pages long .
The rest of the bill is filled with nonsense like fines against poor and middle income citizens , shortchanging Medicare by about 500 billion , increasing our national debt another 1/2 trillion per year , and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Insurance companies may not reject customers," (like you) is the ONLY part of the bill I support, and that only needed to be 1-2 pages long.
The rest of the bill is filled with nonsense like fines against poor and middle income citizens, shortchanging Medicare by about 500 billion, increasing our national debt another 1/2 trillion per year, and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535260</id>
	<title>Effectiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't only a question of effectiveness.  There are legal and moral issues as well.</p><p>Moral: It is wrong to force your will on someone.  Just because a majority of people get together and decide they want something doesn't give them the right to take it by force.  I know that has become one of the finding principles of our country, but it is wrong.</p><p>Legal: The federal government lacks the legal authority to enact this legislation.  This could only be implemented at a state level, or a county/city level if a state allows for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't only a question of effectiveness .
There are legal and moral issues as well.Moral : It is wrong to force your will on someone .
Just because a majority of people get together and decide they want something does n't give them the right to take it by force .
I know that has become one of the finding principles of our country , but it is wrong.Legal : The federal government lacks the legal authority to enact this legislation .
This could only be implemented at a state level , or a county/city level if a state allows for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't only a question of effectiveness.
There are legal and moral issues as well.Moral: It is wrong to force your will on someone.
Just because a majority of people get together and decide they want something doesn't give them the right to take it by force.
I know that has become one of the finding principles of our country, but it is wrong.Legal: The federal government lacks the legal authority to enact this legislation.
This could only be implemented at a state level, or a county/city level if a state allows for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537332</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they pushed through tort reform, then why are people still asking for tort reform? Not a troll, just looking for a citation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they pushed through tort reform , then why are people still asking for tort reform ?
Not a troll , just looking for a citation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they pushed through tort reform, then why are people still asking for tort reform?
Not a troll, just looking for a citation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535130</id>
	<title>Obama-Care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its bad.  Look on page 102.  Its describes the way a "panel" will determine which insurance you "will" buy.  And that is just the start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its bad .
Look on page 102 .
Its describes the way a " panel " will determine which insurance you " will " buy .
And that is just the start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its bad.
Look on page 102.
Its describes the way a "panel" will determine which insurance you "will" buy.
And that is just the start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542230</id>
	<title>Re:You got the wrong generation</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269029520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Greatest Generation and Baby Boomer's are costing 10k's to 100k's of thousands of dollars of year in health care costs and you blame this generation? Who smokes less, drinks less and is in overall better health than the three previous generations?</i></p><p>I apologize in advance; much of this comment will be offtopic, but my "no bonus" buttons don't seem to work.</p><p>First, I take issue with the "greatest generation" label. They weren't. My late friend <a href="http://slashdot.org/~mcgrew/journal/211801" title="slashdot.org">Ralph</a> [slashdot.org] and most of my uncles were of that generation (my dad was the generation that fought in Korea), and my uncles' and Ralph's generation really screwed a LOT of things up. People forget that Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were part of the "greatest generation". Christ, you should hear some of the stories Ralph told (I miss the old bastard). The "greatest generation" created more pollution and bigger messes of nonenvironmental kinds than any other. Their generation outlawed marijuana. Their generation was in charge of McCarthyism. Their generation lynched blacks and promoted racism.</p><p>They were mostly not nice people.</p><p>Second, please learn to use an apostrophe, or don't use them at all.</p><p>Third, what's so great about smoking and drinking less? The worse your health the sooner you'll die. The sooner you die the less you cost in health care. As examples I cite my non-smoking, teetotalling grandmother and my uncle from your "greatest" generation, her alcoholic son who smoked four packs a day. He died at age 64, never collecting a single social security check, nor having Medicare pay a single doctor's visit. My Grandmother lived a hundred years, and collected Social Security for decades and went to the doctor on Medicare's dime every other week.</p><p>Everybody runs up huge medical bills before they die, including my uncles (one who died of cancer in his late seventies and one in his eighties who died of ALS) and my ninety nine year old teetotalling nonsmoking grandmother. <b>Nobody lives forever</b>, kid, and unless you die suddenly, you're going to have huge medical costs associated with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Greatest Generation and Baby Boomer 's are costing 10k 's to 100k 's of thousands of dollars of year in health care costs and you blame this generation ?
Who smokes less , drinks less and is in overall better health than the three previous generations ? I apologize in advance ; much of this comment will be offtopic , but my " no bonus " buttons do n't seem to work.First , I take issue with the " greatest generation " label .
They were n't .
My late friend Ralph [ slashdot.org ] and most of my uncles were of that generation ( my dad was the generation that fought in Korea ) , and my uncles ' and Ralph 's generation really screwed a LOT of things up .
People forget that Hitler , Mussolini , and Stalin were part of the " greatest generation " .
Christ , you should hear some of the stories Ralph told ( I miss the old bastard ) .
The " greatest generation " created more pollution and bigger messes of nonenvironmental kinds than any other .
Their generation outlawed marijuana .
Their generation was in charge of McCarthyism .
Their generation lynched blacks and promoted racism.They were mostly not nice people.Second , please learn to use an apostrophe , or do n't use them at all.Third , what 's so great about smoking and drinking less ?
The worse your health the sooner you 'll die .
The sooner you die the less you cost in health care .
As examples I cite my non-smoking , teetotalling grandmother and my uncle from your " greatest " generation , her alcoholic son who smoked four packs a day .
He died at age 64 , never collecting a single social security check , nor having Medicare pay a single doctor 's visit .
My Grandmother lived a hundred years , and collected Social Security for decades and went to the doctor on Medicare 's dime every other week.Everybody runs up huge medical bills before they die , including my uncles ( one who died of cancer in his late seventies and one in his eighties who died of ALS ) and my ninety nine year old teetotalling nonsmoking grandmother .
Nobody lives forever , kid , and unless you die suddenly , you 're going to have huge medical costs associated with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greatest Generation and Baby Boomer's are costing 10k's to 100k's of thousands of dollars of year in health care costs and you blame this generation?
Who smokes less, drinks less and is in overall better health than the three previous generations?I apologize in advance; much of this comment will be offtopic, but my "no bonus" buttons don't seem to work.First, I take issue with the "greatest generation" label.
They weren't.
My late friend Ralph [slashdot.org] and most of my uncles were of that generation (my dad was the generation that fought in Korea), and my uncles' and Ralph's generation really screwed a LOT of things up.
People forget that Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were part of the "greatest generation".
Christ, you should hear some of the stories Ralph told (I miss the old bastard).
The "greatest generation" created more pollution and bigger messes of nonenvironmental kinds than any other.
Their generation outlawed marijuana.
Their generation was in charge of McCarthyism.
Their generation lynched blacks and promoted racism.They were mostly not nice people.Second, please learn to use an apostrophe, or don't use them at all.Third, what's so great about smoking and drinking less?
The worse your health the sooner you'll die.
The sooner you die the less you cost in health care.
As examples I cite my non-smoking, teetotalling grandmother and my uncle from your "greatest" generation, her alcoholic son who smoked four packs a day.
He died at age 64, never collecting a single social security check, nor having Medicare pay a single doctor's visit.
My Grandmother lived a hundred years, and collected Social Security for decades and went to the doctor on Medicare's dime every other week.Everybody runs up huge medical bills before they die, including my uncles (one who died of cancer in his late seventies and one in his eighties who died of ALS) and my ninety nine year old teetotalling nonsmoking grandmother.
Nobody lives forever, kid, and unless you die suddenly, you're going to have huge medical costs associated with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31548708</id>
	<title>Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1269091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see, how much of this needs to be debunked?</p><blockquote><div><p>More government power over our lives.</p></div></blockquote><p>The only ones with power over your medical decisions would be you and your doctor.  Which would be a huge improvement over the current situation, where the insurance company has power over your medical decisions.  With a vested interest in saying no, so they get more profit.</p><blockquote><div><p>More people to handle the money and drive costs up.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually it would be <i>less</i> people and drive costs down.  Medicare and the VA have 2\%-4\% overhead, compared to 20\%-30\% for insurance companies.  The former are ten times as efficient because they aren't employing an army of bureaucrats to deny you what you paid for (health care) and the highest paid federal official is paid a fraction of a CEO's salary.</p><blockquote><div><p>Universal health care doesn't fix the more pressing problem of expensive health care.</p></div></blockquote><p>Uh, yeah, it does.  It's why other industrialized countries have better care for half to a third of what we spend per patient.  It's why freaking Cuba has comparable health care despite spending 1/30th per patient that we do.</p><blockquote><div><p>There's no explicit constitutional authority for universal health coverage.</p></div></blockquote><p>Of course there is, General Welfare.  It's in the Constitution.  Twice.</p><p>And before you launch into the standard Libertarian shpeels that this would be a 10th Amendment violation or that Article I, Section 8 is a strict list of powers given to Congress, remember that the Constitution "only allows" Congress to fund an Army and a Navy.  Which means that if Medicare for All and Social Security are unconstitutional, so is the Air Force, NORAD, the CIA, the NSA, most of the FBI,  and spy satellites.</p><blockquote><div><p>The US is in a unique situation</p></div></blockquote><p>How so?  We already have some forms of single payer (VA, Medicare), and they already provide better care for less money than private insurance.</p><blockquote><div><p>the current crop of politicians has massively fucked up markets before (for example, the California electricity crisis</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean Enron's massive energy fraud against the state after power was deregulated?  Your California example is a good one for showing how regulation is good and deregulation is bad.</p><blockquote><div><p>cap-and-trade</p></div></blockquote><p>The whole point of cap-and-trade is to use the power of capitalism to fight global warming.  How long have you hated capitalism, commie?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , how much of this needs to be debunked ? More government power over our lives.The only ones with power over your medical decisions would be you and your doctor .
Which would be a huge improvement over the current situation , where the insurance company has power over your medical decisions .
With a vested interest in saying no , so they get more profit.More people to handle the money and drive costs up.Actually it would be less people and drive costs down .
Medicare and the VA have 2 \ % -4 \ % overhead , compared to 20 \ % -30 \ % for insurance companies .
The former are ten times as efficient because they are n't employing an army of bureaucrats to deny you what you paid for ( health care ) and the highest paid federal official is paid a fraction of a CEO 's salary.Universal health care does n't fix the more pressing problem of expensive health care.Uh , yeah , it does .
It 's why other industrialized countries have better care for half to a third of what we spend per patient .
It 's why freaking Cuba has comparable health care despite spending 1/30th per patient that we do.There 's no explicit constitutional authority for universal health coverage.Of course there is , General Welfare .
It 's in the Constitution .
Twice.And before you launch into the standard Libertarian shpeels that this would be a 10th Amendment violation or that Article I , Section 8 is a strict list of powers given to Congress , remember that the Constitution " only allows " Congress to fund an Army and a Navy .
Which means that if Medicare for All and Social Security are unconstitutional , so is the Air Force , NORAD , the CIA , the NSA , most of the FBI , and spy satellites.The US is in a unique situationHow so ?
We already have some forms of single payer ( VA , Medicare ) , and they already provide better care for less money than private insurance.the current crop of politicians has massively fucked up markets before ( for example , the California electricity crisisYou mean Enron 's massive energy fraud against the state after power was deregulated ?
Your California example is a good one for showing how regulation is good and deregulation is bad.cap-and-tradeThe whole point of cap-and-trade is to use the power of capitalism to fight global warming .
How long have you hated capitalism , commie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, how much of this needs to be debunked?More government power over our lives.The only ones with power over your medical decisions would be you and your doctor.
Which would be a huge improvement over the current situation, where the insurance company has power over your medical decisions.
With a vested interest in saying no, so they get more profit.More people to handle the money and drive costs up.Actually it would be less people and drive costs down.
Medicare and the VA have 2\%-4\% overhead, compared to 20\%-30\% for insurance companies.
The former are ten times as efficient because they aren't employing an army of bureaucrats to deny you what you paid for (health care) and the highest paid federal official is paid a fraction of a CEO's salary.Universal health care doesn't fix the more pressing problem of expensive health care.Uh, yeah, it does.
It's why other industrialized countries have better care for half to a third of what we spend per patient.
It's why freaking Cuba has comparable health care despite spending 1/30th per patient that we do.There's no explicit constitutional authority for universal health coverage.Of course there is, General Welfare.
It's in the Constitution.
Twice.And before you launch into the standard Libertarian shpeels that this would be a 10th Amendment violation or that Article I, Section 8 is a strict list of powers given to Congress, remember that the Constitution "only allows" Congress to fund an Army and a Navy.
Which means that if Medicare for All and Social Security are unconstitutional, so is the Air Force, NORAD, the CIA, the NSA, most of the FBI,  and spy satellites.The US is in a unique situationHow so?
We already have some forms of single payer (VA, Medicare), and they already provide better care for less money than private insurance.the current crop of politicians has massively fucked up markets before (for example, the California electricity crisisYou mean Enron's massive energy fraud against the state after power was deregulated?
Your California example is a good one for showing how regulation is good and deregulation is bad.cap-and-tradeThe whole point of cap-and-trade is to use the power of capitalism to fight global warming.
How long have you hated capitalism, commie?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536350</id>
	<title>My friend will lose his job because of this bill..</title>
	<author>morsmortis</author>
	<datestamp>1269010800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>and he doesn't work in the health care industry; he does programing for Sallie Mae.  Why is his job in jeopardy? It's because the democrats want to kill two birds with one ungainly stone by privatizing the student loan industry.   This whole thing is a mistake. No one seems to care about this takeover, because they are obsessed with this health care bill, which isn't even worth the paper it is written on. Sallie Mae takes loans from Bank of America at 5\% and adds on 1\% to service those loans.  That 1\% is what the government wants to cut from the picture; attaching it to the health care bill to mitigate the cost of the health care bill! If the government cannot do as well as private company that has done this for decades it will actually lose money.
Just like health care and education, I need food and a place to live to survive in this world. So, why can't I get all my goods and services from government centers that get their supply directly from the source?

As a former Marine, with injuries, I have faced the VA on many occasions, and in turn, they inundated me with paperwork that would make a welfare recipient surrender.  On top of that, I am utilizing the new G.I. Bill, which had a very very ugly start last year.  Many veteran's did not see a payment until the end of their first semester, because the system was "too complicated"; they had a year to get it right, but they failed.  Some things that have bugged me; individuals who tell you it's not their job and transfer you to another person who says the same thing, endless forms to fax that never get received, telephone numbers that direct you to different dimensions where there is no hold - only a busy signal (what, is this the 90s??)  If the federal government cannot even take care of it's veteran minority, then how is it supposed to service the majority

Why are my parent's still upside-down 300\% in their house value, why are countless American's still unemployed, and why is Social Security on the back burner when it's out of money? Where are viable fixes for these problems?

I voted for Obama and so did my friend. So far, Obama has been a colossal failure imo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and he does n't work in the health care industry ; he does programing for Sallie Mae .
Why is his job in jeopardy ?
It 's because the democrats want to kill two birds with one ungainly stone by privatizing the student loan industry .
This whole thing is a mistake .
No one seems to care about this takeover , because they are obsessed with this health care bill , which is n't even worth the paper it is written on .
Sallie Mae takes loans from Bank of America at 5 \ % and adds on 1 \ % to service those loans .
That 1 \ % is what the government wants to cut from the picture ; attaching it to the health care bill to mitigate the cost of the health care bill !
If the government can not do as well as private company that has done this for decades it will actually lose money .
Just like health care and education , I need food and a place to live to survive in this world .
So , why ca n't I get all my goods and services from government centers that get their supply directly from the source ?
As a former Marine , with injuries , I have faced the VA on many occasions , and in turn , they inundated me with paperwork that would make a welfare recipient surrender .
On top of that , I am utilizing the new G.I .
Bill , which had a very very ugly start last year .
Many veteran 's did not see a payment until the end of their first semester , because the system was " too complicated " ; they had a year to get it right , but they failed .
Some things that have bugged me ; individuals who tell you it 's not their job and transfer you to another person who says the same thing , endless forms to fax that never get received , telephone numbers that direct you to different dimensions where there is no hold - only a busy signal ( what , is this the 90s ? ?
) If the federal government can not even take care of it 's veteran minority , then how is it supposed to service the majority Why are my parent 's still upside-down 300 \ % in their house value , why are countless American 's still unemployed , and why is Social Security on the back burner when it 's out of money ?
Where are viable fixes for these problems ?
I voted for Obama and so did my friend .
So far , Obama has been a colossal failure imo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and he doesn't work in the health care industry; he does programing for Sallie Mae.
Why is his job in jeopardy?
It's because the democrats want to kill two birds with one ungainly stone by privatizing the student loan industry.
This whole thing is a mistake.
No one seems to care about this takeover, because they are obsessed with this health care bill, which isn't even worth the paper it is written on.
Sallie Mae takes loans from Bank of America at 5\% and adds on 1\% to service those loans.
That 1\% is what the government wants to cut from the picture; attaching it to the health care bill to mitigate the cost of the health care bill!
If the government cannot do as well as private company that has done this for decades it will actually lose money.
Just like health care and education, I need food and a place to live to survive in this world.
So, why can't I get all my goods and services from government centers that get their supply directly from the source?
As a former Marine, with injuries, I have faced the VA on many occasions, and in turn, they inundated me with paperwork that would make a welfare recipient surrender.
On top of that, I am utilizing the new G.I.
Bill, which had a very very ugly start last year.
Many veteran's did not see a payment until the end of their first semester, because the system was "too complicated"; they had a year to get it right, but they failed.
Some things that have bugged me; individuals who tell you it's not their job and transfer you to another person who says the same thing, endless forms to fax that never get received, telephone numbers that direct you to different dimensions where there is no hold - only a busy signal (what, is this the 90s??
)  If the federal government cannot even take care of it's veteran minority, then how is it supposed to service the majority

Why are my parent's still upside-down 300\% in their house value, why are countless American's still unemployed, and why is Social Security on the back burner when it's out of money?
Where are viable fixes for these problems?
I voted for Obama and so did my friend.
So far, Obama has been a colossal failure imo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538692</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269016620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of your points are decent, but:</p><p>1.  The bill does this.  That's what the "exchanges" are.</p><p>2.  Already been shown that this only leads to 1-2\% reduction in costs.  Just look at Texas, which already has many of these reforms...healthcare costs are still extremely high.</p><p>3.  Some merit here.  All in all though, I would rather have a cumbersome approval process than have to deal with constant recalls as we find out that prescription drugs are often dangerous.  I think more government grants for drug research combined with a shorter amount of monopoly time for a drug (ie patent reform) would be better.</p><p>4.  HSAs are great if you have a lot of extra money.  For those of us who have to tread water, they're really not tenable.</p><p>5.  Not treating someone because they're not american is a little callous.  Illegal immigrants basically go through the emergency room right now, where they get brought up to "stable" and sent home; this costs more than providing preventative care would.  As it stands though, I would prefer making the process of immigrating legally easier; then these people would have to buy insurance under the current health care bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of your points are decent , but : 1 .
The bill does this .
That 's what the " exchanges " are.2 .
Already been shown that this only leads to 1-2 \ % reduction in costs .
Just look at Texas , which already has many of these reforms...healthcare costs are still extremely high.3 .
Some merit here .
All in all though , I would rather have a cumbersome approval process than have to deal with constant recalls as we find out that prescription drugs are often dangerous .
I think more government grants for drug research combined with a shorter amount of monopoly time for a drug ( ie patent reform ) would be better.4 .
HSAs are great if you have a lot of extra money .
For those of us who have to tread water , they 're really not tenable.5 .
Not treating someone because they 're not american is a little callous .
Illegal immigrants basically go through the emergency room right now , where they get brought up to " stable " and sent home ; this costs more than providing preventative care would .
As it stands though , I would prefer making the process of immigrating legally easier ; then these people would have to buy insurance under the current health care bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of your points are decent, but:1.
The bill does this.
That's what the "exchanges" are.2.
Already been shown that this only leads to 1-2\% reduction in costs.
Just look at Texas, which already has many of these reforms...healthcare costs are still extremely high.3.
Some merit here.
All in all though, I would rather have a cumbersome approval process than have to deal with constant recalls as we find out that prescription drugs are often dangerous.
I think more government grants for drug research combined with a shorter amount of monopoly time for a drug (ie patent reform) would be better.4.
HSAs are great if you have a lot of extra money.
For those of us who have to tread water, they're really not tenable.5.
Not treating someone because they're not american is a little callous.
Illegal immigrants basically go through the emergency room right now, where they get brought up to "stable" and sent home; this costs more than providing preventative care would.
As it stands though, I would prefer making the process of immigrating legally easier; then these people would have to buy insurance under the current health care bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536070</id>
	<title>OK, then why doesn't the EU have universal care?</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1269010020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are forever comparing the US to individual countries in Europe.  But that is not an apples-to-apples comparison.  France, for example, is demographically and economically the size of the state of Virginia.  To get a fair comparison, you'd have to compare the entire US to the entire EU.</p><p>Surprisingly, the EU does not have universal health care.  In fact, it has exactly the same plan as the US:  each member country/state decides for itself.  We have states such as Massachusetts and Tennessee that have plans as generous as those in Europe, and other states where there is very little centrally-planned health care.</p><p>What the Democrats are asking the US to do is something even the EU won't do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are forever comparing the US to individual countries in Europe .
But that is not an apples-to-apples comparison .
France , for example , is demographically and economically the size of the state of Virginia .
To get a fair comparison , you 'd have to compare the entire US to the entire EU.Surprisingly , the EU does not have universal health care .
In fact , it has exactly the same plan as the US : each member country/state decides for itself .
We have states such as Massachusetts and Tennessee that have plans as generous as those in Europe , and other states where there is very little centrally-planned health care.What the Democrats are asking the US to do is something even the EU wo n't do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are forever comparing the US to individual countries in Europe.
But that is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
France, for example, is demographically and economically the size of the state of Virginia.
To get a fair comparison, you'd have to compare the entire US to the entire EU.Surprisingly, the EU does not have universal health care.
In fact, it has exactly the same plan as the US:  each member country/state decides for itself.
We have states such as Massachusetts and Tennessee that have plans as generous as those in Europe, and other states where there is very little centrally-planned health care.What the Democrats are asking the US to do is something even the EU won't do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535686</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1269008820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's our tax dollars. I think we're entitled to demand how they're being used... and if they're being used... our tax dollars should benefit us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's our tax dollars .
I think we 're entitled to demand how they 're being used... and if they 're being used... our tax dollars should benefit us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's our tax dollars.
I think we're entitled to demand how they're being used... and if they're being used... our tax dollars should benefit us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538332</id>
	<title>Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>kehren77</author>
	<datestamp>1269015720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said. Wish I had mod points to give you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .
Wish I had mod points to give you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.
Wish I had mod points to give you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543386</id>
	<title>Will this bill do what the administration claims..</title>
	<author>maddash1946</author>
	<datestamp>1268991360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...or is it as bad for the future of America as Fox says?</i>
<p>
Um.  Neither?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or is it as bad for the future of America as Fox says ?
Um. Neither ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or is it as bad for the future of America as Fox says?
Um.  Neither?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535968</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Chreo</author>
	<datestamp>1269009720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an outsider with a whole bunch of relatives in the US it all seems to me like the big insurance companies are the one who's playing the pipe here.</p><p>Sure, we have higher taxes. However, every time I've had that discussion with a US citizen their jaw drop, once I let them know what those taxmoney buys "me". Free healthcare and university studies, to just name two of the more costly ones. And in the US, even if you have a good healthcare insurance, which pays for, for example vital heart suregery, the insurance (usually) does not cover the actual cost of stying at the hospital and that will quickly become massive (at least this is how it used to be "before").</p><p>Don't get me wrong, US is great place and I'll go there on many more visits, but this reform will help you become quite a bit more independent as citizens and that can only be a good thing, right? (if you are in debt you are not free)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an outsider with a whole bunch of relatives in the US it all seems to me like the big insurance companies are the one who 's playing the pipe here.Sure , we have higher taxes .
However , every time I 've had that discussion with a US citizen their jaw drop , once I let them know what those taxmoney buys " me " .
Free healthcare and university studies , to just name two of the more costly ones .
And in the US , even if you have a good healthcare insurance , which pays for , for example vital heart suregery , the insurance ( usually ) does not cover the actual cost of stying at the hospital and that will quickly become massive ( at least this is how it used to be " before " ) .Do n't get me wrong , US is great place and I 'll go there on many more visits , but this reform will help you become quite a bit more independent as citizens and that can only be a good thing , right ?
( if you are in debt you are not free )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an outsider with a whole bunch of relatives in the US it all seems to me like the big insurance companies are the one who's playing the pipe here.Sure, we have higher taxes.
However, every time I've had that discussion with a US citizen their jaw drop, once I let them know what those taxmoney buys "me".
Free healthcare and university studies, to just name two of the more costly ones.
And in the US, even if you have a good healthcare insurance, which pays for, for example vital heart suregery, the insurance (usually) does not cover the actual cost of stying at the hospital and that will quickly become massive (at least this is how it used to be "before").Don't get me wrong, US is great place and I'll go there on many more visits, but this reform will help you become quite a bit more independent as citizens and that can only be a good thing, right?
(if you are in debt you are not free)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</id>
	<title>I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269007020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have catastrophic insurance, so if I get cancer and my bills go over $20,000 then THEY will cover the cost.  Like a safety net.</p><p>But most of the time I pay CASH (about $200 a year), which means I deal *directly* with my doctor.  I like it that way because it makes the doctor attentive to MY needs not some insurance bureacrat or congressional politician or HMO.</p><p>If this Pelosicare Bill forces me to abandon my system of paying cash for product (or else be fined by the government), then I will be very very angry.  I will also be concerned what else "they" might force down my throat.  "Buy a Prius or other hybrid, else we'll fine you $1000."</p><p>This is not freedom.  This is like a return to 1770 when Parliament dictated to citizens as if they were Serfs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have catastrophic insurance , so if I get cancer and my bills go over $ 20,000 then THEY will cover the cost .
Like a safety net.But most of the time I pay CASH ( about $ 200 a year ) , which means I deal * directly * with my doctor .
I like it that way because it makes the doctor attentive to MY needs not some insurance bureacrat or congressional politician or HMO.If this Pelosicare Bill forces me to abandon my system of paying cash for product ( or else be fined by the government ) , then I will be very very angry .
I will also be concerned what else " they " might force down my throat .
" Buy a Prius or other hybrid , else we 'll fine you $ 1000 .
" This is not freedom .
This is like a return to 1770 when Parliament dictated to citizens as if they were Serfs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have catastrophic insurance, so if I get cancer and my bills go over $20,000 then THEY will cover the cost.
Like a safety net.But most of the time I pay CASH (about $200 a year), which means I deal *directly* with my doctor.
I like it that way because it makes the doctor attentive to MY needs not some insurance bureacrat or congressional politician or HMO.If this Pelosicare Bill forces me to abandon my system of paying cash for product (or else be fined by the government), then I will be very very angry.
I will also be concerned what else "they" might force down my throat.
"Buy a Prius or other hybrid, else we'll fine you $1000.
"This is not freedom.
This is like a return to 1770 when Parliament dictated to citizens as if they were Serfs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540200</id>
	<title>Re:Decide for yourself</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1269021420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>has ANY government run project EVER come in on budget or accomplished what it said it would?</p></div><p>There are plenty. They usually don't make headlines, though, because they are not flamebaiting enough<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... er<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I meant to say, they do not promote engaging discourse for the readers to enjoy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>has ANY government run project EVER come in on budget or accomplished what it said it would ? There are plenty .
They usually do n't make headlines , though , because they are not flamebaiting enough ... er ... I meant to say , they do not promote engaging discourse for the readers to enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>has ANY government run project EVER come in on budget or accomplished what it said it would?There are plenty.
They usually don't make headlines, though, because they are not flamebaiting enough ... er ... I meant to say, they do not promote engaging discourse for the readers to enjoy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541480</id>
	<title>Re:Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>ScottyB</author>
	<datestamp>1269026340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's practically like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In any government system, performance decreases while costs rise."</p><p>Except that there is no such law, and you're using fallacious arguments to support your libertarian bias.  Must be nice to be right all the time in that bubble you live in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's practically like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics .
In any government system , performance decreases while costs rise .
" Except that there is no such law , and you 're using fallacious arguments to support your libertarian bias .
Must be nice to be right all the time in that bubble you live in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's practically like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
In any government system, performance decreases while costs rise.
"Except that there is no such law, and you're using fallacious arguments to support your libertarian bias.
Must be nice to be right all the time in that bubble you live in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537686</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long does it take to get an MRI in the UK?<br>I could get one today five minutes from house in the U.S..... I know a few people that have waited close to a year there.<br>Good luck with your brain tumor.<br>The answer is more competition which means LESS government involvement. Federal rules which restrict me from choosing an insurance provider from outside my own State drive up costs.<br>ALSO... moving everybody to an HSA system, as previously mentioned, will greatly reduce cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long does it take to get an MRI in the UK ? I could get one today five minutes from house in the U.S..... I know a few people that have waited close to a year there.Good luck with your brain tumor.The answer is more competition which means LESS government involvement .
Federal rules which restrict me from choosing an insurance provider from outside my own State drive up costs.ALSO... moving everybody to an HSA system , as previously mentioned , will greatly reduce cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long does it take to get an MRI in the UK?I could get one today five minutes from house in the U.S..... I know a few people that have waited close to a year there.Good luck with your brain tumor.The answer is more competition which means LESS government involvement.
Federal rules which restrict me from choosing an insurance provider from outside my own State drive up costs.ALSO... moving everybody to an HSA system, as previously mentioned, will greatly reduce cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536754</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you actually read it or are you going by what Barry's shills are saying?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you actually read it or are you going by what Barry 's shills are saying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you actually read it or are you going by what Barry's shills are saying?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31544454</id>
	<title>Don't take any guff from those swine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268995980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can be pretty sure if fox says it's bad then it has at least some merits. If fox says something is good then it has something seriously wrong with it. The are ways of empirically checking bias and truthfullness in media sources, if you try it with fox you will find that you should never believe a word they say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can be pretty sure if fox says it 's bad then it has at least some merits .
If fox says something is good then it has something seriously wrong with it .
The are ways of empirically checking bias and truthfullness in media sources , if you try it with fox you will find that you should never believe a word they say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can be pretty sure if fox says it's bad then it has at least some merits.
If fox says something is good then it has something seriously wrong with it.
The are ways of empirically checking bias and truthfullness in media sources, if you try it with fox you will find that you should never believe a word they say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541094</id>
	<title>First off</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269024780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the bill. I have, and I see nothing the backed what the people who don't want it claim. not a single thing.</p><p>If someone can point out something, I would be glad to discuss it. If you have NOT read the bill, then STFU about what's in the bill.</p><p>Secondly, Shame on you CmdrTaco. You know damn well this will only cause a huge flamewar. Are you really so stupid as to think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is where to go to get honest well read opinions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the bill .
I have , and I see nothing the backed what the people who do n't want it claim .
not a single thing.If someone can point out something , I would be glad to discuss it .
If you have NOT read the bill , then STFU about what 's in the bill.Secondly , Shame on you CmdrTaco .
You know damn well this will only cause a huge flamewar .
Are you really so stupid as to think / .
is where to go to get honest well read opinions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the bill.
I have, and I see nothing the backed what the people who don't want it claim.
not a single thing.If someone can point out something, I would be glad to discuss it.
If you have NOT read the bill, then STFU about what's in the bill.Secondly, Shame on you CmdrTaco.
You know damn well this will only cause a huge flamewar.
Are you really so stupid as to think /.
is where to go to get honest well read opinions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536612</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1269011580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?  If there is, I'd missed it.</p></div><p>That's right, you missed it. Medicare and medicaid (the largest expense our government has today, costing more per-citizen (not per <i>covered citizen</i>) than any healthcare system in the developed world, will be expanded to cover something like 15-20 million additional Americans. Everyone else gets mandated employer insurance. I'm not sure what the un- or self-employed get, but I believe that this is modeled on the Massachusetts option, and here in Mass. we are required to buy our own insurance unless our incomes are below the poverty line. In some of those cases, the government then provides subsidies for a private plan</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run ?
If there is , I 'd missed it.That 's right , you missed it .
Medicare and medicaid ( the largest expense our government has today , costing more per-citizen ( not per covered citizen ) than any healthcare system in the developed world , will be expanded to cover something like 15-20 million additional Americans .
Everyone else gets mandated employer insurance .
I 'm not sure what the un- or self-employed get , but I believe that this is modeled on the Massachusetts option , and here in Mass .
we are required to buy our own insurance unless our incomes are below the poverty line .
In some of those cases , the government then provides subsidies for a private plan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?
If there is, I'd missed it.That's right, you missed it.
Medicare and medicaid (the largest expense our government has today, costing more per-citizen (not per covered citizen) than any healthcare system in the developed world, will be expanded to cover something like 15-20 million additional Americans.
Everyone else gets mandated employer insurance.
I'm not sure what the un- or self-employed get, but I believe that this is modeled on the Massachusetts option, and here in Mass.
we are required to buy our own insurance unless our incomes are below the poverty line.
In some of those cases, the government then provides subsidies for a private plan
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536864</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhere in between.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're absolutely right about the demise of insurance companies. People may laugh at that, but that is exactly what the government has done before. About twenty years ago, just about every county had a regional credit bureau whose job it was to provide credit reports for lenders so they could get a good idea of the creditworthiness of the buyer. The credit bureaus did indepth research on an applicant. Then, 20 years ago, the government made it so Fannie Mae, who underwrites a bulk of the homeloans out there, only needed 3 independent sources of data, from whatever source. Almost overnight, all the credit bureaus in the country, except for 3, went out of business or shifted into collections.  The industry was transformed and we got huge amounts of impersonal, bad loans on the books. This kind of effect people do not foresee;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're absolutely right about the demise of insurance companies .
People may laugh at that , but that is exactly what the government has done before .
About twenty years ago , just about every county had a regional credit bureau whose job it was to provide credit reports for lenders so they could get a good idea of the creditworthiness of the buyer .
The credit bureaus did indepth research on an applicant .
Then , 20 years ago , the government made it so Fannie Mae , who underwrites a bulk of the homeloans out there , only needed 3 independent sources of data , from whatever source .
Almost overnight , all the credit bureaus in the country , except for 3 , went out of business or shifted into collections .
The industry was transformed and we got huge amounts of impersonal , bad loans on the books .
This kind of effect people do not foresee ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're absolutely right about the demise of insurance companies.
People may laugh at that, but that is exactly what the government has done before.
About twenty years ago, just about every county had a regional credit bureau whose job it was to provide credit reports for lenders so they could get a good idea of the creditworthiness of the buyer.
The credit bureaus did indepth research on an applicant.
Then, 20 years ago, the government made it so Fannie Mae, who underwrites a bulk of the homeloans out there, only needed 3 independent sources of data, from whatever source.
Almost overnight, all the credit bureaus in the country, except for 3, went out of business or shifted into collections.
The industry was transformed and we got huge amounts of impersonal, bad loans on the books.
This kind of effect people do not foresee;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538926</id>
	<title>Piggybacking on U.S. Pharmaceutical Development</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269017340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know it's popular to criticize U.S. healthcare because of its cost relative to other developed countries. I wonder if the cost differences would be so substantial if other countries weren't piggybacking on U.S. pharmaceutical development. According to this article, http://www.annals.org/content/140/8/677.full.pdf+html, as of 2004, the U.S. was shouldering roughly 50\% of drug development costs worldwide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's popular to criticize U.S. healthcare because of its cost relative to other developed countries .
I wonder if the cost differences would be so substantial if other countries were n't piggybacking on U.S. pharmaceutical development .
According to this article , http : //www.annals.org/content/140/8/677.full.pdf + html , as of 2004 , the U.S. was shouldering roughly 50 \ % of drug development costs worldwide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's popular to criticize U.S. healthcare because of its cost relative to other developed countries.
I wonder if the cost differences would be so substantial if other countries weren't piggybacking on U.S. pharmaceutical development.
According to this article, http://www.annals.org/content/140/8/677.full.pdf+html, as of 2004, the U.S. was shouldering roughly 50\% of drug development costs worldwide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542826</id>
	<title>Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>Rolgar</author>
	<datestamp>1268989260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't use the term tea bagger. That is a degrading term based on childish antics of kids using video games to emulate vulgar actions. If you really want to be taken seriously, recognize we identify with the patriots who participated in the Boston tea party, so you might try tea party protesters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't use the term tea bagger .
That is a degrading term based on childish antics of kids using video games to emulate vulgar actions .
If you really want to be taken seriously , recognize we identify with the patriots who participated in the Boston tea party , so you might try tea party protesters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't use the term tea bagger.
That is a degrading term based on childish antics of kids using video games to emulate vulgar actions.
If you really want to be taken seriously, recognize we identify with the patriots who participated in the Boston tea party, so you might try tea party protesters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535950</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1269009660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to agree with this, but I am in favor of a Single Payer Not for Profit system.</p><p>The reason I agree with what you said is... that this bill will force everyone to buy private insurance from one of the major companies.</p><p>Thats a strange way to reform an industry... ie: send everyone to the enemy for massive profits.</p><p>They want to tax soda here in NY... and now they want to tax Pizza...</p><p>Whats next? They will start taxing anything they do not want you to participate in. Which may be America as a whole.</p><p>Freedom is dead, especially when you're being taxed and not represented. In this case... we're being taxed and by law we're now going to be forced into making a deal with the devil (the insurance industry). We elected the democrats to contain and control the insurance industry... not feed us to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to agree with this , but I am in favor of a Single Payer Not for Profit system.The reason I agree with what you said is... that this bill will force everyone to buy private insurance from one of the major companies.Thats a strange way to reform an industry... ie : send everyone to the enemy for massive profits.They want to tax soda here in NY... and now they want to tax Pizza...Whats next ?
They will start taxing anything they do not want you to participate in .
Which may be America as a whole.Freedom is dead , especially when you 're being taxed and not represented .
In this case... we 're being taxed and by law we 're now going to be forced into making a deal with the devil ( the insurance industry ) .
We elected the democrats to contain and control the insurance industry... not feed us to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to agree with this, but I am in favor of a Single Payer Not for Profit system.The reason I agree with what you said is... that this bill will force everyone to buy private insurance from one of the major companies.Thats a strange way to reform an industry... ie: send everyone to the enemy for massive profits.They want to tax soda here in NY... and now they want to tax Pizza...Whats next?
They will start taxing anything they do not want you to participate in.
Which may be America as a whole.Freedom is dead, especially when you're being taxed and not represented.
In this case... we're being taxed and by law we're now going to be forced into making a deal with the devil (the insurance industry).
We elected the democrats to contain and control the insurance industry... not feed us to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536686</id>
	<title>Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1269011820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have forgotten one thing: Americans do not take care of themselves very well. It does not matter how good or available health care is, if you lead a sedentary life and eat too much food you are not going to be healthy. And in the future you are going to be expensive.</p><p>If the people made good health choices knowing that the rest of the country is sharing their burden, it would work out great. But if a large number of people are willing to forgo personal responsibility, it is going to be an ever increasing burden on everybody.</p><p>The US does not have a major health care problem. The US does not have a major health insurance problem (although there are some things that need to be addressed, like dropping coverage after people get sick). The US has a major social problem - lack of personal responsibility. This is not going to help.</p><p>Also, if you want to be taken seriously, learn to capitalize properly and do not call people rude names.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have forgotten one thing : Americans do not take care of themselves very well .
It does not matter how good or available health care is , if you lead a sedentary life and eat too much food you are not going to be healthy .
And in the future you are going to be expensive.If the people made good health choices knowing that the rest of the country is sharing their burden , it would work out great .
But if a large number of people are willing to forgo personal responsibility , it is going to be an ever increasing burden on everybody.The US does not have a major health care problem .
The US does not have a major health insurance problem ( although there are some things that need to be addressed , like dropping coverage after people get sick ) .
The US has a major social problem - lack of personal responsibility .
This is not going to help.Also , if you want to be taken seriously , learn to capitalize properly and do not call people rude names .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have forgotten one thing: Americans do not take care of themselves very well.
It does not matter how good or available health care is, if you lead a sedentary life and eat too much food you are not going to be healthy.
And in the future you are going to be expensive.If the people made good health choices knowing that the rest of the country is sharing their burden, it would work out great.
But if a large number of people are willing to forgo personal responsibility, it is going to be an ever increasing burden on everybody.The US does not have a major health care problem.
The US does not have a major health insurance problem (although there are some things that need to be addressed, like dropping coverage after people get sick).
The US has a major social problem - lack of personal responsibility.
This is not going to help.Also, if you want to be taken seriously, learn to capitalize properly and do not call people rude names.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537240</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1269013020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe if you stopped hating things so much you would be happier and wouldn't have as much of a problem with giving a small part of your income away to help the other people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if you stopped hating things so much you would be happier and would n't have as much of a problem with giving a small part of your income away to help the other people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if you stopped hating things so much you would be happier and wouldn't have as much of a problem with giving a small part of your income away to help the other people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542436</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269030660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem i have with the argument above is that over the course of my lifetime I've seen most people opt completely out of helping others.  The attitude in this country seems to be that if you give money to a Church then you are a good person who doesn't have to act to contribute to common property maintenance, protecting the weak, or caring for the indigent.</p><p>Given that about half the country distrusts all large scale co-operative action, perhaps the 50\% of us who would like more co-operation should form a voluntary shadow government that taxes and spends to provide health care.  Oh, wait, we can't, because its illegal to do so.  Shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem i have with the argument above is that over the course of my lifetime I 've seen most people opt completely out of helping others .
The attitude in this country seems to be that if you give money to a Church then you are a good person who does n't have to act to contribute to common property maintenance , protecting the weak , or caring for the indigent.Given that about half the country distrusts all large scale co-operative action , perhaps the 50 \ % of us who would like more co-operation should form a voluntary shadow government that taxes and spends to provide health care .
Oh , wait , we ca n't , because its illegal to do so .
Shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem i have with the argument above is that over the course of my lifetime I've seen most people opt completely out of helping others.
The attitude in this country seems to be that if you give money to a Church then you are a good person who doesn't have to act to contribute to common property maintenance, protecting the weak, or caring for the indigent.Given that about half the country distrusts all large scale co-operative action, perhaps the 50\% of us who would like more co-operation should form a voluntary shadow government that taxes and spends to provide health care.
Oh, wait, we can't, because its illegal to do so.
Shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545016</id>
	<title>Healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268998740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Fox says that health care reform is not good, it is because is not good for healthcare enterprise, then is GOOD for people. You must go to opposite to Fox words.</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Oscar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Fox says that health care reform is not good , it is because is not good for healthcare enterprise , then is GOOD for people .
You must go to opposite to Fox words.Regards,Oscar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Fox says that health care reform is not good, it is because is not good for healthcare enterprise, then is GOOD for people.
You must go to opposite to Fox words.Regards,Oscar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537266</id>
	<title>Re:Need a little more research on Article 10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see how the 10th amendment prohibits a single payer system. While it is not directly spelled out in the constitution it is not directly a state's rights issue either. This is a peoples issue and as such it should therefore be decided by those elected and they obviously think it is a federal issue.</p><p>Now I'm not a right winger (I'm actually pretty far left) but I do not support this bill because I feel that a private system supplemented federally or not is inherently corrupt. Any time a corporation stands to make a large sum of money you can bet they will not have the best interests of their customers in mind rather just the stockholders.</p><p>Health care should be a system where the ONLY parties with an interest in it are the patient and the doctor giving the services. The patient needs to be given the appropriate care (i.e. not unnecessary tests, but only when needed) and the doctor needs to get reasonably compensated for his work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how the 10th amendment prohibits a single payer system .
While it is not directly spelled out in the constitution it is not directly a state 's rights issue either .
This is a peoples issue and as such it should therefore be decided by those elected and they obviously think it is a federal issue.Now I 'm not a right winger ( I 'm actually pretty far left ) but I do not support this bill because I feel that a private system supplemented federally or not is inherently corrupt .
Any time a corporation stands to make a large sum of money you can bet they will not have the best interests of their customers in mind rather just the stockholders.Health care should be a system where the ONLY parties with an interest in it are the patient and the doctor giving the services .
The patient needs to be given the appropriate care ( i.e .
not unnecessary tests , but only when needed ) and the doctor needs to get reasonably compensated for his work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how the 10th amendment prohibits a single payer system.
While it is not directly spelled out in the constitution it is not directly a state's rights issue either.
This is a peoples issue and as such it should therefore be decided by those elected and they obviously think it is a federal issue.Now I'm not a right winger (I'm actually pretty far left) but I do not support this bill because I feel that a private system supplemented federally or not is inherently corrupt.
Any time a corporation stands to make a large sum of money you can bet they will not have the best interests of their customers in mind rather just the stockholders.Health care should be a system where the ONLY parties with an interest in it are the patient and the doctor giving the services.
The patient needs to be given the appropriate care (i.e.
not unnecessary tests, but only when needed) and the doctor needs to get reasonably compensated for his work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540088</id>
	<title>Re:no reform.</title>
	<author>yoasif</author>
	<datestamp>1269021060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>4. Looks like US is one of the backwards countries that will try to limit women's access to health care they need. You going to get the 'reform' that will prevent any private insurance coverage for women that includes abortion. This is no joke, even for those who have coverage today, looks like they will actually lose it with this 'reform'. Does not look good.</p></div></blockquote><p>

<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544\_162-20000768-503544.html" title="cbsnews.com" rel="nofollow">Highly inaccurate</a> [cbsnews.com]. Not sure where you are getting this information, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the bill mandating a removal of abortion access for people who have insurance that covers abortion.

Care to cite that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
Looks like US is one of the backwards countries that will try to limit women 's access to health care they need .
You going to get the 'reform ' that will prevent any private insurance coverage for women that includes abortion .
This is no joke , even for those who have coverage today , looks like they will actually lose it with this 'reform' .
Does not look good .
Highly inaccurate [ cbsnews.com ] .
Not sure where you are getting this information , but as far as I can tell , there is nothing in the bill mandating a removal of abortion access for people who have insurance that covers abortion .
Care to cite that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
Looks like US is one of the backwards countries that will try to limit women's access to health care they need.
You going to get the 'reform' that will prevent any private insurance coverage for women that includes abortion.
This is no joke, even for those who have coverage today, looks like they will actually lose it with this 'reform'.
Does not look good.
Highly inaccurate [cbsnews.com].
Not sure where you are getting this information, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the bill mandating a removal of abortion access for people who have insurance that covers abortion.
Care to cite that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540284</id>
	<title>Re:This bill is so wrong.</title>
	<author>schm0</author>
	<datestamp>1269021660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The constitution says people cannot be coerced into signing a contract. By anyone.</p></div><p>Which is why you can receive a subsidy to purchase insurance if you can not afford it or "opt out" by paying a fine. Moving on...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Do some simple math! If you have a system that's already out of money, and you take more money from it to start a similar system, more than triple the number of people receiving benefits, it's going to cost more  not less!</p></div><p>Unless you are simultaneously reducing costs for Medicare by similar amounts or funding the proposals in other ways (i.e. the "Cadillac" plan tax and Medicare tax increase.) Please read the CBO report, which is party-neutral and sanctioned by both parties to do its analysis.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Keep in mind that in 1965 lawmakers* predicted...</p></div><p>*(not professional governmental accountants or the CBO)

Your point? Long distance forecasts are entirely less than accurate. Which is why they call them "official estimates." There are also provisions within the bill to take steps to meet the necessary reductions should the plan not work as intended. Next?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Tell it to the people in the UK or Canada...</p></div><p>Who have a single payer, government run system entirely unlike what is proposed in the bill?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that a full 1/3 of doctors will "QUIT PRACTICING MEDICINE" if the bill passes...</p></div><p> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003190027" title="mediamatters.org" rel="nofollow">http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003190027</a> [mediamatters.org]

The "estimates" you refer to were not "conducted, commissioned or published" by the NEJM.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We will have a government panel deciding who is worth said liver transplant and deciding who gets to live and die, instead of your doctor or a panel of your doctors. A healthy 19 yr/old kid, who hasn't put a dime into the system will be placed higher on the list than say a 60 yr/old man who has paid into the system his whole life. In essence the 60 yr/old man worked his whole life paying into a system that will deem him unworthy and spend his money on someone whom he has never met while he suffers and dies while younger "more economically viable" people will get treatment first. In the existing system, the same 60 yr/old man would be able to do whatever it takes for him to get his liver (insurance,debt,sell car/house etc.)</p></div><p>Really? Your example truly shows the lack of understanding and confusion perpetrated about this bill. Please cite to me the section within either bill that states a government panel will hear cases on liver transplants and decide their validity, expediency, etc.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...the feigned outrage at \%3/yr is totally false when the alternative they suggest is higher.</p></div><p>Comprehensive Medicare reform is not the core of this bill. However, cost-saving measures that will affect Medicare are included in its provisions. Will it solve the Medicare crisis? No. Will it provide health insurance to the uninsured? Yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution says people can not be coerced into signing a contract .
By anyone.Which is why you can receive a subsidy to purchase insurance if you can not afford it or " opt out " by paying a fine .
Moving on...Do some simple math !
If you have a system that 's already out of money , and you take more money from it to start a similar system , more than triple the number of people receiving benefits , it 's going to cost more not less ! Unless you are simultaneously reducing costs for Medicare by similar amounts or funding the proposals in other ways ( i.e .
the " Cadillac " plan tax and Medicare tax increase .
) Please read the CBO report , which is party-neutral and sanctioned by both parties to do its analysis.Keep in mind that in 1965 lawmakers * predicted... * ( not professional governmental accountants or the CBO ) Your point ?
Long distance forecasts are entirely less than accurate .
Which is why they call them " official estimates .
" There are also provisions within the bill to take steps to meet the necessary reductions should the plan not work as intended .
Next ? Tell it to the people in the UK or Canada...Who have a single payer , government run system entirely unlike what is proposed in the bill ? The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that a full 1/3 of doctors will " QUIT PRACTICING MEDICINE " if the bill passes... http : //mediamatters.org/blog/201003190027 [ mediamatters.org ] The " estimates " you refer to were not " conducted , commissioned or published " by the NEJM.We will have a government panel deciding who is worth said liver transplant and deciding who gets to live and die , instead of your doctor or a panel of your doctors .
A healthy 19 yr/old kid , who has n't put a dime into the system will be placed higher on the list than say a 60 yr/old man who has paid into the system his whole life .
In essence the 60 yr/old man worked his whole life paying into a system that will deem him unworthy and spend his money on someone whom he has never met while he suffers and dies while younger " more economically viable " people will get treatment first .
In the existing system , the same 60 yr/old man would be able to do whatever it takes for him to get his liver ( insurance,debt,sell car/house etc. ) Really ?
Your example truly shows the lack of understanding and confusion perpetrated about this bill .
Please cite to me the section within either bill that states a government panel will hear cases on liver transplants and decide their validity , expediency , etc .
...the feigned outrage at \ % 3/yr is totally false when the alternative they suggest is higher.Comprehensive Medicare reform is not the core of this bill .
However , cost-saving measures that will affect Medicare are included in its provisions .
Will it solve the Medicare crisis ?
No. Will it provide health insurance to the uninsured ?
Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution says people cannot be coerced into signing a contract.
By anyone.Which is why you can receive a subsidy to purchase insurance if you can not afford it or "opt out" by paying a fine.
Moving on...Do some simple math!
If you have a system that's already out of money, and you take more money from it to start a similar system, more than triple the number of people receiving benefits, it's going to cost more  not less!Unless you are simultaneously reducing costs for Medicare by similar amounts or funding the proposals in other ways (i.e.
the "Cadillac" plan tax and Medicare tax increase.
) Please read the CBO report, which is party-neutral and sanctioned by both parties to do its analysis.Keep in mind that in 1965 lawmakers* predicted...*(not professional governmental accountants or the CBO)

Your point?
Long distance forecasts are entirely less than accurate.
Which is why they call them "official estimates.
" There are also provisions within the bill to take steps to meet the necessary reductions should the plan not work as intended.
Next?Tell it to the people in the UK or Canada...Who have a single payer, government run system entirely unlike what is proposed in the bill?The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that a full 1/3 of doctors will "QUIT PRACTICING MEDICINE" if the bill passes... http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003190027 [mediamatters.org]

The "estimates" you refer to were not "conducted, commissioned or published" by the NEJM.We will have a government panel deciding who is worth said liver transplant and deciding who gets to live and die, instead of your doctor or a panel of your doctors.
A healthy 19 yr/old kid, who hasn't put a dime into the system will be placed higher on the list than say a 60 yr/old man who has paid into the system his whole life.
In essence the 60 yr/old man worked his whole life paying into a system that will deem him unworthy and spend his money on someone whom he has never met while he suffers and dies while younger "more economically viable" people will get treatment first.
In the existing system, the same 60 yr/old man would be able to do whatever it takes for him to get his liver (insurance,debt,sell car/house etc.)Really?
Your example truly shows the lack of understanding and confusion perpetrated about this bill.
Please cite to me the section within either bill that states a government panel will hear cases on liver transplants and decide their validity, expediency, etc.
...the feigned outrage at \%3/yr is totally false when the alternative they suggest is higher.Comprehensive Medicare reform is not the core of this bill.
However, cost-saving measures that will affect Medicare are included in its provisions.
Will it solve the Medicare crisis?
No. Will it provide health insurance to the uninsured?
Yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537498</id>
	<title>Well, okay</title>
	<author>twoallbeefpatties</author>
	<datestamp>1269013680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>1. Buy insurance across state lines.</i> <br> <br>

The current plans include a national marketplace for selling insurance across state lines, so you're getting that.  The Republicans reject this because they simply want the system opened and free, but many liberals are leery of this idea after seeing what good it did to the credit card industry.  Simply opening everything up would allow health care companies to move to the state that affords them the least possible regulation and consumer protection and sell to the country from there.  <br> <br>

<i>2.  Limit lawsuit payouts.</i> <br> <br>

A handful of states have already done this, to the effect of not bringing consumer prices down by any appreciable amount.  The bill as it was being worked on a few months ago included pilot programs to reduce the number of lawsuits as a whole by providing for more doctor openness and mediation to prevent the cases from going to court in the first place.<br> <br>

<i>3.  Reduce the FDA requirements.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...canada sells the same meds for much less and they don't have such a stringent approval process?</i> <br> <br>

I'd imagine that Canada also has more stringent price controls, and the government won't pay for drugs for which the price outweighs the effectiveness.  Conservatives have consistently opposed negotiating for prices on drugs, however.<br> <br>

<i>4.  Promote Savings Health Accounts.</i> <br> <br>

We already give a tax deduction on medical fees, and if you already have health insurance, then it's very likely that you already have access to an HSA for smaller amount.  There's nothing to stop you from using your HSA and shopping around at doctors right now.<br> <br>

<i>5. This topic wasn't designed to discuss immigration, but guess what, that's a major cost in health care.</i> <br> <br>

Citation needed.  Many illegals avoid health care for fear that being under anyone's control for a while would give away their illegal status, as they do with other social services.  I doubt you're going to see a lot of illegal immigrants will access to Medicare, unless they "prove" that they're natural citizens by providing a stolen social security number or the like, in which case your fixes won't make much difference anyway.  I can only imagine that the place illegals might be adding more cost to the system is in emergency room care, and I'm not sure how many doctors will jive with your idea to stop and demand identification from a severely injured person.<br> <br>

<i>Exercise: Call 3 local providers and tell them that you have some common malady and tell them that you have Blue Cross insurance, ask them what it will cost you, and what they will bill BC. The next day, call them all back, same malady and tell them you're paying out of pocket. If day 2 isn't a third of day 1 I will eat my shoe.</i> <br> <br>

That actually happens quite a bit, considering that BCBS is a big enough provider that they can negotiate and demand discounts for services.  From the anecdotes I've heard, smaller providers, general practitioners and the like, are more likely to give you the discount for paying cash, while larger providers, hospital work, are more likely to provide a discount to the healthcare provider.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Buy insurance across state lines .
The current plans include a national marketplace for selling insurance across state lines , so you 're getting that .
The Republicans reject this because they simply want the system opened and free , but many liberals are leery of this idea after seeing what good it did to the credit card industry .
Simply opening everything up would allow health care companies to move to the state that affords them the least possible regulation and consumer protection and sell to the country from there .
2. Limit lawsuit payouts .
A handful of states have already done this , to the effect of not bringing consumer prices down by any appreciable amount .
The bill as it was being worked on a few months ago included pilot programs to reduce the number of lawsuits as a whole by providing for more doctor openness and mediation to prevent the cases from going to court in the first place .
3. Reduce the FDA requirements .
...canada sells the same meds for much less and they do n't have such a stringent approval process ?
I 'd imagine that Canada also has more stringent price controls , and the government wo n't pay for drugs for which the price outweighs the effectiveness .
Conservatives have consistently opposed negotiating for prices on drugs , however .
4. Promote Savings Health Accounts .
We already give a tax deduction on medical fees , and if you already have health insurance , then it 's very likely that you already have access to an HSA for smaller amount .
There 's nothing to stop you from using your HSA and shopping around at doctors right now .
5. This topic was n't designed to discuss immigration , but guess what , that 's a major cost in health care .
Citation needed .
Many illegals avoid health care for fear that being under anyone 's control for a while would give away their illegal status , as they do with other social services .
I doubt you 're going to see a lot of illegal immigrants will access to Medicare , unless they " prove " that they 're natural citizens by providing a stolen social security number or the like , in which case your fixes wo n't make much difference anyway .
I can only imagine that the place illegals might be adding more cost to the system is in emergency room care , and I 'm not sure how many doctors will jive with your idea to stop and demand identification from a severely injured person .
Exercise : Call 3 local providers and tell them that you have some common malady and tell them that you have Blue Cross insurance , ask them what it will cost you , and what they will bill BC .
The next day , call them all back , same malady and tell them you 're paying out of pocket .
If day 2 is n't a third of day 1 I will eat my shoe .
That actually happens quite a bit , considering that BCBS is a big enough provider that they can negotiate and demand discounts for services .
From the anecdotes I 've heard , smaller providers , general practitioners and the like , are more likely to give you the discount for paying cash , while larger providers , hospital work , are more likely to provide a discount to the healthcare provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Buy insurance across state lines.
The current plans include a national marketplace for selling insurance across state lines, so you're getting that.
The Republicans reject this because they simply want the system opened and free, but many liberals are leery of this idea after seeing what good it did to the credit card industry.
Simply opening everything up would allow health care companies to move to the state that affords them the least possible regulation and consumer protection and sell to the country from there.
2.  Limit lawsuit payouts.
A handful of states have already done this, to the effect of not bringing consumer prices down by any appreciable amount.
The bill as it was being worked on a few months ago included pilot programs to reduce the number of lawsuits as a whole by providing for more doctor openness and mediation to prevent the cases from going to court in the first place.
3.  Reduce the FDA requirements.
...canada sells the same meds for much less and they don't have such a stringent approval process?
I'd imagine that Canada also has more stringent price controls, and the government won't pay for drugs for which the price outweighs the effectiveness.
Conservatives have consistently opposed negotiating for prices on drugs, however.
4.  Promote Savings Health Accounts.
We already give a tax deduction on medical fees, and if you already have health insurance, then it's very likely that you already have access to an HSA for smaller amount.
There's nothing to stop you from using your HSA and shopping around at doctors right now.
5. This topic wasn't designed to discuss immigration, but guess what, that's a major cost in health care.
Citation needed.
Many illegals avoid health care for fear that being under anyone's control for a while would give away their illegal status, as they do with other social services.
I doubt you're going to see a lot of illegal immigrants will access to Medicare, unless they "prove" that they're natural citizens by providing a stolen social security number or the like, in which case your fixes won't make much difference anyway.
I can only imagine that the place illegals might be adding more cost to the system is in emergency room care, and I'm not sure how many doctors will jive with your idea to stop and demand identification from a severely injured person.
Exercise: Call 3 local providers and tell them that you have some common malady and tell them that you have Blue Cross insurance, ask them what it will cost you, and what they will bill BC.
The next day, call them all back, same malady and tell them you're paying out of pocket.
If day 2 isn't a third of day 1 I will eat my shoe.
That actually happens quite a bit, considering that BCBS is a big enough provider that they can negotiate and demand discounts for services.
From the anecdotes I've heard, smaller providers, general practitioners and the like, are more likely to give you the discount for paying cash, while larger providers, hospital work, are more likely to provide a discount to the healthcare provider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538642</id>
	<title>Re:Question for the non-US based Slashdotters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269016560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, let's begin with Spain, my country.</p><p>In Spain we have a public healthcare system, a public unenmployment insurance and a public pension plan system. We have special protection for women at pregnant periods and post-birth periods.</p><p>The biggest "money-eaters" are the pension system and the healthcare system - called "Seguridad Social" in Spain -; you must pay a part of your earnings before taxes, usually a 4.5\%,and  your employer pays a tax percentage of 28\% minus your percentage - in this example, 23.5 \% - of your earnings before taxes.</p><p>Employers want to reduce their payments and "free firing" because they like USA job market, but they don't care about the consequences. Remember that "Seguridad Social" covers healthcare, pension system and unemployment insurance; it may appear a big amount of money - too much in your employer's view<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) -, but if you think about the benefits - less job hours wasted because illness, no personal bankruptcy because healthcare,... - the money is well spent. Your "Healthcare Bill" seems ridiculous if you compare it with our system.</p><p>Drugs in Spain have much - much much - lower prizes than USA drugs - the SAME drugs -, with big discounts if a medic prescribes you the drug; some generic drugs, like Aspirin, aren't covered by this discounts. The same drugs, boys and girls.</p><p>I think that USA people was perverted by the "neoliberal" wave from Nixon to our times, an they think that "tax" is "theft". meanwhile, big corporations bosses "sneak" their earnings in tax paradises, and at the same time they scream words of horror about the REALLY "poor healthcare" bill: tax black hole, hte end of healthcare industry, etc.</p><p>How sad...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , let 's begin with Spain , my country.In Spain we have a public healthcare system , a public unenmployment insurance and a public pension plan system .
We have special protection for women at pregnant periods and post-birth periods.The biggest " money-eaters " are the pension system and the healthcare system - called " Seguridad Social " in Spain - ; you must pay a part of your earnings before taxes , usually a 4.5 \ % ,and your employer pays a tax percentage of 28 \ % minus your percentage - in this example , 23.5 \ % - of your earnings before taxes.Employers want to reduce their payments and " free firing " because they like USA job market , but they do n't care about the consequences .
Remember that " Seguridad Social " covers healthcare , pension system and unemployment insurance ; it may appear a big amount of money - too much in your employer 's view ; - ) - , but if you think about the benefits - less job hours wasted because illness , no personal bankruptcy because healthcare,... - the money is well spent .
Your " Healthcare Bill " seems ridiculous if you compare it with our system.Drugs in Spain have much - much much - lower prizes than USA drugs - the SAME drugs - , with big discounts if a medic prescribes you the drug ; some generic drugs , like Aspirin , are n't covered by this discounts .
The same drugs , boys and girls.I think that USA people was perverted by the " neoliberal " wave from Nixon to our times , an they think that " tax " is " theft " .
meanwhile , big corporations bosses " sneak " their earnings in tax paradises , and at the same time they scream words of horror about the REALLY " poor healthcare " bill : tax black hole , hte end of healthcare industry , etc.How sad.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, let's begin with Spain, my country.In Spain we have a public healthcare system, a public unenmployment insurance and a public pension plan system.
We have special protection for women at pregnant periods and post-birth periods.The biggest "money-eaters" are the pension system and the healthcare system - called "Seguridad Social" in Spain -; you must pay a part of your earnings before taxes, usually a 4.5\%,and  your employer pays a tax percentage of 28\% minus your percentage - in this example, 23.5 \% - of your earnings before taxes.Employers want to reduce their payments and "free firing" because they like USA job market, but they don't care about the consequences.
Remember that "Seguridad Social" covers healthcare, pension system and unemployment insurance; it may appear a big amount of money - too much in your employer's view ;-) -, but if you think about the benefits - less job hours wasted because illness, no personal bankruptcy because healthcare,... - the money is well spent.
Your "Healthcare Bill" seems ridiculous if you compare it with our system.Drugs in Spain have much - much much - lower prizes than USA drugs - the SAME drugs -, with big discounts if a medic prescribes you the drug; some generic drugs, like Aspirin, aren't covered by this discounts.
The same drugs, boys and girls.I think that USA people was perverted by the "neoliberal" wave from Nixon to our times, an they think that "tax" is "theft".
meanwhile, big corporations bosses "sneak" their earnings in tax paradises, and at the same time they scream words of horror about the REALLY "poor healthcare" bill: tax black hole, hte end of healthcare industry, etc.How sad...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538512</id>
	<title>Re:sign everybody up for veterans' healthcare</title>
	<author>McDozer</author>
	<datestamp>1269016140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm suppose to have VA Healthcare I was discharged out of the Army being 40\% disabled.  Yeah....I'm still on a waiting list to get it started more than 5 years later.  I haven't heard anything from the VA about it either, they send me my monthly check and that is it.  Your suppose to have to go back every year to get re-evaluated, even that isn't happening.  From what I've seen so far from my experience the VA is utter fail at the moment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm suppose to have VA Healthcare I was discharged out of the Army being 40 \ % disabled .
Yeah....I 'm still on a waiting list to get it started more than 5 years later .
I have n't heard anything from the VA about it either , they send me my monthly check and that is it .
Your suppose to have to go back every year to get re-evaluated , even that is n't happening .
From what I 've seen so far from my experience the VA is utter fail at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm suppose to have VA Healthcare I was discharged out of the Army being 40\% disabled.
Yeah....I'm still on a waiting list to get it started more than 5 years later.
I haven't heard anything from the VA about it either, they send me my monthly check and that is it.
Your suppose to have to go back every year to get re-evaluated, even that isn't happening.
From what I've seen so far from my experience the VA is utter fail at the moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537786</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1269014400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Slashdot is packed with the entitlement generation...</p></div><p>You mean, people born since 1935?  Wow, that's a mind-bender.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is packed with the entitlement generation...You mean , people born since 1935 ?
Wow , that 's a mind-bender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is packed with the entitlement generation...You mean, people born since 1935?
Wow, that's a mind-bender.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31558168</id>
	<title>Unconstitutional!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269192840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what the pseudo intellectual college morons should be shouting about.</p><p>Talking about party lines and right wingers is purely retarded and only a liberal socialist<br>jackass will bring this out..<br>This is NOT a bill and will NOT be a law because it flies in the face of constitutional government.<br>I personally will hold this bill treasonous and in contempt..  Our founding fathers would have<br>slapped every moronic-anti American politician in the face for this socialist garbage!!</p><p>And what do you know, perfect timing, a pro amnesty march, wow what timing the democrat-liberal jackasses have..<br>doesn't surprise me at all, shit we might as well give our country- intellectual property<br>and fucking jobs to the world because the world says they demand it.. Screw the sacrifice and<br>tax dollars we shell out to these deadbeat assholes worldwide..</p><p>I'm sick of the liberal ass clowns in this country..<br>anti constitutional ass holes and political traitors deserve a bullet and nothing more!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what the pseudo intellectual college morons should be shouting about.Talking about party lines and right wingers is purely retarded and only a liberal socialistjackass will bring this out..This is NOT a bill and will NOT be a law because it flies in the face of constitutional government.I personally will hold this bill treasonous and in contempt.. Our founding fathers would haveslapped every moronic-anti American politician in the face for this socialist garbage !
! And what do you know , perfect timing , a pro amnesty march , wow what timing the democrat-liberal jackasses have..does n't surprise me at all , shit we might as well give our country- intellectual propertyand fucking jobs to the world because the world says they demand it.. Screw the sacrifice andtax dollars we shell out to these deadbeat assholes worldwide..I 'm sick of the liberal ass clowns in this country..anti constitutional ass holes and political traitors deserve a bullet and nothing more !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what the pseudo intellectual college morons should be shouting about.Talking about party lines and right wingers is purely retarded and only a liberal socialistjackass will bring this out..This is NOT a bill and will NOT be a law because it flies in the face of constitutional government.I personally will hold this bill treasonous and in contempt..  Our founding fathers would haveslapped every moronic-anti American politician in the face for this socialist garbage!
!And what do you know, perfect timing, a pro amnesty march, wow what timing the democrat-liberal jackasses have..doesn't surprise me at all, shit we might as well give our country- intellectual propertyand fucking jobs to the world because the world says they demand it.. Screw the sacrifice andtax dollars we shell out to these deadbeat assholes worldwide..I'm sick of the liberal ass clowns in this country..anti constitutional ass holes and political traitors deserve a bullet and nothing more!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542920</id>
	<title>Not Reform</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268989620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reform would be to FIX the actual problems, not "band-aid" the symptoms.<br>This bill only attacks one or two of the symptoms, and leaves all the actual problems as they are.<br>And it allocates billions (which will prolly go to friends and families of the Democrats passing the bill)<br>And threatens to send people to jail if they don't comply.<br>Sorry, that is tyranny.<br>I cannot support it.</p><p>Now, if it fixed the problems with waste and fraud, corrected the issues with insurance and litigation, and provided for the few that actually cannot afford healthcare, or "don't qualify" for some reason, then I might support it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reform would be to FIX the actual problems , not " band-aid " the symptoms.This bill only attacks one or two of the symptoms , and leaves all the actual problems as they are.And it allocates billions ( which will prolly go to friends and families of the Democrats passing the bill ) And threatens to send people to jail if they do n't comply.Sorry , that is tyranny.I can not support it.Now , if it fixed the problems with waste and fraud , corrected the issues with insurance and litigation , and provided for the few that actually can not afford healthcare , or " do n't qualify " for some reason , then I might support it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reform would be to FIX the actual problems, not "band-aid" the symptoms.This bill only attacks one or two of the symptoms, and leaves all the actual problems as they are.And it allocates billions (which will prolly go to friends and families of the Democrats passing the bill)And threatens to send people to jail if they don't comply.Sorry, that is tyranny.I cannot support it.Now, if it fixed the problems with waste and fraud, corrected the issues with insurance and litigation, and provided for the few that actually cannot afford healthcare, or "don't qualify" for some reason, then I might support it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538918</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>kurt555gs</author>
	<datestamp>1269017340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ONE thing I really wanted was the public option. I would have switched from the evil Humana in an instant! Private health insurance is one of the main reason nothing the US makes can compete in the world. It is greed to an extreme. I also do not by the Fox news mantra that our government can't serve us. We still elect our representatives (unless we vote on Diebold machines). What say do we have in health insurance company's?</p><p>I really want government single payer care, but a public option would have gone a long way to keeping the evil greedy health insurance companies a little more honest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ONE thing I really wanted was the public option .
I would have switched from the evil Humana in an instant !
Private health insurance is one of the main reason nothing the US makes can compete in the world .
It is greed to an extreme .
I also do not by the Fox news mantra that our government ca n't serve us .
We still elect our representatives ( unless we vote on Diebold machines ) .
What say do we have in health insurance company 's ? I really want government single payer care , but a public option would have gone a long way to keeping the evil greedy health insurance companies a little more honest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ONE thing I really wanted was the public option.
I would have switched from the evil Humana in an instant!
Private health insurance is one of the main reason nothing the US makes can compete in the world.
It is greed to an extreme.
I also do not by the Fox news mantra that our government can't serve us.
We still elect our representatives (unless we vote on Diebold machines).
What say do we have in health insurance company's?I really want government single payer care, but a public option would have gone a long way to keeping the evil greedy health insurance companies a little more honest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542310</id>
	<title>Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1269029880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1. the US currently runs a deficit of 1.5trillion dollars, don't think that such reform can be done without bankrupting the country, especially when economy is on life support now, even without that bill. How long can you pile up debts, no less than 1T every year? In pursue of universal happiness there will be universal downgrade of everything.</p></div></blockquote><p>Other countries with universal health care spend half per capita what the US does per capita.  Multiply per capita spending by the capita involved and you get the financial drain on the economy of paying for health care.  If the US instituted a universal health care system that cost 3/4 what is currently spent per capita, then that would save 25\% of the cost to the US economy currently incurred by the status quo way of paying for health care.  With the US economy on the ropes, the US can't afford NOT to institute a more efficient way of paying for health care.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1. the US currently runs a deficit of 1.5trillion dollars , do n't think that such reform can be done without bankrupting the country , especially when economy is on life support now , even without that bill .
How long can you pile up debts , no less than 1T every year ?
In pursue of universal happiness there will be universal downgrade of everything.Other countries with universal health care spend half per capita what the US does per capita .
Multiply per capita spending by the capita involved and you get the financial drain on the economy of paying for health care .
If the US instituted a universal health care system that cost 3/4 what is currently spent per capita , then that would save 25 \ % of the cost to the US economy currently incurred by the status quo way of paying for health care .
With the US economy on the ropes , the US ca n't afford NOT to institute a more efficient way of paying for health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. the US currently runs a deficit of 1.5trillion dollars, don't think that such reform can be done without bankrupting the country, especially when economy is on life support now, even without that bill.
How long can you pile up debts, no less than 1T every year?
In pursue of universal happiness there will be universal downgrade of everything.Other countries with universal health care spend half per capita what the US does per capita.
Multiply per capita spending by the capita involved and you get the financial drain on the economy of paying for health care.
If the US instituted a universal health care system that cost 3/4 what is currently spent per capita, then that would save 25\% of the cost to the US economy currently incurred by the status quo way of paying for health care.
With the US economy on the ropes, the US can't afford NOT to institute a more efficient way of paying for health care.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539356</id>
	<title>I don't like it because it's crap.</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1269018660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I register as a Republican and self identify as a Libertarian. I dislike this bill because it's crap.</p><p>The only thing we should be talking about is how we're going to fund the "Public Option" that starts 1/1/2011.</p><p>For me it's a business issue. We can't continue to saddle our companies, and workers, with our tremendously high health care costs and expect them to remain competitive with other 1st world nations...all of whom have publically funded health care.</p><p>The "reform" needs to be scrapped and they need to start over with how to pay for the public option being the ONLY discussion. Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I register as a Republican and self identify as a Libertarian .
I dislike this bill because it 's crap.The only thing we should be talking about is how we 're going to fund the " Public Option " that starts 1/1/2011.For me it 's a business issue .
We ca n't continue to saddle our companies , and workers , with our tremendously high health care costs and expect them to remain competitive with other 1st world nations...all of whom have publically funded health care.The " reform " needs to be scrapped and they need to start over with how to pay for the public option being the ONLY discussion .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I register as a Republican and self identify as a Libertarian.
I dislike this bill because it's crap.The only thing we should be talking about is how we're going to fund the "Public Option" that starts 1/1/2011.For me it's a business issue.
We can't continue to saddle our companies, and workers, with our tremendously high health care costs and expect them to remain competitive with other 1st world nations...all of whom have publically funded health care.The "reform" needs to be scrapped and they need to start over with how to pay for the public option being the ONLY discussion.
Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538626</id>
	<title>You need to get your facts straight</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1269016500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It amazes me that with the high percentage of negative public opinion on the health care bill that congress is still considering it. This is supposed to be government by the will of the people, right? To me, the will of the people is not being executed here.</p></div></blockquote><p>Current support for the bill is running about even - around 45-45, with the remainder undecided. And if you ask people whether they're in favor of what's actually in the bill, they're overwhelmingly in favor. It's just that the Republicans (and their benefactors, the insurance companies) have done a good job of making the bill look bad in the public eye.</p><blockquote><div><p>Also, this is apparent in the back door manner in which they are trying to pass the bill by some trick of house/senate rules. This isn't some bill to appropriate a few million dollars for federal park support but a bill involving a trillion dollars of outlay.</p></div></blockquote><p>The republican house in 2005-06 used the same "back door manner" to pass almost a third of all the legislation they passed, and no one said a word. This argument is just dumb. The house is just going to vote on the original bill and the reconciliation fix at the same time. There's nothing "back-door" about it.</p><p>With respect to tort reform - this is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by the Republican party to get back at a group of people that traditionally gives more money to the other party (lawyers). Study after study has shown that tort reform would have a negligible effect on medical costs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It amazes me that with the high percentage of negative public opinion on the health care bill that congress is still considering it .
This is supposed to be government by the will of the people , right ?
To me , the will of the people is not being executed here.Current support for the bill is running about even - around 45-45 , with the remainder undecided .
And if you ask people whether they 're in favor of what 's actually in the bill , they 're overwhelmingly in favor .
It 's just that the Republicans ( and their benefactors , the insurance companies ) have done a good job of making the bill look bad in the public eye.Also , this is apparent in the back door manner in which they are trying to pass the bill by some trick of house/senate rules .
This is n't some bill to appropriate a few million dollars for federal park support but a bill involving a trillion dollars of outlay.The republican house in 2005-06 used the same " back door manner " to pass almost a third of all the legislation they passed , and no one said a word .
This argument is just dumb .
The house is just going to vote on the original bill and the reconciliation fix at the same time .
There 's nothing " back-door " about it.With respect to tort reform - this is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by the Republican party to get back at a group of people that traditionally gives more money to the other party ( lawyers ) .
Study after study has shown that tort reform would have a negligible effect on medical costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It amazes me that with the high percentage of negative public opinion on the health care bill that congress is still considering it.
This is supposed to be government by the will of the people, right?
To me, the will of the people is not being executed here.Current support for the bill is running about even - around 45-45, with the remainder undecided.
And if you ask people whether they're in favor of what's actually in the bill, they're overwhelmingly in favor.
It's just that the Republicans (and their benefactors, the insurance companies) have done a good job of making the bill look bad in the public eye.Also, this is apparent in the back door manner in which they are trying to pass the bill by some trick of house/senate rules.
This isn't some bill to appropriate a few million dollars for federal park support but a bill involving a trillion dollars of outlay.The republican house in 2005-06 used the same "back door manner" to pass almost a third of all the legislation they passed, and no one said a word.
This argument is just dumb.
The house is just going to vote on the original bill and the reconciliation fix at the same time.
There's nothing "back-door" about it.With respect to tort reform - this is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by the Republican party to get back at a group of people that traditionally gives more money to the other party (lawyers).
Study after study has shown that tort reform would have a negligible effect on medical costs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536572</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>mikerz</author>
	<datestamp>1269011460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's nothing wrong with making money helping people get well. You're missing something important in your argument - people have choices, and are not corn being raised in the fields. If your doctor sucks, you find another and get educated about health (you might find that pharmaceuticals are mostly treatment rather than cure and going to the doctor is overrated by today's society). <br> <br> If you also think that the government will help people stay healthy, just look at its record with the pharmaceutical industry(in case you did not know, they are very good pals and help each other profit). It is completely in the ethos and history of government to recommend pharmaceuticals above exercise and good diet, because they make money with pharmaceuticals! They stand to gain nothing when people take care of themselves.<br> <br>Please,  keep in mind that government wants to secure its own importance and money, and to grow as if it were actually creating something new.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing wrong with making money helping people get well .
You 're missing something important in your argument - people have choices , and are not corn being raised in the fields .
If your doctor sucks , you find another and get educated about health ( you might find that pharmaceuticals are mostly treatment rather than cure and going to the doctor is overrated by today 's society ) .
If you also think that the government will help people stay healthy , just look at its record with the pharmaceutical industry ( in case you did not know , they are very good pals and help each other profit ) .
It is completely in the ethos and history of government to recommend pharmaceuticals above exercise and good diet , because they make money with pharmaceuticals !
They stand to gain nothing when people take care of themselves .
Please , keep in mind that government wants to secure its own importance and money , and to grow as if it were actually creating something new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing wrong with making money helping people get well.
You're missing something important in your argument - people have choices, and are not corn being raised in the fields.
If your doctor sucks, you find another and get educated about health (you might find that pharmaceuticals are mostly treatment rather than cure and going to the doctor is overrated by today's society).
If you also think that the government will help people stay healthy, just look at its record with the pharmaceutical industry(in case you did not know, they are very good pals and help each other profit).
It is completely in the ethos and history of government to recommend pharmaceuticals above exercise and good diet, because they make money with pharmaceuticals!
They stand to gain nothing when people take care of themselves.
Please,  keep in mind that government wants to secure its own importance and money, and to grow as if it were actually creating something new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537282</id>
	<title>As I see it, its a mixed bag.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course there is the requisite pork. (has any bill ever been past since anyone was reading this has been alive. that didn't include some pork?)  But there are also provisions to expand Medicaid to more people(I think this is in there, but I am not absolutely sure).   It also makes insurance companies allow parents to keep their children on their policy until they are 26.  It prevents insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions (meaning no higher rates or refusing coverage).  It will set up exchanges for those who are self employed or don't get insurance from their job.  Insurance companies will not be able to cancel insurance because someone gets sick.  It will cap total out of pocket expenses for consumers.  There will be subsidies for those making up to 400\% of poverty level to buy insurance.  It will mandate that everyone, the exception of the most poor, get insurance or face a fine.  It would require employers with more then 50 workers, who don't offer medical insurance, to pay $2000/employee, if any of the workers qualify for the federal health care subsidy.  It would close the "doenut hole" in Medicare by 2020.  Those are the highlights of what the bill will do.</p><p>If you are wondering if it will really address the rising cost of health care, I doubt it.  The problem with health care in this country is that doctors are paid per procedure.  So some, maybe even most, in contravention of the Hippocratic Oath, act in their own best interest preform procedures that aren't necessary.  They have little to no motivation to work to make the patient healthier.</p><p>Its a first step.  I am hoping they don't stop here.  It will at the very least, get more people covered by health insurance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course there is the requisite pork .
( has any bill ever been past since anyone was reading this has been alive .
that did n't include some pork ?
) But there are also provisions to expand Medicaid to more people ( I think this is in there , but I am not absolutely sure ) .
It also makes insurance companies allow parents to keep their children on their policy until they are 26 .
It prevents insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions ( meaning no higher rates or refusing coverage ) .
It will set up exchanges for those who are self employed or do n't get insurance from their job .
Insurance companies will not be able to cancel insurance because someone gets sick .
It will cap total out of pocket expenses for consumers .
There will be subsidies for those making up to 400 \ % of poverty level to buy insurance .
It will mandate that everyone , the exception of the most poor , get insurance or face a fine .
It would require employers with more then 50 workers , who do n't offer medical insurance , to pay $ 2000/employee , if any of the workers qualify for the federal health care subsidy .
It would close the " doenut hole " in Medicare by 2020 .
Those are the highlights of what the bill will do.If you are wondering if it will really address the rising cost of health care , I doubt it .
The problem with health care in this country is that doctors are paid per procedure .
So some , maybe even most , in contravention of the Hippocratic Oath , act in their own best interest preform procedures that are n't necessary .
They have little to no motivation to work to make the patient healthier.Its a first step .
I am hoping they do n't stop here .
It will at the very least , get more people covered by health insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course there is the requisite pork.
(has any bill ever been past since anyone was reading this has been alive.
that didn't include some pork?
)  But there are also provisions to expand Medicaid to more people(I think this is in there, but I am not absolutely sure).
It also makes insurance companies allow parents to keep their children on their policy until they are 26.
It prevents insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions (meaning no higher rates or refusing coverage).
It will set up exchanges for those who are self employed or don't get insurance from their job.
Insurance companies will not be able to cancel insurance because someone gets sick.
It will cap total out of pocket expenses for consumers.
There will be subsidies for those making up to 400\% of poverty level to buy insurance.
It will mandate that everyone, the exception of the most poor, get insurance or face a fine.
It would require employers with more then 50 workers, who don't offer medical insurance, to pay $2000/employee, if any of the workers qualify for the federal health care subsidy.
It would close the "doenut hole" in Medicare by 2020.
Those are the highlights of what the bill will do.If you are wondering if it will really address the rising cost of health care, I doubt it.
The problem with health care in this country is that doctors are paid per procedure.
So some, maybe even most, in contravention of the Hippocratic Oath, act in their own best interest preform procedures that aren't necessary.
They have little to no motivation to work to make the patient healthier.Its a first step.
I am hoping they don't stop here.
It will at the very least, get more people covered by health insurance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537152</id>
	<title>Every other European democracy has this.</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1269012840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Virtually every Western democracy has public health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal\_health\_care).</p><p>2) By some miracle, they manage to pay for it.</p><p>3) By and large, if you read the blogs of people actually living in those countries, they appear reasonably happy with their imperfect but functioning health systems (http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the\_health\_care\_blog/international/).</p><p>So, the opponents are essentially claiming that America is too "special" (i.e. lame) to do what virtually every other country can do. That may not be what they <i>say</i>, but that's what they <i>imply.</i></p><p>Any questions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Virtually every Western democracy has public health care ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal \ _health \ _care ) .2 ) By some miracle , they manage to pay for it.3 ) By and large , if you read the blogs of people actually living in those countries , they appear reasonably happy with their imperfect but functioning health systems ( http : //www.thehealthcareblog.com/the \ _health \ _care \ _blog/international/ ) .So , the opponents are essentially claiming that America is too " special " ( i.e .
lame ) to do what virtually every other country can do .
That may not be what they say , but that 's what they imply.Any questions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Virtually every Western democracy has public health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal\_health\_care).2) By some miracle, they manage to pay for it.3) By and large, if you read the blogs of people actually living in those countries, they appear reasonably happy with their imperfect but functioning health systems (http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the\_health\_care\_blog/international/).So, the opponents are essentially claiming that America is too "special" (i.e.
lame) to do what virtually every other country can do.
That may not be what they say, but that's what they imply.Any questions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540834</id>
	<title>two points:</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269023760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. what you are describing is what is currently done right now by private insurers. so exactly what is your point?</p><p>2. fatty lard ass and his chain smoking and his 42 ounce big gulp soda IS COSTING ME MONEY. so why don't i, through my govt, have the ability to force fatty lard ass to not cost me so much money?</p><p>you're worried about the govt telling you to eat the garden burger? why the hell aren't you worried about fatty lard ass costing your health insurance premiums to be so high? and finally, WHY THE FUCK INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION AREN'T YOU CONCERNED FOR YOUR OWN FUCKING HEALTH?</p><p>you want to talk about impinging on freedoms? fatty lard ass COSTS ME MONEY, and therefore IMPINGES ON MY FREEDOM</p><p>its pretty much a constant problem with people fighting for their freedoms: there are genuine freedoms which hurt no one else, like freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, and then there are "freedoms" which have a solid qunaitifiable real cost on society and on me. so yes: i have a RIGHT to tell you not to smoke because it COSTS me money and therefore LIMITS my freedom. WHO is paying for your healthcare asshole, in ANY healthcare system. and i have a RIGHT to tell you to eat responsibly because IT LIMITS MY FREEDOM</p><p>there is no such thing as a freedom or a right to LIMIT OTHER PEOPLE'S FREEDOMS OR RIGHTS. limits on your freedom is not always from your government, its also from your fellow ignorant, selfish citizens, no matter WHAT your government's policy</p><p>so, in the name of freedom: fuck you fatty, eat the fucking garden burger, asshole</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. what you are describing is what is currently done right now by private insurers .
so exactly what is your point ? 2 .
fatty lard ass and his chain smoking and his 42 ounce big gulp soda IS COSTING ME MONEY .
so why do n't i , through my govt , have the ability to force fatty lard ass to not cost me so much money ? you 're worried about the govt telling you to eat the garden burger ?
why the hell are n't you worried about fatty lard ass costing your health insurance premiums to be so high ?
and finally , WHY THE FUCK INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION ARE N'T YOU CONCERNED FOR YOUR OWN FUCKING HEALTH ? you want to talk about impinging on freedoms ?
fatty lard ass COSTS ME MONEY , and therefore IMPINGES ON MY FREEDOMits pretty much a constant problem with people fighting for their freedoms : there are genuine freedoms which hurt no one else , like freedom of speech , or freedom of religion , and then there are " freedoms " which have a solid qunaitifiable real cost on society and on me .
so yes : i have a RIGHT to tell you not to smoke because it COSTS me money and therefore LIMITS my freedom .
WHO is paying for your healthcare asshole , in ANY healthcare system .
and i have a RIGHT to tell you to eat responsibly because IT LIMITS MY FREEDOMthere is no such thing as a freedom or a right to LIMIT OTHER PEOPLE 'S FREEDOMS OR RIGHTS .
limits on your freedom is not always from your government , its also from your fellow ignorant , selfish citizens , no matter WHAT your government 's policyso , in the name of freedom : fuck you fatty , eat the fucking garden burger , asshole</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. what you are describing is what is currently done right now by private insurers.
so exactly what is your point?2.
fatty lard ass and his chain smoking and his 42 ounce big gulp soda IS COSTING ME MONEY.
so why don't i, through my govt, have the ability to force fatty lard ass to not cost me so much money?you're worried about the govt telling you to eat the garden burger?
why the hell aren't you worried about fatty lard ass costing your health insurance premiums to be so high?
and finally, WHY THE FUCK INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION AREN'T YOU CONCERNED FOR YOUR OWN FUCKING HEALTH?you want to talk about impinging on freedoms?
fatty lard ass COSTS ME MONEY, and therefore IMPINGES ON MY FREEDOMits pretty much a constant problem with people fighting for their freedoms: there are genuine freedoms which hurt no one else, like freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, and then there are "freedoms" which have a solid qunaitifiable real cost on society and on me.
so yes: i have a RIGHT to tell you not to smoke because it COSTS me money and therefore LIMITS my freedom.
WHO is paying for your healthcare asshole, in ANY healthcare system.
and i have a RIGHT to tell you to eat responsibly because IT LIMITS MY FREEDOMthere is no such thing as a freedom or a right to LIMIT OTHER PEOPLE'S FREEDOMS OR RIGHTS.
limits on your freedom is not always from your government, its also from your fellow ignorant, selfish citizens, no matter WHAT your government's policyso, in the name of freedom: fuck you fatty, eat the fucking garden burger, asshole</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535312</id>
	<title>TACO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>share. *BSD is the 4arty 1n street</htmltext>
<tokenext>share .
* BSD is the 4arty 1n street</tokentext>
<sentencetext>share.
*BSD is the 4arty 1n street</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535788</id>
	<title>Re:Comunisam</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1269009180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isnt communism. Read the bill.</p><p>Its more fascism. This isnt a government run health care program, its a mandate that buy private insurance from the insurance industry.</p><p>Thats not quite communism.</p><p>And Single Payer, Universal health care wouldnt be communism either, anymore than the military would be. Not that this bill is Single Payer. The democrats failed to bring real health care reform. What we are left with is a corporate welfare bill, that the democrats will praise like the republicans praised no child left behind and the patriot act. This not to say I support the republicans in anyway. More so that the democrats are just as lame and bought out by the corporations we ask them to regulate.</p><p>For some reason SOME people are ok with spending all of our money on military defense, but when it comes to spending it on health defense... certain people cry communism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This isnt communism .
Read the bill.Its more fascism .
This isnt a government run health care program , its a mandate that buy private insurance from the insurance industry.Thats not quite communism.And Single Payer , Universal health care wouldnt be communism either , anymore than the military would be .
Not that this bill is Single Payer .
The democrats failed to bring real health care reform .
What we are left with is a corporate welfare bill , that the democrats will praise like the republicans praised no child left behind and the patriot act .
This not to say I support the republicans in anyway .
More so that the democrats are just as lame and bought out by the corporations we ask them to regulate.For some reason SOME people are ok with spending all of our money on military defense , but when it comes to spending it on health defense... certain people cry communism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isnt communism.
Read the bill.Its more fascism.
This isnt a government run health care program, its a mandate that buy private insurance from the insurance industry.Thats not quite communism.And Single Payer, Universal health care wouldnt be communism either, anymore than the military would be.
Not that this bill is Single Payer.
The democrats failed to bring real health care reform.
What we are left with is a corporate welfare bill, that the democrats will praise like the republicans praised no child left behind and the patriot act.
This not to say I support the republicans in anyway.
More so that the democrats are just as lame and bought out by the corporations we ask them to regulate.For some reason SOME people are ok with spending all of our money on military defense, but when it comes to spending it on health defense... certain people cry communism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535564</id>
	<title>Trusting Faux News?</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1269008520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my personal experience, anything that Fox says is "bad for America" usually means "bad for the republican agenda". I'm not exactly inclined to believe any sort of fearmongering they promote.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my personal experience , anything that Fox says is " bad for America " usually means " bad for the republican agenda " .
I 'm not exactly inclined to believe any sort of fearmongering they promote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my personal experience, anything that Fox says is "bad for America" usually means "bad for the republican agenda".
I'm not exactly inclined to believe any sort of fearmongering they promote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542044</id>
	<title>Re:Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269028800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"From our perspective (I'm a health policy person based in Europe), US health care is staggeringly expensive, very variable, and very unfair. It's the single biggest cause of personal bankruptcy in the States."</p><p>You may be bankrupt, but at least you'll be alive.</p><p>There are many fallacies being promulgated by the media and those on the Left (Dems and Repubs) who support "some reform, ANY reform, just so we do something". One of these is that if you can't pay, you get turned away. It is against US law for any hospital to turn away someone needing care simply because they can't pay. Those hospitals which do get slapped down. Many hospitals budget a certain amount of funds to cover care for those who cannot pay; other hospitals exist entirely on donations, and do not require patients to pay at all (St. Jude's, anybody?).</p><p>Furthermore, the health insurance industry is one of the least-profitable enterprises in the US economy. Health insurance company profits as a percentage of overall earnings (a.k.a profit margin, the true indicator of profitability) was a meager 3.4\% (figures are from 2008, I believe), according to http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html. UnitedHealthGroup was the at top, with a 4.1\% profit margin. This compares to 2.2\% as the median profit margin across 215 industries in the US. The top 3 industries were beverages (25.9\%), healthcare real-estate trusts (the landlords or managers for hospital properties), and application software. By comparison, the "eeeeviiillll" oil industry saw an average profit margin of 10.2\%; Google and Microsoft saw margins of 20.6\% and 24.9\%, respectively.</p><p>Do you know what entity turns down the most health coverage claims as a percentage of total claims received? Medicare.</p><p>"A large part of your population have no access to good quality health care, and this imposes large costs on your society." BS. Everybody in the US has access to the best health care system in the world. The overall quality of the care is evidenced by the fact that Canadians, Brits, and other foreign nationals continue to come here for their treatment, rather than wait months or even years for their own socialized medical services to deem them worthy of receiving care. Much of the "large costs on your society" come from illegal immigrants who flood hospitals all over the country, who not only cannot pay but also do not pay: to the hospital or to any other aspect of the US economy.</p><p>Do you really believe that the same government that has brought us Medicare (projecting more than $38 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities over the next few years), Social Security (which will be bankrupt by the time half the Baby Boomer generation is dead), and the DMV will be able suddenly to run something right for change? I think you'd better get your meds checked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" From our perspective ( I 'm a health policy person based in Europe ) , US health care is staggeringly expensive , very variable , and very unfair .
It 's the single biggest cause of personal bankruptcy in the States .
" You may be bankrupt , but at least you 'll be alive.There are many fallacies being promulgated by the media and those on the Left ( Dems and Repubs ) who support " some reform , ANY reform , just so we do something " .
One of these is that if you ca n't pay , you get turned away .
It is against US law for any hospital to turn away someone needing care simply because they ca n't pay .
Those hospitals which do get slapped down .
Many hospitals budget a certain amount of funds to cover care for those who can not pay ; other hospitals exist entirely on donations , and do not require patients to pay at all ( St. Jude 's , anybody ?
) .Furthermore , the health insurance industry is one of the least-profitable enterprises in the US economy .
Health insurance company profits as a percentage of overall earnings ( a.k.a profit margin , the true indicator of profitability ) was a meager 3.4 \ % ( figures are from 2008 , I believe ) , according to http : //www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html .
UnitedHealthGroup was the at top , with a 4.1 \ % profit margin .
This compares to 2.2 \ % as the median profit margin across 215 industries in the US .
The top 3 industries were beverages ( 25.9 \ % ) , healthcare real-estate trusts ( the landlords or managers for hospital properties ) , and application software .
By comparison , the " eeeeviiillll " oil industry saw an average profit margin of 10.2 \ % ; Google and Microsoft saw margins of 20.6 \ % and 24.9 \ % , respectively.Do you know what entity turns down the most health coverage claims as a percentage of total claims received ?
Medicare. " A large part of your population have no access to good quality health care , and this imposes large costs on your society .
" BS .
Everybody in the US has access to the best health care system in the world .
The overall quality of the care is evidenced by the fact that Canadians , Brits , and other foreign nationals continue to come here for their treatment , rather than wait months or even years for their own socialized medical services to deem them worthy of receiving care .
Much of the " large costs on your society " come from illegal immigrants who flood hospitals all over the country , who not only can not pay but also do not pay : to the hospital or to any other aspect of the US economy.Do you really believe that the same government that has brought us Medicare ( projecting more than $ 38 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities over the next few years ) , Social Security ( which will be bankrupt by the time half the Baby Boomer generation is dead ) , and the DMV will be able suddenly to run something right for change ?
I think you 'd better get your meds checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"From our perspective (I'm a health policy person based in Europe), US health care is staggeringly expensive, very variable, and very unfair.
It's the single biggest cause of personal bankruptcy in the States.
"You may be bankrupt, but at least you'll be alive.There are many fallacies being promulgated by the media and those on the Left (Dems and Repubs) who support "some reform, ANY reform, just so we do something".
One of these is that if you can't pay, you get turned away.
It is against US law for any hospital to turn away someone needing care simply because they can't pay.
Those hospitals which do get slapped down.
Many hospitals budget a certain amount of funds to cover care for those who cannot pay; other hospitals exist entirely on donations, and do not require patients to pay at all (St. Jude's, anybody?
).Furthermore, the health insurance industry is one of the least-profitable enterprises in the US economy.
Health insurance company profits as a percentage of overall earnings (a.k.a profit margin, the true indicator of profitability) was a meager 3.4\% (figures are from 2008, I believe), according to http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html.
UnitedHealthGroup was the at top, with a 4.1\% profit margin.
This compares to 2.2\% as the median profit margin across 215 industries in the US.
The top 3 industries were beverages (25.9\%), healthcare real-estate trusts (the landlords or managers for hospital properties), and application software.
By comparison, the "eeeeviiillll" oil industry saw an average profit margin of 10.2\%; Google and Microsoft saw margins of 20.6\% and 24.9\%, respectively.Do you know what entity turns down the most health coverage claims as a percentage of total claims received?
Medicare."A large part of your population have no access to good quality health care, and this imposes large costs on your society.
" BS.
Everybody in the US has access to the best health care system in the world.
The overall quality of the care is evidenced by the fact that Canadians, Brits, and other foreign nationals continue to come here for their treatment, rather than wait months or even years for their own socialized medical services to deem them worthy of receiving care.
Much of the "large costs on your society" come from illegal immigrants who flood hospitals all over the country, who not only cannot pay but also do not pay: to the hospital or to any other aspect of the US economy.Do you really believe that the same government that has brought us Medicare (projecting more than $38 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities over the next few years), Social Security (which will be bankrupt by the time half the Baby Boomer generation is dead), and the DMV will be able suddenly to run something right for change?
I think you'd better get your meds checked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164</id>
	<title>Other reform options</title>
	<author>alta</author>
	<datestamp>1269010260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an idea, instead of forcing everyone to GET expensive health care, lets try lowering it's cost first.  You realize that with the government paying for healthcare, the cost of that care is just going to go up?  Prices that companies charge individuals are generally cheap.  Prices they charge companies are high and prices they charge goverments are INSANE?  We're all going to be getting $800 toilet seats.</p><p>So, instead of the current plan, lets try this first.</p><p>1. Buy insurance across state lines.  This gives people the opportunity to search for cheap insurance.  Right now you can only get insurance in your state... Imagine if you couldn't buy anything over the internet across state lines.<br>2. Limit lawsuit payouts.  The lawyers (sharks with lasers) are making a KILLING on lawsuits.  Reduce the payouts and the sharks will have less to feed on, there will be fewer ambulance chasers because the $$$ will become reasonable.<br>3. Reduce the FDA requirements.  Wow, meds sure are expensive.  Oh, they aren't in canada?  Oh, and canada sells the same meds for much less and they don't have such a stringent approval process?  Hmmm<br>4. Promote Savings Health Accounts (see 1. first) - If you put in $xxx dollars tax free into an account that's YOUR money.  Once you cap it at a certain level you just pay the maintenance (the insurance part in case something catastrophic happens)  Now, it's your task to shop around for an affordable healthcare provider.  You'll think twice before paying $300 for a checkup.<br>5. This topic wasn't designed to discuss immigration, but guess what, that's a major cost in health care.  The country will fail if the people paying into healthcare are expected to support every ILLEGAL immigrant that wants healthcare.  Especially if the hospitals are charging those goverment rates for it ($30 for an aspirin anyone?)   I'm just going to say, if you can't reasonably prove your an american, you don't get american health care, unless you can pay cash.</p><p>Exercise: Call 3 local providers and tell them that you have some common malady and tell them that you have Blue Cross insurance, ask them what it will cost you, and what they will bill BC.  The next day, call them all back, same malady and tell them you're paying out of pocket.    If day 2 isn't a third of day 1 I will eat my shoe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an idea , instead of forcing everyone to GET expensive health care , lets try lowering it 's cost first .
You realize that with the government paying for healthcare , the cost of that care is just going to go up ?
Prices that companies charge individuals are generally cheap .
Prices they charge companies are high and prices they charge goverments are INSANE ?
We 're all going to be getting $ 800 toilet seats.So , instead of the current plan , lets try this first.1 .
Buy insurance across state lines .
This gives people the opportunity to search for cheap insurance .
Right now you can only get insurance in your state... Imagine if you could n't buy anything over the internet across state lines.2 .
Limit lawsuit payouts .
The lawyers ( sharks with lasers ) are making a KILLING on lawsuits .
Reduce the payouts and the sharks will have less to feed on , there will be fewer ambulance chasers because the $ $ $ will become reasonable.3 .
Reduce the FDA requirements .
Wow , meds sure are expensive .
Oh , they are n't in canada ?
Oh , and canada sells the same meds for much less and they do n't have such a stringent approval process ?
Hmmm4. Promote Savings Health Accounts ( see 1. first ) - If you put in $ xxx dollars tax free into an account that 's YOUR money .
Once you cap it at a certain level you just pay the maintenance ( the insurance part in case something catastrophic happens ) Now , it 's your task to shop around for an affordable healthcare provider .
You 'll think twice before paying $ 300 for a checkup.5 .
This topic was n't designed to discuss immigration , but guess what , that 's a major cost in health care .
The country will fail if the people paying into healthcare are expected to support every ILLEGAL immigrant that wants healthcare .
Especially if the hospitals are charging those goverment rates for it ( $ 30 for an aspirin anyone ?
) I 'm just going to say , if you ca n't reasonably prove your an american , you do n't get american health care , unless you can pay cash.Exercise : Call 3 local providers and tell them that you have some common malady and tell them that you have Blue Cross insurance , ask them what it will cost you , and what they will bill BC .
The next day , call them all back , same malady and tell them you 're paying out of pocket .
If day 2 is n't a third of day 1 I will eat my shoe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an idea, instead of forcing everyone to GET expensive health care, lets try lowering it's cost first.
You realize that with the government paying for healthcare, the cost of that care is just going to go up?
Prices that companies charge individuals are generally cheap.
Prices they charge companies are high and prices they charge goverments are INSANE?
We're all going to be getting $800 toilet seats.So, instead of the current plan, lets try this first.1.
Buy insurance across state lines.
This gives people the opportunity to search for cheap insurance.
Right now you can only get insurance in your state... Imagine if you couldn't buy anything over the internet across state lines.2.
Limit lawsuit payouts.
The lawyers (sharks with lasers) are making a KILLING on lawsuits.
Reduce the payouts and the sharks will have less to feed on, there will be fewer ambulance chasers because the $$$ will become reasonable.3.
Reduce the FDA requirements.
Wow, meds sure are expensive.
Oh, they aren't in canada?
Oh, and canada sells the same meds for much less and they don't have such a stringent approval process?
Hmmm4. Promote Savings Health Accounts (see 1. first) - If you put in $xxx dollars tax free into an account that's YOUR money.
Once you cap it at a certain level you just pay the maintenance (the insurance part in case something catastrophic happens)  Now, it's your task to shop around for an affordable healthcare provider.
You'll think twice before paying $300 for a checkup.5.
This topic wasn't designed to discuss immigration, but guess what, that's a major cost in health care.
The country will fail if the people paying into healthcare are expected to support every ILLEGAL immigrant that wants healthcare.
Especially if the hospitals are charging those goverment rates for it ($30 for an aspirin anyone?
)   I'm just going to say, if you can't reasonably prove your an american, you don't get american health care, unless you can pay cash.Exercise: Call 3 local providers and tell them that you have some common malady and tell them that you have Blue Cross insurance, ask them what it will cost you, and what they will bill BC.
The next day, call them all back, same malady and tell them you're paying out of pocket.
If day 2 isn't a third of day 1 I will eat my shoe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538488</id>
	<title>Re:Without single payer, there's no point</title>
	<author>bdenton42</author>
	<datestamp>1269016080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those under 65 have had their right to life revoked to create a false market so health insurance companies can siphon billions from hospitals and doctors.</p></div><p>You are quick to blame insurers, but the problem is really the providers.   The Feds can go a long way toward health care reform with much simpler legislation... just make it a crime for health providers to charge vastly different rates to individuals and insurance companies.</p><p>A few months ago Quest Diagnostics sent me a bill for $186.20 for a set of blood tests yet "negotiated" a rate of $30.44 with my insurance company.  That is completely insane... if I didn't have insurance they would gouge me 6 times over.</p><p>If not for these overinflated bills I, and probably most people, wouldn't even need insurance for most things other than catastrophic illnesses.  And that's exactly how the insurance companies want it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those under 65 have had their right to life revoked to create a false market so health insurance companies can siphon billions from hospitals and doctors.You are quick to blame insurers , but the problem is really the providers .
The Feds can go a long way toward health care reform with much simpler legislation... just make it a crime for health providers to charge vastly different rates to individuals and insurance companies.A few months ago Quest Diagnostics sent me a bill for $ 186.20 for a set of blood tests yet " negotiated " a rate of $ 30.44 with my insurance company .
That is completely insane... if I did n't have insurance they would gouge me 6 times over.If not for these overinflated bills I , and probably most people , would n't even need insurance for most things other than catastrophic illnesses .
And that 's exactly how the insurance companies want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those under 65 have had their right to life revoked to create a false market so health insurance companies can siphon billions from hospitals and doctors.You are quick to blame insurers, but the problem is really the providers.
The Feds can go a long way toward health care reform with much simpler legislation... just make it a crime for health providers to charge vastly different rates to individuals and insurance companies.A few months ago Quest Diagnostics sent me a bill for $186.20 for a set of blood tests yet "negotiated" a rate of $30.44 with my insurance company.
That is completely insane... if I didn't have insurance they would gouge me 6 times over.If not for these overinflated bills I, and probably most people, wouldn't even need insurance for most things other than catastrophic illnesses.
And that's exactly how the insurance companies want it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538702</id>
	<title>Re:Random health care thoughts</title>
	<author>zildgulf</author>
	<datestamp>1269016680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you right about tort reform then health care in Texas should be way cheaper than it is in our states.  So why are Texans health insurance premiums increasing?<br> <br>
The answer is that tort reform was not the end all be all solution to the health crisis. It turns out to be a small, but important part of the solution.<br> <br>
The thing that doesn't work to save costs is our fee for service system.  It discourages cheap preventive treatment and encourages very expensive that tend to be less effective in the long run.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you right about tort reform then health care in Texas should be way cheaper than it is in our states .
So why are Texans health insurance premiums increasing ?
The answer is that tort reform was not the end all be all solution to the health crisis .
It turns out to be a small , but important part of the solution .
The thing that does n't work to save costs is our fee for service system .
It discourages cheap preventive treatment and encourages very expensive that tend to be less effective in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you right about tort reform then health care in Texas should be way cheaper than it is in our states.
So why are Texans health insurance premiums increasing?
The answer is that tort reform was not the end all be all solution to the health crisis.
It turns out to be a small, but important part of the solution.
The thing that doesn't work to save costs is our fee for service system.
It discourages cheap preventive treatment and encourages very expensive that tend to be less effective in the long run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535204</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Entitlement generation?  You mean baby boomers, right?  The first generation, who through their profligate ways, are leaving the country worse off for their children.  The ones who voted in large numbers for the vanguards of the 'Me First' principle?</p><p>Just wanted to make sure we were all in agreement on exactly who the entitlement generation is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Entitlement generation ?
You mean baby boomers , right ?
The first generation , who through their profligate ways , are leaving the country worse off for their children .
The ones who voted in large numbers for the vanguards of the 'Me First ' principle ? Just wanted to make sure we were all in agreement on exactly who the entitlement generation is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entitlement generation?
You mean baby boomers, right?
The first generation, who through their profligate ways, are leaving the country worse off for their children.
The ones who voted in large numbers for the vanguards of the 'Me First' principle?Just wanted to make sure we were all in agreement on exactly who the entitlement generation is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540038</id>
	<title>Don't worry...</title>
	<author>bjk002</author>
	<datestamp>1269020880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, we're going to get the insurance companies' profits and doctor's salaries reigned in.  Then we are going to vote out the dems.  THEN we are going to make sure the repubs get tort reform in place.  It's all good...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , we 're going to get the insurance companies ' profits and doctor 's salaries reigned in .
Then we are going to vote out the dems .
THEN we are going to make sure the repubs get tort reform in place .
It 's all good.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, we're going to get the insurance companies' profits and doctor's salaries reigned in.
Then we are going to vote out the dems.
THEN we are going to make sure the repubs get tort reform in place.
It's all good...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535174</id>
	<title>Neither</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't do anything.  This will go down as the 2010 Health Insurance <b>Bailout</b> act.  Few Americans who currently don't have insurance will be helped, and few who do will notice one iota of difference.  The largest group of people who will see positive change from this is the top executives at our health insurance companies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't do anything .
This will go down as the 2010 Health Insurance Bailout act .
Few Americans who currently do n't have insurance will be helped , and few who do will notice one iota of difference .
The largest group of people who will see positive change from this is the top executives at our health insurance companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't do anything.
This will go down as the 2010 Health Insurance Bailout act.
Few Americans who currently don't have insurance will be helped, and few who do will notice one iota of difference.
The largest group of people who will see positive change from this is the top executives at our health insurance companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536252</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1269010560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because GP appointments are less profitable.  The more money we spend on healthcare in a private system, the more people profit -- even the insurers (counter-intuitively), since they can justify higher rates based on the increase in costs, which gives them a larger capital pool to play with.</p><p>We talk and talk about providing basic health-care so that big ticket fix-it-at-the-end procedures aren't necessary and as a method of saving money.  (A dollar on prenatal care saves X dollars on treating premature babies through life, etc. etc.)  But why would we want to save money?  That only benefits the consumer.  Since when has he mattered?  All the people who matter are getting rich, here, thank you very much.</p><p>And after all, so long as the consumer keeps buying it, it must be perfect for him.  That's free enterprise.  If American health care didn't work, consumers wouldn't buy it.  RIGHT?</p><p>So let's not change anything, because that would inconvenience the important people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because GP appointments are less profitable .
The more money we spend on healthcare in a private system , the more people profit -- even the insurers ( counter-intuitively ) , since they can justify higher rates based on the increase in costs , which gives them a larger capital pool to play with.We talk and talk about providing basic health-care so that big ticket fix-it-at-the-end procedures are n't necessary and as a method of saving money .
( A dollar on prenatal care saves X dollars on treating premature babies through life , etc .
etc. ) But why would we want to save money ?
That only benefits the consumer .
Since when has he mattered ?
All the people who matter are getting rich , here , thank you very much.And after all , so long as the consumer keeps buying it , it must be perfect for him .
That 's free enterprise .
If American health care did n't work , consumers would n't buy it .
RIGHT ? So let 's not change anything , because that would inconvenience the important people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because GP appointments are less profitable.
The more money we spend on healthcare in a private system, the more people profit -- even the insurers (counter-intuitively), since they can justify higher rates based on the increase in costs, which gives them a larger capital pool to play with.We talk and talk about providing basic health-care so that big ticket fix-it-at-the-end procedures aren't necessary and as a method of saving money.
(A dollar on prenatal care saves X dollars on treating premature babies through life, etc.
etc.)  But why would we want to save money?
That only benefits the consumer.
Since when has he mattered?
All the people who matter are getting rich, here, thank you very much.And after all, so long as the consumer keeps buying it, it must be perfect for him.
That's free enterprise.
If American health care didn't work, consumers wouldn't buy it.
RIGHT?So let's not change anything, because that would inconvenience the important people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536394</id>
	<title>Re:do you trust obama and the dems ?</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1269010920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the Wallstreet bail out was signed into law by George W. Bush.</p><p>But I do agree that this health care reform bill is shady. If we wanted real reform, it would be NOT FOR PROFIT insurance. It would be a single payer government program where we all pay into... and all benefit from without the middle man (insurance company) in the middle with their excessive profit and administrative costs.</p><p>This bill is corporate welfare at its worst.</p><p>I dont trust either party. Both simply represent the corporations. The American citizen has no representation.</p><p>The health insurance industry spent 1.4 million dollars PER DAY on lobbying against reform. That is the kind of access corporations have. We the people do not have this access. There are two Americas.</p><p>The odd thing is... that 1.4 million per day... comes from our insurance payments. ITS OUR MONEY... and Instead of it being used to care for the sick... its being used to maintain the disgusting practices of the insurance industry... which now includes, spending 1.4 million a day while trying to enslave Americans for profit based on their sickness and desperation.</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html" title="washingtonpost.com">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the Wallstreet bail out was signed into law by George W. Bush.But I do agree that this health care reform bill is shady .
If we wanted real reform , it would be NOT FOR PROFIT insurance .
It would be a single payer government program where we all pay into... and all benefit from without the middle man ( insurance company ) in the middle with their excessive profit and administrative costs.This bill is corporate welfare at its worst.I dont trust either party .
Both simply represent the corporations .
The American citizen has no representation.The health insurance industry spent 1.4 million dollars PER DAY on lobbying against reform .
That is the kind of access corporations have .
We the people do not have this access .
There are two Americas.The odd thing is... that 1.4 million per day... comes from our insurance payments .
ITS OUR MONEY... and Instead of it being used to care for the sick... its being used to maintain the disgusting practices of the insurance industry... which now includes , spending 1.4 million a day while trying to enslave Americans for profit based on their sickness and desperation.http : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html [ washingtonpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the Wallstreet bail out was signed into law by George W. Bush.But I do agree that this health care reform bill is shady.
If we wanted real reform, it would be NOT FOR PROFIT insurance.
It would be a single payer government program where we all pay into... and all benefit from without the middle man (insurance company) in the middle with their excessive profit and administrative costs.This bill is corporate welfare at its worst.I dont trust either party.
Both simply represent the corporations.
The American citizen has no representation.The health insurance industry spent 1.4 million dollars PER DAY on lobbying against reform.
That is the kind of access corporations have.
We the people do not have this access.
There are two Americas.The odd thing is... that 1.4 million per day... comes from our insurance payments.
ITS OUR MONEY... and Instead of it being used to care for the sick... its being used to maintain the disgusting practices of the insurance industry... which now includes, spending 1.4 million a day while trying to enslave Americans for profit based on their sickness and desperation.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html [washingtonpost.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543896</id>
	<title>Option A or Option B</title>
	<author>OrwellianLurker</author>
	<datestamp>1268993640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Option A or Option B is how the health care "debate" is being presented. I don't mind a single payer system. I just don't want the Federal government doing it. If your state wants it, fine. However, the polls are clearly showing that health care reform as it is being presented by Congress is NOT wanted by the American people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Option A or Option B is how the health care " debate " is being presented .
I do n't mind a single payer system .
I just do n't want the Federal government doing it .
If your state wants it , fine .
However , the polls are clearly showing that health care reform as it is being presented by Congress is NOT wanted by the American people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Option A or Option B is how the health care "debate" is being presented.
I don't mind a single payer system.
I just don't want the Federal government doing it.
If your state wants it, fine.
However, the polls are clearly showing that health care reform as it is being presented by Congress is NOT wanted by the American people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541562</id>
	<title>Foxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269026760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never trust a.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never trust a .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never trust a.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541648</id>
	<title>Re:Comunisam</title>
	<author>ScottyB</author>
	<datestamp>1269027120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fascism?  Maybe oligarchy would be more appropriate.  Not sure how you end up subordinating your life to the state by having to buy health insurance.  I'd say you, my friend, just violated Godwin's law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fascism ?
Maybe oligarchy would be more appropriate .
Not sure how you end up subordinating your life to the state by having to buy health insurance .
I 'd say you , my friend , just violated Godwin 's law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fascism?
Maybe oligarchy would be more appropriate.
Not sure how you end up subordinating your life to the state by having to buy health insurance.
I'd say you, my friend, just violated Godwin's law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535878</id>
	<title>They don't know what they're doing.</title>
	<author>atomlbomb</author>
	<datestamp>1269009480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Obama has said that with this bill employer's healthcare costs will go down 3000\%.  Either he doesn't understand the math or he thinks health insurance companies are going to pay employer's.  I think he thinks people are stupid and will think to themselves 3000\%, my boss is going to save so much money.  Do we want someone like that controlling our healthcare?

2. Everybody has to get insurance even if they don't want to. (What country are these people living in?)  What happened to freedom of personal choice?

3. Insuring 30 million people will not make anything cheaper.

4. If the health care system is screwed up who could really think that the Feds could make it better if they controlled it?  Think about how efficient our Fed. Govt. is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Obama has said that with this bill employer 's healthcare costs will go down 3000 \ % .
Either he does n't understand the math or he thinks health insurance companies are going to pay employer 's .
I think he thinks people are stupid and will think to themselves 3000 \ % , my boss is going to save so much money .
Do we want someone like that controlling our healthcare ?
2. Everybody has to get insurance even if they do n't want to .
( What country are these people living in ?
) What happened to freedom of personal choice ?
3. Insuring 30 million people will not make anything cheaper .
4. If the health care system is screwed up who could really think that the Feds could make it better if they controlled it ?
Think about how efficient our Fed .
Govt. is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Obama has said that with this bill employer's healthcare costs will go down 3000\%.
Either he doesn't understand the math or he thinks health insurance companies are going to pay employer's.
I think he thinks people are stupid and will think to themselves 3000\%, my boss is going to save so much money.
Do we want someone like that controlling our healthcare?
2. Everybody has to get insurance even if they don't want to.
(What country are these people living in?
)  What happened to freedom of personal choice?
3. Insuring 30 million people will not make anything cheaper.
4. If the health care system is screwed up who could really think that the Feds could make it better if they controlled it?
Think about how efficient our Fed.
Govt. is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540800</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269023640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's nothing like the health care bill we should have had, something to create a health care system comparable to other modern countries.  The Democrats have no backbone and kept watering it down and morphing it until it was only vaguely acceptable to just barely enough of them to possibly pass.  This sort of thing leads to awful legislation.</p></div><p>While the democrats may not have a lot of backbone, the revisions to the bill aren't entirely their fault.  Since the republicans have universally opposed the bill for reasons largely unrelated to its content, the democrats had to craft a bill that would get universal approval.  Have you ever tried to get 60 people to agree on a semi-complicated topic?  Now that they are going to push it through with reconciliation, they don't need unanamous approval and some of the sillier provisions (the nebraska kickback for example) are getting stripped back out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nothing like the health care bill we should have had , something to create a health care system comparable to other modern countries .
The Democrats have no backbone and kept watering it down and morphing it until it was only vaguely acceptable to just barely enough of them to possibly pass .
This sort of thing leads to awful legislation.While the democrats may not have a lot of backbone , the revisions to the bill are n't entirely their fault .
Since the republicans have universally opposed the bill for reasons largely unrelated to its content , the democrats had to craft a bill that would get universal approval .
Have you ever tried to get 60 people to agree on a semi-complicated topic ?
Now that they are going to push it through with reconciliation , they do n't need unanamous approval and some of the sillier provisions ( the nebraska kickback for example ) are getting stripped back out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nothing like the health care bill we should have had, something to create a health care system comparable to other modern countries.
The Democrats have no backbone and kept watering it down and morphing it until it was only vaguely acceptable to just barely enough of them to possibly pass.
This sort of thing leads to awful legislation.While the democrats may not have a lot of backbone, the revisions to the bill aren't entirely their fault.
Since the republicans have universally opposed the bill for reasons largely unrelated to its content, the democrats had to craft a bill that would get universal approval.
Have you ever tried to get 60 people to agree on a semi-complicated topic?
Now that they are going to push it through with reconciliation, they don't need unanamous approval and some of the sillier provisions (the nebraska kickback for example) are getting stripped back out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535532</id>
	<title>wait . . . dude . . . what?</title>
	<author>babboo65</author>
	<datestamp>1269008400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still reading and wondering HOW this applies or even belongs in this forum.  This accomplishes nothing but to start the much-heated bantering again.</p><p>This is a hot-button POLITICAL issue that *supposedly* bears no value here unless we find there is hidden wording (what?  in over 2000 pages of legislation from OUR congress? I must be off my rocker!) pertaining to the way data or information or privacy will be (ab)used in the future whether this pork-laden by-product passes or not.</p><p>In the end isn't this OP trolling??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still reading and wondering HOW this applies or even belongs in this forum .
This accomplishes nothing but to start the much-heated bantering again.This is a hot-button POLITICAL issue that * supposedly * bears no value here unless we find there is hidden wording ( what ?
in over 2000 pages of legislation from OUR congress ?
I must be off my rocker !
) pertaining to the way data or information or privacy will be ( ab ) used in the future whether this pork-laden by-product passes or not.In the end is n't this OP trolling ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still reading and wondering HOW this applies or even belongs in this forum.
This accomplishes nothing but to start the much-heated bantering again.This is a hot-button POLITICAL issue that *supposedly* bears no value here unless we find there is hidden wording (what?
in over 2000 pages of legislation from OUR congress?
I must be off my rocker!
) pertaining to the way data or information or privacy will be (ab)used in the future whether this pork-laden by-product passes or not.In the end isn't this OP trolling?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538186</id>
	<title>Could KISS be applied to the medical sector?</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1269015300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could the KISS principle be applied to the medical sector? ("Keep It Simple, Stupid"). For example, how about a simple system without insurance in which everyone pays the doctor or hospital a price that is proportional to their income? would that work? would it be fair? would it create problems?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could the KISS principle be applied to the medical sector ?
( " Keep It Simple , Stupid " ) .
For example , how about a simple system without insurance in which everyone pays the doctor or hospital a price that is proportional to their income ?
would that work ?
would it be fair ?
would it create problems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could the KISS principle be applied to the medical sector?
("Keep It Simple, Stupid").
For example, how about a simple system without insurance in which everyone pays the doctor or hospital a price that is proportional to their income?
would that work?
would it be fair?
would it create problems?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536286</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>nolfox</author>
	<datestamp>1269010620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The AMA controls the state funding for universities?  That is interesting.</p><p>Lots of specialties are high paying, but as we are talking about this specific bill, which is an attempt to bring insurance to more people it would make sense to look at those specific specialties that will see these new patients (the primary care docs).</p><p>Pediatricians:  they are on the low end of the scale.  More specialized pediatricians like developmental pediatricians cannot even practice because the medicaid billing rates are so low they do not even cover office costs.  So most dev. peds. have to do general peds.</p><p>Child and adolescent psychiatrists:    in canada they make 3 times what they do in the US</p><p>psychiatrists: make about twice in canada.</p><p>GP: in canada they make 2-3 times what they make in the US.</p><p>If the mighty AMA is keeping salaries artificially high, then why are the salaries so low compared to other countries?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The AMA controls the state funding for universities ?
That is interesting.Lots of specialties are high paying , but as we are talking about this specific bill , which is an attempt to bring insurance to more people it would make sense to look at those specific specialties that will see these new patients ( the primary care docs ) .Pediatricians : they are on the low end of the scale .
More specialized pediatricians like developmental pediatricians can not even practice because the medicaid billing rates are so low they do not even cover office costs .
So most dev .
peds. have to do general peds.Child and adolescent psychiatrists : in canada they make 3 times what they do in the USpsychiatrists : make about twice in canada.GP : in canada they make 2-3 times what they make in the US.If the mighty AMA is keeping salaries artificially high , then why are the salaries so low compared to other countries ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AMA controls the state funding for universities?
That is interesting.Lots of specialties are high paying, but as we are talking about this specific bill, which is an attempt to bring insurance to more people it would make sense to look at those specific specialties that will see these new patients (the primary care docs).Pediatricians:  they are on the low end of the scale.
More specialized pediatricians like developmental pediatricians cannot even practice because the medicaid billing rates are so low they do not even cover office costs.
So most dev.
peds. have to do general peds.Child and adolescent psychiatrists:    in canada they make 3 times what they do in the USpsychiatrists: make about twice in canada.GP: in canada they make 2-3 times what they make in the US.If the mighty AMA is keeping salaries artificially high, then why are the salaries so low compared to other countries?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535158</id>
	<title>Very expensive half-assed bill</title>
	<author>jjo</author>
	<datestamp>1269007200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you might expect, this bill is heavy on the benefits and light on the necessary pain.  There's virtually only one effective cost-control measure, the tax on high-cost health benefits, and that has been pushed off so far in the future that it will be killed before it sees the light of day.  The bill recognizes that coverage of pre-existing conditions requires an individual mandate, but then implements it in a half-assed way that won't achieve the objective of forcing healthy people to get coverage.
(It also puts a dual drag on job growth by both raising taxes on private investment and directly increasing the cost of employing people.  Way to go.)</p><p>
I would much prefer a bill that provided funds to the states to let them structure their own solutions to the health-care problem, as Massachusetts has done.  But the top-down command-and-control midset in Washington is too strong for that.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you might expect , this bill is heavy on the benefits and light on the necessary pain .
There 's virtually only one effective cost-control measure , the tax on high-cost health benefits , and that has been pushed off so far in the future that it will be killed before it sees the light of day .
The bill recognizes that coverage of pre-existing conditions requires an individual mandate , but then implements it in a half-assed way that wo n't achieve the objective of forcing healthy people to get coverage .
( It also puts a dual drag on job growth by both raising taxes on private investment and directly increasing the cost of employing people .
Way to go .
) I would much prefer a bill that provided funds to the states to let them structure their own solutions to the health-care problem , as Massachusetts has done .
But the top-down command-and-control midset in Washington is too strong for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you might expect, this bill is heavy on the benefits and light on the necessary pain.
There's virtually only one effective cost-control measure, the tax on high-cost health benefits, and that has been pushed off so far in the future that it will be killed before it sees the light of day.
The bill recognizes that coverage of pre-existing conditions requires an individual mandate, but then implements it in a half-assed way that won't achieve the objective of forcing healthy people to get coverage.
(It also puts a dual drag on job growth by both raising taxes on private investment and directly increasing the cost of employing people.
Way to go.
)
I would much prefer a bill that provided funds to the states to let them structure their own solutions to the health-care problem, as Massachusetts has done.
But the top-down command-and-control midset in Washington is too strong for that.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535354</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Original post was deleted.    Odd.</p><p>By entitlement generation, I am assuming you are discussing the baby boomers, correct?  Because it is the boomer generation, as a result of their profligate spending,  That is the first in American history to be leaving things worse off for their children.  This is the same generation that voted in large numbers for the leaders of the "me" first principles?</p><p>Just want to make sure we are all talking about the same entitlement generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Original post was deleted .
Odd.By entitlement generation , I am assuming you are discussing the baby boomers , correct ?
Because it is the boomer generation , as a result of their profligate spending , That is the first in American history to be leaving things worse off for their children .
This is the same generation that voted in large numbers for the leaders of the " me " first principles ? Just want to make sure we are all talking about the same entitlement generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Original post was deleted.
Odd.By entitlement generation, I am assuming you are discussing the baby boomers, correct?
Because it is the boomer generation, as a result of their profligate spending,  That is the first in American history to be leaving things worse off for their children.
This is the same generation that voted in large numbers for the leaders of the "me" first principles?Just want to make sure we are all talking about the same entitlement generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536156</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1269010200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad.</p></div><p>Cute, that almost makes it sound like you added meaningful information to the discussion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad.Cute , that almost makes it sound like you added meaningful information to the discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad.Cute, that almost makes it sound like you added meaningful information to the discussion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536408</id>
	<title>This bill make economic sense</title>
	<author>JBoelke</author>
	<datestamp>1269010920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  Currently the U.S spends the largest amount of it's Gross Domestic Product on health care 15\%, then any other country.   The next largest spender is Switzerland at 11\%.   So the U.S. spends 4\% on health care then next largest spender.
  With this additional spending does this mean that the U.S. has a higher life expectancy, then any other country?
   No.   The U.S life expectancy is ranked 50th in the world.
   The current system does not produce good results.  Other systems do, and it is good that the USA is going to change to a better system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently the U.S spends the largest amount of it 's Gross Domestic Product on health care 15 \ % , then any other country .
The next largest spender is Switzerland at 11 \ % .
So the U.S. spends 4 \ % on health care then next largest spender .
With this additional spending does this mean that the U.S. has a higher life expectancy , then any other country ?
No. The U.S life expectancy is ranked 50th in the world .
The current system does not produce good results .
Other systems do , and it is good that the USA is going to change to a better system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Currently the U.S spends the largest amount of it's Gross Domestic Product on health care 15\%, then any other country.
The next largest spender is Switzerland at 11\%.
So the U.S. spends 4\% on health care then next largest spender.
With this additional spending does this mean that the U.S. has a higher life expectancy, then any other country?
No.   The U.S life expectancy is ranked 50th in the world.
The current system does not produce good results.
Other systems do, and it is good that the USA is going to change to a better system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537408</id>
	<title>Re:The bill appears to suck but....</title>
	<author>Petron</author>
	<datestamp>1269013440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The issue here is how sue-happy the US is.  Sure you had a $1,000 bill to 15 mins of X-rays, and talking to a couple of doctors, but due to how the courts decide things they have to bring in a circus to deal with your arm. Lets break it down.
<br> <br>
You go in and say your arm hurts. The doc thinks it's fine, but if there is the slightest chance of any fracture, he could get sued. So he has to get an X-Ray done. He can't do the X-Ray, even tho it's really Stand here, point and click... Because he's not an X-Ray specialist. Anything missed, it's his fault. So they have to get a X-Ray specialist to take a few X-Rays. The Specialist can't develop the film because they aren't an expert at film development. They are an expert at "Stand there" and click.  The Lab tech in charge of developing X-Rays hands the Medical Assistant to deliver them to the doc that can see there isn't anything wrong, but he's not an expert in arm-joint structure damage, so they have to refer you to another doctor that is an expert and have them tell you that you sprained your shoulder and need to do a couple of stretches for a week.  Plus add in the X-Ray machine repair tech that has to verify the machine is working correctly on a regular basis, the stock personal that has to make sure the film is fresh and free of contamination. And the bigillion other things I'm missing...  All of those things have a cost tied to them and THAT is why health care is so expensive.
<br> <br>
We live in a sue-happy country. You are put in a wheelchair in hospitals and wheeled around because you may trip over your own feet and sue the hospital. Hospitals have to cover EVERY possible entry point for a lawsuit, no matter how ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue here is how sue-happy the US is .
Sure you had a $ 1,000 bill to 15 mins of X-rays , and talking to a couple of doctors , but due to how the courts decide things they have to bring in a circus to deal with your arm .
Lets break it down .
You go in and say your arm hurts .
The doc thinks it 's fine , but if there is the slightest chance of any fracture , he could get sued .
So he has to get an X-Ray done .
He ca n't do the X-Ray , even tho it 's really Stand here , point and click... Because he 's not an X-Ray specialist .
Anything missed , it 's his fault .
So they have to get a X-Ray specialist to take a few X-Rays .
The Specialist ca n't develop the film because they are n't an expert at film development .
They are an expert at " Stand there " and click .
The Lab tech in charge of developing X-Rays hands the Medical Assistant to deliver them to the doc that can see there is n't anything wrong , but he 's not an expert in arm-joint structure damage , so they have to refer you to another doctor that is an expert and have them tell you that you sprained your shoulder and need to do a couple of stretches for a week .
Plus add in the X-Ray machine repair tech that has to verify the machine is working correctly on a regular basis , the stock personal that has to make sure the film is fresh and free of contamination .
And the bigillion other things I 'm missing... All of those things have a cost tied to them and THAT is why health care is so expensive .
We live in a sue-happy country .
You are put in a wheelchair in hospitals and wheeled around because you may trip over your own feet and sue the hospital .
Hospitals have to cover EVERY possible entry point for a lawsuit , no matter how ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue here is how sue-happy the US is.
Sure you had a $1,000 bill to 15 mins of X-rays, and talking to a couple of doctors, but due to how the courts decide things they have to bring in a circus to deal with your arm.
Lets break it down.
You go in and say your arm hurts.
The doc thinks it's fine, but if there is the slightest chance of any fracture, he could get sued.
So he has to get an X-Ray done.
He can't do the X-Ray, even tho it's really Stand here, point and click... Because he's not an X-Ray specialist.
Anything missed, it's his fault.
So they have to get a X-Ray specialist to take a few X-Rays.
The Specialist can't develop the film because they aren't an expert at film development.
They are an expert at "Stand there" and click.
The Lab tech in charge of developing X-Rays hands the Medical Assistant to deliver them to the doc that can see there isn't anything wrong, but he's not an expert in arm-joint structure damage, so they have to refer you to another doctor that is an expert and have them tell you that you sprained your shoulder and need to do a couple of stretches for a week.
Plus add in the X-Ray machine repair tech that has to verify the machine is working correctly on a regular basis, the stock personal that has to make sure the film is fresh and free of contamination.
And the bigillion other things I'm missing...  All of those things have a cost tied to them and THAT is why health care is so expensive.
We live in a sue-happy country.
You are put in a wheelchair in hospitals and wheeled around because you may trip over your own feet and sue the hospital.
Hospitals have to cover EVERY possible entry point for a lawsuit, no matter how ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536302</id>
	<title>I give up.</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1269010680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only reason I am opposed to it is because my taxes will go up; but they are going to go up anyway.  If my taxes don't go up it will only be because we are increasing our debt, which will in turn devalue my dollar.  In either case I will be poorer because of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason I am opposed to it is because my taxes will go up ; but they are going to go up anyway .
If my taxes do n't go up it will only be because we are increasing our debt , which will in turn devalue my dollar .
In either case I will be poorer because of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason I am opposed to it is because my taxes will go up; but they are going to go up anyway.
If my taxes don't go up it will only be because we are increasing our debt, which will in turn devalue my dollar.
In either case I will be poorer because of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538326</id>
	<title>Health Care analysis</title>
	<author>aretae</author>
	<datestamp>1269015720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assumptions behind the question are not quite right.

<p>The health care problem in America is not what is being said in most discussions.  There are actually 6 problems, 1 big, 2 little, 2 unsolveable, 1 crazy, and 1 hidden.

</p><p>The big problem is that the government spends at least about 1 in 2 health care dollars, and the prices are going up..so the government is going to have a money problem around health care real soon here.  If we don't cap the $ spent by the government on health care, we're all up a creek.

</p><p>The first little problem is that in healthcare, there are no real incentives to cut costs.  The consumer, the provider, the payer, and the decider are all different people, which makes things bad.  In addition, costs are hidden further by the fact that most Americans with insurance have the insurance paid by their employer (not seeing the full cost of the insurance), insurance regulations which don't allow (real) competition on which services are covered, and huge tax advantages for employer-provided insurance.

</p><p>The second little problem is that in America, 50\% of healthcare spending occurs in the last 6 months of a person's life.  A big portion of our cost vs. other countries costs is sitting right here.

</p><p>Unsolveable problem #1 is that the supply of medical care is massively restricted in the US.  In some other countries, there are Bachelors' of Medicine who can do simple stuff like give shots, draw blood for tests, etc.  There are not huge scary FDA "effectiveness trials" which insanely increase the price of drugs (well, and they piggyback off the drugs developed by relying on US profits).

</p><p>Unsolveable problem #2 is that new medical procedures, which sometimes work better, are often more expensive.  Basically, all older care is dropping in price, just like all other products...but there's so much new stuff....

</p><p>The crazy problem is that no one actually knows what works/is cost effective.  It's well known in medicine that about 50\% of all medical spending has no discernable impact at all.

</p><p>The hidden problem is that it remains important to get new procedures and drugs, so as to continue (despite not knowing which ones work, some do) getting healthier.

</p><p>Data comparison:
</p><ul>
<li>The US spends about 17\% of GDP on health care, and it's growing at ~8\%</li>
<li>The single payer systems (Commonwealth, Europe) have better health results, and spend between 9-13\% of GDP on health care (from a much poorer base), and it's growing at about 8\%.</li>
<li>Singapore's system has even better health results, spends ~4\% of GDP, and it's growing at ~4\%.  They use required, tax-financed HSAs, with catastrophic government-provided insurance.</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assumptions behind the question are not quite right .
The health care problem in America is not what is being said in most discussions .
There are actually 6 problems , 1 big , 2 little , 2 unsolveable , 1 crazy , and 1 hidden .
The big problem is that the government spends at least about 1 in 2 health care dollars , and the prices are going up..so the government is going to have a money problem around health care real soon here .
If we do n't cap the $ spent by the government on health care , we 're all up a creek .
The first little problem is that in healthcare , there are no real incentives to cut costs .
The consumer , the provider , the payer , and the decider are all different people , which makes things bad .
In addition , costs are hidden further by the fact that most Americans with insurance have the insurance paid by their employer ( not seeing the full cost of the insurance ) , insurance regulations which do n't allow ( real ) competition on which services are covered , and huge tax advantages for employer-provided insurance .
The second little problem is that in America , 50 \ % of healthcare spending occurs in the last 6 months of a person 's life .
A big portion of our cost vs. other countries costs is sitting right here .
Unsolveable problem # 1 is that the supply of medical care is massively restricted in the US .
In some other countries , there are Bachelors ' of Medicine who can do simple stuff like give shots , draw blood for tests , etc .
There are not huge scary FDA " effectiveness trials " which insanely increase the price of drugs ( well , and they piggyback off the drugs developed by relying on US profits ) .
Unsolveable problem # 2 is that new medical procedures , which sometimes work better , are often more expensive .
Basically , all older care is dropping in price , just like all other products...but there 's so much new stuff... . The crazy problem is that no one actually knows what works/is cost effective .
It 's well known in medicine that about 50 \ % of all medical spending has no discernable impact at all .
The hidden problem is that it remains important to get new procedures and drugs , so as to continue ( despite not knowing which ones work , some do ) getting healthier .
Data comparison : The US spends about 17 \ % of GDP on health care , and it 's growing at ~ 8 \ % The single payer systems ( Commonwealth , Europe ) have better health results , and spend between 9-13 \ % of GDP on health care ( from a much poorer base ) , and it 's growing at about 8 \ % .
Singapore 's system has even better health results , spends ~ 4 \ % of GDP , and it 's growing at ~ 4 \ % .
They use required , tax-financed HSAs , with catastrophic government-provided insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assumptions behind the question are not quite right.
The health care problem in America is not what is being said in most discussions.
There are actually 6 problems, 1 big, 2 little, 2 unsolveable, 1 crazy, and 1 hidden.
The big problem is that the government spends at least about 1 in 2 health care dollars, and the prices are going up..so the government is going to have a money problem around health care real soon here.
If we don't cap the $ spent by the government on health care, we're all up a creek.
The first little problem is that in healthcare, there are no real incentives to cut costs.
The consumer, the provider, the payer, and the decider are all different people, which makes things bad.
In addition, costs are hidden further by the fact that most Americans with insurance have the insurance paid by their employer (not seeing the full cost of the insurance), insurance regulations which don't allow (real) competition on which services are covered, and huge tax advantages for employer-provided insurance.
The second little problem is that in America, 50\% of healthcare spending occurs in the last 6 months of a person's life.
A big portion of our cost vs. other countries costs is sitting right here.
Unsolveable problem #1 is that the supply of medical care is massively restricted in the US.
In some other countries, there are Bachelors' of Medicine who can do simple stuff like give shots, draw blood for tests, etc.
There are not huge scary FDA "effectiveness trials" which insanely increase the price of drugs (well, and they piggyback off the drugs developed by relying on US profits).
Unsolveable problem #2 is that new medical procedures, which sometimes work better, are often more expensive.
Basically, all older care is dropping in price, just like all other products...but there's so much new stuff....

The crazy problem is that no one actually knows what works/is cost effective.
It's well known in medicine that about 50\% of all medical spending has no discernable impact at all.
The hidden problem is that it remains important to get new procedures and drugs, so as to continue (despite not knowing which ones work, some do) getting healthier.
Data comparison:

The US spends about 17\% of GDP on health care, and it's growing at ~8\%
The single payer systems (Commonwealth, Europe) have better health results, and spend between 9-13\% of GDP on health care (from a much poorer base), and it's growing at about 8\%.
Singapore's system has even better health results, spends ~4\% of GDP, and it's growing at ~4\%.
They use required, tax-financed HSAs, with catastrophic government-provided insurance.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535424</id>
	<title>The Pointy Haired Boss Knows Best, People</title>
	<author>yup2000</author>
	<datestamp>1269008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do software.... all software has bugs. Bills are a lot like software that is interpreted by people. I'm a little bit skeptical of something this large being thrown into production all at once with almost no testing to replace an aging program that has worked (albeit with flaws) for decades. This has all the feel of a Dilbert comic, but with a completely new level of pointy haired bossedness (Ph. B.)... we tried this once where I work on a $20millon project, and it ended up costing over $75M to fix!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do software.... all software has bugs .
Bills are a lot like software that is interpreted by people .
I 'm a little bit skeptical of something this large being thrown into production all at once with almost no testing to replace an aging program that has worked ( albeit with flaws ) for decades .
This has all the feel of a Dilbert comic , but with a completely new level of pointy haired bossedness ( Ph .
B. ) ... we tried this once where I work on a $ 20millon project , and it ended up costing over $ 75M to fix !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do software.... all software has bugs.
Bills are a lot like software that is interpreted by people.
I'm a little bit skeptical of something this large being thrown into production all at once with almost no testing to replace an aging program that has worked (albeit with flaws) for decades.
This has all the feel of a Dilbert comic, but with a completely new level of pointy haired bossedness (Ph.
B.)... we tried this once where I work on a $20millon project, and it ended up costing over $75M to fix!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540184</id>
	<title>Re:If the left had written the bill</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1269021420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because in the U.S. left is currently defined as favoring increased government power. In Europe there are no major political parties that do not openly favor increasing government power in one way or another.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because in the U.S. left is currently defined as favoring increased government power .
In Europe there are no major political parties that do not openly favor increasing government power in one way or another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because in the U.S. left is currently defined as favoring increased government power.
In Europe there are no major political parties that do not openly favor increasing government power in one way or another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The most important thing is not if the government is able run health as efficiently as possible. The important question is who earns money on what.

In case of 100\% private health care, everybody (even insurance companies!) earns money when someone is sick. In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick. So they have an incentive to keep people well and only recommend useful medications.

I think that's the important incentive here to take into consideration. Do people really want a system where the doctor earns more money if you're more sick and so on?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most important thing is not if the government is able run health as efficiently as possible .
The important question is who earns money on what .
In case of 100 \ % private health care , everybody ( even insurance companies !
) earns money when someone is sick .
In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick .
So they have an incentive to keep people well and only recommend useful medications .
I think that 's the important incentive here to take into consideration .
Do people really want a system where the doctor earns more money if you 're more sick and so on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most important thing is not if the government is able run health as efficiently as possible.
The important question is who earns money on what.
In case of 100\% private health care, everybody (even insurance companies!
) earns money when someone is sick.
In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick.
So they have an incentive to keep people well and only recommend useful medications.
I think that's the important incentive here to take into consideration.
Do people really want a system where the doctor earns more money if you're more sick and so on?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536244</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional Mandate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the same way they mandate you buying B2 bombers and moon landers I would imagine....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the same way they mandate you buying B2 bombers and moon landers I would imagine... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the same way they mandate you buying B2 bombers and moon landers I would imagine....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535388</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very Well Said !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very Well Said !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very Well Said !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535116</id>
	<title>CBO projections</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A friend recently asked me to explain in plain English how this healthcare bill is going to save Americans money by reducing the budget deficit. This guy answered it simply, and better than I ever could:<br>http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/19113</p><p>Bonus: the doctor who wrote this has  "Shadowfax" as his online handle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend recently asked me to explain in plain English how this healthcare bill is going to save Americans money by reducing the budget deficit .
This guy answered it simply , and better than I ever could : http : //www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/19113Bonus : the doctor who wrote this has " Shadowfax " as his online handle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend recently asked me to explain in plain English how this healthcare bill is going to save Americans money by reducing the budget deficit.
This guy answered it simply, and better than I ever could:http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/19113Bonus: the doctor who wrote this has  "Shadowfax" as his online handle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538274</id>
	<title>Over my dead body!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess after they shoot me for being a tax resister they'll have to shoot me again for paying for health care without the use of government force!</p><p>They can have my fat stinking corpse, but not my obedience!</p><p>(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess after they shoot me for being a tax resister they 'll have to shoot me again for paying for health care without the use of government force ! They can have my fat stinking corpse , but not my obedience !
( Signed : Alex Libman 's sock-puppet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess after they shoot me for being a tax resister they'll have to shoot me again for paying for health care without the use of government force!They can have my fat stinking corpse, but not my obedience!
(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537638</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think people have failed to see the actual problem with health care, it simply comes down to the excessive costs of services provided, for example my mother was in the hospital for 1 night and was charged over $800 just for the room, then on the next bill the insurance came along and readjusted the amount down to about $300 for a night. Can you see an issue here? The insurance companies pay less than half what an individual would be responsible for with out insurance. This is the same issue all over the medical field, why do you have to pay $200 dollars to go to the doctors office just for the doctor to say yes you are stick here is a prescription for which I get paid by the drug company on the side to write. What the American heath system needs is regulation, and not an insurance package that will only make the problem larger, heath care is something people should be able to afford on their normal salary and not something so expensive you need to have insurance for. As for you euros and Canadians, bugger off I don't want my government to tell me I must pay into a heath care system, which I consider to be 1 step above leech attaching / head drilling to remove evil spirits witch doctors of yesterday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people have failed to see the actual problem with health care , it simply comes down to the excessive costs of services provided , for example my mother was in the hospital for 1 night and was charged over $ 800 just for the room , then on the next bill the insurance came along and readjusted the amount down to about $ 300 for a night .
Can you see an issue here ?
The insurance companies pay less than half what an individual would be responsible for with out insurance .
This is the same issue all over the medical field , why do you have to pay $ 200 dollars to go to the doctors office just for the doctor to say yes you are stick here is a prescription for which I get paid by the drug company on the side to write .
What the American heath system needs is regulation , and not an insurance package that will only make the problem larger , heath care is something people should be able to afford on their normal salary and not something so expensive you need to have insurance for .
As for you euros and Canadians , bugger off I do n't want my government to tell me I must pay into a heath care system , which I consider to be 1 step above leech attaching / head drilling to remove evil spirits witch doctors of yesterday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people have failed to see the actual problem with health care, it simply comes down to the excessive costs of services provided, for example my mother was in the hospital for 1 night and was charged over $800 just for the room, then on the next bill the insurance came along and readjusted the amount down to about $300 for a night.
Can you see an issue here?
The insurance companies pay less than half what an individual would be responsible for with out insurance.
This is the same issue all over the medical field, why do you have to pay $200 dollars to go to the doctors office just for the doctor to say yes you are stick here is a prescription for which I get paid by the drug company on the side to write.
What the American heath system needs is regulation, and not an insurance package that will only make the problem larger, heath care is something people should be able to afford on their normal salary and not something so expensive you need to have insurance for.
As for you euros and Canadians, bugger off I don't want my government to tell me I must pay into a heath care system, which I consider to be 1 step above leech attaching / head drilling to remove evil spirits witch doctors of yesterday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31547546</id>
	<title>Re:Random health care thoughts</title>
	<author>tgrigsby</author>
	<datestamp>1269023760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sure about that?  I tried to get to www.goooh.org, and there was a cyber-squatter there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sure about that ?
I tried to get to www.goooh.org , and there was a cyber-squatter there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sure about that?
I tried to get to www.goooh.org, and there was a cyber-squatter there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537290</id>
	<title>Are you poor and hurt?</title>
	<author>nooodles</author>
	<datestamp>1269013140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
The States have some great health care as  long as you make enough and do not get sick enough to question it.

All Hail Faux News!

Every single person who votes should disclose how much of their money comes from health insurance companies.
That is directly and indirectly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The States have some great health care as long as you make enough and do not get sick enough to question it .
All Hail Faux News !
Every single person who votes should disclose how much of their money comes from health insurance companies .
That is directly and indirectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The States have some great health care as  long as you make enough and do not get sick enough to question it.
All Hail Faux News!
Every single person who votes should disclose how much of their money comes from health insurance companies.
That is directly and indirectly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536654</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>aegisvirgae</author>
	<datestamp>1269011700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really the 10th amendment that is going to govern this issue. This issue will be governed under the commerce clause of the constitution.  This means Congress will get to do it.  Right now, legal scholars have a great debate going on concerning the commerce clause.  The SCOTUS has defined it so broadly that just about anything that Congress wants to do it can in the name of interstate commerce.  Healthcare is something that affects commerce across the states.  That means Congress has a very broad discretion to meddle into it.  This legacy comes down from the reinterpretation of both the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause that occurred in the same era as New Deal legislation.</p><p>In Modern times, the 10th amendment is (normally) only violated when Congress attempts to commandeer a legislative or other process of the states.  An example is the old laws where: Congress provides that each state must arrange for toxic waste disposal of waste generated within its borders.  Congress requires the state to "take title" of the waste if it fails to comply and thus become liable for tort damages stemming from it. (New York v. United States)  Congress can't compel state legislatures to enforce federal policy under the 10th amendment.</p><p>Another example is administrative offices: Congress can not compel a state's sheriff's to perform background checks on applicants for handgun permits. (Printz v. US) Congress can make it illegal and enforce it with federal agencies, but they can not force a state agency to do anything specifically to enforce federal policy.</p><p>As for the commerce clause, generally, Congress may enact laws that cover four broad categories:</p><p>1. The Channels of interstate commerce:  This covers the regulation of highways, waterways, and air traffic.<br>2. The instrumentalities of commerce: This refers to people and machines (trains and semi trucks) used in carrying out commerce.<br>3. Articles moving in interstate commerce: The goods themselves crossing state lines etc.</p><p>And finally the big catch all that gives them so much power:</p><p>4. Anything "substantially affecting" commerce: So long as the activity is "arguably commercial" then it doesn't matter if the particular activity itself directly affects interstate commerce so long as it is part of a general class of activities that, collectively, substantially affect interstate commerce.</p><p>Medical insurance falls into category 4.  You can't buy insurance over state lines.  That means that most "particular instances" of insurance are not interstate commerce.  However, taken collectively, insurance has a substantial affect on commerce when you look at it countrywide.  Now, you can see all kinds of examples where this will make Congress have an almost unlimited right to legislate.  So many things, when taken in the aggregate, fit this definition.  Legal scholars are still wondering what exactly can Congress -not- do?  Only a few recent cases have put any real limits on it.  It's sad, but we are now seriously waiting to not find out if Congress -can- do a thing.... We're asking "is this one of the rare instances where they -can't- do it?"</p><p>It's messed up, but that's the current state of constitutional law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really the 10th amendment that is going to govern this issue .
This issue will be governed under the commerce clause of the constitution .
This means Congress will get to do it .
Right now , legal scholars have a great debate going on concerning the commerce clause .
The SCOTUS has defined it so broadly that just about anything that Congress wants to do it can in the name of interstate commerce .
Healthcare is something that affects commerce across the states .
That means Congress has a very broad discretion to meddle into it .
This legacy comes down from the reinterpretation of both the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause that occurred in the same era as New Deal legislation.In Modern times , the 10th amendment is ( normally ) only violated when Congress attempts to commandeer a legislative or other process of the states .
An example is the old laws where : Congress provides that each state must arrange for toxic waste disposal of waste generated within its borders .
Congress requires the state to " take title " of the waste if it fails to comply and thus become liable for tort damages stemming from it .
( New York v. United States ) Congress ca n't compel state legislatures to enforce federal policy under the 10th amendment.Another example is administrative offices : Congress can not compel a state 's sheriff 's to perform background checks on applicants for handgun permits .
( Printz v. US ) Congress can make it illegal and enforce it with federal agencies , but they can not force a state agency to do anything specifically to enforce federal policy.As for the commerce clause , generally , Congress may enact laws that cover four broad categories : 1 .
The Channels of interstate commerce : This covers the regulation of highways , waterways , and air traffic.2 .
The instrumentalities of commerce : This refers to people and machines ( trains and semi trucks ) used in carrying out commerce.3 .
Articles moving in interstate commerce : The goods themselves crossing state lines etc.And finally the big catch all that gives them so much power : 4 .
Anything " substantially affecting " commerce : So long as the activity is " arguably commercial " then it does n't matter if the particular activity itself directly affects interstate commerce so long as it is part of a general class of activities that , collectively , substantially affect interstate commerce.Medical insurance falls into category 4 .
You ca n't buy insurance over state lines .
That means that most " particular instances " of insurance are not interstate commerce .
However , taken collectively , insurance has a substantial affect on commerce when you look at it countrywide .
Now , you can see all kinds of examples where this will make Congress have an almost unlimited right to legislate .
So many things , when taken in the aggregate , fit this definition .
Legal scholars are still wondering what exactly can Congress -not- do ?
Only a few recent cases have put any real limits on it .
It 's sad , but we are now seriously waiting to not find out if Congress -can- do a thing.... We 're asking " is this one of the rare instances where they -ca n't- do it ?
" It 's messed up , but that 's the current state of constitutional law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really the 10th amendment that is going to govern this issue.
This issue will be governed under the commerce clause of the constitution.
This means Congress will get to do it.
Right now, legal scholars have a great debate going on concerning the commerce clause.
The SCOTUS has defined it so broadly that just about anything that Congress wants to do it can in the name of interstate commerce.
Healthcare is something that affects commerce across the states.
That means Congress has a very broad discretion to meddle into it.
This legacy comes down from the reinterpretation of both the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause that occurred in the same era as New Deal legislation.In Modern times, the 10th amendment is (normally) only violated when Congress attempts to commandeer a legislative or other process of the states.
An example is the old laws where: Congress provides that each state must arrange for toxic waste disposal of waste generated within its borders.
Congress requires the state to "take title" of the waste if it fails to comply and thus become liable for tort damages stemming from it.
(New York v. United States)  Congress can't compel state legislatures to enforce federal policy under the 10th amendment.Another example is administrative offices: Congress can not compel a state's sheriff's to perform background checks on applicants for handgun permits.
(Printz v. US) Congress can make it illegal and enforce it with federal agencies, but they can not force a state agency to do anything specifically to enforce federal policy.As for the commerce clause, generally, Congress may enact laws that cover four broad categories:1.
The Channels of interstate commerce:  This covers the regulation of highways, waterways, and air traffic.2.
The instrumentalities of commerce: This refers to people and machines (trains and semi trucks) used in carrying out commerce.3.
Articles moving in interstate commerce: The goods themselves crossing state lines etc.And finally the big catch all that gives them so much power:4.
Anything "substantially affecting" commerce: So long as the activity is "arguably commercial" then it doesn't matter if the particular activity itself directly affects interstate commerce so long as it is part of a general class of activities that, collectively, substantially affect interstate commerce.Medical insurance falls into category 4.
You can't buy insurance over state lines.
That means that most "particular instances" of insurance are not interstate commerce.
However, taken collectively, insurance has a substantial affect on commerce when you look at it countrywide.
Now, you can see all kinds of examples where this will make Congress have an almost unlimited right to legislate.
So many things, when taken in the aggregate, fit this definition.
Legal scholars are still wondering what exactly can Congress -not- do?
Only a few recent cases have put any real limits on it.
It's sad, but we are now seriously waiting to not find out if Congress -can- do a thing.... We're asking "is this one of the rare instances where they -can't- do it?
"It's messed up, but that's the current state of constitutional law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535430</id>
	<title>Decide for yourself</title>
	<author>dgreer</author>
	<datestamp>1269008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taco,</p><p>You're old enough to answer this one for yourself.  Look back in your lifetime, as ANY government run project EVER come in on budget or accomplished what it said it would?</p><p>It's not in the best interests of the bureaucrats or politicians to resolve problems, it's in their best interest to appear to WORK on problems.  If the WORK on problems, then more funding and more power can be gotten by saying, "Well, we just don't have enough to get the job done."</p><p>I think Fox does exaggerate things a bit, but if you took Fox on one side of the scale, and NBC on the other, what's in the middle is still pretty damned bad.</p><p>The simple truth is, we cannot afford this and it's never a good thing to give more power to the government.  That has historically always led to problems, and with 15-20\% of our economy involved here, the scale of the problem could become disastrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taco,You 're old enough to answer this one for yourself .
Look back in your lifetime , as ANY government run project EVER come in on budget or accomplished what it said it would ? It 's not in the best interests of the bureaucrats or politicians to resolve problems , it 's in their best interest to appear to WORK on problems .
If the WORK on problems , then more funding and more power can be gotten by saying , " Well , we just do n't have enough to get the job done .
" I think Fox does exaggerate things a bit , but if you took Fox on one side of the scale , and NBC on the other , what 's in the middle is still pretty damned bad.The simple truth is , we can not afford this and it 's never a good thing to give more power to the government .
That has historically always led to problems , and with 15-20 \ % of our economy involved here , the scale of the problem could become disastrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taco,You're old enough to answer this one for yourself.
Look back in your lifetime, as ANY government run project EVER come in on budget or accomplished what it said it would?It's not in the best interests of the bureaucrats or politicians to resolve problems, it's in their best interest to appear to WORK on problems.
If the WORK on problems, then more funding and more power can be gotten by saying, "Well, we just don't have enough to get the job done.
"I think Fox does exaggerate things a bit, but if you took Fox on one side of the scale, and NBC on the other, what's in the middle is still pretty damned bad.The simple truth is, we cannot afford this and it's never a good thing to give more power to the government.
That has historically always led to problems, and with 15-20\% of our economy involved here, the scale of the problem could become disastrous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535320</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhere in between.</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand how someone could say that tort reform is a red herring.</p><p>In terms of the direct financial impact of malpractice insurance and litigation costs, tort reform doesn't help more than a few percent or so.  But in terms of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on unnecessary treatment because doctors are paralyzed to do anything besides order the extra tests and procedures, tort reform would make a HUGE difference.</p><p>Unnecessary treatment should have been dealt with head on, and tort reform is a key part of it since being sued is the excuse that doctors give for ordering all of that and the excuse that insurance companies give for allowing it.  In reality, they LOVE it.  Doctors get paid extra per procedure, and insurance companies just pass the costs on through premiums, making sure to collect their extra percentages.</p><p>Law suits are like terrorism.  They affect the whole system in an extremely disproportionate measure beyond their direct impact due to the way that people change their behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how someone could say that tort reform is a red herring.In terms of the direct financial impact of malpractice insurance and litigation costs , tort reform does n't help more than a few percent or so .
But in terms of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on unnecessary treatment because doctors are paralyzed to do anything besides order the extra tests and procedures , tort reform would make a HUGE difference.Unnecessary treatment should have been dealt with head on , and tort reform is a key part of it since being sued is the excuse that doctors give for ordering all of that and the excuse that insurance companies give for allowing it .
In reality , they LOVE it .
Doctors get paid extra per procedure , and insurance companies just pass the costs on through premiums , making sure to collect their extra percentages.Law suits are like terrorism .
They affect the whole system in an extremely disproportionate measure beyond their direct impact due to the way that people change their behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how someone could say that tort reform is a red herring.In terms of the direct financial impact of malpractice insurance and litigation costs, tort reform doesn't help more than a few percent or so.
But in terms of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on unnecessary treatment because doctors are paralyzed to do anything besides order the extra tests and procedures, tort reform would make a HUGE difference.Unnecessary treatment should have been dealt with head on, and tort reform is a key part of it since being sued is the excuse that doctors give for ordering all of that and the excuse that insurance companies give for allowing it.
In reality, they LOVE it.
Doctors get paid extra per procedure, and insurance companies just pass the costs on through premiums, making sure to collect their extra percentages.Law suits are like terrorism.
They affect the whole system in an extremely disproportionate measure beyond their direct impact due to the way that people change their behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535480</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269008220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;the entitlement generation</p><p>Nobody is entitled to take YOUR money that you earned with Your labor and your body.  We killed-off slavery 150 years ago - why are we trying to revive it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; the entitlement generationNobody is entitled to take YOUR money that you earned with Your labor and your body .
We killed-off slavery 150 years ago - why are we trying to revive it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;the entitlement generationNobody is entitled to take YOUR money that you earned with Your labor and your body.
We killed-off slavery 150 years ago - why are we trying to revive it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536030</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional Mandate</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1269009900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As opposed to mandating citizens purchase car insurance?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to mandating citizens purchase car insurance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to mandating citizens purchase car insurance?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535764</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll change your tune once you have a family, assuming you're not gay. You're obviously not having any annual checkups or medical tests if you only pay $200/year. More often than not, doctors will charge double what they do with insurance companies for cash / self-pay people. It would appear you are avoiding health services, because just walking into a door will give you at least a $100 for a 3 minute consultation. Had your eyes checked lately? Dental care? Don't be fooled into thinking because you don't feel anything you are in great health.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll change your tune once you have a family , assuming you 're not gay .
You 're obviously not having any annual checkups or medical tests if you only pay $ 200/year .
More often than not , doctors will charge double what they do with insurance companies for cash / self-pay people .
It would appear you are avoiding health services , because just walking into a door will give you at least a $ 100 for a 3 minute consultation .
Had your eyes checked lately ?
Dental care ?
Do n't be fooled into thinking because you do n't feel anything you are in great health .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll change your tune once you have a family, assuming you're not gay.
You're obviously not having any annual checkups or medical tests if you only pay $200/year.
More often than not, doctors will charge double what they do with insurance companies for cash / self-pay people.
It would appear you are avoiding health services, because just walking into a door will give you at least a $100 for a 3 minute consultation.
Had your eyes checked lately?
Dental care?
Don't be fooled into thinking because you don't feel anything you are in great health.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535370</id>
	<title>Sure.</title>
	<author>taskiss</author>
	<datestamp>1269007980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Will this bill do what the administration claims to do"?</p><p>Yes it will. It claims to tax the households in the upper 5\% much greater than it does today, it claims to increase insurance costs for a large percentage of folks, and it will re-distribute the wealth it collects into the medical industry to provide health care for the lowest percentage of folks who mostly don't have insurance because they would rather have multiple TV's, cars and luxury items rather than buy health insurance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Will this bill do what the administration claims to do " ? Yes it will .
It claims to tax the households in the upper 5 \ % much greater than it does today , it claims to increase insurance costs for a large percentage of folks , and it will re-distribute the wealth it collects into the medical industry to provide health care for the lowest percentage of folks who mostly do n't have insurance because they would rather have multiple TV 's , cars and luxury items rather than buy health insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Will this bill do what the administration claims to do"?Yes it will.
It claims to tax the households in the upper 5\% much greater than it does today, it claims to increase insurance costs for a large percentage of folks, and it will re-distribute the wealth it collects into the medical industry to provide health care for the lowest percentage of folks who mostly don't have insurance because they would rather have multiple TV's, cars and luxury items rather than buy health insurance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538840</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>Aargau</author>
	<datestamp>1269017040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hope you like shoe, you're going to have to eat it. Paying out of pocket can triple the cost because of a little game of negotiated rates - we know this isn't the real price, so when we reduce it it makes both sides look good, even though it's horribly overpriced. Cash only patients have no leverage since there is no competition based on price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope you like shoe , you 're going to have to eat it .
Paying out of pocket can triple the cost because of a little game of negotiated rates - we know this is n't the real price , so when we reduce it it makes both sides look good , even though it 's horribly overpriced .
Cash only patients have no leverage since there is no competition based on price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope you like shoe, you're going to have to eat it.
Paying out of pocket can triple the cost because of a little game of negotiated rates - we know this isn't the real price, so when we reduce it it makes both sides look good, even though it's horribly overpriced.
Cash only patients have no leverage since there is no competition based on price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535416</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have catastrophic insurance, so if I get cancer and my bills go over $20,000 then THEY will cover the cost.</i> </p><p>That's what they want you to think. Of course, fighting a lawsuit when you're the one who has cancer and five-figure bills to pay, while the other side has a large legal department specialized on just that kind of case, is going to be fun.</p><p>Catastrophic health insurance is a scam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have catastrophic insurance , so if I get cancer and my bills go over $ 20,000 then THEY will cover the cost .
That 's what they want you to think .
Of course , fighting a lawsuit when you 're the one who has cancer and five-figure bills to pay , while the other side has a large legal department specialized on just that kind of case , is going to be fun.Catastrophic health insurance is a scam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have catastrophic insurance, so if I get cancer and my bills go over $20,000 then THEY will cover the cost.
That's what they want you to think.
Of course, fighting a lawsuit when you're the one who has cancer and five-figure bills to pay, while the other side has a large legal department specialized on just that kind of case, is going to be fun.Catastrophic health insurance is a scam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543762</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>clustermonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268993100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In case of 100\% private health care, everybody (even insurance companies!) earns money when someone is sick. In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick.</p></div><p>So where exactly do you think the "government" money goes?  Er, to the doctors (and possibly insurers) of course - the ones the government pays to treat the sick people.  And where does the government get "it's" money?  That's right, the government HAS NO MONEY.  It's all the taxpayer's money, paid by the taxpayers (not to be confused with the group consisting of all American citizens).  So the doctors still make a profit (via the government), and the people still pay that profit (via taxes), and the government sits in the middle taking money out of the system to fund the shuttling of money around.  Adding another party as a paid middleman, and disguising the true cost of healthcare through taxes doesn't (can't) make it any cheaper.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In case of 100 \ % private health care , everybody ( even insurance companies !
) earns money when someone is sick .
In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick.So where exactly do you think the " government " money goes ?
Er , to the doctors ( and possibly insurers ) of course - the ones the government pays to treat the sick people .
And where does the government get " it 's " money ?
That 's right , the government HAS NO MONEY .
It 's all the taxpayer 's money , paid by the taxpayers ( not to be confused with the group consisting of all American citizens ) .
So the doctors still make a profit ( via the government ) , and the people still pay that profit ( via taxes ) , and the government sits in the middle taking money out of the system to fund the shuttling of money around .
Adding another party as a paid middleman , and disguising the true cost of healthcare through taxes does n't ( ca n't ) make it any cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case of 100\% private health care, everybody (even insurance companies!
) earns money when someone is sick.
In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick.So where exactly do you think the "government" money goes?
Er, to the doctors (and possibly insurers) of course - the ones the government pays to treat the sick people.
And where does the government get "it's" money?
That's right, the government HAS NO MONEY.
It's all the taxpayer's money, paid by the taxpayers (not to be confused with the group consisting of all American citizens).
So the doctors still make a profit (via the government), and the people still pay that profit (via taxes), and the government sits in the middle taking money out of the system to fund the shuttling of money around.
Adding another party as a paid middleman, and disguising the true cost of healthcare through taxes doesn't (can't) make it any cheaper.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535978</id>
	<title>Public option &amp; game theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The public option makes the most sense from a game theory perspective: the "players" (insurance companies) in the "game" would have to adapt to a new set of rules, be more competitive, and eventually be more effective in providing services. Is that status quo, where the players all know each other's strategies and plan accordingly to preserve an oligopoly, really what we want?

</p><p> (I love the conservative argument against the public option: "Heavens, how can we expect a private company to *innovate* their way out of a situation, that's anti-capitalist!" Cry me a river, fellas.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The public option makes the most sense from a game theory perspective : the " players " ( insurance companies ) in the " game " would have to adapt to a new set of rules , be more competitive , and eventually be more effective in providing services .
Is that status quo , where the players all know each other 's strategies and plan accordingly to preserve an oligopoly , really what we want ?
( I love the conservative argument against the public option : " Heavens , how can we expect a private company to * innovate * their way out of a situation , that 's anti-capitalist !
" Cry me a river , fellas .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The public option makes the most sense from a game theory perspective: the "players" (insurance companies) in the "game" would have to adapt to a new set of rules, be more competitive, and eventually be more effective in providing services.
Is that status quo, where the players all know each other's strategies and plan accordingly to preserve an oligopoly, really what we want?
(I love the conservative argument against the public option: "Heavens, how can we expect a private company to *innovate* their way out of a situation, that's anti-capitalist!
" Cry me a river, fellas.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535306</id>
	<title>To Big</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1269007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that it is too big. Being able to do a large bill is good politically but not for the american public.  There are a lot of things going on in big bills. Almost everyone has something they don't like about it.  So by passing a bill you really kinda force pass a bunch of bills, with no real debates on each section.</p><p>Smaller bills will be much easer to handle.<br>Laws to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on medical reasons. Probably an easy pass.</p><p>Laws to require everyone to get healthcare a difficult slim pass and probably will take some extra time to perfect.</p><p>Laws about funding for abortions as part of the plan. Probably will be filibuster out. However filibusters take a lot of work and filibustering everything will probably literally kill a party. So they will not overuse the filibuster allowing passing for other details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that it is too big .
Being able to do a large bill is good politically but not for the american public .
There are a lot of things going on in big bills .
Almost everyone has something they do n't like about it .
So by passing a bill you really kinda force pass a bunch of bills , with no real debates on each section.Smaller bills will be much easer to handle.Laws to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on medical reasons .
Probably an easy pass.Laws to require everyone to get healthcare a difficult slim pass and probably will take some extra time to perfect.Laws about funding for abortions as part of the plan .
Probably will be filibuster out .
However filibusters take a lot of work and filibustering everything will probably literally kill a party .
So they will not overuse the filibuster allowing passing for other details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that it is too big.
Being able to do a large bill is good politically but not for the american public.
There are a lot of things going on in big bills.
Almost everyone has something they don't like about it.
So by passing a bill you really kinda force pass a bunch of bills, with no real debates on each section.Smaller bills will be much easer to handle.Laws to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on medical reasons.
Probably an easy pass.Laws to require everyone to get healthcare a difficult slim pass and probably will take some extra time to perfect.Laws about funding for abortions as part of the plan.
Probably will be filibuster out.
However filibusters take a lot of work and filibustering everything will probably literally kill a party.
So they will not overuse the filibuster allowing passing for other details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541284</id>
	<title>Is this even legal?</title>
	<author>Tiger Smile</author>
	<datestamp>1269025500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>   Congress passes all kinds of law which get tossed out. The heal care bill seem like it should be one, because I don't know what the foundation of Constitutional right granted to the Federal government which would allow this. I reserve the right to be completely wrong. But please listen for a second.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In the Constitution is clearly states that those powers which are not reserved for the Federal government belong to the states should they want them, and anything which they do not claim goes to the people. The default here is to clearly narrow the power of the Federal government, so that it cannot assume too much power. Health Care doesn't seem to have any mention in the Constitution, so the state of Massachusetts enacted health care for all. It could not do this is that Federal government had the ability to also do this.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So, there it is. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me the Federal government is not the place for this. Health Care is important, and we need to be able to take the fight to the right people(legal fight, not literal). It's easer to work within your own states since you are more significant a vote. At the Federal level you are as nothing, and some are further away from Washington DC than the original states were form England.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Take a gander through the Constitution and see if the 10th amendment has any meaning when it comes to the Federal Government, and don't give the old catch-all "commerce clause" argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress passes all kinds of law which get tossed out .
The heal care bill seem like it should be one , because I do n't know what the foundation of Constitutional right granted to the Federal government which would allow this .
I reserve the right to be completely wrong .
But please listen for a second .
        In the Constitution is clearly states that those powers which are not reserved for the Federal government belong to the states should they want them , and anything which they do not claim goes to the people .
The default here is to clearly narrow the power of the Federal government , so that it can not assume too much power .
Health Care does n't seem to have any mention in the Constitution , so the state of Massachusetts enacted health care for all .
It could not do this is that Federal government had the ability to also do this .
        So , there it is .
I 'm no lawyer , but it seems to me the Federal government is not the place for this .
Health Care is important , and we need to be able to take the fight to the right people ( legal fight , not literal ) .
It 's easer to work within your own states since you are more significant a vote .
At the Federal level you are as nothing , and some are further away from Washington DC than the original states were form England .
      Take a gander through the Constitution and see if the 10th amendment has any meaning when it comes to the Federal Government , and do n't give the old catch-all " commerce clause " argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   Congress passes all kinds of law which get tossed out.
The heal care bill seem like it should be one, because I don't know what the foundation of Constitutional right granted to the Federal government which would allow this.
I reserve the right to be completely wrong.
But please listen for a second.
        In the Constitution is clearly states that those powers which are not reserved for the Federal government belong to the states should they want them, and anything which they do not claim goes to the people.
The default here is to clearly narrow the power of the Federal government, so that it cannot assume too much power.
Health Care doesn't seem to have any mention in the Constitution, so the state of Massachusetts enacted health care for all.
It could not do this is that Federal government had the ability to also do this.
        So, there it is.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me the Federal government is not the place for this.
Health Care is important, and we need to be able to take the fight to the right people(legal fight, not literal).
It's easer to work within your own states since you are more significant a vote.
At the Federal level you are as nothing, and some are further away from Washington DC than the original states were form England.
      Take a gander through the Constitution and see if the 10th amendment has any meaning when it comes to the Federal Government, and don't give the old catch-all "commerce clause" argument.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537882</id>
	<title>Re:Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>inthealpine</author>
	<datestamp>1269014700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another the argument is over because evidence that 'I need not mention' clearly shows support for government run care.<br> <br>
Only thing I can agree on is not trusting 'our congressmen'.  Which is interesting that you don't trust government unless they are running health care, then they are totally trustworthy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another the argument is over because evidence that 'I need not mention ' clearly shows support for government run care .
Only thing I can agree on is not trusting 'our congressmen' .
Which is interesting that you do n't trust government unless they are running health care , then they are totally trustworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another the argument is over because evidence that 'I need not mention' clearly shows support for government run care.
Only thing I can agree on is not trusting 'our congressmen'.
Which is interesting that you don't trust government unless they are running health care, then they are totally trustworthy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539856</id>
	<title>Re:Need a little more research on Article 10</title>
	<author>niola</author>
	<datestamp>1269020400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Necessary and Proper" Clause in Article One, section 8, clause 18 was implemented to give the federal govt the ability to assume ANY powers not necessarily enumerated in the Constitution.</p><p>"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."</p><p>The intent of this was spelled out in the federalist papers - basically they understood things would come up they would not foresee and they did not want to tie down the federal govt from doing what it felt was necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Necessary and Proper " Clause in Article One , section 8 , clause 18 was implemented to give the federal govt the ability to assume ANY powers not necessarily enumerated in the Constitution .
" The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers , and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States , or in any Department or Officer thereof .
" The intent of this was spelled out in the federalist papers - basically they understood things would come up they would not foresee and they did not want to tie down the federal govt from doing what it felt was necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Necessary and Proper" Clause in Article One, section 8, clause 18 was implemented to give the federal govt the ability to assume ANY powers not necessarily enumerated in the Constitution.
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
"The intent of this was spelled out in the federalist papers - basically they understood things would come up they would not foresee and they did not want to tie down the federal govt from doing what it felt was necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535722</id>
	<title>Wait for it..... Wait for it....</title>
	<author>navygeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269008940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This thread is going to be full of so many +5's and -1's, it's going to be ridiculous. Too many people have mod points left unused right now? Is that why this 'article' was posted? LET THE FLAME WAR COMMENCE!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This thread is going to be full of so many + 5 's and -1 's , it 's going to be ridiculous .
Too many people have mod points left unused right now ?
Is that why this 'article ' was posted ?
LET THE FLAME WAR COMMENCE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This thread is going to be full of so many +5's and -1's, it's going to be ridiculous.
Too many people have mod points left unused right now?
Is that why this 'article' was posted?
LET THE FLAME WAR COMMENCE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538826</id>
	<title>My two cents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269017040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I pay an awful lot in health insurance right now, and I don't have a particularly good income (technically below poverty-line).  In a purely theoretical sense I think that a properly managed single-payer system would be wonderful.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; That said, the US government hasn't managed medicare or medicaid very well.  They're going bankrupt, and have some particularly troubling policies.  They may not get as much publicity for denying care, but they do their (un)fair share.  They also take the lead when it comes to unfairly treating doctors and hospitals, giving excuse to private insurers to act only slightly better.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Our current system is broken and in desperate need of fixing.  That being said, it could be worse.  I see nothing in this bill that would fix the problems in a long-term way.  I do see some things in this bill that make me worry that it could make things worse.  Decreasing the number of physicians would make actual coverage worse, even though more people are "covered".<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; A bad "fix" is worse than no fix at all.  A reasonable fix is better than no fix at all.  I have no confidence that this fix will come even close to reasonable.  If it passes, I hope it surprises me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay an awful lot in health insurance right now , and I do n't have a particularly good income ( technically below poverty-line ) .
In a purely theoretical sense I think that a properly managed single-payer system would be wonderful .
    That said , the US government has n't managed medicare or medicaid very well .
They 're going bankrupt , and have some particularly troubling policies .
They may not get as much publicity for denying care , but they do their ( un ) fair share .
They also take the lead when it comes to unfairly treating doctors and hospitals , giving excuse to private insurers to act only slightly better .
    Our current system is broken and in desperate need of fixing .
That being said , it could be worse .
I see nothing in this bill that would fix the problems in a long-term way .
I do see some things in this bill that make me worry that it could make things worse .
Decreasing the number of physicians would make actual coverage worse , even though more people are " covered " .
    A bad " fix " is worse than no fix at all .
A reasonable fix is better than no fix at all .
I have no confidence that this fix will come even close to reasonable .
If it passes , I hope it surprises me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay an awful lot in health insurance right now, and I don't have a particularly good income (technically below poverty-line).
In a purely theoretical sense I think that a properly managed single-payer system would be wonderful.
    That said, the US government hasn't managed medicare or medicaid very well.
They're going bankrupt, and have some particularly troubling policies.
They may not get as much publicity for denying care, but they do their (un)fair share.
They also take the lead when it comes to unfairly treating doctors and hospitals, giving excuse to private insurers to act only slightly better.
    Our current system is broken and in desperate need of fixing.
That being said, it could be worse.
I see nothing in this bill that would fix the problems in a long-term way.
I do see some things in this bill that make me worry that it could make things worse.
Decreasing the number of physicians would make actual coverage worse, even though more people are "covered".
    A bad "fix" is worse than no fix at all.
A reasonable fix is better than no fix at all.
I have no confidence that this fix will come even close to reasonable.
If it passes, I hope it surprises me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536352</id>
	<title>Re:"Entitlement Generation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Taking care of fellow humans" should be a charitable function based on personal beliefs and ability to give.  If your personal beliefs guide you to taking care of crack babies, your charitable contributions should be able to be directed to that end.  If you then as the contributor don't believe the charity is living up to your expectations, you can simply withhold your support in favor of one that does.  As your priorities change, so can your commitment to the charity.</p><p>None of these options exist in an entity run by government.  'Charity' should not be the responsibility of a government who can, via taxes enforced at the end of a gun, take as much as they want from you and give it to whomever they 'deem worthy of it.'</p><p>The responsibilities of the federal government are clearly spelled out in our constitution.  The mandates in this bill clearly violate the 10th amendment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Taking care of fellow humans " should be a charitable function based on personal beliefs and ability to give .
If your personal beliefs guide you to taking care of crack babies , your charitable contributions should be able to be directed to that end .
If you then as the contributor do n't believe the charity is living up to your expectations , you can simply withhold your support in favor of one that does .
As your priorities change , so can your commitment to the charity.None of these options exist in an entity run by government .
'Charity ' should not be the responsibility of a government who can , via taxes enforced at the end of a gun , take as much as they want from you and give it to whomever they 'deem worthy of it .
'The responsibilities of the federal government are clearly spelled out in our constitution .
The mandates in this bill clearly violate the 10th amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Taking care of fellow humans" should be a charitable function based on personal beliefs and ability to give.
If your personal beliefs guide you to taking care of crack babies, your charitable contributions should be able to be directed to that end.
If you then as the contributor don't believe the charity is living up to your expectations, you can simply withhold your support in favor of one that does.
As your priorities change, so can your commitment to the charity.None of these options exist in an entity run by government.
'Charity' should not be the responsibility of a government who can, via taxes enforced at the end of a gun, take as much as they want from you and give it to whomever they 'deem worthy of it.
'The responsibilities of the federal government are clearly spelled out in our constitution.
The mandates in this bill clearly violate the 10th amendment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537226</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>jwl17330536</author>
	<datestamp>1269013020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If that is what you *want* to do, but forcing me to is theft.

If I forced someone to "take care" of me or my neighbor I would be in jail, but the government doing it is alright?  I pay for the things I use in other taxes.  (fuel, tolls, sales tax, ss, unemployment, etc.)  It should ONLY be about things that *I* use, not things that *YOU* use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If that is what you * want * to do , but forcing me to is theft .
If I forced someone to " take care " of me or my neighbor I would be in jail , but the government doing it is alright ?
I pay for the things I use in other taxes .
( fuel , tolls , sales tax , ss , unemployment , etc .
) It should ONLY be about things that * I * use , not things that * YOU * use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that is what you *want* to do, but forcing me to is theft.
If I forced someone to "take care" of me or my neighbor I would be in jail, but the government doing it is alright?
I pay for the things I use in other taxes.
(fuel, tolls, sales tax, ss, unemployment, etc.
)  It should ONLY be about things that *I* use, not things that *YOU* use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535614</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;the Supreme Court to rule the action as unconstitutional/illegal</p><p>They won't.  The Supreme Court serves the same master as the Congress and the President - the United States Government.  Just as they rammed through the unconstitutional rationing of farmers' *privately-owned* crops (Wickard v. Filburn), so too will the uphold this Pelosicare bill.  And then all three branches will all go have a party to celebrate.</p><p>The only hope we have is that the independent States, not having to rely on the U.S. Government for a paycheck, will nullify the bill as violating amendments 9 and 10.</p><p>"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; the Supreme Court to rule the action as unconstitutional/illegalThey wo n't .
The Supreme Court serves the same master as the Congress and the President - the United States Government .
Just as they rammed through the unconstitutional rationing of farmers ' * privately-owned * crops ( Wickard v. Filburn ) , so too will the uphold this Pelosicare bill .
And then all three branches will all go have a party to celebrate.The only hope we have is that the independent States , not having to rely on the U.S. Government for a paycheck , will nullify the bill as violating amendments 9 and 10 .
" But the Chief Justice says , 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere .
' True , there must ; but does that prove it is either party ?
The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union , assembled by their deputies in convention , at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States .
Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs .
And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution , to have provided this peaceable appeal , where that of other nations is at once to force .
"       --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson , 1823</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;the Supreme Court to rule the action as unconstitutional/illegalThey won't.
The Supreme Court serves the same master as the Congress and the President - the United States Government.
Just as they rammed through the unconstitutional rationing of farmers' *privately-owned* crops (Wickard v. Filburn), so too will the uphold this Pelosicare bill.
And then all three branches will all go have a party to celebrate.The only hope we have is that the independent States, not having to rely on the U.S. Government for a paycheck, will nullify the bill as violating amendments 9 and 10.
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.
' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party?
The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States.
Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs.
And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.
"
      --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537368</id>
	<title>All you need to know....</title>
	<author>meburke</author>
	<datestamp>1269013320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you need to know is that the bill is an attempt at price controls, and price controls invariably lead to shortages of the controlled goods and quality reductions in the controlled services. This allows you to skip the BS arguments over extraneous details and avoid wasting energy over emotional rhetoric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you need to know is that the bill is an attempt at price controls , and price controls invariably lead to shortages of the controlled goods and quality reductions in the controlled services .
This allows you to skip the BS arguments over extraneous details and avoid wasting energy over emotional rhetoric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you need to know is that the bill is an attempt at price controls, and price controls invariably lead to shortages of the controlled goods and quality reductions in the controlled services.
This allows you to skip the BS arguments over extraneous details and avoid wasting energy over emotional rhetoric.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536566</id>
	<title>This is a really bad bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here are some comments on just the first 500 or so pages of this 2700 page monstrosity:</p><p>
 Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!</p><p>Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.</p><p>Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!</p><p>Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!</p><p>Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise. </p><p>Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances &amp; a 'National ID Health card' will be issued!</p><p>Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.</p><p>Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions &amp; community organizations: (ACORN).</p><p>Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'</p><p>Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!</p><p>Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)</p><p>Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN &amp; Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.</p><p>Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)<br>Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)</p><p>Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.</p><p>Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.</p><p>Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)</p><p>Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)</p><p>Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k &amp; above who does not provide public option will pay 8\% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)<br>Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K &amp; $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6\% tax on all payroll.</p><p>Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5\% of income.</p><p>Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. </p><p>Page 195 HC Bill: Officers &amp; employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.</p><p>Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." <br>Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. </p><p>Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same!</p><p>Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. </p><p>Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.</p><p>Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.</p><p>Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!</p><p>Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).</p><p>Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.</p><p>Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)</p><p>Page 3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are some comments on just the first 500 or so pages of this 2700 page monstrosity : Page 22 of the HC Bill : Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure !
! Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill : THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill : YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED ! !
! Page 42 of HC Bill : The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you .
You have no choice ! Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill : HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens , illegal or otherwise .
Page 58 HC Bill : Govt will have real-time access to individuals ' finances &amp; a 'National ID Health card ' will be issued ! Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 : Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.Page 65 Sec 164 : Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions &amp; community organizations : ( ACORN ) .Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill : Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange .
'Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill : Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care ! Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill : Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services .
( Translation : illegal aliens .
) Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 : The Govt will use groups ( i.e .
ACORN &amp; Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill : Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans .
( AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed !
) Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill : Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid .
( No choice .
) Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC : No company can sue GOVT on price fixing .
No " judicial review " against Govt monopoly.Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill : Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.Page 145 Line 15-17 : An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan .
( NO choice !
) Page 126 Lines 22-25 : Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir families .
( Employees should n't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force , benefits , and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense .
) Page 149 Lines 16-24 : ANY Employer with payroll 401k &amp; above who does not provide public option will pay 8 \ % tax on all payroll !
( See the last comment in parenthesis .
) Page 150 Lines 9-13 : A business with payroll between $ 251K &amp; $ 401K who does n't provide public option will pay 2-6 \ % tax on all payroll.Page 167 Lines 18-23 : ANY individual who does n't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5 \ % of income.Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill : Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes .
Page 195 HC Bill : Officers &amp; employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans ' finances and personal records.Page 203 Line 14-15 HC : " The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax .
" Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill : Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors .
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill : Doctors : It does n't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same ! Page 253 Line 10-18 : The Govt sets the value of a doctor 's time , profession , judgment , etc .
Page 265 Sec 1131 : The Govt mandates and controls productivity for " private " HC industries.Page 268 Sec 1141 : The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.Page 272 SEC .
1145 : TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing ! Page 280 Sec 1151 : The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable ( i.e...re-admissions ) .Page 298 Lines 9-11 : Doctors : If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.Page 317 L 13-20 : PROHIBITION on ownership/investment .
( The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own !
) Page 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are some comments on just the first 500 or so pages of this 2700 page monstrosity:
 Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!
!Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!
!Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you.
You have no choice!Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances &amp; a 'National ID Health card' will be issued!Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions &amp; community organizations: (ACORN).Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.
'Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services.
(Translation: illegal aliens.
)Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e.
ACORN &amp; Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans.
(AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!
)Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid.
(No choice.
)Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing.
No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan.
(NO choice!
)Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir families.
(Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.
)Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k &amp; above who does not provide public option will pay 8\% tax on all payroll!
(See the last comment in parenthesis.
)Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K &amp; $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6\% tax on all payroll.Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5\% of income.Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes.
Page 195 HC Bill: Officers &amp; employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.
" Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors.
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same!Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc.
Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.Page 272 SEC.
1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment.
(The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!
)Page 3</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538268</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but but but - you sound exactly like the kind of person that would have to be forced to do it.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but but but - you sound exactly like the kind of person that would have to be forced to do it.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but but but - you sound exactly like the kind of person that would have to be forced to do it.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540804</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269023640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>eh? The government REQUIRES you to buy insurance.  It fines you if you don't. Sounds like a government run system to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>eh ?
The government REQUIRES you to buy insurance .
It fines you if you do n't .
Sounds like a government run system to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eh?
The government REQUIRES you to buy insurance.
It fines you if you don't.
Sounds like a government run system to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535944</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional Mandate</title>
	<author>dmr001</author>
	<datestamp>1269009660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An <a href="http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2764" title="nejm.org">editorial</a> [nejm.org] in the January 13 2010 issue of the <i>New England Journal of Medicine</i> addresses this:
<ul>
<li> Via the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses</li>
<li> It's really more of a (pretty modest) tax, and not a mandate</li>
<li> It's filled with exclusions and not actually universal</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>An editorial [ nejm.org ] in the January 13 2010 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine addresses this : Via the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses It 's really more of a ( pretty modest ) tax , and not a mandate It 's filled with exclusions and not actually universal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An editorial [nejm.org] in the January 13 2010 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine addresses this:

 Via the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses
 It's really more of a (pretty modest) tax, and not a mandate
 It's filled with exclusions and not actually universal
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31549530</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>rhook</author>
	<datestamp>1269100440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What makes you think there isn't? Did you not hear what Nancy Pelosi said about the bill?

<a href="http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576" title="speaker.gov">http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576</a> [speaker.gov] <p><div class="quote"><p>But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it</p></div><p>This is very shady legislation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think there is n't ?
Did you not hear what Nancy Pelosi said about the bill ?
http : //www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases ? id = 1576 [ speaker.gov ] But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in itThis is very shady legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think there isn't?
Did you not hear what Nancy Pelosi said about the bill?
http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576 [speaker.gov] But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in itThis is very shady legislation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536526</id>
	<title>Re:Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1269011340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable.</p></div><p>indisputable.  While having a safety net is very important, access is still limited- only by availability rather than ability to pay.  You can see a doctor but may wait a significant period of time; some countries even allow private practices on a pay for service model that effectively creates a two tier system.</p><p>That said, I think we need to reform our system make primary care universally available so the ER stops being the primary care center for the uninsured; that alone will save hospitals a lot of money.   ERs bleed money as a result of the current system; to the point hospitals are considering closing their ERs.  We also need to get passed the idea we must see a Doctor when a NP or PA could provide equal or better care at a much lower cost.</p><p>We also need to attack other costs such as the cost of educating a Doctor, do they really need an undergad degree, a medical degree and a residence or can you provide the same level of basic skill through a streamlined educational process much like some schools have started to do with Pharm Drs; how costs of drug development are borne, i.e. US purchaser of drugs should pay no more than what other nations charge or pay for drugs sold in the US.</p><p>It's a complicated structural problem that will take a long time to fix.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable.indisputable .
While having a safety net is very important , access is still limited- only by availability rather than ability to pay .
You can see a doctor but may wait a significant period of time ; some countries even allow private practices on a pay for service model that effectively creates a two tier system.That said , I think we need to reform our system make primary care universally available so the ER stops being the primary care center for the uninsured ; that alone will save hospitals a lot of money .
ERs bleed money as a result of the current system ; to the point hospitals are considering closing their ERs .
We also need to get passed the idea we must see a Doctor when a NP or PA could provide equal or better care at a much lower cost.We also need to attack other costs such as the cost of educating a Doctor , do they really need an undergad degree , a medical degree and a residence or can you provide the same level of basic skill through a streamlined educational process much like some schools have started to do with Pharm Drs ; how costs of drug development are borne , i.e .
US purchaser of drugs should pay no more than what other nations charge or pay for drugs sold in the US.It 's a complicated structural problem that will take a long time to fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable.indisputable.
While having a safety net is very important, access is still limited- only by availability rather than ability to pay.
You can see a doctor but may wait a significant period of time; some countries even allow private practices on a pay for service model that effectively creates a two tier system.That said, I think we need to reform our system make primary care universally available so the ER stops being the primary care center for the uninsured; that alone will save hospitals a lot of money.
ERs bleed money as a result of the current system; to the point hospitals are considering closing their ERs.
We also need to get passed the idea we must see a Doctor when a NP or PA could provide equal or better care at a much lower cost.We also need to attack other costs such as the cost of educating a Doctor, do they really need an undergad degree, a medical degree and a residence or can you provide the same level of basic skill through a streamlined educational process much like some schools have started to do with Pharm Drs; how costs of drug development are borne, i.e.
US purchaser of drugs should pay no more than what other nations charge or pay for drugs sold in the US.It's a complicated structural problem that will take a long time to fix.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536722</id>
	<title>My Experience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a genetic disorder that requires metabolic and orthopedic treatment, AKA a pre-existing condition.  I've never been denied insurance.  I've never been denied care.  My costs are reasonable, about $600/year for my portion of the plan my employer provides.  My out of pocket for my first hip replacement will be about $4000.  I have no fear that the current system will provide me with access to additional replacements as these wear out.  I'm optimistic that new technology will come about under the current system that will continue to improve on the quality of my care.  I have access to specialist care as I desire.  I use the current system.  It works for me.  It works for me with my pre-existing condition.  It worked for me when I was in a car accident.  It works for my friend with high blood pressure.  It worked for my nephew who had a complicated birth, and for his mother.  It works for my wife's grandfather who is alive due to heart surgery.  My grandfather fell off a roof and broke his back at 70, then lived another spry 15 years in good health because the current system worked.<br>Heart surgery, childbirth complications, broken backs, hip replacements...none of these have bankrupted us.  We are not weighed down by the burden of the cost of our insurance.  So, adjust things incrementally if you like.  Let a state or two try it out and see what happens.  However, you will pardon me if a sweeping comprehensive rewrite of the current health care system is something I do not embrace.  The government has undertaken to radically change the system that has provided good care and life saving medicine to myself and my family.  I remain unconvinced.  I do not need this.  I do not want this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a genetic disorder that requires metabolic and orthopedic treatment , AKA a pre-existing condition .
I 've never been denied insurance .
I 've never been denied care .
My costs are reasonable , about $ 600/year for my portion of the plan my employer provides .
My out of pocket for my first hip replacement will be about $ 4000 .
I have no fear that the current system will provide me with access to additional replacements as these wear out .
I 'm optimistic that new technology will come about under the current system that will continue to improve on the quality of my care .
I have access to specialist care as I desire .
I use the current system .
It works for me .
It works for me with my pre-existing condition .
It worked for me when I was in a car accident .
It works for my friend with high blood pressure .
It worked for my nephew who had a complicated birth , and for his mother .
It works for my wife 's grandfather who is alive due to heart surgery .
My grandfather fell off a roof and broke his back at 70 , then lived another spry 15 years in good health because the current system worked.Heart surgery , childbirth complications , broken backs , hip replacements...none of these have bankrupted us .
We are not weighed down by the burden of the cost of our insurance .
So , adjust things incrementally if you like .
Let a state or two try it out and see what happens .
However , you will pardon me if a sweeping comprehensive rewrite of the current health care system is something I do not embrace .
The government has undertaken to radically change the system that has provided good care and life saving medicine to myself and my family .
I remain unconvinced .
I do not need this .
I do not want this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a genetic disorder that requires metabolic and orthopedic treatment, AKA a pre-existing condition.
I've never been denied insurance.
I've never been denied care.
My costs are reasonable, about $600/year for my portion of the plan my employer provides.
My out of pocket for my first hip replacement will be about $4000.
I have no fear that the current system will provide me with access to additional replacements as these wear out.
I'm optimistic that new technology will come about under the current system that will continue to improve on the quality of my care.
I have access to specialist care as I desire.
I use the current system.
It works for me.
It works for me with my pre-existing condition.
It worked for me when I was in a car accident.
It works for my friend with high blood pressure.
It worked for my nephew who had a complicated birth, and for his mother.
It works for my wife's grandfather who is alive due to heart surgery.
My grandfather fell off a roof and broke his back at 70, then lived another spry 15 years in good health because the current system worked.Heart surgery, childbirth complications, broken backs, hip replacements...none of these have bankrupted us.
We are not weighed down by the burden of the cost of our insurance.
So, adjust things incrementally if you like.
Let a state or two try it out and see what happens.
However, you will pardon me if a sweeping comprehensive rewrite of the current health care system is something I do not embrace.
The government has undertaken to radically change the system that has provided good care and life saving medicine to myself and my family.
I remain unconvinced.
I do not need this.
I do not want this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536770</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong forum -- how in the world did the US healthcare system ever become "News for nerds"?</p><p>There are endless places on the web where this topic should be (and is being) discussed. Slashdot is not one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong forum -- how in the world did the US healthcare system ever become " News for nerds " ? There are endless places on the web where this topic should be ( and is being ) discussed .
Slashdot is not one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong forum -- how in the world did the US healthcare system ever become "News for nerds"?There are endless places on the web where this topic should be (and is being) discussed.
Slashdot is not one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537942</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>fropenn</author>
	<datestamp>1269014820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$200 per year? You're clearly talking about a Ph.D. doctor, not an M.D. doctor, right?

One set of immunizations for a child (usually young children get these several times a year) can cost over $600 just for the shots. A single night in the hospital can easily top $2000. Heck, even a couple of stitches in the emergency room easily breaks $500.</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 200 per year ?
You 're clearly talking about a Ph.D. doctor , not an M.D .
doctor , right ?
One set of immunizations for a child ( usually young children get these several times a year ) can cost over $ 600 just for the shots .
A single night in the hospital can easily top $ 2000 .
Heck , even a couple of stitches in the emergency room easily breaks $ 500 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$200 per year?
You're clearly talking about a Ph.D. doctor, not an M.D.
doctor, right?
One set of immunizations for a child (usually young children get these several times a year) can cost over $600 just for the shots.
A single night in the hospital can easily top $2000.
Heck, even a couple of stitches in the emergency room easily breaks $500.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</id>
	<title>I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope it's rushed through, because then it may give ammo for the Supreme Court to rule the action as unconstitutional/illegal...  Not to mention that Fed healthcare as it stands is unconstitutional...  Amendment 10 of the constitution states:<blockquote><div><p>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people</p></div></blockquote><p>
So explain to me how the US government has the power/right to do this?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope it 's rushed through , because then it may give ammo for the Supreme Court to rule the action as unconstitutional/illegal... Not to mention that Fed healthcare as it stands is unconstitutional... Amendment 10 of the constitution states : The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States , are reserved to the States respectively , or to the people So explain to me how the US government has the power/right to do this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope it's rushed through, because then it may give ammo for the Supreme Court to rule the action as unconstitutional/illegal...  Not to mention that Fed healthcare as it stands is unconstitutional...  Amendment 10 of the constitution states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people
So explain to me how the US government has the power/right to do this?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538010</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>ooji</author>
	<datestamp>1269015000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it acceptable to value the lives of people you love more that those you don't? OK - we all DO on a personal level, but public policy should promote the opposite, in part to counter-balance peoples tendency to prioritize their friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it acceptable to value the lives of people you love more that those you do n't ?
OK - we all DO on a personal level , but public policy should promote the opposite , in part to counter-balance peoples tendency to prioritize their friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it acceptable to value the lives of people you love more that those you don't?
OK - we all DO on a personal level, but public policy should promote the opposite, in part to counter-balance peoples tendency to prioritize their friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540136</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhere in between.</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1269021240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's over 2,000 pages. That is longer than War &amp; Peace. It isn't finished, that means that nobody knows what will be in it when it is finished, assuming anybody knows what is in it now. With the size of this bill, there is no way that anyone understands how the different parts of it will interact. Why not take it apart and pass it as a bunch of separate bills that are small enough that people can understand what they do?<br>
Obviously, because there are things in there that people would never accept.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's over 2,000 pages .
That is longer than War &amp; Peace .
It is n't finished , that means that nobody knows what will be in it when it is finished , assuming anybody knows what is in it now .
With the size of this bill , there is no way that anyone understands how the different parts of it will interact .
Why not take it apart and pass it as a bunch of separate bills that are small enough that people can understand what they do ?
Obviously , because there are things in there that people would never accept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's over 2,000 pages.
That is longer than War &amp; Peace.
It isn't finished, that means that nobody knows what will be in it when it is finished, assuming anybody knows what is in it now.
With the size of this bill, there is no way that anyone understands how the different parts of it will interact.
Why not take it apart and pass it as a bunch of separate bills that are small enough that people can understand what they do?
Obviously, because there are things in there that people would never accept.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536388</id>
	<title>Bill will kill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Socialized medicine is a failure.  Look at Canada and the UK.  You have to wait months and months for a simple procedure.  The NHS in the UK is consistently sighted as providing horrible care and using up a very large chunk of change.  If this garbage passes, we will have care rationing and Washington bureaucrats deciding on medical procedures instead of doctors.  The liberal social agenda is not good for America.  Wake up sheeple and see what is happening to America!  We are heading towards socialism, higher debt, and an increasing loss of liberty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Socialized medicine is a failure .
Look at Canada and the UK .
You have to wait months and months for a simple procedure .
The NHS in the UK is consistently sighted as providing horrible care and using up a very large chunk of change .
If this garbage passes , we will have care rationing and Washington bureaucrats deciding on medical procedures instead of doctors .
The liberal social agenda is not good for America .
Wake up sheeple and see what is happening to America !
We are heading towards socialism , higher debt , and an increasing loss of liberty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Socialized medicine is a failure.
Look at Canada and the UK.
You have to wait months and months for a simple procedure.
The NHS in the UK is consistently sighted as providing horrible care and using up a very large chunk of change.
If this garbage passes, we will have care rationing and Washington bureaucrats deciding on medical procedures instead of doctors.
The liberal social agenda is not good for America.
Wake up sheeple and see what is happening to America!
We are heading towards socialism, higher debt, and an increasing loss of liberty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543568</id>
	<title>Summary Recap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268992080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a different summary recap:</p><p>* Your tax dollars will slowing get back-end squeezed to maximum by 2014<br>* Loss of dependent care tax exemption<br>* Major reduction of medical care tax exemption<br>* Major restriction on getting pre-existing medical condition exemption<br>* Loss of nearly all Federal student loan programs; (It'll be privatized @ higher interest)<br>* Restriction of Pell Grant (not a loan) to first 100,000 student<br>* Physician can only choose ONE of three payment methods<br>** Direct<br>** MediCare<br>** Federal Health Exchange (WTF is that?!)</p><p>Benefits:<br>* Health insurance industry gets more profits (lower margin but more volume)<br>* People without insurance, but suddenly need one; benefits the MOST.</p><p>Down-side<br>* Big Middle-Class Squeeze in down economy.<br>* Rampant increase in demand for medical service (influx of new patients)<br>* Rampant increase in cost for medical services (not enough doctors/nurses)<br>* People without insurance, and wants to remain self-sufficient, suffers the most.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a different summary recap : * Your tax dollars will slowing get back-end squeezed to maximum by 2014 * Loss of dependent care tax exemption * Major reduction of medical care tax exemption * Major restriction on getting pre-existing medical condition exemption * Loss of nearly all Federal student loan programs ; ( It 'll be privatized @ higher interest ) * Restriction of Pell Grant ( not a loan ) to first 100,000 student * Physician can only choose ONE of three payment methods * * Direct * * MediCare * * Federal Health Exchange ( WTF is that ? !
) Benefits : * Health insurance industry gets more profits ( lower margin but more volume ) * People without insurance , but suddenly need one ; benefits the MOST.Down-side * Big Middle-Class Squeeze in down economy .
* Rampant increase in demand for medical service ( influx of new patients ) * Rampant increase in cost for medical services ( not enough doctors/nurses ) * People without insurance , and wants to remain self-sufficient , suffers the most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a different summary recap:* Your tax dollars will slowing get back-end squeezed to maximum by 2014* Loss of dependent care tax exemption* Major reduction of medical care tax exemption* Major restriction on getting pre-existing medical condition exemption* Loss of nearly all Federal student loan programs; (It'll be privatized @ higher interest)* Restriction of Pell Grant (not a loan) to first 100,000 student* Physician can only choose ONE of three payment methods** Direct** MediCare** Federal Health Exchange (WTF is that?!
)Benefits:* Health insurance industry gets more profits (lower margin but more volume)* People without insurance, but suddenly need one; benefits the MOST.Down-side* Big Middle-Class Squeeze in down economy.
* Rampant increase in demand for medical service (influx of new patients)* Rampant increase in cost for medical services (not enough doctors/nurses)* People without insurance, and wants to remain self-sufficient, suffers the most.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538414</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>bjk002</author>
	<datestamp>1269015900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would argue that, if we are going to point guns, point it at the people unwilling to help out their fellow man, as opposed to pointing it at those with less fortune.  Those less fortunate have no choice.  Why is the argument always about the fortunate people of this world and their choice to do something or not...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would argue that , if we are going to point guns , point it at the people unwilling to help out their fellow man , as opposed to pointing it at those with less fortune .
Those less fortunate have no choice .
Why is the argument always about the fortunate people of this world and their choice to do something or not.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would argue that, if we are going to point guns, point it at the people unwilling to help out their fellow man, as opposed to pointing it at those with less fortune.
Those less fortunate have no choice.
Why is the argument always about the fortunate people of this world and their choice to do something or not...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537112</id>
	<title>Re:Dear readers with mod points...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're looking for a handout, your at the wrong end of town. Nothing for free over here. You have to work for everything you get.</p><p>Oh sorry...my bad. That only applies to Parkinson's victims, not slashdot posters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're looking for a handout , your at the wrong end of town .
Nothing for free over here .
You have to work for everything you get.Oh sorry...my bad .
That only applies to Parkinson 's victims , not slashdot posters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're looking for a handout, your at the wrong end of town.
Nothing for free over here.
You have to work for everything you get.Oh sorry...my bad.
That only applies to Parkinson's victims, not slashdot posters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537268</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats because we are not a modern country here in the US. The US is stuck in the 19th century with the class warfare of that era. Worse is the fact that those that have the power and obligation to change this have no incentive to change it. The right wingers want nothing in the way of large corporate profits and the left wingers want the government to do everything for everyone. Bullshit on both.</p><p>If there was a private run single payer system or something with the right incentives to actually PREVENT illness and PROMOTE WELLNESS it should happen. It will not occur because corporate culture demands that most of us die early since it's cheaper, that the system have incentives to make loads of money rather than treat people effectively. The US health system in it's current for is the most expensive and nowhere near the best. Since the folks legislating this mess are a bunch of lawyers there is no incentive to make things any better for the rest of us - they would end up suing the government and that almost never works. Individual doctors are really terrific. They are not really the cause of this as I have some really gode ones caring for me. US medical insurance in it's current form is evil and needs to die a clean, swift death. Medical care is a human right in every wealthy country in the world except the US which is utter bullshit. Politics in the US is the disease that needs to be cured right here, right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats because we are not a modern country here in the US .
The US is stuck in the 19th century with the class warfare of that era .
Worse is the fact that those that have the power and obligation to change this have no incentive to change it .
The right wingers want nothing in the way of large corporate profits and the left wingers want the government to do everything for everyone .
Bullshit on both.If there was a private run single payer system or something with the right incentives to actually PREVENT illness and PROMOTE WELLNESS it should happen .
It will not occur because corporate culture demands that most of us die early since it 's cheaper , that the system have incentives to make loads of money rather than treat people effectively .
The US health system in it 's current for is the most expensive and nowhere near the best .
Since the folks legislating this mess are a bunch of lawyers there is no incentive to make things any better for the rest of us - they would end up suing the government and that almost never works .
Individual doctors are really terrific .
They are not really the cause of this as I have some really gode ones caring for me .
US medical insurance in it 's current form is evil and needs to die a clean , swift death .
Medical care is a human right in every wealthy country in the world except the US which is utter bullshit .
Politics in the US is the disease that needs to be cured right here , right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats because we are not a modern country here in the US.
The US is stuck in the 19th century with the class warfare of that era.
Worse is the fact that those that have the power and obligation to change this have no incentive to change it.
The right wingers want nothing in the way of large corporate profits and the left wingers want the government to do everything for everyone.
Bullshit on both.If there was a private run single payer system or something with the right incentives to actually PREVENT illness and PROMOTE WELLNESS it should happen.
It will not occur because corporate culture demands that most of us die early since it's cheaper, that the system have incentives to make loads of money rather than treat people effectively.
The US health system in it's current for is the most expensive and nowhere near the best.
Since the folks legislating this mess are a bunch of lawyers there is no incentive to make things any better for the rest of us - they would end up suing the government and that almost never works.
Individual doctors are really terrific.
They are not really the cause of this as I have some really gode ones caring for me.
US medical insurance in it's current form is evil and needs to die a clean, swift death.
Medical care is a human right in every wealthy country in the world except the US which is utter bullshit.
Politics in the US is the disease that needs to be cured right here, right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540260</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1269021600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you want to address the problem if illegals in this country then you first need to address the immigration process.</p></div><p>This is part of the immigration process. As I see it, the primary decision for whether or not to immigrate is economic. Government provided services would then encourage immigration, legal and illegal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to address the problem if illegals in this country then you first need to address the immigration process.This is part of the immigration process .
As I see it , the primary decision for whether or not to immigrate is economic .
Government provided services would then encourage immigration , legal and illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to address the problem if illegals in this country then you first need to address the immigration process.This is part of the immigration process.
As I see it, the primary decision for whether or not to immigrate is economic.
Government provided services would then encourage immigration, legal and illegal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537696</id>
	<title>Re:Random health care thoughts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery, would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open? I'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche. If he's good enough to earn that much money, he's got to be worth his salt.</p></div><p> <strong>You clearly have not been engaged with the US Healthcare system in any deep way recently.</strong><br>I have been. NO, please for the love of GOD, avoid Porche driving doctors at all costs.</p><p>99\% of the time these guys aren't rolling in Porches because they are "worth their salt", they are doing so because they have found shady ways to bilk the system for all it's worth. They aren't doctors, they're entrepreneurs, and to them, you are not a patient, you are a head of cattle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery , would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open ?
I 'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche .
If he 's good enough to earn that much money , he 's got to be worth his salt .
You clearly have not been engaged with the US Healthcare system in any deep way recently.I have been .
NO , please for the love of GOD , avoid Porche driving doctors at all costs.99 \ % of the time these guys are n't rolling in Porches because they are " worth their salt " , they are doing so because they have found shady ways to bilk the system for all it 's worth .
They are n't doctors , they 're entrepreneurs , and to them , you are not a patient , you are a head of cattle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery, would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open?
I'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche.
If he's good enough to earn that much money, he's got to be worth his salt.
You clearly have not been engaged with the US Healthcare system in any deep way recently.I have been.
NO, please for the love of GOD, avoid Porche driving doctors at all costs.99\% of the time these guys aren't rolling in Porches because they are "worth their salt", they are doing so because they have found shady ways to bilk the system for all it's worth.
They aren't doctors, they're entrepreneurs, and to them, you are not a patient, you are a head of cattle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538448</id>
	<title>You must be kidding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is ANYTHING on Fox true?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is ANYTHING on Fox true ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is ANYTHING on Fox true?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542354</id>
	<title>Re:HANDS OFF MY BODY</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1269030240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good thing it's been passed by the house and senate already in some form so we know it's democracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing it 's been passed by the house and senate already in some form so we know it 's democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing it's been passed by the house and senate already in some form so we know it's democracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535140</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US Postal Service</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Postal Service</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Postal Service</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537392</id>
	<title>Follow the Money</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1269013380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canada's health care bill is over $5,000 per man, woman, or child.</p><p>Anything else you'd like to know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada 's health care bill is over $ 5,000 per man , woman , or child.Anything else you 'd like to know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada's health care bill is over $5,000 per man, woman, or child.Anything else you'd like to know?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535662</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"too much is getting creamed off the top as profit"</p><p>It's called capitalism and Americans love it, even if it kills them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" too much is getting creamed off the top as profit " It 's called capitalism and Americans love it , even if it kills them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"too much is getting creamed off the top as profit"It's called capitalism and Americans love it, even if it kills them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539488</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1269019080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that health care cost is "the" problem and it is not being addressed.  But the problem is that private health care wants to charge what the market will bear instead of making a reasonable profit.  There is tort reform already in Texas and California and private health care saved a huge amount of money as a result, but did not pass any of those saving on to their Customers.  Health care costs the same there as anywhere else.  There needs to be changes that private health care cannot game like a Public Option or drug re-importation if the cost trend is going to go down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that health care cost is " the " problem and it is not being addressed .
But the problem is that private health care wants to charge what the market will bear instead of making a reasonable profit .
There is tort reform already in Texas and California and private health care saved a huge amount of money as a result , but did not pass any of those saving on to their Customers .
Health care costs the same there as anywhere else .
There needs to be changes that private health care can not game like a Public Option or drug re-importation if the cost trend is going to go down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that health care cost is "the" problem and it is not being addressed.
But the problem is that private health care wants to charge what the market will bear instead of making a reasonable profit.
There is tort reform already in Texas and California and private health care saved a huge amount of money as a result, but did not pass any of those saving on to their Customers.
Health care costs the same there as anywhere else.
There needs to be changes that private health care cannot game like a Public Option or drug re-importation if the cost trend is going to go down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545920</id>
	<title>they're evil, anyway...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269004200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...and will lead to the demise of insurance companies.</p></div><p>Where do I sign up?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and will lead to the demise of insurance companies.Where do I sign up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...and will lead to the demise of insurance companies.Where do I sign up?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539358</id>
	<title>Re:Random health care thoughts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269018660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Also, this is apparent in the back door manner in which they are trying to pass the bill by some trick of house/senate rules."</p><p>It is one thing to disagree with the proposals.  However, to hide action/inaction behind comments like this is ridiculous.  After all, the g-No-p has attempted, or threatened, to filibuster almost EVERY piece of democratic legislature, which is ALSO a trick of house/senate rules.</p><p>Get over it, that's part of the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Also , this is apparent in the back door manner in which they are trying to pass the bill by some trick of house/senate rules .
" It is one thing to disagree with the proposals .
However , to hide action/inaction behind comments like this is ridiculous .
After all , the g-No-p has attempted , or threatened , to filibuster almost EVERY piece of democratic legislature , which is ALSO a trick of house/senate rules.Get over it , that 's part of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Also, this is apparent in the back door manner in which they are trying to pass the bill by some trick of house/senate rules.
"It is one thing to disagree with the proposals.
However, to hide action/inaction behind comments like this is ridiculous.
After all, the g-No-p has attempted, or threatened, to filibuster almost EVERY piece of democratic legislature, which is ALSO a trick of house/senate rules.Get over it, that's part of the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540622</id>
	<title>Re:Bad tax design</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1269022980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be very bad tax design, except it doesn't work like that. The proprosal is that you get taxed the higher rate on income above 200k.</p><p>So if you make 200,001; you get taxed the higher rate on a dollar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be very bad tax design , except it does n't work like that .
The proprosal is that you get taxed the higher rate on income above 200k.So if you make 200,001 ; you get taxed the higher rate on a dollar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be very bad tax design, except it doesn't work like that.
The proprosal is that you get taxed the higher rate on income above 200k.So if you make 200,001; you get taxed the higher rate on a dollar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541792</id>
	<title>Then we'll need to reform the reform</title>
	<author>gujo-odori</author>
	<datestamp>1269027660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this poorly crafted bill - which is going to cost far more than they say and is making its numbers with guesses and sleight of hand - passes, we are going to be fixing it - that is, reforming the reform - for decades to come.<br>This was rushed through far to quickly and is too poorly considered for something this important. What both the House and Senate need to do is scrap the current versions, go back to the drawing board, get input from their constituents on what *they* think needs to be reformed, rather than a bill done primarily in response to what the White House asked for, and then pass *that* bill and send it to the President.</p><p>Sure, there are some things in the current bill that are good: the first thing that comes to my mind is doing away with pre-existing conditions. That's unconscionable. So is charging people more if they actually use their insurance. I don't like lifetime maximums, either. Some treatments are very expensive.</p><p>There are countries that have reasonably well-run national health insurance systems (Japan, for one, which is a single-payer country) and countries that have terrible ones. One thing they have in common is that the standard of care covered by insurance tends to be non-great. I've been hospitalized in Japan and can speak from experience about that. Doctor care can also be hit or miss, although that seems to have more to do with general culture and standards and little or nothing to do with insurance.</p><p>Some other countries have really poorly run national health care systems that result in serious rationing of medical procedures. I have a friend in Winnipeg who is on a waiting list right now, whereas if she were a US resident, she would have had it done long ago. Lest someone start up some BS about "What if she needed surgery but didn't have insurance?" every hospital I have ever been to, or that any member of my family has been to, has had an explicit written statement that inability to pay will not keep you from treatment. They have programs and foundations in place for that. Yes, those programs make my own bill higher - I'm sure the two weeks one of my kids spent in the pediatric ICU last year would have been cheaper otherwise, but I'm also certain of two things:</p><p>1) The cost increase to me would be even worse with the government involved.</p><p>2) I'd much rather have that  between me and the hospital and the poor who are receiving help from the hospital than between me and the government and those parties. Anything that puts more layers between patient and caregiver is bad. It's kind of like the reasons that start-ups are more nimble than large, established companies: at every start-up I've worked for, the CEO not only knew me by name and face, I had no more than two levels of management between myself and the CEO. At the company I currently work for - which is pretty nimble as big companies go, but it's still more oil tanker than speed boat - I can't even tell you how many managers are between me and the CEO, or who they are. I know who the managers are three levels up from me and who the last one before the CEO is, but there are some more in between.</p><p>Look at point 2, above, and remember that to err is human; to really screw things up requires a bureaucracy. To screw things up so badly that there is no reasonable hope of ever fixing them properly requires a government bureaucracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this poorly crafted bill - which is going to cost far more than they say and is making its numbers with guesses and sleight of hand - passes , we are going to be fixing it - that is , reforming the reform - for decades to come.This was rushed through far to quickly and is too poorly considered for something this important .
What both the House and Senate need to do is scrap the current versions , go back to the drawing board , get input from their constituents on what * they * think needs to be reformed , rather than a bill done primarily in response to what the White House asked for , and then pass * that * bill and send it to the President.Sure , there are some things in the current bill that are good : the first thing that comes to my mind is doing away with pre-existing conditions .
That 's unconscionable .
So is charging people more if they actually use their insurance .
I do n't like lifetime maximums , either .
Some treatments are very expensive.There are countries that have reasonably well-run national health insurance systems ( Japan , for one , which is a single-payer country ) and countries that have terrible ones .
One thing they have in common is that the standard of care covered by insurance tends to be non-great .
I 've been hospitalized in Japan and can speak from experience about that .
Doctor care can also be hit or miss , although that seems to have more to do with general culture and standards and little or nothing to do with insurance.Some other countries have really poorly run national health care systems that result in serious rationing of medical procedures .
I have a friend in Winnipeg who is on a waiting list right now , whereas if she were a US resident , she would have had it done long ago .
Lest someone start up some BS about " What if she needed surgery but did n't have insurance ?
" every hospital I have ever been to , or that any member of my family has been to , has had an explicit written statement that inability to pay will not keep you from treatment .
They have programs and foundations in place for that .
Yes , those programs make my own bill higher - I 'm sure the two weeks one of my kids spent in the pediatric ICU last year would have been cheaper otherwise , but I 'm also certain of two things : 1 ) The cost increase to me would be even worse with the government involved.2 ) I 'd much rather have that between me and the hospital and the poor who are receiving help from the hospital than between me and the government and those parties .
Anything that puts more layers between patient and caregiver is bad .
It 's kind of like the reasons that start-ups are more nimble than large , established companies : at every start-up I 've worked for , the CEO not only knew me by name and face , I had no more than two levels of management between myself and the CEO .
At the company I currently work for - which is pretty nimble as big companies go , but it 's still more oil tanker than speed boat - I ca n't even tell you how many managers are between me and the CEO , or who they are .
I know who the managers are three levels up from me and who the last one before the CEO is , but there are some more in between.Look at point 2 , above , and remember that to err is human ; to really screw things up requires a bureaucracy .
To screw things up so badly that there is no reasonable hope of ever fixing them properly requires a government bureaucracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this poorly crafted bill - which is going to cost far more than they say and is making its numbers with guesses and sleight of hand - passes, we are going to be fixing it - that is, reforming the reform - for decades to come.This was rushed through far to quickly and is too poorly considered for something this important.
What both the House and Senate need to do is scrap the current versions, go back to the drawing board, get input from their constituents on what *they* think needs to be reformed, rather than a bill done primarily in response to what the White House asked for, and then pass *that* bill and send it to the President.Sure, there are some things in the current bill that are good: the first thing that comes to my mind is doing away with pre-existing conditions.
That's unconscionable.
So is charging people more if they actually use their insurance.
I don't like lifetime maximums, either.
Some treatments are very expensive.There are countries that have reasonably well-run national health insurance systems (Japan, for one, which is a single-payer country) and countries that have terrible ones.
One thing they have in common is that the standard of care covered by insurance tends to be non-great.
I've been hospitalized in Japan and can speak from experience about that.
Doctor care can also be hit or miss, although that seems to have more to do with general culture and standards and little or nothing to do with insurance.Some other countries have really poorly run national health care systems that result in serious rationing of medical procedures.
I have a friend in Winnipeg who is on a waiting list right now, whereas if she were a US resident, she would have had it done long ago.
Lest someone start up some BS about "What if she needed surgery but didn't have insurance?
" every hospital I have ever been to, or that any member of my family has been to, has had an explicit written statement that inability to pay will not keep you from treatment.
They have programs and foundations in place for that.
Yes, those programs make my own bill higher - I'm sure the two weeks one of my kids spent in the pediatric ICU last year would have been cheaper otherwise, but I'm also certain of two things:1) The cost increase to me would be even worse with the government involved.2) I'd much rather have that  between me and the hospital and the poor who are receiving help from the hospital than between me and the government and those parties.
Anything that puts more layers between patient and caregiver is bad.
It's kind of like the reasons that start-ups are more nimble than large, established companies: at every start-up I've worked for, the CEO not only knew me by name and face, I had no more than two levels of management between myself and the CEO.
At the company I currently work for - which is pretty nimble as big companies go, but it's still more oil tanker than speed boat - I can't even tell you how many managers are between me and the CEO, or who they are.
I know who the managers are three levels up from me and who the last one before the CEO is, but there are some more in between.Look at point 2, above, and remember that to err is human; to really screw things up requires a bureaucracy.
To screw things up so badly that there is no reasonable hope of ever fixing them properly requires a government bureaucracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541070</id>
	<title>Who?</title>
	<author>waspleg</author>
	<datestamp>1269024660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume you mean the baby boomers who started this shit in the first place.  Aka the greediest generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume you mean the baby boomers who started this shit in the first place .
Aka the greediest generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume you mean the baby boomers who started this shit in the first place.
Aka the greediest generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536418</id>
	<title>Would you buy a used car from Obama/Pelosi?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the answer is no, then why let them have 1/6th of our economy to destroy?</p><p>Look at the list of failed programs our monsterously over-sized government can be held accountable for:<br>Medicare - bankrupt<br>Medicaid - bankrupt<br>Social Security - bankrupt<br>Stimulus - are things any better?</p><p>If you did not notice, the government now employs more people than the private sector. This is scary, and the main reason why America is sliding into decline. We have lost our edge on manufacturing, research, technology, space travel - everything tangible.</p><p>Our medical system was pretty good. This attack on the system by Obama/Pelosi will probably lower the available care, create a big strain on the system, grow the deficit, and screw the middle class (who are expected to foot the bill for all of the liberal giveaway/welfare programs).</p><p>If you look at the process used to pass it ("deem and pass"), you realize that the Liberals (epitomized by Obama and Pelosi) literally no longer care about representative government (ie, democracy). They are going to do whatever they want to until we throw their sorry butts out!</p><p>Go look at this clip of Congressman Tom Perriello (D-VA) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsIHnyWsaqA - it is one of the few truthful things a politician has said in a long time. And what did he say? "If you don't tie our hands, we will keep stealing!!".</p><p>Fix Capitol Hill. Vote out every incumbent. Keep firing these clowns until we get some in office that actually do more than worry about lining their pockets and getting reelected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the answer is no , then why let them have 1/6th of our economy to destroy ? Look at the list of failed programs our monsterously over-sized government can be held accountable for : Medicare - bankruptMedicaid - bankruptSocial Security - bankruptStimulus - are things any better ? If you did not notice , the government now employs more people than the private sector .
This is scary , and the main reason why America is sliding into decline .
We have lost our edge on manufacturing , research , technology , space travel - everything tangible.Our medical system was pretty good .
This attack on the system by Obama/Pelosi will probably lower the available care , create a big strain on the system , grow the deficit , and screw the middle class ( who are expected to foot the bill for all of the liberal giveaway/welfare programs ) .If you look at the process used to pass it ( " deem and pass " ) , you realize that the Liberals ( epitomized by Obama and Pelosi ) literally no longer care about representative government ( ie , democracy ) .
They are going to do whatever they want to until we throw their sorry butts out ! Go look at this clip of Congressman Tom Perriello ( D-VA ) - http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = bsIHnyWsaqA - it is one of the few truthful things a politician has said in a long time .
And what did he say ?
" If you do n't tie our hands , we will keep stealing ! !
" .Fix Capitol Hill .
Vote out every incumbent .
Keep firing these clowns until we get some in office that actually do more than worry about lining their pockets and getting reelected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the answer is no, then why let them have 1/6th of our economy to destroy?Look at the list of failed programs our monsterously over-sized government can be held accountable for:Medicare - bankruptMedicaid - bankruptSocial Security - bankruptStimulus - are things any better?If you did not notice, the government now employs more people than the private sector.
This is scary, and the main reason why America is sliding into decline.
We have lost our edge on manufacturing, research, technology, space travel - everything tangible.Our medical system was pretty good.
This attack on the system by Obama/Pelosi will probably lower the available care, create a big strain on the system, grow the deficit, and screw the middle class (who are expected to foot the bill for all of the liberal giveaway/welfare programs).If you look at the process used to pass it ("deem and pass"), you realize that the Liberals (epitomized by Obama and Pelosi) literally no longer care about representative government (ie, democracy).
They are going to do whatever they want to until we throw their sorry butts out!Go look at this clip of Congressman Tom Perriello (D-VA) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsIHnyWsaqA - it is one of the few truthful things a politician has said in a long time.
And what did he say?
"If you don't tie our hands, we will keep stealing!!
".Fix Capitol Hill.
Vote out every incumbent.
Keep firing these clowns until we get some in office that actually do more than worry about lining their pockets and getting reelected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537582</id>
	<title>Re:I Believe We Need Reform</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>History repeats.  The minority party always unifies and sticks to its guns, the majority party always fractures.  That is especially so now because the Democrats have a super-majority.  History also shows that presidents are far more successful when the opposite party has control of the legislative branch.  When we get both branches controlled by the same party, they think they can ram-rod their agenda through and ignore the minority.  The minority always finds a way to stick it to 'em.  When opposing parties have the White House and Congress they have to at lest make a show of cooperation.  If the Republicans were not he minority they would have passed a smaller but probably workable bill by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>History repeats .
The minority party always unifies and sticks to its guns , the majority party always fractures .
That is especially so now because the Democrats have a super-majority .
History also shows that presidents are far more successful when the opposite party has control of the legislative branch .
When we get both branches controlled by the same party , they think they can ram-rod their agenda through and ignore the minority .
The minority always finds a way to stick it to 'em .
When opposing parties have the White House and Congress they have to at lest make a show of cooperation .
If the Republicans were not he minority they would have passed a smaller but probably workable bill by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>History repeats.
The minority party always unifies and sticks to its guns, the majority party always fractures.
That is especially so now because the Democrats have a super-majority.
History also shows that presidents are far more successful when the opposite party has control of the legislative branch.
When we get both branches controlled by the same party, they think they can ram-rod their agenda through and ignore the minority.
The minority always finds a way to stick it to 'em.
When opposing parties have the White House and Congress they have to at lest make a show of cooperation.
If the Republicans were not he minority they would have passed a smaller but probably workable bill by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540210</id>
	<title>control</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1269021480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly the only proper way to control the Insurance Industry is to start a coalition and begin buying their stocks in small pieces, so the poison pill doesn't kick in.  Proxy the shares to a non-profit regulation organization (that's a tough nut to crack though) which will control the companies through stock holder action.  It will also funnel their ridiculous profits back into the organization.  I think this could work for all but Kaiser which is already non-profit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly the only proper way to control the Insurance Industry is to start a coalition and begin buying their stocks in small pieces , so the poison pill does n't kick in .
Proxy the shares to a non-profit regulation organization ( that 's a tough nut to crack though ) which will control the companies through stock holder action .
It will also funnel their ridiculous profits back into the organization .
I think this could work for all but Kaiser which is already non-profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly the only proper way to control the Insurance Industry is to start a coalition and begin buying their stocks in small pieces, so the poison pill doesn't kick in.
Proxy the shares to a non-profit regulation organization (that's a tough nut to crack though) which will control the companies through stock holder action.
It will also funnel their ridiculous profits back into the organization.
I think this could work for all but Kaiser which is already non-profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535960</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>ShadowFlyP</author>
	<datestamp>1269009720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must go to a mechanic that regularly pokes holes in your radiator too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must go to a mechanic that regularly pokes holes in your radiator too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must go to a mechanic that regularly pokes holes in your radiator too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540744</id>
	<title>Re:How to have Healthcare that a Republican would</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1269023400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently, you need to do some research into health insurance and insurance law.</p><blockquote><div><p>1. Collect a tax that is proportional to the expected premium for the nation, for the given coverage. Define the coverage as only those MOST COMMON things that we need/are entitled to. This means basic and routine care, emergency hospital visits and life-necessary prescription medications.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>3<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Finally leave all controversial services to be paid for by a private supplemental policy. Viagra, abortions, cosmetic procedures, lifestyle liabilities (lung cancer of smokers) would all be paid by the optional private policy</p></div></blockquote><p>OK, we pay a tax AND have health insurance policies. But, who decided whether a specific disease or injury is "lifestyle liability"? </p><ul> <li>You mention lung cancer for smokers, but what about mesothelioma? How about someone who smokes, but comes from a family of smokers in whom there is no history of lung cancer?</li> <li>Or, a smoker who comes from a family of NON-smokers but in whom there is a family history of lung cancer?</li> <li>Is HIV a "lifestyle liability" for homosexuals?</li> <li>What about prostitutes and drug users?</li> <li>Are gun shot wounds a "lifestyle liability" of gang members and criminals?</li> <li>How about ODs for drug abusers?</li><li>Heart attacks, diabetes, etc for fat people?</li><li>How about heart attacks for thin people who work out, but have high stress jobs, have a high intake of salt and fat, and smoke a pack a day?</li><li>How about high blood pressure in black people?</li><li>Broken bones for people who work in dangerous industries?</li><li>Injuries related to a motorcycle crash? Ask any motorcyclist and you will be told it is a "lifestyle".</li></ul><p>Which of those will or will not be covered?</p><blockquote><div><p>It preserves competition among the insurers.</p></div></blockquote><p>There is no real competition among the insurers. In almost every state, there is one insurer who has over 85\% of the market. From state to state, the majority insurer may change, but in each state that majority insurer has an effective monopoly. This is because one does not buy insurance from "Blue Cross/Blue Shield" but rather "Blue Cross/Blue Shield of [insert state here]". And, this state by state monopoly system is not just allowed but actually encouraged by the current laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , you need to do some research into health insurance and insurance law.1 .
Collect a tax that is proportional to the expected premium for the nation , for the given coverage .
Define the coverage as only those MOST COMMON things that we need/are entitled to .
This means basic and routine care , emergency hospital visits and life-necessary prescription medications .
...3 .Finally leave all controversial services to be paid for by a private supplemental policy .
Viagra , abortions , cosmetic procedures , lifestyle liabilities ( lung cancer of smokers ) would all be paid by the optional private policyOK , we pay a tax AND have health insurance policies .
But , who decided whether a specific disease or injury is " lifestyle liability " ?
You mention lung cancer for smokers , but what about mesothelioma ?
How about someone who smokes , but comes from a family of smokers in whom there is no history of lung cancer ?
Or , a smoker who comes from a family of NON-smokers but in whom there is a family history of lung cancer ?
Is HIV a " lifestyle liability " for homosexuals ?
What about prostitutes and drug users ?
Are gun shot wounds a " lifestyle liability " of gang members and criminals ?
How about ODs for drug abusers ? Heart attacks , diabetes , etc for fat people ? How about heart attacks for thin people who work out , but have high stress jobs , have a high intake of salt and fat , and smoke a pack a day ? How about high blood pressure in black people ? Broken bones for people who work in dangerous industries ? Injuries related to a motorcycle crash ?
Ask any motorcyclist and you will be told it is a " lifestyle " .Which of those will or will not be covered ? It preserves competition among the insurers.There is no real competition among the insurers .
In almost every state , there is one insurer who has over 85 \ % of the market .
From state to state , the majority insurer may change , but in each state that majority insurer has an effective monopoly .
This is because one does not buy insurance from " Blue Cross/Blue Shield " but rather " Blue Cross/Blue Shield of [ insert state here ] " .
And , this state by state monopoly system is not just allowed but actually encouraged by the current laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, you need to do some research into health insurance and insurance law.1.
Collect a tax that is proportional to the expected premium for the nation, for the given coverage.
Define the coverage as only those MOST COMMON things that we need/are entitled to.
This means basic and routine care, emergency hospital visits and life-necessary prescription medications.
...3 .Finally leave all controversial services to be paid for by a private supplemental policy.
Viagra, abortions, cosmetic procedures, lifestyle liabilities (lung cancer of smokers) would all be paid by the optional private policyOK, we pay a tax AND have health insurance policies.
But, who decided whether a specific disease or injury is "lifestyle liability"?
You mention lung cancer for smokers, but what about mesothelioma?
How about someone who smokes, but comes from a family of smokers in whom there is no history of lung cancer?
Or, a smoker who comes from a family of NON-smokers but in whom there is a family history of lung cancer?
Is HIV a "lifestyle liability" for homosexuals?
What about prostitutes and drug users?
Are gun shot wounds a "lifestyle liability" of gang members and criminals?
How about ODs for drug abusers?Heart attacks, diabetes, etc for fat people?How about heart attacks for thin people who work out, but have high stress jobs, have a high intake of salt and fat, and smoke a pack a day?How about high blood pressure in black people?Broken bones for people who work in dangerous industries?Injuries related to a motorcycle crash?
Ask any motorcyclist and you will be told it is a "lifestyle".Which of those will or will not be covered?It preserves competition among the insurers.There is no real competition among the insurers.
In almost every state, there is one insurer who has over 85\% of the market.
From state to state, the majority insurer may change, but in each state that majority insurer has an effective monopoly.
This is because one does not buy insurance from "Blue Cross/Blue Shield" but rather "Blue Cross/Blue Shield of [insert state here]".
And, this state by state monopoly system is not just allowed but actually encouraged by the current laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537518</id>
	<title>Re:Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sir &mdash;</p><p>This post is apparently written without regard to widely established facts. For example:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The majority of people in the US do have access to the high quality care, the fact that roughly 10 million US citizens do not have access to regular healthcare and need it is not a reason to penalise the other 300 million.</p></div><p>The number of Americans without health insurance is <a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80897.php" title="medicalnewstoday.com">47 million</a> [medicalnewstoday.com], according to the U.S. census.</p><p>Further, according to Paul Krugman, the U.S. spends <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/runaway-health-care-costs-were-1/" title="nytimes.com">over 15\% of GDP on healthcare, nearly twice that of the U.K at around 8\%</a> [nytimes.com].</p><p>According to Google the life expectancy of the <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&amp;q=life+expectanct+uk&amp;meta=&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g-sx10&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;gs\_rfai=" title="google.ca">UK is 79.3 years</a> [google.ca], and <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&amp;q=life+expectanct+us&amp;meta=&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g-sx10&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;gs\_rfai=" title="google.ca">78 years in the U.S</a> [google.ca]. The infant mortality rate in the U.S. is higher than the U.K. also (by about 1\% I understand).</p><p>All to say this post &ndash; like many on this topic with an agenda &ndash; is utter, mindless drivel.</p><p>The U.S. would have a much better healthcare system (among other things) if there weren't so many people like this with baseless yet entrenched positions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sir    This post is apparently written without regard to widely established facts .
For example : The majority of people in the US do have access to the high quality care , the fact that roughly 10 million US citizens do not have access to regular healthcare and need it is not a reason to penalise the other 300 million.The number of Americans without health insurance is 47 million [ medicalnewstoday.com ] , according to the U.S. census.Further , according to Paul Krugman , the U.S. spends over 15 \ % of GDP on healthcare , nearly twice that of the U.K at around 8 \ % [ nytimes.com ] .According to Google the life expectancy of the UK is 79.3 years [ google.ca ] , and 78 years in the U.S [ google.ca ] .
The infant mortality rate in the U.S. is higher than the U.K. also ( by about 1 \ % I understand ) .All to say this post    like many on this topic with an agenda    is utter , mindless drivel.The U.S. would have a much better healthcare system ( among other things ) if there were n't so many people like this with baseless yet entrenched positions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sir —This post is apparently written without regard to widely established facts.
For example:The majority of people in the US do have access to the high quality care, the fact that roughly 10 million US citizens do not have access to regular healthcare and need it is not a reason to penalise the other 300 million.The number of Americans without health insurance is 47 million [medicalnewstoday.com], according to the U.S. census.Further, according to Paul Krugman, the U.S. spends over 15\% of GDP on healthcare, nearly twice that of the U.K at around 8\% [nytimes.com].According to Google the life expectancy of the UK is 79.3 years [google.ca], and 78 years in the U.S [google.ca].
The infant mortality rate in the U.S. is higher than the U.K. also (by about 1\% I understand).All to say this post – like many on this topic with an agenda – is utter, mindless drivel.The U.S. would have a much better healthcare system (among other things) if there weren't so many people like this with baseless yet entrenched positions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538738</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>Sanity</author>
	<datestamp>1269016740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's about forcing you to do these things at gunpoint (and yes, a gunpoint is somewhere in your future if you stop paying your taxes) by raising taxes (by 3.8\%) and by forcing you to buy health insurance when you don't want to do so.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
And yet I'd bet you'd be the first to expect to get treated in an emergency room if you didn't have health insurance and something bad happened.  The reality is that nobody wants to live in a country where people are allowed to die on the streets because they are poor.  If you accept that as a premise, then at some point it is necessary for us all to accept some kind of mandate to participate in the health care system.  The alternative is the current situation, the worst of all worlds, where emergency rooms end up being the safety net for those without insurance, and we all pay through the nose for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about forcing you to do these things at gunpoint ( and yes , a gunpoint is somewhere in your future if you stop paying your taxes ) by raising taxes ( by 3.8 \ % ) and by forcing you to buy health insurance when you do n't want to do so .
And yet I 'd bet you 'd be the first to expect to get treated in an emergency room if you did n't have health insurance and something bad happened .
The reality is that nobody wants to live in a country where people are allowed to die on the streets because they are poor .
If you accept that as a premise , then at some point it is necessary for us all to accept some kind of mandate to participate in the health care system .
The alternative is the current situation , the worst of all worlds , where emergency rooms end up being the safety net for those without insurance , and we all pay through the nose for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about forcing you to do these things at gunpoint (and yes, a gunpoint is somewhere in your future if you stop paying your taxes) by raising taxes (by 3.8\%) and by forcing you to buy health insurance when you don't want to do so.
And yet I'd bet you'd be the first to expect to get treated in an emergency room if you didn't have health insurance and something bad happened.
The reality is that nobody wants to live in a country where people are allowed to die on the streets because they are poor.
If you accept that as a premise, then at some point it is necessary for us all to accept some kind of mandate to participate in the health care system.
The alternative is the current situation, the worst of all worlds, where emergency rooms end up being the safety net for those without insurance, and we all pay through the nose for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541564</id>
	<title>Slashdot is conservative.</title>
	<author>Singularity42</author>
	<datestamp>1269026760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This applies both to moderation and comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This applies both to moderation and comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This applies both to moderation and comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535068</id>
	<title>Comunisam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269006780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look's like we lossed the coald war afterall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look 's like we lossed the coald war afterall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look's like we lossed the coald war afterall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440</id>
	<title>Random health care thoughts</title>
	<author>itlurksbeneath</author>
	<datestamp>1269008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It amazes me that with the high percentage of negative public opinion on the health care bill that congress is still considering it.  This is supposed to be government by the will of the people, right?  To me, the will of the people is not being executed here.</p><p>Also, this is apparent in the back door manner in which they are trying to pass the bill by some trick of house/senate rules.  This isn't some bill to appropriate a few million dollars for federal park support but a bill involving a trillion dollars of outlay.  Given the current administration's massive spending and addition to the national debt with little to show for it, does anybody have any real confidence that this will work?</p><p>Some comments on health care industries making money hand over fist.  Everybody seems to be in an outrage with doctors making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, but nobody bats an eye when some sports star signs a multi-million dollar contract.  If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery, would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open?  I'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche.  If he's good enough to earn that much money, he's got to be worth his salt.</p><p>If they were really serious about health care reform, why didn't they start with the biggest money issue in health care:  tort reform.  Why?  Because Congress is made up with a bunch of lawyers that don't want to see their industry lose out on billions of dollars per year in fees brought about by the misery of other people.  People are incensed about million dollar bonuses at financial firms, but nobody shines the light on lawyers that, for the amount of work put in, end up making thousands of dollars per hour in a settlement or ruling.  Consider, also, that even though that doctor is making a quarter of a million dollars per year, he's paying 25 or 30 percent of that in malpractice insurance to protect himself from every Tom, Dick and Harry that decides to sue because they didn't follow instructions and ripped their stitches out.</p><p>Some lawyers are a blight on society, but unfortunately, their buddies are crawling all over Washington as lobbyists or in Congress/DoJ/White House/etc.  The more I think about it, the more I agree with what <a href="http://www.goooh.org/" title="goooh.org">Get Out of Our House</a> [goooh.org] is doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It amazes me that with the high percentage of negative public opinion on the health care bill that congress is still considering it .
This is supposed to be government by the will of the people , right ?
To me , the will of the people is not being executed here.Also , this is apparent in the back door manner in which they are trying to pass the bill by some trick of house/senate rules .
This is n't some bill to appropriate a few million dollars for federal park support but a bill involving a trillion dollars of outlay .
Given the current administration 's massive spending and addition to the national debt with little to show for it , does anybody have any real confidence that this will work ? Some comments on health care industries making money hand over fist .
Everybody seems to be in an outrage with doctors making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year , but nobody bats an eye when some sports star signs a multi-million dollar contract .
If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery , would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open ?
I 'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche .
If he 's good enough to earn that much money , he 's got to be worth his salt.If they were really serious about health care reform , why did n't they start with the biggest money issue in health care : tort reform .
Why ? Because Congress is made up with a bunch of lawyers that do n't want to see their industry lose out on billions of dollars per year in fees brought about by the misery of other people .
People are incensed about million dollar bonuses at financial firms , but nobody shines the light on lawyers that , for the amount of work put in , end up making thousands of dollars per hour in a settlement or ruling .
Consider , also , that even though that doctor is making a quarter of a million dollars per year , he 's paying 25 or 30 percent of that in malpractice insurance to protect himself from every Tom , Dick and Harry that decides to sue because they did n't follow instructions and ripped their stitches out.Some lawyers are a blight on society , but unfortunately , their buddies are crawling all over Washington as lobbyists or in Congress/DoJ/White House/etc .
The more I think about it , the more I agree with what Get Out of Our House [ goooh.org ] is doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It amazes me that with the high percentage of negative public opinion on the health care bill that congress is still considering it.
This is supposed to be government by the will of the people, right?
To me, the will of the people is not being executed here.Also, this is apparent in the back door manner in which they are trying to pass the bill by some trick of house/senate rules.
This isn't some bill to appropriate a few million dollars for federal park support but a bill involving a trillion dollars of outlay.
Given the current administration's massive spending and addition to the national debt with little to show for it, does anybody have any real confidence that this will work?Some comments on health care industries making money hand over fist.
Everybody seems to be in an outrage with doctors making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, but nobody bats an eye when some sports star signs a multi-million dollar contract.
If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery, would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open?
I'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche.
If he's good enough to earn that much money, he's got to be worth his salt.If they were really serious about health care reform, why didn't they start with the biggest money issue in health care:  tort reform.
Why?  Because Congress is made up with a bunch of lawyers that don't want to see their industry lose out on billions of dollars per year in fees brought about by the misery of other people.
People are incensed about million dollar bonuses at financial firms, but nobody shines the light on lawyers that, for the amount of work put in, end up making thousands of dollars per hour in a settlement or ruling.
Consider, also, that even though that doctor is making a quarter of a million dollars per year, he's paying 25 or 30 percent of that in malpractice insurance to protect himself from every Tom, Dick and Harry that decides to sue because they didn't follow instructions and ripped their stitches out.Some lawyers are a blight on society, but unfortunately, their buddies are crawling all over Washington as lobbyists or in Congress/DoJ/White House/etc.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with what Get Out of Our House [goooh.org] is doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535534</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds. Stuff that matters</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1269008400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is covered in the FAQ. Also, you can remove categories from the front page by personalizing it in your settings. Not trying to be snide, it helps me avoid topics I don't care about.</p><p>That being said the summary was a complete troll. They make it seem as if logical intelligent people will automatically want this bill to pass. But anyone with that intelligence realizes it's much more complicated than the black and white issue it's been spun as in the media. If they were paying attention they'd realize that the Republicans, and Fox News and their Libertarian base along with them, are sitting on the side lines watching the real fight happen inside the Democratic party as they fight over the bill. This is why "deem and pass" procedure is such a big deal. The Democrats want to move the bill forward and go into election mode because they see this bill as sapping their political energy and really pissing off the public in the meantime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is covered in the FAQ .
Also , you can remove categories from the front page by personalizing it in your settings .
Not trying to be snide , it helps me avoid topics I do n't care about.That being said the summary was a complete troll .
They make it seem as if logical intelligent people will automatically want this bill to pass .
But anyone with that intelligence realizes it 's much more complicated than the black and white issue it 's been spun as in the media .
If they were paying attention they 'd realize that the Republicans , and Fox News and their Libertarian base along with them , are sitting on the side lines watching the real fight happen inside the Democratic party as they fight over the bill .
This is why " deem and pass " procedure is such a big deal .
The Democrats want to move the bill forward and go into election mode because they see this bill as sapping their political energy and really pissing off the public in the meantime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is covered in the FAQ.
Also, you can remove categories from the front page by personalizing it in your settings.
Not trying to be snide, it helps me avoid topics I don't care about.That being said the summary was a complete troll.
They make it seem as if logical intelligent people will automatically want this bill to pass.
But anyone with that intelligence realizes it's much more complicated than the black and white issue it's been spun as in the media.
If they were paying attention they'd realize that the Republicans, and Fox News and their Libertarian base along with them, are sitting on the side lines watching the real fight happen inside the Democratic party as they fight over the bill.
This is why "deem and pass" procedure is such a big deal.
The Democrats want to move the bill forward and go into election mode because they see this bill as sapping their political energy and really pissing off the public in the meantime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535330</id>
	<title>Healthcare is a good thing. This bill is not.</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any bill that expands power for the IRS (does anyone else think that the IRS has no place in making health care decisions?), places an entire sector of the economy under Government control (Biden's words, not mine) and will create lots more opportunity for people to go to jail is just not the prescription.</p><p>As it is, this law basically raises taxes, forces healthy, young people to buy insurance and creates a class of people who are too wealthy to get assistance and not wealthy enough to afford insurance, and then jails them for being squarely in the middle class. Why not take a little more time and do this right, and make it so health care becomes a right, not an enforced purchase of insurance bundled with a tax increase?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any bill that expands power for the IRS ( does anyone else think that the IRS has no place in making health care decisions ?
) , places an entire sector of the economy under Government control ( Biden 's words , not mine ) and will create lots more opportunity for people to go to jail is just not the prescription.As it is , this law basically raises taxes , forces healthy , young people to buy insurance and creates a class of people who are too wealthy to get assistance and not wealthy enough to afford insurance , and then jails them for being squarely in the middle class .
Why not take a little more time and do this right , and make it so health care becomes a right , not an enforced purchase of insurance bundled with a tax increase ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any bill that expands power for the IRS (does anyone else think that the IRS has no place in making health care decisions?
), places an entire sector of the economy under Government control (Biden's words, not mine) and will create lots more opportunity for people to go to jail is just not the prescription.As it is, this law basically raises taxes, forces healthy, young people to buy insurance and creates a class of people who are too wealthy to get assistance and not wealthy enough to afford insurance, and then jails them for being squarely in the middle class.
Why not take a little more time and do this right, and make it so health care becomes a right, not an enforced purchase of insurance bundled with a tax increase?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535356</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently?</p></div><p>Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?  If there is, I'd missed it.  It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do, but it doesn't set up a public option (aka government-run health care).</p></div><p>And, yet, it still costs $960,000,000,000 to manage. Which, BTW, doesn't include the cost of the mandates.</p><p>Remember, kids, if you require company A to pay you X to provide service C, it is a "tax".<br>But if you require company A to pay X to company B for service C, it is a "mandate", and thus "doesn't count".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently ? Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run ?
If there is , I 'd missed it .
It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do , but it does n't set up a public option ( aka government-run health care ) .And , yet , it still costs $ 960,000,000,000 to manage .
Which , BTW , does n't include the cost of the mandates.Remember , kids , if you require company A to pay you X to provide service C , it is a " tax " .But if you require company A to pay X to company B for service C , it is a " mandate " , and thus " does n't count " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently?Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?
If there is, I'd missed it.
It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do, but it doesn't set up a public option (aka government-run health care).And, yet, it still costs $960,000,000,000 to manage.
Which, BTW, doesn't include the cost of the mandates.Remember, kids, if you require company A to pay you X to provide service C, it is a "tax".But if you require company A to pay X to company B for service C, it is a "mandate", and thus "doesn't count".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538188</id>
	<title>Reality vs Impressions in Healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The simlpe truth is rarely what anyone sees. The debate about a single-payer system is a non-started; everyone understands that the US government is too beholden to corporate money to ever consider taking away a profitmaking opportunity.  The "Public Option" simply is a base healthcare plan SOLD BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES that meets a standard established by congress, which is considered a "Pool" of members, not individual coverage. Your employer can offer that as their basic package, or you can buy it for yourself, but it is the same cost and features to everyone taking that option.  As for the choice of doctor, etc; the healthcare companies tell you who you can see now, based on their "preferred provider networks" and on charging you more to see anyone else, up to the point of not paying at all for doctors they don't want you to use. The same would undoubtedly apply, but the healthcare companies would have to meet some much more stringent and well defined criteria to exclude doctors from their "networks" and there could be a national certification or recognition that would mean they had to accept those doctors as qualified  for anyone on the "public option" plans.<br>The last piece, but the most significant, is that the regulations would eliminate the tricks the companies use to deny coverage - "pre-existing condition", lifetime caps, etc would not be a factor, and portability of your healthcare choices would no longer be an issue for people changing jobs or seeking new ones after being laid off, etc.<br>In short, the changes that this is the first strong step into are nothing but good for the people, and it is the health insurance industry that does not want them; the republicans are simply seizing on this as an opportunity to block the democrats from doing something the people want, so they can prove that the democrats never do anything good for the people, and unfortunately the current climate in washington means that if the numbers were reversed, the democrats would be trying to block the things the republicans want to do.<br>I think the final answer might be that in order to serve in the Congress or in any branch of the US government, a person would have to renounce membership in any political party for the duration of their term.. As long as we're dreaming, might as well dream big<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The simlpe truth is rarely what anyone sees .
The debate about a single-payer system is a non-started ; everyone understands that the US government is too beholden to corporate money to ever consider taking away a profitmaking opportunity .
The " Public Option " simply is a base healthcare plan SOLD BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES that meets a standard established by congress , which is considered a " Pool " of members , not individual coverage .
Your employer can offer that as their basic package , or you can buy it for yourself , but it is the same cost and features to everyone taking that option .
As for the choice of doctor , etc ; the healthcare companies tell you who you can see now , based on their " preferred provider networks " and on charging you more to see anyone else , up to the point of not paying at all for doctors they do n't want you to use .
The same would undoubtedly apply , but the healthcare companies would have to meet some much more stringent and well defined criteria to exclude doctors from their " networks " and there could be a national certification or recognition that would mean they had to accept those doctors as qualified for anyone on the " public option " plans.The last piece , but the most significant , is that the regulations would eliminate the tricks the companies use to deny coverage - " pre-existing condition " , lifetime caps , etc would not be a factor , and portability of your healthcare choices would no longer be an issue for people changing jobs or seeking new ones after being laid off , etc.In short , the changes that this is the first strong step into are nothing but good for the people , and it is the health insurance industry that does not want them ; the republicans are simply seizing on this as an opportunity to block the democrats from doing something the people want , so they can prove that the democrats never do anything good for the people , and unfortunately the current climate in washington means that if the numbers were reversed , the democrats would be trying to block the things the republicans want to do.I think the final answer might be that in order to serve in the Congress or in any branch of the US government , a person would have to renounce membership in any political party for the duration of their term.. As long as we 're dreaming , might as well dream big : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simlpe truth is rarely what anyone sees.
The debate about a single-payer system is a non-started; everyone understands that the US government is too beholden to corporate money to ever consider taking away a profitmaking opportunity.
The "Public Option" simply is a base healthcare plan SOLD BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES that meets a standard established by congress, which is considered a "Pool" of members, not individual coverage.
Your employer can offer that as their basic package, or you can buy it for yourself, but it is the same cost and features to everyone taking that option.
As for the choice of doctor, etc; the healthcare companies tell you who you can see now, based on their "preferred provider networks" and on charging you more to see anyone else, up to the point of not paying at all for doctors they don't want you to use.
The same would undoubtedly apply, but the healthcare companies would have to meet some much more stringent and well defined criteria to exclude doctors from their "networks" and there could be a national certification or recognition that would mean they had to accept those doctors as qualified  for anyone on the "public option" plans.The last piece, but the most significant, is that the regulations would eliminate the tricks the companies use to deny coverage - "pre-existing condition", lifetime caps, etc would not be a factor, and portability of your healthcare choices would no longer be an issue for people changing jobs or seeking new ones after being laid off, etc.In short, the changes that this is the first strong step into are nothing but good for the people, and it is the health insurance industry that does not want them; the republicans are simply seizing on this as an opportunity to block the democrats from doing something the people want, so they can prove that the democrats never do anything good for the people, and unfortunately the current climate in washington means that if the numbers were reversed, the democrats would be trying to block the things the republicans want to do.I think the final answer might be that in order to serve in the Congress or in any branch of the US government, a person would have to renounce membership in any political party for the duration of their term.. As long as we're dreaming, might as well dream big :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538094</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run? . . . It [the government] mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.."</p><p>I guess you didn't pass that logic class, did you? I'm glad you cleared that up for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run ?
. .
. It [ the government ] mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do .
. .. " I guess you did n't pass that logic class , did you ?
I 'm glad you cleared that up for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?
. .
. It [the government] mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do.
. .."I guess you didn't pass that logic class, did you?
I'm glad you cleared that up for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537606</id>
	<title>Dear nanny stater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the government has to pay for your health, they have a rational for controlling your life choices.  "I'm sorry sir, the government forbids me to put bacon on your burger.  Your cholesterol is too high.  May I suggest the garden burger?  If you really want the beef burger, you'll have to pay the fatty fat fatso tax."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the government has to pay for your health , they have a rational for controlling your life choices .
" I 'm sorry sir , the government forbids me to put bacon on your burger .
Your cholesterol is too high .
May I suggest the garden burger ?
If you really want the beef burger , you 'll have to pay the fatty fat fatso tax .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the government has to pay for your health, they have a rational for controlling your life choices.
"I'm sorry sir, the government forbids me to put bacon on your burger.
Your cholesterol is too high.
May I suggest the garden burger?
If you really want the beef burger, you'll have to pay the fatty fat fatso tax.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536482</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269011160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best thing that a health care bill could do is to open up competition and transparency.</p><p>If only you could buy health care insurance as an individual from anywhere in the US.  If only doctors and hospitals would be forced to give health care consumers basic pricing information that applied equally whether I was paying with insurance or cash.  These games they play with the insurance companies to increase revenue for both is ridiculous.</p><p>For example, I was planning to have a minor routine procedure this year; so last year I was considering carefully how much money to put into my FSA.  My doctor had done thousands of this procedure, but his office could not give me a price or even a good ballpark.  As a developer, if I couldn't give a customer a price ahead of time for something routine that I had specialized in and been doing for years, I wouldn't expect that customer to work with me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best thing that a health care bill could do is to open up competition and transparency.If only you could buy health care insurance as an individual from anywhere in the US .
If only doctors and hospitals would be forced to give health care consumers basic pricing information that applied equally whether I was paying with insurance or cash .
These games they play with the insurance companies to increase revenue for both is ridiculous.For example , I was planning to have a minor routine procedure this year ; so last year I was considering carefully how much money to put into my FSA .
My doctor had done thousands of this procedure , but his office could not give me a price or even a good ballpark .
As a developer , if I could n't give a customer a price ahead of time for something routine that I had specialized in and been doing for years , I would n't expect that customer to work with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best thing that a health care bill could do is to open up competition and transparency.If only you could buy health care insurance as an individual from anywhere in the US.
If only doctors and hospitals would be forced to give health care consumers basic pricing information that applied equally whether I was paying with insurance or cash.
These games they play with the insurance companies to increase revenue for both is ridiculous.For example, I was planning to have a minor routine procedure this year; so last year I was considering carefully how much money to put into my FSA.
My doctor had done thousands of this procedure, but his office could not give me a price or even a good ballpark.
As a developer, if I couldn't give a customer a price ahead of time for something routine that I had specialized in and been doing for years, I wouldn't expect that customer to work with me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535426</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds. Stuff that matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't click on it, then, christ.</p><p>Shut up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't click on it , then , christ.Shut up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't click on it, then, christ.Shut up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537842</id>
	<title>Kudos to CmdrTaco</title>
	<author>EQ</author>
	<datestamp>1269014580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at all the +5/-1 moderations! Full of Heated, irrational and emotional responses! Trolling and counter trolling! Massive amounts of comments, Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.</p><p>And best of all it has nothing essential to do with <em>News for Nerds</em>, its purely political, and US oriented. <em>SlashKos</em> is now in session, Bravo!</p><p>Rob Malda, you astound and amaze! You finally beat out John Katz, Goatse, NataliePortman+HotGrits, a beowulf cluster of Soviet Russias, and the GNAA...</p><p> <strong>Kudos to Taco --  This article is the all-time biggest meta-troll ever on SlashDot</strong>  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at all the + 5/-1 moderations !
Full of Heated , irrational and emotional responses !
Trolling and counter trolling !
Massive amounts of comments , Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.And best of all it has nothing essential to do with News for Nerds , its purely political , and US oriented .
SlashKos is now in session , Bravo ! Rob Malda , you astound and amaze !
You finally beat out John Katz , Goatse , NataliePortman + HotGrits , a beowulf cluster of Soviet Russias , and the GNAA... Kudos to Taco -- This article is the all-time biggest meta-troll ever on SlashDot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at all the +5/-1 moderations!
Full of Heated, irrational and emotional responses!
Trolling and counter trolling!
Massive amounts of comments, Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.And best of all it has nothing essential to do with News for Nerds, its purely political, and US oriented.
SlashKos is now in session, Bravo!Rob Malda, you astound and amaze!
You finally beat out John Katz, Goatse, NataliePortman+HotGrits, a beowulf cluster of Soviet Russias, and the GNAA... Kudos to Taco --  This article is the all-time biggest meta-troll ever on SlashDot  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540186</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269021420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who has been through the healthcare system in the US and the UK, believe me... US gets WAY better service.</p><p>I will agree, though, that liability is an issue.  But then, this bill has no tort reform.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has been through the healthcare system in the US and the UK , believe me... US gets WAY better service.I will agree , though , that liability is an issue .
But then , this bill has no tort reform .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has been through the healthcare system in the US and the UK, believe me... US gets WAY better service.I will agree, though, that liability is an issue.
But then, this bill has no tort reform.
:/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535670</id>
	<title>Bad tax design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
One specific beef. One of the tax proposals is to extend the Medicare tax to unearned income for anyone who makes more than $200,000 ($250,000 if filing jointly). Specifically, it means that if you make $199,999 you're not taxed on any investment income or capital gains, but if you make another dollar then the tax applies retroactively to any capital gains you have whatsoever, possibly costing you hundreds of dollars.
</p><p>
That's bad tax design, and it will probably bite a bunch of middle-class/upper-middle-class types who have sudden large expenses and need to liquidate something to pay for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One specific beef .
One of the tax proposals is to extend the Medicare tax to unearned income for anyone who makes more than $ 200,000 ( $ 250,000 if filing jointly ) .
Specifically , it means that if you make $ 199,999 you 're not taxed on any investment income or capital gains , but if you make another dollar then the tax applies retroactively to any capital gains you have whatsoever , possibly costing you hundreds of dollars .
That 's bad tax design , and it will probably bite a bunch of middle-class/upper-middle-class types who have sudden large expenses and need to liquidate something to pay for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
One specific beef.
One of the tax proposals is to extend the Medicare tax to unearned income for anyone who makes more than $200,000 ($250,000 if filing jointly).
Specifically, it means that if you make $199,999 you're not taxed on any investment income or capital gains, but if you make another dollar then the tax applies retroactively to any capital gains you have whatsoever, possibly costing you hundreds of dollars.
That's bad tax design, and it will probably bite a bunch of middle-class/upper-middle-class types who have sudden large expenses and need to liquidate something to pay for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541128</id>
	<title>It's a perfect plan.</title>
	<author>Tiger Smile</author>
	<datestamp>1269024840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) You get to deal with the IRS and they get to know you much better.</p><p>2) You pay now and it doesn't take effect until 2014</p><p>3) It's called the biggest deficit reduction bill ever signed!</p><p>4) Your money will as safe as your social security payments are(their locked away awaiting our retirement aren't they).</p><p>5) Clerical error never happen in government agencies and they always care about the captive^h^h^h^h^h^ustomer.</p><p>It has the feeling of a tax passed to keep the Federal government afloat so it can continue to operate, but with some health care tacked on. Basically, they lost me at IRS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) You get to deal with the IRS and they get to know you much better.2 ) You pay now and it does n't take effect until 20143 ) It 's called the biggest deficit reduction bill ever signed ! 4 ) Your money will as safe as your social security payments are ( their locked away awaiting our retirement are n't they ) .5 ) Clerical error never happen in government agencies and they always care about the captive ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ ustomer.It has the feeling of a tax passed to keep the Federal government afloat so it can continue to operate , but with some health care tacked on .
Basically , they lost me at IRS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) You get to deal with the IRS and they get to know you much better.2) You pay now and it doesn't take effect until 20143) It's called the biggest deficit reduction bill ever signed!4) Your money will as safe as your social security payments are(their locked away awaiting our retirement aren't they).5) Clerical error never happen in government agencies and they always care about the captive^h^h^h^h^h^ustomer.It has the feeling of a tax passed to keep the Federal government afloat so it can continue to operate, but with some health care tacked on.
Basically, they lost me at IRS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535838</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds. Stuff that matters</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1269009360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, I don't remember any slashdot mod that caused giant mechanical arms to reach out of your keyboard and compel you to read every article.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...I mean, maybe it's part of that 2.0 thing everybody's talking about...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I do n't remember any slashdot mod that caused giant mechanical arms to reach out of your keyboard and compel you to read every article .
...I mean , maybe it 's part of that 2.0 thing everybody 's talking about... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, I don't remember any slashdot mod that caused giant mechanical arms to reach out of your keyboard and compel you to read every article.
...I mean, maybe it's part of that 2.0 thing everybody's talking about...?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535862</id>
	<title>Re:"Entitlement Generation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forcing your neighbor to take care of you against his will is a form of slavery.  You don't have to force someone to help out his fellow brothers, but to expect it from everyone is entitlement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forcing your neighbor to take care of you against his will is a form of slavery .
You do n't have to force someone to help out his fellow brothers , but to expect it from everyone is entitlement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forcing your neighbor to take care of you against his will is a form of slavery.
You don't have to force someone to help out his fellow brothers, but to expect it from everyone is entitlement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541294</id>
	<title>xMrRocknRollx</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269025560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply put, anyone in favor of universal healthcare is not American... this is a capitalistic country... nothing should be universal here, this is not Sweden, if you don't like it, move there and enjoy 50\% taxes taken out of your paycheck every week.  Blah blah yes it's sad some people have to suffer, but that's life, sorry we all can't be rich and be in perfect situations, unfortunately there's not enough resources in the world for that to happen, nor is it even passable to consider such a wild idea.  This is America, you keep what you earn, you don't earn anything, all well, can't always blame everyone else and expect the government to rescue you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply put , anyone in favor of universal healthcare is not American... this is a capitalistic country... nothing should be universal here , this is not Sweden , if you do n't like it , move there and enjoy 50 \ % taxes taken out of your paycheck every week .
Blah blah yes it 's sad some people have to suffer , but that 's life , sorry we all ca n't be rich and be in perfect situations , unfortunately there 's not enough resources in the world for that to happen , nor is it even passable to consider such a wild idea .
This is America , you keep what you earn , you do n't earn anything , all well , ca n't always blame everyone else and expect the government to rescue you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply put, anyone in favor of universal healthcare is not American... this is a capitalistic country... nothing should be universal here, this is not Sweden, if you don't like it, move there and enjoy 50\% taxes taken out of your paycheck every week.
Blah blah yes it's sad some people have to suffer, but that's life, sorry we all can't be rich and be in perfect situations, unfortunately there's not enough resources in the world for that to happen, nor is it even passable to consider such a wild idea.
This is America, you keep what you earn, you don't earn anything, all well, can't always blame everyone else and expect the government to rescue you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535732</id>
	<title>no reform.</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1269008940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a 'health care reform'.</p><p>This is not even an 'insurance reform'.</p><p>What is going to pass is a few regulations that are supposedly going to make it not possible for an insurance company to drop coverage, to do rescission and a few more items.  - This is good.</p><p>Here is what you are not going to get:</p><p>1. No optional public insurance against private insurance, the prices will not go down.  Worse than that, what is happening is private insurance is raising prices to offset any of the new changes that will be coming with this 'reform'.  Does not look good.</p><p>2. You probably are going to get a mandate, which is unfortunate given that you will have no public option.  You will be forced to buy into expensive private insurance, there will be no choice or it looks like you will get some sort of a fine.  Does not look good.</p><p>3. No cheaper drugs imported from other countries.  The bill was introduced earlier this fall, but Obama actually killed it very very personally because he signed a deal with the manufacturers to do this: no competition from cheaper imported drugs AND the patents are to be extended from 5 years to something like 12 years.  Does not look good.</p><p>4. Looks like US is one of the backwards countries that will try to limit women's access to health care they need.  You going to get the 'reform' that will prevent any private insurance coverage for women that includes abortion.  This is no joke, even for those who have coverage today, looks like they will actually lose it with this 'reform'.  Does not look good.</p><p>The other part of it, the cost of it, that's a moot point.  It was calculated that if Medicare was provided as a buy in for anyone at all, at cost (at cost - means whatever it costs, but no money is made for profit), or if there was a public option, then the reform could even save money.  The way it is going to happen with no public negotiations with hospitals, no public negotiations with drug manufacturers, no import of cheaper drugs, no generics because the patents will be extended, well, I don't know if this will be cost neutral.  It does not matter really, if US just cut its WAR cost, it's defense contractors costs they could probably fund the entire reform in health insurance and there would be enough money for the public education reform.  Of-course that's not going to happen.</p><p>Anyway, Pelosi and Obama and the rest of them are lying sacks of shit.  They do not want to take a vote on the public option, they will not take a vote on Grayson's proposal to just allow anyone to buy into Medicare at cost.  This is not a health reform, this is just a little chunk of 'change' you were promised.  Take it and be happy, cause you are not going to get anything better at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a 'health care reform'.This is not even an 'insurance reform'.What is going to pass is a few regulations that are supposedly going to make it not possible for an insurance company to drop coverage , to do rescission and a few more items .
- This is good.Here is what you are not going to get : 1 .
No optional public insurance against private insurance , the prices will not go down .
Worse than that , what is happening is private insurance is raising prices to offset any of the new changes that will be coming with this 'reform' .
Does not look good.2 .
You probably are going to get a mandate , which is unfortunate given that you will have no public option .
You will be forced to buy into expensive private insurance , there will be no choice or it looks like you will get some sort of a fine .
Does not look good.3 .
No cheaper drugs imported from other countries .
The bill was introduced earlier this fall , but Obama actually killed it very very personally because he signed a deal with the manufacturers to do this : no competition from cheaper imported drugs AND the patents are to be extended from 5 years to something like 12 years .
Does not look good.4 .
Looks like US is one of the backwards countries that will try to limit women 's access to health care they need .
You going to get the 'reform ' that will prevent any private insurance coverage for women that includes abortion .
This is no joke , even for those who have coverage today , looks like they will actually lose it with this 'reform' .
Does not look good.The other part of it , the cost of it , that 's a moot point .
It was calculated that if Medicare was provided as a buy in for anyone at all , at cost ( at cost - means whatever it costs , but no money is made for profit ) , or if there was a public option , then the reform could even save money .
The way it is going to happen with no public negotiations with hospitals , no public negotiations with drug manufacturers , no import of cheaper drugs , no generics because the patents will be extended , well , I do n't know if this will be cost neutral .
It does not matter really , if US just cut its WAR cost , it 's defense contractors costs they could probably fund the entire reform in health insurance and there would be enough money for the public education reform .
Of-course that 's not going to happen.Anyway , Pelosi and Obama and the rest of them are lying sacks of shit .
They do not want to take a vote on the public option , they will not take a vote on Grayson 's proposal to just allow anyone to buy into Medicare at cost .
This is not a health reform , this is just a little chunk of 'change ' you were promised .
Take it and be happy , cause you are not going to get anything better at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a 'health care reform'.This is not even an 'insurance reform'.What is going to pass is a few regulations that are supposedly going to make it not possible for an insurance company to drop coverage, to do rescission and a few more items.
- This is good.Here is what you are not going to get:1.
No optional public insurance against private insurance, the prices will not go down.
Worse than that, what is happening is private insurance is raising prices to offset any of the new changes that will be coming with this 'reform'.
Does not look good.2.
You probably are going to get a mandate, which is unfortunate given that you will have no public option.
You will be forced to buy into expensive private insurance, there will be no choice or it looks like you will get some sort of a fine.
Does not look good.3.
No cheaper drugs imported from other countries.
The bill was introduced earlier this fall, but Obama actually killed it very very personally because he signed a deal with the manufacturers to do this: no competition from cheaper imported drugs AND the patents are to be extended from 5 years to something like 12 years.
Does not look good.4.
Looks like US is one of the backwards countries that will try to limit women's access to health care they need.
You going to get the 'reform' that will prevent any private insurance coverage for women that includes abortion.
This is no joke, even for those who have coverage today, looks like they will actually lose it with this 'reform'.
Does not look good.The other part of it, the cost of it, that's a moot point.
It was calculated that if Medicare was provided as a buy in for anyone at all, at cost (at cost - means whatever it costs, but no money is made for profit), or if there was a public option, then the reform could even save money.
The way it is going to happen with no public negotiations with hospitals, no public negotiations with drug manufacturers, no import of cheaper drugs, no generics because the patents will be extended, well, I don't know if this will be cost neutral.
It does not matter really, if US just cut its WAR cost, it's defense contractors costs they could probably fund the entire reform in health insurance and there would be enough money for the public education reform.
Of-course that's not going to happen.Anyway, Pelosi and Obama and the rest of them are lying sacks of shit.
They do not want to take a vote on the public option, they will not take a vote on Grayson's proposal to just allow anyone to buy into Medicare at cost.
This is not a health reform, this is just a little chunk of 'change' you were promised.
Take it and be happy, cause you are not going to get anything better at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538194</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Sircus</author>
	<datestamp>1269015360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It costs money to get people health insurance.  That doesn't mean that the government's going to be providing that insurance.</p><p>Where do you get a trillion dollars from?  The <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf" title="cbo.gov">CBO has this to say</a> [cbo.gov]:</p><blockquote><div><p>CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation&mdash;H.R. 3590 and the<br>reconciliation proposal&mdash; would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $138<br>billion over the 2010&ndash;2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenue<br>(see the top panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5).</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It costs money to get people health insurance .
That does n't mean that the government 's going to be providing that insurance.Where do you get a trillion dollars from ?
The CBO has this to say [ cbo.gov ] : CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation    H.R .
3590 and thereconciliation proposal    would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $ 138billion over the 2010    2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenue ( see the top panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It costs money to get people health insurance.
That doesn't mean that the government's going to be providing that insurance.Where do you get a trillion dollars from?
The CBO has this to say [cbo.gov]:CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation—H.R.
3590 and thereconciliation proposal— would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $138billion over the 2010–2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenue(see the top panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536440</id>
	<title>Worst Bill In History</title>
	<author>Ferretman</author>
	<datestamp>1269011040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm stunned by the comments of those in favor of this mess above me.  One can only surmise that they spend their time alternating between coffee shops and the computer in their mom's basement....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm stunned by the comments of those in favor of this mess above me .
One can only surmise that they spend their time alternating between coffee shops and the computer in their mom 's basement... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm stunned by the comments of those in favor of this mess above me.
One can only surmise that they spend their time alternating between coffee shops and the computer in their mom's basement....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539958</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1269020700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the government isn't running anything, what is it spending $960 billion on?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government is n't running anything , what is it spending $ 960 billion on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government isn't running anything, what is it spending $960 billion on?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539292</id>
	<title>Re:Bad tax design</title>
	<author>TheFaithfulStone</author>
	<datestamp>1269018480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$250,000 yearly income is NOT middle class or upper middle class.  That's upper 1\%.  Being richer than 99\% of the people around you is the definition of being rich</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 250,000 yearly income is NOT middle class or upper middle class .
That 's upper 1 \ % .
Being richer than 99 \ % of the people around you is the definition of being rich</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$250,000 yearly income is NOT middle class or upper middle class.
That's upper 1\%.
Being richer than 99\% of the people around you is the definition of being rich</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539114</id>
	<title>What a bunch of hypocrites.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269017940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I find interesting is that many on slashdot who advocate open source and technology choice/freedom from technology monopolies do a complete 180 on this issue.  Instead of espousing freedom and choice in health care, they support the government requiring everyone to have health insurance, many desire a government-run single payer system.</p><p>What a bunch of hypocrites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find interesting is that many on slashdot who advocate open source and technology choice/freedom from technology monopolies do a complete 180 on this issue .
Instead of espousing freedom and choice in health care , they support the government requiring everyone to have health insurance , many desire a government-run single payer system.What a bunch of hypocrites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find interesting is that many on slashdot who advocate open source and technology choice/freedom from technology monopolies do a complete 180 on this issue.
Instead of espousing freedom and choice in health care, they support the government requiring everyone to have health insurance, many desire a government-run single payer system.What a bunch of hypocrites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545068</id>
	<title>Re:HANDS OFF MY BODY</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1268998920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How you you can claim that government bureaucrats are bad but for-profit insurance company bureaucrats are good is unfathomable. I hope it isn't just the simple-minded beliefs that since insurance companies are capitalist enterprises they are by definition good, or that since they want to spend as little as possible on you they will be maximally efficient rather than maximally stingy. Look around you. Neither of those beliefs are supported by facts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How you you can claim that government bureaucrats are bad but for-profit insurance company bureaucrats are good is unfathomable .
I hope it is n't just the simple-minded beliefs that since insurance companies are capitalist enterprises they are by definition good , or that since they want to spend as little as possible on you they will be maximally efficient rather than maximally stingy .
Look around you .
Neither of those beliefs are supported by facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How you you can claim that government bureaucrats are bad but for-profit insurance company bureaucrats are good is unfathomable.
I hope it isn't just the simple-minded beliefs that since insurance companies are capitalist enterprises they are by definition good, or that since they want to spend as little as possible on you they will be maximally efficient rather than maximally stingy.
Look around you.
Neither of those beliefs are supported by facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540924</id>
	<title>Been there, done that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269024120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a single state in the nation that implemented mandatory car insurance saw their rates reduced.  What makes anyone think that forced medical insurance will reduce premiums?  When everyone is forced to buy, the sellers have no incentive to lower prices and every incentive to raise prices.</p><p>Same goes for doctors and hospitals.  The guarantee of payment by a third party pretty much ensures that both doctors and hospitals will be raising rates to take advantage of the newly found wealth created by forced coverage.</p><p>The net effect of this bill will be higher rates for all and fewer jobs available because of the costs faced by small business owners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a single state in the nation that implemented mandatory car insurance saw their rates reduced .
What makes anyone think that forced medical insurance will reduce premiums ?
When everyone is forced to buy , the sellers have no incentive to lower prices and every incentive to raise prices.Same goes for doctors and hospitals .
The guarantee of payment by a third party pretty much ensures that both doctors and hospitals will be raising rates to take advantage of the newly found wealth created by forced coverage.The net effect of this bill will be higher rates for all and fewer jobs available because of the costs faced by small business owners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a single state in the nation that implemented mandatory car insurance saw their rates reduced.
What makes anyone think that forced medical insurance will reduce premiums?
When everyone is forced to buy, the sellers have no incentive to lower prices and every incentive to raise prices.Same goes for doctors and hospitals.
The guarantee of payment by a third party pretty much ensures that both doctors and hospitals will be raising rates to take advantage of the newly found wealth created by forced coverage.The net effect of this bill will be higher rates for all and fewer jobs available because of the costs faced by small business owners.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535656</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>rj4x</author>
	<datestamp>1269008760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well i can tell you that as a commie canadian, we enjoy the entitlement to not be financially crippled randomly for some medical emergency beyond our control. Multiply that security by the whole population and you have a higher standard of living and a happier population. Costs can be managed by preemptively treating diseases and disorders earlier on (you americans like preemptive strikes right?) and this reduces longer-term costs.
But yeah, Slashdot IS packed with knee jerk reactionary dicks who think they have all the angles covered, especially the kind that make arguments appeal to fiscal matters or some charming and illusory reference to responsibility while simultaneously ignoring  people in his own country who are falling between the cracks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well i can tell you that as a commie canadian , we enjoy the entitlement to not be financially crippled randomly for some medical emergency beyond our control .
Multiply that security by the whole population and you have a higher standard of living and a happier population .
Costs can be managed by preemptively treating diseases and disorders earlier on ( you americans like preemptive strikes right ?
) and this reduces longer-term costs .
But yeah , Slashdot IS packed with knee jerk reactionary dicks who think they have all the angles covered , especially the kind that make arguments appeal to fiscal matters or some charming and illusory reference to responsibility while simultaneously ignoring people in his own country who are falling between the cracks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well i can tell you that as a commie canadian, we enjoy the entitlement to not be financially crippled randomly for some medical emergency beyond our control.
Multiply that security by the whole population and you have a higher standard of living and a happier population.
Costs can be managed by preemptively treating diseases and disorders earlier on (you americans like preemptive strikes right?
) and this reduces longer-term costs.
But yeah, Slashdot IS packed with knee jerk reactionary dicks who think they have all the angles covered, especially the kind that make arguments appeal to fiscal matters or some charming and illusory reference to responsibility while simultaneously ignoring  people in his own country who are falling between the cracks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536656</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Page 116.  Read the damn bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Page 116 .
Read the damn bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Page 116.
Read the damn bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537378</id>
	<title>Republicans onboard!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just declare a war on high healthcare costs, wrap the american flag around it &amp; yourself and commit a $700b/yr budget to bomb the problem to the stone age.<br>Just run healthcare like the military! Big bloated budgets, heavy fist shaking, and pour in a whole lot of flag wrapped mccarthyism and BINGO!</p><p>G.W. Bush advocated no nation building and humble foreign policy when campaigning for pres in 2000, and previous stated formula worked wonders to turn the republicans around 180 degrees.<br>Thank goodness it worked in catching Binny and boys!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just declare a war on high healthcare costs , wrap the american flag around it &amp; yourself and commit a $ 700b/yr budget to bomb the problem to the stone age.Just run healthcare like the military !
Big bloated budgets , heavy fist shaking , and pour in a whole lot of flag wrapped mccarthyism and BINGO ! G.W .
Bush advocated no nation building and humble foreign policy when campaigning for pres in 2000 , and previous stated formula worked wonders to turn the republicans around 180 degrees.Thank goodness it worked in catching Binny and boys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just declare a war on high healthcare costs, wrap the american flag around it &amp; yourself and commit a $700b/yr budget to bomb the problem to the stone age.Just run healthcare like the military!
Big bloated budgets, heavy fist shaking, and pour in a whole lot of flag wrapped mccarthyism and BINGO!G.W.
Bush advocated no nation building and humble foreign policy when campaigning for pres in 2000, and previous stated formula worked wonders to turn the republicans around 180 degrees.Thank goodness it worked in catching Binny and boys!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535322</id>
	<title>Canada</title>
	<author>i\_ate\_god</author>
	<datestamp>1269007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issues aren't the system. The problem are the paranoid people who goto the emergency room because they have a cold. The problem is that the pharmaceutical industry push doctors to over prescribe, causing even more visits to the hospital and clinic for follow ups and what not.</p><p>Also, universal healthcare in Canada is more like a federal mandate telling the provinces to setup such a system. Each province has their own healthcare system that's partially funded by the federal government. I'm not sure about the US, but I'm sure this would have been more palatable to americans if the healthcare law was the same, giving the individual states more autonomy over healthcare services.</p><p>In any case, Canada's system isn't perfect, and yours won't be either. It won't do much for reforming the pharmaceutical industry. It will have a positive effect on the over all health of society though.</p><p>Or it might drive you all into civil war, which would be pretty fun too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issues are n't the system .
The problem are the paranoid people who goto the emergency room because they have a cold .
The problem is that the pharmaceutical industry push doctors to over prescribe , causing even more visits to the hospital and clinic for follow ups and what not.Also , universal healthcare in Canada is more like a federal mandate telling the provinces to setup such a system .
Each province has their own healthcare system that 's partially funded by the federal government .
I 'm not sure about the US , but I 'm sure this would have been more palatable to americans if the healthcare law was the same , giving the individual states more autonomy over healthcare services.In any case , Canada 's system is n't perfect , and yours wo n't be either .
It wo n't do much for reforming the pharmaceutical industry .
It will have a positive effect on the over all health of society though.Or it might drive you all into civil war , which would be pretty fun too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issues aren't the system.
The problem are the paranoid people who goto the emergency room because they have a cold.
The problem is that the pharmaceutical industry push doctors to over prescribe, causing even more visits to the hospital and clinic for follow ups and what not.Also, universal healthcare in Canada is more like a federal mandate telling the provinces to setup such a system.
Each province has their own healthcare system that's partially funded by the federal government.
I'm not sure about the US, but I'm sure this would have been more palatable to americans if the healthcare law was the same, giving the individual states more autonomy over healthcare services.In any case, Canada's system isn't perfect, and yours won't be either.
It won't do much for reforming the pharmaceutical industry.
It will have a positive effect on the over all health of society though.Or it might drive you all into civil war, which would be pretty fun too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535482</id>
	<title>Question for the non-US based Slashdotters</title>
	<author>Khan</author>
	<datestamp>1269008220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Obviously here in the states, this bill is a huge deal for us especially considering the price tag attached. I noticed several non-US based posters chiming in about how they don't care about this topic, etc. etc. Understandable since this is a widely read site across the globe. But instead of just posting a negative comment about our health care situation, how about helping us understand how health care works in your country. Pros...cons...whatever. Not being fully versed in what other countries offer and certainly not believing what the major news outlets spew, I figured this would be the best place to ask. Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously here in the states , this bill is a huge deal for us especially considering the price tag attached .
I noticed several non-US based posters chiming in about how they do n't care about this topic , etc .
etc. Understandable since this is a widely read site across the globe .
But instead of just posting a negative comment about our health care situation , how about helping us understand how health care works in your country .
Pros...cons...whatever. Not being fully versed in what other countries offer and certainly not believing what the major news outlets spew , I figured this would be the best place to ask .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Obviously here in the states, this bill is a huge deal for us especially considering the price tag attached.
I noticed several non-US based posters chiming in about how they don't care about this topic, etc.
etc. Understandable since this is a widely read site across the globe.
But instead of just posting a negative comment about our health care situation, how about helping us understand how health care works in your country.
Pros...cons...whatever. Not being fully versed in what other countries offer and certainly not believing what the major news outlets spew, I figured this would be the best place to ask.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536032</id>
	<title>Re:"Entitlement Generation"</title>
	<author>Dr Damage I</author>
	<datestamp>1269009900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, stealing my money and giving it it indolent layabouts unwilling to put in the hours of labor that I do and take the risks that I take makes you a good and caring person.  At least in the eyes of the people you give my money to.  Why not just donate to a fucking charity if you're so goddamn superior?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , stealing my money and giving it it indolent layabouts unwilling to put in the hours of labor that I do and take the risks that I take makes you a good and caring person .
At least in the eyes of the people you give my money to .
Why not just donate to a fucking charity if you 're so goddamn superior ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, stealing my money and giving it it indolent layabouts unwilling to put in the hours of labor that I do and take the risks that I take makes you a good and caring person.
At least in the eyes of the people you give my money to.
Why not just donate to a fucking charity if you're so goddamn superior?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536370</id>
	<title>Re:Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>pandaman9000</author>
	<datestamp>1269010860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indisputable???<br>Wiating in line for an MRI in Canada?  There's one piece that opens dispute.  Talking like an authority doesn't make you one.</p><p>If you don't trust our congressmen, then why would you want them further controlling our health system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indisputable ? ?
? Wiating in line for an MRI in Canada ?
There 's one piece that opens dispute .
Talking like an authority does n't make you one.If you do n't trust our congressmen , then why would you want them further controlling our health system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indisputable??
?Wiating in line for an MRI in Canada?
There's one piece that opens dispute.
Talking like an authority doesn't make you one.If you don't trust our congressmen, then why would you want them further controlling our health system?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535372</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1269007980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well then you must be from the asshole generation where you don't want to share with your neighbor and everyone has to have a hard life to be a good person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well then you must be from the asshole generation where you do n't want to share with your neighbor and everyone has to have a hard life to be a good person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well then you must be from the asshole generation where you don't want to share with your neighbor and everyone has to have a hard life to be a good person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538086</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>jgreco</author>
	<datestamp>1269015120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really mean to imply that throwing a few table scraps at a starving person is a fix for their ongoing hunger?</p><p>Little band-aid fixes are not substantive health care reform.</p><p>Fundamentally, capitalism suggests a medical care model that looks a bit like what we have now.  The problem is, taken to its ultimate conclusion, you wind up with a system where the rich have cadillac care and the poor have no care.  We've tried to "fix" that with hospitals that do not turn away anyone from the ER, for example, but that merely shifts costs around.</p><p>Any health care system that is designed to promote the health of the society in general will ultimately have aspects that one can point to and scream "socialism!" - even our current one does:  if I go to the hospital, part of my bill is going to cover the hospital's costs for free ER services to those who cannot afford it.  It's socialism, just disguised under layers of capitalism and charity.</p><p>As a moderate, I get ticked off by both sides of this debate.  I've had Republicans try to paint me as "more liberal than Obama" for trying to discuss rational reasons for national health care and ways to pay for it, including such radical concepts as moving away from procedure-based billing, but then I've had Democrats try to paint me as a cold, cruel monster for suggesting that maybe we cannot have a national health system that covers people without any limitations, or that there must be compromises, etc.</p><p>The reality, folks, is that we're able to keep people alive, healthy, longer.  When Grandpa used to get to 60 and had a heart attack, 50 years ago, his remaining life expectancy was horrible compared to the same scenario today...  but that progress comes at a cost.  Medications, tests, doctor visits, these things all cost money.  If he used to pass at 65, but now manages to hang on 'till 75, that's 10 more years of sometimes-expensive treatment to keep him around.  This is a reality we have to come to grips with.</p><p>Instead of trying to understand and cope with that reality, we have the Republicans screaming "Death Panels!" and the Democrats trying to jam their heads into the sands about the real issues that cause health care costs to grow.</p><p>I don't expect to be able to have a rational and open-minded discussion with anyone on this topic anymore.  The few times it has happened, it's been very refreshing.  So many people have made up their minds and aren't willing to consider all the angles to this problem, I'm just disgusted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really mean to imply that throwing a few table scraps at a starving person is a fix for their ongoing hunger ? Little band-aid fixes are not substantive health care reform.Fundamentally , capitalism suggests a medical care model that looks a bit like what we have now .
The problem is , taken to its ultimate conclusion , you wind up with a system where the rich have cadillac care and the poor have no care .
We 've tried to " fix " that with hospitals that do not turn away anyone from the ER , for example , but that merely shifts costs around.Any health care system that is designed to promote the health of the society in general will ultimately have aspects that one can point to and scream " socialism !
" - even our current one does : if I go to the hospital , part of my bill is going to cover the hospital 's costs for free ER services to those who can not afford it .
It 's socialism , just disguised under layers of capitalism and charity.As a moderate , I get ticked off by both sides of this debate .
I 've had Republicans try to paint me as " more liberal than Obama " for trying to discuss rational reasons for national health care and ways to pay for it , including such radical concepts as moving away from procedure-based billing , but then I 've had Democrats try to paint me as a cold , cruel monster for suggesting that maybe we can not have a national health system that covers people without any limitations , or that there must be compromises , etc.The reality , folks , is that we 're able to keep people alive , healthy , longer .
When Grandpa used to get to 60 and had a heart attack , 50 years ago , his remaining life expectancy was horrible compared to the same scenario today... but that progress comes at a cost .
Medications , tests , doctor visits , these things all cost money .
If he used to pass at 65 , but now manages to hang on 'till 75 , that 's 10 more years of sometimes-expensive treatment to keep him around .
This is a reality we have to come to grips with.Instead of trying to understand and cope with that reality , we have the Republicans screaming " Death Panels !
" and the Democrats trying to jam their heads into the sands about the real issues that cause health care costs to grow.I do n't expect to be able to have a rational and open-minded discussion with anyone on this topic anymore .
The few times it has happened , it 's been very refreshing .
So many people have made up their minds and are n't willing to consider all the angles to this problem , I 'm just disgusted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really mean to imply that throwing a few table scraps at a starving person is a fix for their ongoing hunger?Little band-aid fixes are not substantive health care reform.Fundamentally, capitalism suggests a medical care model that looks a bit like what we have now.
The problem is, taken to its ultimate conclusion, you wind up with a system where the rich have cadillac care and the poor have no care.
We've tried to "fix" that with hospitals that do not turn away anyone from the ER, for example, but that merely shifts costs around.Any health care system that is designed to promote the health of the society in general will ultimately have aspects that one can point to and scream "socialism!
" - even our current one does:  if I go to the hospital, part of my bill is going to cover the hospital's costs for free ER services to those who cannot afford it.
It's socialism, just disguised under layers of capitalism and charity.As a moderate, I get ticked off by both sides of this debate.
I've had Republicans try to paint me as "more liberal than Obama" for trying to discuss rational reasons for national health care and ways to pay for it, including such radical concepts as moving away from procedure-based billing, but then I've had Democrats try to paint me as a cold, cruel monster for suggesting that maybe we cannot have a national health system that covers people without any limitations, or that there must be compromises, etc.The reality, folks, is that we're able to keep people alive, healthy, longer.
When Grandpa used to get to 60 and had a heart attack, 50 years ago, his remaining life expectancy was horrible compared to the same scenario today...  but that progress comes at a cost.
Medications, tests, doctor visits, these things all cost money.
If he used to pass at 65, but now manages to hang on 'till 75, that's 10 more years of sometimes-expensive treatment to keep him around.
This is a reality we have to come to grips with.Instead of trying to understand and cope with that reality, we have the Republicans screaming "Death Panels!
" and the Democrats trying to jam their heads into the sands about the real issues that cause health care costs to grow.I don't expect to be able to have a rational and open-minded discussion with anyone on this topic anymore.
The few times it has happened, it's been very refreshing.
So many people have made up their minds and aren't willing to consider all the angles to this problem, I'm just disgusted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543818</id>
	<title>Bottom Line, We Cant Afford It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268993400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US health care system is broken and needs to change.  I dont believe I have heard anyone on either side of the aisle dispute that point.  Medicare and Medicaid costs grow exponentially every year and become a larger and larger part of GDP expenditure and burden to taxpayers.  Large portions of the US population have no access to medical insurance, so when something does happen that necessitates medical care, either they find a way to pay for it, or the tax payer does.  With each default on a medical bill by an uninsured individual, the medical costs for the rest of us go up.  It now costs me over 500 dollars a month to insure my family, and I only pay a portion.  My employer covers the rest.  And it increases by double digits every year.  The system is broken and needs to be fixed.</p><p>Having said that, we as a nation find ourselves in the deepest recession in 2 generations.  We have deficits that are spiraling out of control, a federal reserve that is monetizing our debt so we can keep spending, 2 expensive conflicts and an administration and congress who seem to have forgotten how to balance a checkbook in the last 20 years.  In this present state, we literally cannot commit to spending another trillion dollars on a watered down "reform" bill that will take years to have any effect, good or bad.</p><p>Then there is the arguement over whether this is the governments domain at all.  I know it is difficult for members of most european countries to understand, but our constitution specifically spells out the rights and the responsibilites given to our government.  In no way does providing health care for the people fall into the pervue of the federal government.  Not only can they not "reform" health care in a fiscal sense, but they are not allowed to in a constitutional sense.  The 10th Amendment gives all other powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the states and to the people themselves.  Let each state enact its own health care legislation and worry about how to pay for it.</p><p>I think most of the American people want health care reform, but we want an open transparent discussion about it.  For years if need be.  Saying that the republicans had 8 years to enact this legislation is a misnomer.  After 9/11, no one was talking about it.  No one cared about health care.  Security was and remained the main concern until Obama brought Health Care into the limelight and made it his campaign platform.  Democrats have ignored it.  Republicans have ignored it.  No one has talked about it and now Obama says that "the debate is over"?  This bill sitting in congress is 2000 pages long, and no one knows whats in it.  The Democrats have not released it all, and yet they want a vote on it and are pressuring the moderates in the party to vote for it, sight unseen.  And this is a good thing ?  Seems a little underhanded to me personally.  This is the biggest, most expensive piece of legislation to ever enter the house, and they want a vote on it without study and debate ?</p><p>We are not europe.  We are not Canada.  If it works for you all, thats great.   But we need a health care overhaul that is created out in the open, for all to see.  We need each piece studied.  We need to hear the arguements on both sides.  We, the people, need to be able to make an informed decision on this massive change in our lives.</p><p>Just my two cents.  Have a good day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US health care system is broken and needs to change .
I dont believe I have heard anyone on either side of the aisle dispute that point .
Medicare and Medicaid costs grow exponentially every year and become a larger and larger part of GDP expenditure and burden to taxpayers .
Large portions of the US population have no access to medical insurance , so when something does happen that necessitates medical care , either they find a way to pay for it , or the tax payer does .
With each default on a medical bill by an uninsured individual , the medical costs for the rest of us go up .
It now costs me over 500 dollars a month to insure my family , and I only pay a portion .
My employer covers the rest .
And it increases by double digits every year .
The system is broken and needs to be fixed.Having said that , we as a nation find ourselves in the deepest recession in 2 generations .
We have deficits that are spiraling out of control , a federal reserve that is monetizing our debt so we can keep spending , 2 expensive conflicts and an administration and congress who seem to have forgotten how to balance a checkbook in the last 20 years .
In this present state , we literally can not commit to spending another trillion dollars on a watered down " reform " bill that will take years to have any effect , good or bad.Then there is the arguement over whether this is the governments domain at all .
I know it is difficult for members of most european countries to understand , but our constitution specifically spells out the rights and the responsibilites given to our government .
In no way does providing health care for the people fall into the pervue of the federal government .
Not only can they not " reform " health care in a fiscal sense , but they are not allowed to in a constitutional sense .
The 10th Amendment gives all other powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the states and to the people themselves .
Let each state enact its own health care legislation and worry about how to pay for it.I think most of the American people want health care reform , but we want an open transparent discussion about it .
For years if need be .
Saying that the republicans had 8 years to enact this legislation is a misnomer .
After 9/11 , no one was talking about it .
No one cared about health care .
Security was and remained the main concern until Obama brought Health Care into the limelight and made it his campaign platform .
Democrats have ignored it .
Republicans have ignored it .
No one has talked about it and now Obama says that " the debate is over " ?
This bill sitting in congress is 2000 pages long , and no one knows whats in it .
The Democrats have not released it all , and yet they want a vote on it and are pressuring the moderates in the party to vote for it , sight unseen .
And this is a good thing ?
Seems a little underhanded to me personally .
This is the biggest , most expensive piece of legislation to ever enter the house , and they want a vote on it without study and debate ? We are not europe .
We are not Canada .
If it works for you all , thats great .
But we need a health care overhaul that is created out in the open , for all to see .
We need each piece studied .
We need to hear the arguements on both sides .
We , the people , need to be able to make an informed decision on this massive change in our lives.Just my two cents .
Have a good day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US health care system is broken and needs to change.
I dont believe I have heard anyone on either side of the aisle dispute that point.
Medicare and Medicaid costs grow exponentially every year and become a larger and larger part of GDP expenditure and burden to taxpayers.
Large portions of the US population have no access to medical insurance, so when something does happen that necessitates medical care, either they find a way to pay for it, or the tax payer does.
With each default on a medical bill by an uninsured individual, the medical costs for the rest of us go up.
It now costs me over 500 dollars a month to insure my family, and I only pay a portion.
My employer covers the rest.
And it increases by double digits every year.
The system is broken and needs to be fixed.Having said that, we as a nation find ourselves in the deepest recession in 2 generations.
We have deficits that are spiraling out of control, a federal reserve that is monetizing our debt so we can keep spending, 2 expensive conflicts and an administration and congress who seem to have forgotten how to balance a checkbook in the last 20 years.
In this present state, we literally cannot commit to spending another trillion dollars on a watered down "reform" bill that will take years to have any effect, good or bad.Then there is the arguement over whether this is the governments domain at all.
I know it is difficult for members of most european countries to understand, but our constitution specifically spells out the rights and the responsibilites given to our government.
In no way does providing health care for the people fall into the pervue of the federal government.
Not only can they not "reform" health care in a fiscal sense, but they are not allowed to in a constitutional sense.
The 10th Amendment gives all other powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the states and to the people themselves.
Let each state enact its own health care legislation and worry about how to pay for it.I think most of the American people want health care reform, but we want an open transparent discussion about it.
For years if need be.
Saying that the republicans had 8 years to enact this legislation is a misnomer.
After 9/11, no one was talking about it.
No one cared about health care.
Security was and remained the main concern until Obama brought Health Care into the limelight and made it his campaign platform.
Democrats have ignored it.
Republicans have ignored it.
No one has talked about it and now Obama says that "the debate is over"?
This bill sitting in congress is 2000 pages long, and no one knows whats in it.
The Democrats have not released it all, and yet they want a vote on it and are pressuring the moderates in the party to vote for it, sight unseen.
And this is a good thing ?
Seems a little underhanded to me personally.
This is the biggest, most expensive piece of legislation to ever enter the house, and they want a vote on it without study and debate ?We are not europe.
We are not Canada.
If it works for you all, thats great.
But we need a health care overhaul that is created out in the open, for all to see.
We need each piece studied.
We need to hear the arguements on both sides.
We, the people, need to be able to make an informed decision on this massive change in our lives.Just my two cents.
Have a good day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542398</id>
	<title>post office ? highway system ? public schools ?</title>
	<author>curri</author>
	<datestamp>1269030480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't know where you live, but I think it's amazing that you can send a snail mail for less than 50c; the roads are ok where I live and my public schools are great. In the US, government is reasonably efficient and it provides a different price/performance/access point that private industry.</p><p>You want next day delivery ? use FedEx, but pay $20 (or more ?). Have you seen private toll roads ? I grew up in Mexico, where they're common; you pay about $40 to go from Merida to CanCun (about 200 miles). You want to go into a good private school ? be prepared to spend $15000/yr, and make sure your kid is really good, or he/she won't get in.  I'm not saying private companies offer bad choices, but they're *different* choices, I like that the govt provides decent basic services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know where you live , but I think it 's amazing that you can send a snail mail for less than 50c ; the roads are ok where I live and my public schools are great .
In the US , government is reasonably efficient and it provides a different price/performance/access point that private industry.You want next day delivery ?
use FedEx , but pay $ 20 ( or more ? ) .
Have you seen private toll roads ?
I grew up in Mexico , where they 're common ; you pay about $ 40 to go from Merida to CanCun ( about 200 miles ) .
You want to go into a good private school ?
be prepared to spend $ 15000/yr , and make sure your kid is really good , or he/she wo n't get in .
I 'm not saying private companies offer bad choices , but they 're * different * choices , I like that the govt provides decent basic services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know where you live, but I think it's amazing that you can send a snail mail for less than 50c; the roads are ok where I live and my public schools are great.
In the US, government is reasonably efficient and it provides a different price/performance/access point that private industry.You want next day delivery ?
use FedEx, but pay $20 (or more ?).
Have you seen private toll roads ?
I grew up in Mexico, where they're common; you pay about $40 to go from Merida to CanCun (about 200 miles).
You want to go into a good private school ?
be prepared to spend $15000/yr, and make sure your kid is really good, or he/she won't get in.
I'm not saying private companies offer bad choices, but they're *different* choices, I like that the govt provides decent basic services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535854</id>
	<title>how many pages</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1269009420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much ado has been made about the length of the bill.  If you actually look at the bill text, there are approx. 25 lines per page, tabbed way in, yielding approx. 100-150 words per page, including line numbers and a whole lot of in-text references to other sections.  If you trim out the legalese, references, line numbers, etc. the actual summary of what it does MIGHT make it to 20 pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much ado has been made about the length of the bill .
If you actually look at the bill text , there are approx .
25 lines per page , tabbed way in , yielding approx .
100-150 words per page , including line numbers and a whole lot of in-text references to other sections .
If you trim out the legalese , references , line numbers , etc .
the actual summary of what it does MIGHT make it to 20 pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much ado has been made about the length of the bill.
If you actually look at the bill text, there are approx.
25 lines per page, tabbed way in, yielding approx.
100-150 words per page, including line numbers and a whole lot of in-text references to other sections.
If you trim out the legalese, references, line numbers, etc.
the actual summary of what it does MIGHT make it to 20 pages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537952</id>
	<title>Re:Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may not know this, not being from the US, but the health care companies aren't spending millions trying to convince politicians to stop the change.</p><p>When Health care reform seemed like a done deal, the value of insurance companies WENT UP. They are pushing FOR the reform because it is a huge benefit to them to become an oligarchy capable of creating even more false increases in the "cost" of health care.</p><p>I am against a single-payer system for reasons of principle, but I am against this reform as a matter of common sense. The insurance companies benefit form this reform, don't be fooled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may not know this , not being from the US , but the health care companies are n't spending millions trying to convince politicians to stop the change.When Health care reform seemed like a done deal , the value of insurance companies WENT UP .
They are pushing FOR the reform because it is a huge benefit to them to become an oligarchy capable of creating even more false increases in the " cost " of health care.I am against a single-payer system for reasons of principle , but I am against this reform as a matter of common sense .
The insurance companies benefit form this reform , do n't be fooled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may not know this, not being from the US, but the health care companies aren't spending millions trying to convince politicians to stop the change.When Health care reform seemed like a done deal, the value of insurance companies WENT UP.
They are pushing FOR the reform because it is a huge benefit to them to become an oligarchy capable of creating even more false increases in the "cost" of health care.I am against a single-payer system for reasons of principle, but I am against this reform as a matter of common sense.
The insurance companies benefit form this reform, don't be fooled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537336</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Boomerang Fish</author>
	<datestamp>1269013260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF does this have to do with slashdot?  I mean I'm not *that* new here, but this seems to be a new low for (1) having little to nothing to do with technology and (2) creating a forum that will do nothing but create flame wars.</p><p>--<br>I drank what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF does this have to do with slashdot ?
I mean I 'm not * that * new here , but this seems to be a new low for ( 1 ) having little to nothing to do with technology and ( 2 ) creating a forum that will do nothing but create flame wars.--I drank what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF does this have to do with slashdot?
I mean I'm not *that* new here, but this seems to be a new low for (1) having little to nothing to do with technology and (2) creating a forum that will do nothing but create flame wars.--I drank what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134</id>
	<title>Neither.</title>
	<author>jgreco</author>
	<datestamp>1269007080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's nothing like the health care bill we should have had, something to create a health care system comparable to other modern countries.  The Democrats have no backbone and kept watering it down and morphing it until it was only vaguely acceptable to just barely enough of them to possibly pass.  This sort of thing leads to awful legislation.</p><p>The Republicans, of course, are chanting "wait, wait, this is being rushed," but the facts are that they had years in which they could have pushed through health care reform - years where it was clearly necessary.  Despite what they say, your average Republican simply doesn't believe in health care reform, which is why it didn't happen under Clinton and wouldn't happen under Obama if they could figure out a way to delay it.  So instead of pushing for a fiscally responsible and conservative health care reform, the Republicans are really pushing for the status quo, without trying to seem like they're doing that.</p><p>Both parties stink.  I'm kind of hoping this passes, but then the Republicans come into power.  It'll be impractical for them to repeal this, but perhaps they'll be smart enough to tinker with it to make it better.  Past history is not encouraging, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nothing like the health care bill we should have had , something to create a health care system comparable to other modern countries .
The Democrats have no backbone and kept watering it down and morphing it until it was only vaguely acceptable to just barely enough of them to possibly pass .
This sort of thing leads to awful legislation.The Republicans , of course , are chanting " wait , wait , this is being rushed , " but the facts are that they had years in which they could have pushed through health care reform - years where it was clearly necessary .
Despite what they say , your average Republican simply does n't believe in health care reform , which is why it did n't happen under Clinton and would n't happen under Obama if they could figure out a way to delay it .
So instead of pushing for a fiscally responsible and conservative health care reform , the Republicans are really pushing for the status quo , without trying to seem like they 're doing that.Both parties stink .
I 'm kind of hoping this passes , but then the Republicans come into power .
It 'll be impractical for them to repeal this , but perhaps they 'll be smart enough to tinker with it to make it better .
Past history is not encouraging , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nothing like the health care bill we should have had, something to create a health care system comparable to other modern countries.
The Democrats have no backbone and kept watering it down and morphing it until it was only vaguely acceptable to just barely enough of them to possibly pass.
This sort of thing leads to awful legislation.The Republicans, of course, are chanting "wait, wait, this is being rushed," but the facts are that they had years in which they could have pushed through health care reform - years where it was clearly necessary.
Despite what they say, your average Republican simply doesn't believe in health care reform, which is why it didn't happen under Clinton and wouldn't happen under Obama if they could figure out a way to delay it.
So instead of pushing for a fiscally responsible and conservative health care reform, the Republicans are really pushing for the status quo, without trying to seem like they're doing that.Both parties stink.
I'm kind of hoping this passes, but then the Republicans come into power.
It'll be impractical for them to repeal this, but perhaps they'll be smart enough to tinker with it to make it better.
Past history is not encouraging, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539130</id>
	<title>Take out the middle man</title>
	<author>GastronomicalEvent</author>
	<datestamp>1269018000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you have insurance and you don't use it, the money you spent is going to another consumer of insurance for that company who does use it. I  don't see why people are against the idea of a public option for this. It's the same idea, but the "insurance company" has no profit motive. Insurance has nothing to do with capitalism because it is a service which produces no innovations. All they can do is change what they cover and how much it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have insurance and you do n't use it , the money you spent is going to another consumer of insurance for that company who does use it .
I do n't see why people are against the idea of a public option for this .
It 's the same idea , but the " insurance company " has no profit motive .
Insurance has nothing to do with capitalism because it is a service which produces no innovations .
All they can do is change what they cover and how much it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have insurance and you don't use it, the money you spent is going to another consumer of insurance for that company who does use it.
I  don't see why people are against the idea of a public option for this.
It's the same idea, but the "insurance company" has no profit motive.
Insurance has nothing to do with capitalism because it is a service which produces no innovations.
All they can do is change what they cover and how much it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31546500</id>
	<title>Such a lame discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in Australia. I hit my head surfing early last year, and received a dangerous brain bleed. I spent 13 days in hospital and had major surgery. I also required 3 months supervision for seizures and surgery recovery. I am 100\% now thank god. I went into hospital on the very same day we had over 200ppl killed in one day in bushfires nearby, and this hospital was receiving burns victims. It was 46.7 celcius (116F) that day. I had a CT scan within 20-35mins of arriving. I was then transferred by ambulance to a nearby hospital with a suitable neurosurgeon available, and received emergency brain surgery. The nurses and doctors were exceptional. Food was good, had a playstation and TV to myself. No complaints.</p><p>And guess what. It didn't cost me anything. Zip. Zero. All i had to pay for was my take-home opiate collection for pain relief (one months worth was $20). I don't have "health insurance" either, although you can get it here.</p><p>And here's the final nail in the coffin of you anti-universal healthcare freaks - our economy is streets ahead of yours in almost every way. Our national unemployment is 5\%, land prices are still rising, and consumer confidence is soaring.</p><p>In 2007-08, Australia spent 9.1\% of GDP on health care, or AUD$4874 per capita. In the US, you spend over 16\% of GDP on healthcare. Work it out yourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Australia .
I hit my head surfing early last year , and received a dangerous brain bleed .
I spent 13 days in hospital and had major surgery .
I also required 3 months supervision for seizures and surgery recovery .
I am 100 \ % now thank god .
I went into hospital on the very same day we had over 200ppl killed in one day in bushfires nearby , and this hospital was receiving burns victims .
It was 46.7 celcius ( 116F ) that day .
I had a CT scan within 20-35mins of arriving .
I was then transferred by ambulance to a nearby hospital with a suitable neurosurgeon available , and received emergency brain surgery .
The nurses and doctors were exceptional .
Food was good , had a playstation and TV to myself .
No complaints.And guess what .
It did n't cost me anything .
Zip. Zero .
All i had to pay for was my take-home opiate collection for pain relief ( one months worth was $ 20 ) .
I do n't have " health insurance " either , although you can get it here.And here 's the final nail in the coffin of you anti-universal healthcare freaks - our economy is streets ahead of yours in almost every way .
Our national unemployment is 5 \ % , land prices are still rising , and consumer confidence is soaring.In 2007-08 , Australia spent 9.1 \ % of GDP on health care , or AUD $ 4874 per capita .
In the US , you spend over 16 \ % of GDP on healthcare .
Work it out yourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Australia.
I hit my head surfing early last year, and received a dangerous brain bleed.
I spent 13 days in hospital and had major surgery.
I also required 3 months supervision for seizures and surgery recovery.
I am 100\% now thank god.
I went into hospital on the very same day we had over 200ppl killed in one day in bushfires nearby, and this hospital was receiving burns victims.
It was 46.7 celcius (116F) that day.
I had a CT scan within 20-35mins of arriving.
I was then transferred by ambulance to a nearby hospital with a suitable neurosurgeon available, and received emergency brain surgery.
The nurses and doctors were exceptional.
Food was good, had a playstation and TV to myself.
No complaints.And guess what.
It didn't cost me anything.
Zip. Zero.
All i had to pay for was my take-home opiate collection for pain relief (one months worth was $20).
I don't have "health insurance" either, although you can get it here.And here's the final nail in the coffin of you anti-universal healthcare freaks - our economy is streets ahead of yours in almost every way.
Our national unemployment is 5\%, land prices are still rising, and consumer confidence is soaring.In 2007-08, Australia spent 9.1\% of GDP on health care, or AUD$4874 per capita.
In the US, you spend over 16\% of GDP on healthcare.
Work it out yourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400</id>
	<title>do you trust obama and the dems ?</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1269008040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>
As i understand it, the bill has 3 major parts<br>
 1) a whole bunch of programs to evaluate new ideas; basically grants to researchers of one sort or another<br>
 2) regulations to rein in the bad behaviour of insurance companies<br>
 3) provide insurance to 30 million people who now lack it<br>
lets leave 1 aside and look at 2 and 3<br>
Do you really think that this bill will stop the insurance companies ? For instance, there is a section (109 in HR3967) that bans lifetime benefit caps. and you can read it yourself, and it looks pretty straightforward. I don't know how the insurance companies will get around it, but htey have, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars to buy armies of lawyers and lobbyiest and politicians to overturn this over the next 5-10 years<br>
So my conclusion is tthat at best, (2) will have some moderate effect over a few years
<br>
As to 3 - I think what will happen, based on the MA model(I live in MA) is that yes, there will be a lot of people who will get insurance, but we won't have the money to pay for it. So, to save money, we will make this new insurance cheap and not very good (eg, low payments to doctors and hospitals, so only really bad hospitals will take people on this plan), so what will wind up happening is that we will create a permanent underclasss of people who have "insurance' that doesn't really work - it is like poor people who get charged with a capital felony crime; we pretend to provide lawyers, but dont' do anything really effective
<br>
If you look at the down side, it is Huge.<br>
Obama is instituting a new national policy - health care, a basic fundamental right ina civilized society, is providd by for profit companies, and the FED. Govt requires you to pay these for profit compnies
its horrible<br>
Another way to look at this is Obama's track record, say with the wall street bail out, where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.<br>
how on earth could anyone trust this guy with a track record like that ??</htmltext>
<tokenext>As i understand it , the bill has 3 major parts 1 ) a whole bunch of programs to evaluate new ideas ; basically grants to researchers of one sort or another 2 ) regulations to rein in the bad behaviour of insurance companies 3 ) provide insurance to 30 million people who now lack it lets leave 1 aside and look at 2 and 3 Do you really think that this bill will stop the insurance companies ?
For instance , there is a section ( 109 in HR3967 ) that bans lifetime benefit caps .
and you can read it yourself , and it looks pretty straightforward .
I do n't know how the insurance companies will get around it , but htey have , literally , hundreds of millions of dollars to buy armies of lawyers and lobbyiest and politicians to overturn this over the next 5-10 years So my conclusion is tthat at best , ( 2 ) will have some moderate effect over a few years As to 3 - I think what will happen , based on the MA model ( I live in MA ) is that yes , there will be a lot of people who will get insurance , but we wo n't have the money to pay for it .
So , to save money , we will make this new insurance cheap and not very good ( eg , low payments to doctors and hospitals , so only really bad hospitals will take people on this plan ) , so what will wind up happening is that we will create a permanent underclasss of people who have " insurance ' that does n't really work - it is like poor people who get charged with a capital felony crime ; we pretend to provide lawyers , but dont ' do anything really effective If you look at the down side , it is Huge .
Obama is instituting a new national policy - health care , a basic fundamental right ina civilized society , is providd by for profit companies , and the FED .
Govt requires you to pay these for profit compnies its horrible Another way to look at this is Obama 's track record , say with the wall street bail out , where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket .
how on earth could anyone trust this guy with a track record like that ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As i understand it, the bill has 3 major parts
 1) a whole bunch of programs to evaluate new ideas; basically grants to researchers of one sort or another
 2) regulations to rein in the bad behaviour of insurance companies
 3) provide insurance to 30 million people who now lack it
lets leave 1 aside and look at 2 and 3
Do you really think that this bill will stop the insurance companies ?
For instance, there is a section (109 in HR3967) that bans lifetime benefit caps.
and you can read it yourself, and it looks pretty straightforward.
I don't know how the insurance companies will get around it, but htey have, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars to buy armies of lawyers and lobbyiest and politicians to overturn this over the next 5-10 years
So my conclusion is tthat at best, (2) will have some moderate effect over a few years

As to 3 - I think what will happen, based on the MA model(I live in MA) is that yes, there will be a lot of people who will get insurance, but we won't have the money to pay for it.
So, to save money, we will make this new insurance cheap and not very good (eg, low payments to doctors and hospitals, so only really bad hospitals will take people on this plan), so what will wind up happening is that we will create a permanent underclasss of people who have "insurance' that doesn't really work - it is like poor people who get charged with a capital felony crime; we pretend to provide lawyers, but dont' do anything really effective

If you look at the down side, it is Huge.
Obama is instituting a new national policy - health care, a basic fundamental right ina civilized society, is providd by for profit companies, and the FED.
Govt requires you to pay these for profit compnies
its horrible
Another way to look at this is Obama's track record, say with the wall street bail out, where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.
how on earth could anyone trust this guy with a track record like that ?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</id>
	<title>Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269006840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot is packed with the entitlement generation and you're asking if they approve of the government creating another entitlement? Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is packed with the entitlement generation and you 're asking if they approve of the government creating another entitlement ?
Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is packed with the entitlement generation and you're asking if they approve of the government creating another entitlement?
Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542906</id>
	<title>Re:Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>clafarge</author>
	<datestamp>1268989560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can call my Dr for appointment this very morning, have an MRI immediately after, and begin treatment this afternoon.  All for a $20 co-pay.  We've been led to believe that many other nations' citizens have to wait greater than a few hours to get in for many specialists and tests.  Also, I know it's easy to think of yours as free, but your taxes pay for it.

I do have health insurance, which I pay for along with my employer... and you pay for yours, too... through taxes.  All this does is divert Medicare funding ($500B of funding comes from Medicare, which is bankrupt already), raise taxes ($496B of funding is from tax increases/fees), raise insurance premiums (to recover costs of preexisting conditions and mandated coverage for things like Abortion... even in policies for males), and dictate that everyone must now have it.  The current version dictates that we must have a $12,000 premium for my family (4) or face $2500 penalties.  $12000 is not free healthcare.  My current healthcare (example above) cost a total of $10,000, so it would not be good enough.

We actually have charities that care for people who need assistance but can't pay for it.  That's what we're good at: taking care of our people without requiring government intervention.  Our most impoverished citizens have color TVs with cable programming subscriptions, cellular phones, at least one car, and generally more than 900sqft of living space.

Try not sound too superior.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can call my Dr for appointment this very morning , have an MRI immediately after , and begin treatment this afternoon .
All for a $ 20 co-pay .
We 've been led to believe that many other nations ' citizens have to wait greater than a few hours to get in for many specialists and tests .
Also , I know it 's easy to think of yours as free , but your taxes pay for it .
I do have health insurance , which I pay for along with my employer... and you pay for yours , too... through taxes .
All this does is divert Medicare funding ( $ 500B of funding comes from Medicare , which is bankrupt already ) , raise taxes ( $ 496B of funding is from tax increases/fees ) , raise insurance premiums ( to recover costs of preexisting conditions and mandated coverage for things like Abortion... even in policies for males ) , and dictate that everyone must now have it .
The current version dictates that we must have a $ 12,000 premium for my family ( 4 ) or face $ 2500 penalties .
$ 12000 is not free healthcare .
My current healthcare ( example above ) cost a total of $ 10,000 , so it would not be good enough .
We actually have charities that care for people who need assistance but ca n't pay for it .
That 's what we 're good at : taking care of our people without requiring government intervention .
Our most impoverished citizens have color TVs with cable programming subscriptions , cellular phones , at least one car , and generally more than 900sqft of living space .
Try not sound too superior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can call my Dr for appointment this very morning, have an MRI immediately after, and begin treatment this afternoon.
All for a $20 co-pay.
We've been led to believe that many other nations' citizens have to wait greater than a few hours to get in for many specialists and tests.
Also, I know it's easy to think of yours as free, but your taxes pay for it.
I do have health insurance, which I pay for along with my employer... and you pay for yours, too... through taxes.
All this does is divert Medicare funding ($500B of funding comes from Medicare, which is bankrupt already), raise taxes ($496B of funding is from tax increases/fees), raise insurance premiums (to recover costs of preexisting conditions and mandated coverage for things like Abortion... even in policies for males), and dictate that everyone must now have it.
The current version dictates that we must have a $12,000 premium for my family (4) or face $2500 penalties.
$12000 is not free healthcare.
My current healthcare (example above) cost a total of $10,000, so it would not be good enough.
We actually have charities that care for people who need assistance but can't pay for it.
That's what we're good at: taking care of our people without requiring government intervention.
Our most impoverished citizens have color TVs with cable programming subscriptions, cellular phones, at least one car, and generally more than 900sqft of living space.
Try not sound too superior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541492</id>
	<title>Re:no reform.</title>
	<author>Robyrt</author>
	<datestamp>1269026400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, if you pulled everybody out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow you could fund this health care bill.

But that would cause far more people to die than health reform would save.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , if you pulled everybody out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow you could fund this health care bill .
But that would cause far more people to die than health reform would save .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, if you pulled everybody out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow you could fund this health care bill.
But that would cause far more people to die than health reform would save.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537910</id>
	<title>How to have Healthcare that a Republican would lov</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1269014760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know why the democrats have pursued the avenue that they have. It makes the least amount of sense. Its is basically an adaptation of Massachusetts' mandated program. "Have health care or else" If you do not have health care then the IRS can withhold your tax refund. I am a libertarian, fiscally conservative but socially progressive. The USA should be able to use its wealth provide healthcare and make this an even better country. It is inevitable that the more prosperous a country the better it should treat its inhabitants. health care is a human issue (not a right but a privilege) but that should not stop us fro having a common-sense plan.</p><p>I have constructed a simple plan that would give everyone in the nation health care at a level that will appease liberals while not irritating conservatives. It is a simple 3 part plan, with Step 4 being profit.</p><ul><li>1. Collect a tax that is proportional to the expected premium for the nation, for the given coverage. Define the coverage as only those MOST COMMON things that we need/are entitled to. This means basic and routine care,<br>emergency hospital visits and life-necessary prescription medications.</li><li>2. Contract out the policies to several insurance carriers. Per annum, review the policies, and compare the expected coverage with the provided coverage. With clear benchmarks to provide treatment, award those companies that both provided the expected level of care with how cheaply they were able to do it. Re balance the policies between the providers such that the cheapest insurers are rewarded with more customers. </li><li>3<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Finally leave all controversial services to be paid for by a private supplemental policy. Viagra, abortions, cosmetic procedures, lifestyle liabilities (lung cancer of smokers) would all be paid by the optional private policy</li><li>4. Profit!</li></ul><p>Using that system has several advantages:</p><ul><li>The most common problems of everyone are taken care of. People involved in accidents are afforded the best change of reattachment surgery to keep them productive in society. This is the moral argument of the left</li><li>No one is put in the position for paying for someone's lifestyle choice or mistake, or to fund a morally reprehensible act (as they see it) This is the moral argument of the right</li><li>It preserves competition among the insurers. By awarding more policies to the cheaper, less wasteful insurers. This is the fiscal argument of the right.</li><li>The government can use its size to negotiate competitive rates, which is much better than private companies that under the current plan would have to find and negotiate their own policy rates. This is the fiscal argument of the left</li><li>The insurers can still sell directly to customers, with policies for the optional coverage, which everyone should be arguing for. </li><li>This works with the least amount of changes needed to our insurance industry. </li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why the democrats have pursued the avenue that they have .
It makes the least amount of sense .
Its is basically an adaptation of Massachusetts ' mandated program .
" Have health care or else " If you do not have health care then the IRS can withhold your tax refund .
I am a libertarian , fiscally conservative but socially progressive .
The USA should be able to use its wealth provide healthcare and make this an even better country .
It is inevitable that the more prosperous a country the better it should treat its inhabitants .
health care is a human issue ( not a right but a privilege ) but that should not stop us fro having a common-sense plan.I have constructed a simple plan that would give everyone in the nation health care at a level that will appease liberals while not irritating conservatives .
It is a simple 3 part plan , with Step 4 being profit.1 .
Collect a tax that is proportional to the expected premium for the nation , for the given coverage .
Define the coverage as only those MOST COMMON things that we need/are entitled to .
This means basic and routine care,emergency hospital visits and life-necessary prescription medications.2 .
Contract out the policies to several insurance carriers .
Per annum , review the policies , and compare the expected coverage with the provided coverage .
With clear benchmarks to provide treatment , award those companies that both provided the expected level of care with how cheaply they were able to do it .
Re balance the policies between the providers such that the cheapest insurers are rewarded with more customers .
3 .Finally leave all controversial services to be paid for by a private supplemental policy .
Viagra , abortions , cosmetic procedures , lifestyle liabilities ( lung cancer of smokers ) would all be paid by the optional private policy4 .
Profit ! Using that system has several advantages : The most common problems of everyone are taken care of .
People involved in accidents are afforded the best change of reattachment surgery to keep them productive in society .
This is the moral argument of the leftNo one is put in the position for paying for someone 's lifestyle choice or mistake , or to fund a morally reprehensible act ( as they see it ) This is the moral argument of the rightIt preserves competition among the insurers .
By awarding more policies to the cheaper , less wasteful insurers .
This is the fiscal argument of the right.The government can use its size to negotiate competitive rates , which is much better than private companies that under the current plan would have to find and negotiate their own policy rates .
This is the fiscal argument of the leftThe insurers can still sell directly to customers , with policies for the optional coverage , which everyone should be arguing for .
This works with the least amount of changes needed to our insurance industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why the democrats have pursued the avenue that they have.
It makes the least amount of sense.
Its is basically an adaptation of Massachusetts' mandated program.
"Have health care or else" If you do not have health care then the IRS can withhold your tax refund.
I am a libertarian, fiscally conservative but socially progressive.
The USA should be able to use its wealth provide healthcare and make this an even better country.
It is inevitable that the more prosperous a country the better it should treat its inhabitants.
health care is a human issue (not a right but a privilege) but that should not stop us fro having a common-sense plan.I have constructed a simple plan that would give everyone in the nation health care at a level that will appease liberals while not irritating conservatives.
It is a simple 3 part plan, with Step 4 being profit.1.
Collect a tax that is proportional to the expected premium for the nation, for the given coverage.
Define the coverage as only those MOST COMMON things that we need/are entitled to.
This means basic and routine care,emergency hospital visits and life-necessary prescription medications.2.
Contract out the policies to several insurance carriers.
Per annum, review the policies, and compare the expected coverage with the provided coverage.
With clear benchmarks to provide treatment, award those companies that both provided the expected level of care with how cheaply they were able to do it.
Re balance the policies between the providers such that the cheapest insurers are rewarded with more customers.
3 .Finally leave all controversial services to be paid for by a private supplemental policy.
Viagra, abortions, cosmetic procedures, lifestyle liabilities (lung cancer of smokers) would all be paid by the optional private policy4.
Profit!Using that system has several advantages:The most common problems of everyone are taken care of.
People involved in accidents are afforded the best change of reattachment surgery to keep them productive in society.
This is the moral argument of the leftNo one is put in the position for paying for someone's lifestyle choice or mistake, or to fund a morally reprehensible act (as they see it) This is the moral argument of the rightIt preserves competition among the insurers.
By awarding more policies to the cheaper, less wasteful insurers.
This is the fiscal argument of the right.The government can use its size to negotiate competitive rates, which is much better than private companies that under the current plan would have to find and negotiate their own policy rates.
This is the fiscal argument of the leftThe insurers can still sell directly to customers, with policies for the optional coverage, which everyone should be arguing for.
This works with the least amount of changes needed to our insurance industry. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539840</id>
	<title>Re:Sure.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269020340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Will this bill do what the administration claims to do"?</p><p>Yes it will. It claims to tax the households in the upper 5\% much greater than it does today, it claims to increase insurance costs for a large percentage of folks, and it will re-distribute the wealth it collects into the medical industry to provide health care for the lowest percentage of folks who mostly don't have insurance because they would rather have multiple TV's, cars and luxury items rather than buy health insurance.</p></div><p>You mean, like my father, who lost his job and was later diagnosed with Lou Gherig's disease? Fuck you, asshole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Will this bill do what the administration claims to do " ? Yes it will .
It claims to tax the households in the upper 5 \ % much greater than it does today , it claims to increase insurance costs for a large percentage of folks , and it will re-distribute the wealth it collects into the medical industry to provide health care for the lowest percentage of folks who mostly do n't have insurance because they would rather have multiple TV 's , cars and luxury items rather than buy health insurance.You mean , like my father , who lost his job and was later diagnosed with Lou Gherig 's disease ?
Fuck you , asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Will this bill do what the administration claims to do"?Yes it will.
It claims to tax the households in the upper 5\% much greater than it does today, it claims to increase insurance costs for a large percentage of folks, and it will re-distribute the wealth it collects into the medical industry to provide health care for the lowest percentage of folks who mostly don't have insurance because they would rather have multiple TV's, cars and luxury items rather than buy health insurance.You mean, like my father, who lost his job and was later diagnosed with Lou Gherig's disease?
Fuck you, asshole.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536074</id>
	<title>Two words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scott Brown</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scott Brown</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scott Brown</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539414</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269018840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wait until you get salivary gland cancer and your insurance decides that it was a pre-existing condition (that laid dormant since before you purchased your catastrophic insurance) because you don't have the financial records to proved you'd had a dental check up every 6 months (again, extending 12 months before your purchase of insurance) and you have to make a real decision.</p><p>A decision like trying to figure out if watching your child go to their first day kindergarten is worth the projected 2.5 million dollars it will take to keep you alive and in crippling pain that long.  According to most of the people unwilling to pay their taxes, I wonder if you will have the decency to pull the trigger instead of burdening your children with debt.</p><p>Put the gun in your hand and I doubt you'd be so brazen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wait until you get salivary gland cancer and your insurance decides that it was a pre-existing condition ( that laid dormant since before you purchased your catastrophic insurance ) because you do n't have the financial records to proved you 'd had a dental check up every 6 months ( again , extending 12 months before your purchase of insurance ) and you have to make a real decision.A decision like trying to figure out if watching your child go to their first day kindergarten is worth the projected 2.5 million dollars it will take to keep you alive and in crippling pain that long .
According to most of the people unwilling to pay their taxes , I wonder if you will have the decency to pull the trigger instead of burdening your children with debt.Put the gun in your hand and I doubt you 'd be so brazen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wait until you get salivary gland cancer and your insurance decides that it was a pre-existing condition (that laid dormant since before you purchased your catastrophic insurance) because you don't have the financial records to proved you'd had a dental check up every 6 months (again, extending 12 months before your purchase of insurance) and you have to make a real decision.A decision like trying to figure out if watching your child go to their first day kindergarten is worth the projected 2.5 million dollars it will take to keep you alive and in crippling pain that long.
According to most of the people unwilling to pay their taxes, I wonder if you will have the decency to pull the trigger instead of burdening your children with debt.Put the gun in your hand and I doubt you'd be so brazen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540434</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>FunkyOldD</author>
	<datestamp>1269022260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Buy insurance across state lines. This gives people the opportunity to search for cheap insurance. Right now you can only get insurance in your state... Imagine if you couldn't buy anything over the internet across state lines.</p></div><p> This is actually a very bad idea. All insurance companies will move to the state that allows them to screw their customers the most. That's what happened when credit card companies were deregulated in the late 70s. Why do you think every credit card company is headquartered in South Dakota and Delaware? Because charging 30\% interest is illegal in other states.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Limit lawsuit payouts. The lawyers (sharks with lasers) are making a KILLING on lawsuits. Reduce the payouts and the sharks will have less to feed on, there will be fewer ambulance chasers because the $$$ will become reasonable.</p></div><p>According to CBO lawsuits account for 1\% to 2\% of health care costs - so even you eliminate ALL malpractice lawsuits (including legitimate ones), you are not saving enough to make a difference.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Reduce the FDA requirements. Wow, meds sure are expensive. Oh, they aren't in canada? Oh, and canada sells the same meds for much less and they don't have such a stringent approval process? Hmmm</p></div><p>Why can't we just re-import drugs from Canada instead?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4. Promote Savings Health Accounts (see 1. first) - If you put in $xxx dollars tax free into an account that's YOUR money. Once you cap it at a certain level you just pay the maintenance (the insurance part in case something catastrophic happens) Now, it's your task to shop around for an affordable healthcare provider. You'll think twice before paying $300 for a checkup.</p></div><p>HSAs are a great idea. The problem is that many people would rather spend their money, even if it's taxed. For instance, everyone can save for retirement tax free using IRA accounts; but how many actually do it?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>5. This topic wasn't designed to discuss immigration, but guess what, that's a major cost in health care. The country will fail if the people paying into healthcare are expected to support every ILLEGAL immigrant that wants healthcare. Especially if the hospitals are charging those goverment rates for it ($30 for an aspirin anyone?) I'm just going to say, if you can't reasonably prove your an american, you don't get american health care, unless you can pay cash.</p></div><p>So if unconscious car accident victim does not have a proof of citizenship and doesn't have $10k on him you would throw him out of the emergency room?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Exercise: Call 3 local providers and tell them that you have some common malady and tell them that you have Blue Cross insurance, ask them what it will cost you, and what they will bill BC. The next day, call them all back, same malady and tell them you're paying out of pocket. If day 2 isn't a third of day 1 I will eat my shoe.</p></div><p>Would you like some condiments with your shoe? Blue Cross negotiates reimbursement rates with hospitals, and therefore will pay LESS, (as much as 60\% less) than you would pay in cash. Check your statement next time: it plainly states what the hospital billed Blue Cross and what hospital accepted as payment.
</p><p>Health care is a very complex problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Buy insurance across state lines .
This gives people the opportunity to search for cheap insurance .
Right now you can only get insurance in your state... Imagine if you could n't buy anything over the internet across state lines .
This is actually a very bad idea .
All insurance companies will move to the state that allows them to screw their customers the most .
That 's what happened when credit card companies were deregulated in the late 70s .
Why do you think every credit card company is headquartered in South Dakota and Delaware ?
Because charging 30 \ % interest is illegal in other states.2 .
Limit lawsuit payouts .
The lawyers ( sharks with lasers ) are making a KILLING on lawsuits .
Reduce the payouts and the sharks will have less to feed on , there will be fewer ambulance chasers because the $ $ $ will become reasonable.According to CBO lawsuits account for 1 \ % to 2 \ % of health care costs - so even you eliminate ALL malpractice lawsuits ( including legitimate ones ) , you are not saving enough to make a difference.3 .
Reduce the FDA requirements .
Wow , meds sure are expensive .
Oh , they are n't in canada ?
Oh , and canada sells the same meds for much less and they do n't have such a stringent approval process ?
HmmmWhy ca n't we just re-import drugs from Canada instead ? 4 .
Promote Savings Health Accounts ( see 1. first ) - If you put in $ xxx dollars tax free into an account that 's YOUR money .
Once you cap it at a certain level you just pay the maintenance ( the insurance part in case something catastrophic happens ) Now , it 's your task to shop around for an affordable healthcare provider .
You 'll think twice before paying $ 300 for a checkup.HSAs are a great idea .
The problem is that many people would rather spend their money , even if it 's taxed .
For instance , everyone can save for retirement tax free using IRA accounts ; but how many actually do it ? 5 .
This topic was n't designed to discuss immigration , but guess what , that 's a major cost in health care .
The country will fail if the people paying into healthcare are expected to support every ILLEGAL immigrant that wants healthcare .
Especially if the hospitals are charging those goverment rates for it ( $ 30 for an aspirin anyone ?
) I 'm just going to say , if you ca n't reasonably prove your an american , you do n't get american health care , unless you can pay cash.So if unconscious car accident victim does not have a proof of citizenship and does n't have $ 10k on him you would throw him out of the emergency room ? Exercise : Call 3 local providers and tell them that you have some common malady and tell them that you have Blue Cross insurance , ask them what it will cost you , and what they will bill BC .
The next day , call them all back , same malady and tell them you 're paying out of pocket .
If day 2 is n't a third of day 1 I will eat my shoe.Would you like some condiments with your shoe ?
Blue Cross negotiates reimbursement rates with hospitals , and therefore will pay LESS , ( as much as 60 \ % less ) than you would pay in cash .
Check your statement next time : it plainly states what the hospital billed Blue Cross and what hospital accepted as payment .
Health care is a very complex problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Buy insurance across state lines.
This gives people the opportunity to search for cheap insurance.
Right now you can only get insurance in your state... Imagine if you couldn't buy anything over the internet across state lines.
This is actually a very bad idea.
All insurance companies will move to the state that allows them to screw their customers the most.
That's what happened when credit card companies were deregulated in the late 70s.
Why do you think every credit card company is headquartered in South Dakota and Delaware?
Because charging 30\% interest is illegal in other states.2.
Limit lawsuit payouts.
The lawyers (sharks with lasers) are making a KILLING on lawsuits.
Reduce the payouts and the sharks will have less to feed on, there will be fewer ambulance chasers because the $$$ will become reasonable.According to CBO lawsuits account for 1\% to 2\% of health care costs - so even you eliminate ALL malpractice lawsuits (including legitimate ones), you are not saving enough to make a difference.3.
Reduce the FDA requirements.
Wow, meds sure are expensive.
Oh, they aren't in canada?
Oh, and canada sells the same meds for much less and they don't have such a stringent approval process?
HmmmWhy can't we just re-import drugs from Canada instead?4.
Promote Savings Health Accounts (see 1. first) - If you put in $xxx dollars tax free into an account that's YOUR money.
Once you cap it at a certain level you just pay the maintenance (the insurance part in case something catastrophic happens) Now, it's your task to shop around for an affordable healthcare provider.
You'll think twice before paying $300 for a checkup.HSAs are a great idea.
The problem is that many people would rather spend their money, even if it's taxed.
For instance, everyone can save for retirement tax free using IRA accounts; but how many actually do it?5.
This topic wasn't designed to discuss immigration, but guess what, that's a major cost in health care.
The country will fail if the people paying into healthcare are expected to support every ILLEGAL immigrant that wants healthcare.
Especially if the hospitals are charging those goverment rates for it ($30 for an aspirin anyone?
) I'm just going to say, if you can't reasonably prove your an american, you don't get american health care, unless you can pay cash.So if unconscious car accident victim does not have a proof of citizenship and doesn't have $10k on him you would throw him out of the emergency room?Exercise: Call 3 local providers and tell them that you have some common malady and tell them that you have Blue Cross insurance, ask them what it will cost you, and what they will bill BC.
The next day, call them all back, same malady and tell them you're paying out of pocket.
If day 2 isn't a third of day 1 I will eat my shoe.Would you like some condiments with your shoe?
Blue Cross negotiates reimbursement rates with hospitals, and therefore will pay LESS, (as much as 60\% less) than you would pay in cash.
Check your statement next time: it plainly states what the hospital billed Blue Cross and what hospital accepted as payment.
Health care is a very complex problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542974</id>
	<title>Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1268989860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>teabaggers and libertarians: in SOME avenues of life, not all, the government is good, and works for you. you reject it at the price of your own impoverishment. that's the simple obvious truth</p></div><p>If we could reject them, we would. Our philosophy is for all people to choose their own poison. You're forcing it down everyone's throat. ONCE AGAIN, states' rights. If California or Iowa or [state] wants to enact this legislation, alright. But don't force it on 300m people! Our nation is too large for the high government to be representative of the people. Such sweeping, life changing, nation-bankrupting legislation is best reserved for the better-representing states, where only a portion of the country will be affected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>teabaggers and libertarians : in SOME avenues of life , not all , the government is good , and works for you .
you reject it at the price of your own impoverishment .
that 's the simple obvious truthIf we could reject them , we would .
Our philosophy is for all people to choose their own poison .
You 're forcing it down everyone 's throat .
ONCE AGAIN , states ' rights .
If California or Iowa or [ state ] wants to enact this legislation , alright .
But do n't force it on 300m people !
Our nation is too large for the high government to be representative of the people .
Such sweeping , life changing , nation-bankrupting legislation is best reserved for the better-representing states , where only a portion of the country will be affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>teabaggers and libertarians: in SOME avenues of life, not all, the government is good, and works for you.
you reject it at the price of your own impoverishment.
that's the simple obvious truthIf we could reject them, we would.
Our philosophy is for all people to choose their own poison.
You're forcing it down everyone's throat.
ONCE AGAIN, states' rights.
If California or Iowa or [state] wants to enact this legislation, alright.
But don't force it on 300m people!
Our nation is too large for the high government to be representative of the people.
Such sweeping, life changing, nation-bankrupting legislation is best reserved for the better-representing states, where only a portion of the country will be affected.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535996</id>
	<title>Some interesting statistics</title>
	<author>wembley fraggle</author>
	<datestamp>1269009840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=health+care+cost+usa+\%2F+gdp+usa+" title="wolframalpha.com">the graph</a> [wolframalpha.com]. Health Care expenditures, as a percentage of US GDP, have increased pretty significantly over the last 40 years. Keep in mind that health care costs are PART of GDP (so when WellPoint raises insurance rates, it actually shows up as an increase in GDP, which helps illustrate why GDP might not be the best indicator of our national economic health). That means that the expenditures in the health care sector have been growing much faster than those in most other sectors of the economy - if they were all growing equally, the portion of the GDP associated with health care would stay flat.</p><p>I have my own opinions about how to solve this mess, but I'm not in congress and I have trouble making my fish agree with me, let alone other people. So I won't talk about those, just about the facts of the situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the graph [ wolframalpha.com ] .
Health Care expenditures , as a percentage of US GDP , have increased pretty significantly over the last 40 years .
Keep in mind that health care costs are PART of GDP ( so when WellPoint raises insurance rates , it actually shows up as an increase in GDP , which helps illustrate why GDP might not be the best indicator of our national economic health ) .
That means that the expenditures in the health care sector have been growing much faster than those in most other sectors of the economy - if they were all growing equally , the portion of the GDP associated with health care would stay flat.I have my own opinions about how to solve this mess , but I 'm not in congress and I have trouble making my fish agree with me , let alone other people .
So I wo n't talk about those , just about the facts of the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the graph [wolframalpha.com].
Health Care expenditures, as a percentage of US GDP, have increased pretty significantly over the last 40 years.
Keep in mind that health care costs are PART of GDP (so when WellPoint raises insurance rates, it actually shows up as an increase in GDP, which helps illustrate why GDP might not be the best indicator of our national economic health).
That means that the expenditures in the health care sector have been growing much faster than those in most other sectors of the economy - if they were all growing equally, the portion of the GDP associated with health care would stay flat.I have my own opinions about how to solve this mess, but I'm not in congress and I have trouble making my fish agree with me, let alone other people.
So I won't talk about those, just about the facts of the situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536528</id>
	<title>Slashdot is packed with OLD people!?</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1269011340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Slashdot is packed with the entitlement generation</p></div></blockquote><p>While there <em>are</em> some 60+ year olds around here (the people who would punish politicians at the polls if they even suggested eliminating Social Security and Medicare) they're still a pretty small minority.  Most of slashdot is young enough that SS will be long gone by the time they turn 65.  So WTF do you mean by "packed with the entitlement generation?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is packed with the entitlement generationWhile there are some 60 + year olds around here ( the people who would punish politicians at the polls if they even suggested eliminating Social Security and Medicare ) they 're still a pretty small minority .
Most of slashdot is young enough that SS will be long gone by the time they turn 65 .
So WTF do you mean by " packed with the entitlement generation ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is packed with the entitlement generationWhile there are some 60+ year olds around here (the people who would punish politicians at the polls if they even suggested eliminating Social Security and Medicare) they're still a pretty small minority.
Most of slashdot is young enough that SS will be long gone by the time they turn 65.
So WTF do you mean by "packed with the entitlement generation?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538012</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aaaand.. why should you be entitled to not pay your taxes again?</p><p>If charity-based healthcare were a success in the US we wouldn't be having this debate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aaaand.. why should you be entitled to not pay your taxes again ? If charity-based healthcare were a success in the US we would n't be having this debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aaaand.. why should you be entitled to not pay your taxes again?If charity-based healthcare were a success in the US we wouldn't be having this debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536492</id>
	<title>Re:Dear readers with mod points...</title>
	<author>aeropawel</author>
	<datestamp>1269011220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Citations needed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Citations needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citations needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535490</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>sageres</author>
	<datestamp>1269008280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/agree mod the parent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>obligatory welfare joke:<br>A guy walks into the local welfare office, marches straight up to the counter and says, "Hi . . . You know, I just HATE drawing welfare. I'd really rather have a job".</p><p>The social worker behind the counter says, "Your timing is excellent. We just got a job opening from a very wealthy old man who wants a chauffeur/bodyguard for his nymphomaniac daughter. You'll have to drive<br>around in his Mercedes, but he'll supply all of your clothes. Because of the long hours, meals will be provided. You'll be expected to escort her on her overseas holiday trips. You'll have a two-bedroom apartment above the garage. The starting salary is $200,000 a year".</p><p>The guy says, "You're bullshitting me!"</p><p>The social worker says, "Yeah, well, you started it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/agree mod the parent : - ) obligatory welfare joke : A guy walks into the local welfare office , marches straight up to the counter and says , " Hi .
. .
You know , I just HATE drawing welfare .
I 'd really rather have a job " .The social worker behind the counter says , " Your timing is excellent .
We just got a job opening from a very wealthy old man who wants a chauffeur/bodyguard for his nymphomaniac daughter .
You 'll have to drivearound in his Mercedes , but he 'll supply all of your clothes .
Because of the long hours , meals will be provided .
You 'll be expected to escort her on her overseas holiday trips .
You 'll have a two-bedroom apartment above the garage .
The starting salary is $ 200,000 a year " .The guy says , " You 're bullshitting me !
" The social worker says , " Yeah , well , you started it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/agree mod the parent :-)obligatory welfare joke:A guy walks into the local welfare office, marches straight up to the counter and says, "Hi .
. .
You know, I just HATE drawing welfare.
I'd really rather have a job".The social worker behind the counter says, "Your timing is excellent.
We just got a job opening from a very wealthy old man who wants a chauffeur/bodyguard for his nymphomaniac daughter.
You'll have to drivearound in his Mercedes, but he'll supply all of your clothes.
Because of the long hours, meals will be provided.
You'll be expected to escort her on her overseas holiday trips.
You'll have a two-bedroom apartment above the garage.
The starting salary is $200,000 a year".The guy says, "You're bullshitting me!
"The social worker says, "Yeah, well, you started it.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536040</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhere in between.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I expect it will at least mitigate my issues getting health insurance after getting kicked off my parents' plan</p></div><p>Of course, there is an alternative way to get health care if you get kicked off your parent's plan.  Go out, earn money, and get health coverage from your employer or buy it yourself.  The problem there is getting a job.  Congress should be focusing on the economy and getting people back to work.  That would mitigate quite a few issues with healthcare and not require such a drastic overhaul of the system (although some reform is still necessary).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I expect it will at least mitigate my issues getting health insurance after getting kicked off my parents ' planOf course , there is an alternative way to get health care if you get kicked off your parent 's plan .
Go out , earn money , and get health coverage from your employer or buy it yourself .
The problem there is getting a job .
Congress should be focusing on the economy and getting people back to work .
That would mitigate quite a few issues with healthcare and not require such a drastic overhaul of the system ( although some reform is still necessary ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I expect it will at least mitigate my issues getting health insurance after getting kicked off my parents' planOf course, there is an alternative way to get health care if you get kicked off your parent's plan.
Go out, earn money, and get health coverage from your employer or buy it yourself.
The problem there is getting a job.
Congress should be focusing on the economy and getting people back to work.
That would mitigate quite a few issues with healthcare and not require such a drastic overhaul of the system (although some reform is still necessary).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537310</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you also resent having your money taken at gunpoint to go into Iraq? Afghanistan? To fund your local fire and police departments? To provide clean drinking water in your community? To provide education for the children in your neighborhood?</p><p>YOU are part of a community. YOU BENEFIT from being part of that community.<br>The COMMUNITY is what allows you to live a non-third-world existence.<br>It is THE COMMUNITY that you live in, that allows for a rule of law, so that when your neighbor decides that he doesn't love you as much as he loves his other neighbors and decides that he should roll up in your house and take all your possessions in the dead of night, that there is a system in place to protect you from that.</p><p>THE COMMUNITY is what, frankly, allows you to succeed, and there is a price to being part of that community in terms of paying into the system that allows EVERYONE (not just the people you deem worthy) to benefit from it.</p><p>This is not "SOCIALISM", these are the core principals of American Democracy man.</p><p>Quit reading so much Ayn Rand. She wasn't a very good writer and didn't think her shit out very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you also resent having your money taken at gunpoint to go into Iraq ?
Afghanistan ? To fund your local fire and police departments ?
To provide clean drinking water in your community ?
To provide education for the children in your neighborhood ? YOU are part of a community .
YOU BENEFIT from being part of that community.The COMMUNITY is what allows you to live a non-third-world existence.It is THE COMMUNITY that you live in , that allows for a rule of law , so that when your neighbor decides that he does n't love you as much as he loves his other neighbors and decides that he should roll up in your house and take all your possessions in the dead of night , that there is a system in place to protect you from that.THE COMMUNITY is what , frankly , allows you to succeed , and there is a price to being part of that community in terms of paying into the system that allows EVERYONE ( not just the people you deem worthy ) to benefit from it.This is not " SOCIALISM " , these are the core principals of American Democracy man.Quit reading so much Ayn Rand .
She was n't a very good writer and did n't think her shit out very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you also resent having your money taken at gunpoint to go into Iraq?
Afghanistan? To fund your local fire and police departments?
To provide clean drinking water in your community?
To provide education for the children in your neighborhood?YOU are part of a community.
YOU BENEFIT from being part of that community.The COMMUNITY is what allows you to live a non-third-world existence.It is THE COMMUNITY that you live in, that allows for a rule of law, so that when your neighbor decides that he doesn't love you as much as he loves his other neighbors and decides that he should roll up in your house and take all your possessions in the dead of night, that there is a system in place to protect you from that.THE COMMUNITY is what, frankly, allows you to succeed, and there is a price to being part of that community in terms of paying into the system that allows EVERYONE (not just the people you deem worthy) to benefit from it.This is not "SOCIALISM", these are the core principals of American Democracy man.Quit reading so much Ayn Rand.
She wasn't a very good writer and didn't think her shit out very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545424</id>
	<title>Re:Trusting Faux News?</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1269000960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Comedy-f'king-Central</i> </p><p>That's because comedy has a well-known liberal bias (just ask Dennis Miller).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comedy-f'king-Central That 's because comedy has a well-known liberal bias ( just ask Dennis Miller ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comedy-f'king-Central That's because comedy has a well-known liberal bias (just ask Dennis Miller).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539320</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269018540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?</p></div><p>The bill includes dozens of federal regulatory bodies, so you did miss it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run ? The bill includes dozens of federal regulatory bodies , so you did miss it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?The bill includes dozens of federal regulatory bodies, so you did miss it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542502</id>
	<title>Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>SupraTT GOP</author>
	<datestamp>1269030960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually they understand this position perfectly well, and they will take you one further to a point you have not yet considered, apparently. The most advantaged competitor (that would be what we call federal government, whether in a more limited capacity as a minor regulator to an all-out "public-option" provider) has a distinct ability and tendency to eat away at the whole of the system, like cancer. And the more intervention there is in the system by those that "know" how best to intervene, the more cancerous and debilitating the intervention becomes.

So a few years of seemingly blissful universal healthcare for all is not worth healthcare for no one at some not too distant point in the future. I hope you understand now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually they understand this position perfectly well , and they will take you one further to a point you have not yet considered , apparently .
The most advantaged competitor ( that would be what we call federal government , whether in a more limited capacity as a minor regulator to an all-out " public-option " provider ) has a distinct ability and tendency to eat away at the whole of the system , like cancer .
And the more intervention there is in the system by those that " know " how best to intervene , the more cancerous and debilitating the intervention becomes .
So a few years of seemingly blissful universal healthcare for all is not worth healthcare for no one at some not too distant point in the future .
I hope you understand now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually they understand this position perfectly well, and they will take you one further to a point you have not yet considered, apparently.
The most advantaged competitor (that would be what we call federal government, whether in a more limited capacity as a minor regulator to an all-out "public-option" provider) has a distinct ability and tendency to eat away at the whole of the system, like cancer.
And the more intervention there is in the system by those that "know" how best to intervene, the more cancerous and debilitating the intervention becomes.
So a few years of seemingly blissful universal healthcare for all is not worth healthcare for no one at some not too distant point in the future.
I hope you understand now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541714</id>
	<title>Re:Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1269027360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you see, other countries have a simple way to keep government services from sliding into inefficiency and corruption.</p><p>
They don't elect Republicans.</p><p>
*rimshot*</p><p>
Thanks, you've been great, I'll be here all week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you see , other countries have a simple way to keep government services from sliding into inefficiency and corruption .
They do n't elect Republicans .
* rimshot * Thanks , you 've been great , I 'll be here all week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you see, other countries have a simple way to keep government services from sliding into inefficiency and corruption.
They don't elect Republicans.
*rimshot*
Thanks, you've been great, I'll be here all week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537088</id>
	<title>Re:Random health care thoughts</title>
	<author>Good Grief</author>
	<datestamp>1269012660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some comments on health care industries making money hand over fist.  Everybody seems to be in an outrage with doctors making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, but nobody bats an eye when some sports star signs a multi-million dollar contract.  If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery, would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open?  I'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche.  If he's good enough to earn that much money, he's got to be worth his salt.</p></div><p>We're not concerned that doctors are raking in money, we're concerned that health insurers are raking in money while charging most of us a lot of money for very limited access to actual health care.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some comments on health care industries making money hand over fist .
Everybody seems to be in an outrage with doctors making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year , but nobody bats an eye when some sports star signs a multi-million dollar contract .
If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery , would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open ?
I 'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche .
If he 's good enough to earn that much money , he 's got to be worth his salt.We 're not concerned that doctors are raking in money , we 're concerned that health insurers are raking in money while charging most of us a lot of money for very limited access to actual health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some comments on health care industries making money hand over fist.
Everybody seems to be in an outrage with doctors making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, but nobody bats an eye when some sports star signs a multi-million dollar contract.
If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery, would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open?
I'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche.
If he's good enough to earn that much money, he's got to be worth his salt.We're not concerned that doctors are raking in money, we're concerned that health insurers are raking in money while charging most of us a lot of money for very limited access to actual health care.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536476</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen.  What's wrong with everyone paying their own way in a system that gives everyone a fighting chance?</p><p>Also- WTF is wrong with all the people from outside the US trying to dictate what is right for us?  Why don't they leave us the hell alone and focus on their own problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .
What 's wrong with everyone paying their own way in a system that gives everyone a fighting chance ? Also- WTF is wrong with all the people from outside the US trying to dictate what is right for us ?
Why do n't they leave us the hell alone and focus on their own problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.
What's wrong with everyone paying their own way in a system that gives everyone a fighting chance?Also- WTF is wrong with all the people from outside the US trying to dictate what is right for us?
Why don't they leave us the hell alone and focus on their own problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535272</id>
	<title>It's only 2700 pages.  If you care, read it.</title>
	<author>karlnyberg</author>
	<datestamp>1269007560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rather than bashing one side or the other based upon perceived biased information, go get the document and read it yourself.

Then, weep for future generations, either way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than bashing one side or the other based upon perceived biased information , go get the document and read it yourself .
Then , weep for future generations , either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than bashing one side or the other based upon perceived biased information, go get the document and read it yourself.
Then, weep for future generations, either way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536936</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1269012300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entitlement generation? How about all the old people on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid who get pissed when we try to lower their benefits or when they don't get a cost of living adjustment? We spend a huge portion of our budget on these programs. Many of the current recipients are receiving more money than they put into the system, and that burden is being carried by the young of our generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entitlement generation ?
How about all the old people on Medicare , Social Security , and Medicaid who get pissed when we try to lower their benefits or when they do n't get a cost of living adjustment ?
We spend a huge portion of our budget on these programs .
Many of the current recipients are receiving more money than they put into the system , and that burden is being carried by the young of our generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entitlement generation?
How about all the old people on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid who get pissed when we try to lower their benefits or when they don't get a cost of living adjustment?
We spend a huge portion of our budget on these programs.
Many of the current recipients are receiving more money than they put into the system, and that burden is being carried by the young of our generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537892</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>htdrifter</author>
	<datestamp>1269014760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also pay cash and usually get a 50\% discount.  The amount I pay is about the same as my share would have been if I still had insurance.   If I had done that since I started working my 401K would be much larger today.</p><p>Who do you get your catastrophic insurance from?<br>There are too many players between you and the person that provides your medical services.   That's where the big cost is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also pay cash and usually get a 50 \ % discount .
The amount I pay is about the same as my share would have been if I still had insurance .
If I had done that since I started working my 401K would be much larger today.Who do you get your catastrophic insurance from ? There are too many players between you and the person that provides your medical services .
That 's where the big cost is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also pay cash and usually get a 50\% discount.
The amount I pay is about the same as my share would have been if I still had insurance.
If I had done that since I started working my 401K would be much larger today.Who do you get your catastrophic insurance from?There are too many players between you and the person that provides your medical services.
That's where the big cost is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535142</id>
	<title>NO ONE here can tell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one here can tell because the damn bills are in such flux that even the goddamn Congress can keep up with it and the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/cbo-feels-crush-of-health-care-requests/" title="washingtontimes.com" rel="nofollow">GAO is crushed with requests from <i>them</i> to figure it out.</a> [washingtontimes.com] </p><p>So, I'll restate: no one here will know what's going on with regards to what's in the bill. No one in the news media knows exactly what's going on.</p><p>All the doom and gloom you hear and all of the wonderfulness of the plan are <b>all speculation and hyperbole to get viewers and ratings</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one here can tell because the damn bills are in such flux that even the goddamn Congress can keep up with it and the GAO is crushed with requests from them to figure it out .
[ washingtontimes.com ] So , I 'll restate : no one here will know what 's going on with regards to what 's in the bill .
No one in the news media knows exactly what 's going on.All the doom and gloom you hear and all of the wonderfulness of the plan are all speculation and hyperbole to get viewers and ratings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one here can tell because the damn bills are in such flux that even the goddamn Congress can keep up with it and the GAO is crushed with requests from them to figure it out.
[washingtontimes.com] So, I'll restate: no one here will know what's going on with regards to what's in the bill.
No one in the news media knows exactly what's going on.All the doom and gloom you hear and all of the wonderfulness of the plan are all speculation and hyperbole to get viewers and ratings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540982</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269024300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really believe this is the end all for Democrat's health care reform? Get your head out of your ass, this is the first step to the public option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really believe this is the end all for Democrat 's health care reform ?
Get your head out of your ass , this is the first step to the public option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really believe this is the end all for Democrat's health care reform?
Get your head out of your ass, this is the first step to the public option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537394</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds. Stuff that matters</title>
	<author>FatAlb3rt</author>
	<datestamp>1269013380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've been here for about 10 years - are you seriously just now realizing that there are some US-centric articles on here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've been here for about 10 years - are you seriously just now realizing that there are some US-centric articles on here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've been here for about 10 years - are you seriously just now realizing that there are some US-centric articles on here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535664</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>spazimodo</author>
	<datestamp>1269008760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, primary care docs get paid like crap which is why you see very few people willing to go into family medicine and categorical internal medicine. After 4 years of med school, 3-4 years of residency, for an extra year or two of fellowship you can easily double or triple your annual salary.</p><p>The AMA isn't a cartel so much as a part of the overall government regulation of health care that distorts attempts to use the market to provide better care. A truly market-based approach might work, and a fully government controlled approach might work, but what we have right now is the worst of both worlds.</p><p>Also, speaking as an IT guy, I grudgingly wish we had something like the AMA to set professional standards because the current free-for-all is awful. Not that there aren't stupid/bad doctors who manage to slip through the system (and are kept around because everyone is so overwhelmed that they're loathe to get rid of another set of hands.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , primary care docs get paid like crap which is why you see very few people willing to go into family medicine and categorical internal medicine .
After 4 years of med school , 3-4 years of residency , for an extra year or two of fellowship you can easily double or triple your annual salary.The AMA is n't a cartel so much as a part of the overall government regulation of health care that distorts attempts to use the market to provide better care .
A truly market-based approach might work , and a fully government controlled approach might work , but what we have right now is the worst of both worlds.Also , speaking as an IT guy , I grudgingly wish we had something like the AMA to set professional standards because the current free-for-all is awful .
Not that there are n't stupid/bad doctors who manage to slip through the system ( and are kept around because everyone is so overwhelmed that they 're loathe to get rid of another set of hands .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, primary care docs get paid like crap which is why you see very few people willing to go into family medicine and categorical internal medicine.
After 4 years of med school, 3-4 years of residency, for an extra year or two of fellowship you can easily double or triple your annual salary.The AMA isn't a cartel so much as a part of the overall government regulation of health care that distorts attempts to use the market to provide better care.
A truly market-based approach might work, and a fully government controlled approach might work, but what we have right now is the worst of both worlds.Also, speaking as an IT guy, I grudgingly wish we had something like the AMA to set professional standards because the current free-for-all is awful.
Not that there aren't stupid/bad doctors who manage to slip through the system (and are kept around because everyone is so overwhelmed that they're loathe to get rid of another set of hands.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468</id>
	<title>"Entitlement Generation"</title>
	<author>cybrthng</author>
	<datestamp>1269008220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my perspective, you have it all wrong.  Taking care of fellow humans is simply respecting humanity and being willing to love and cherish this one life we have to live.</p><p>The only "Entitlement Generation" i know are people of faith who entitle themselves with the only path to salvation. They entitle themselves with absolute truth. They entitle themselves with morality.</p><p>And yet, people think helping out our fellow brothers is "Entitlement"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my perspective , you have it all wrong .
Taking care of fellow humans is simply respecting humanity and being willing to love and cherish this one life we have to live.The only " Entitlement Generation " i know are people of faith who entitle themselves with the only path to salvation .
They entitle themselves with absolute truth .
They entitle themselves with morality.And yet , people think helping out our fellow brothers is " Entitlement "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my perspective, you have it all wrong.
Taking care of fellow humans is simply respecting humanity and being willing to love and cherish this one life we have to live.The only "Entitlement Generation" i know are people of faith who entitle themselves with the only path to salvation.
They entitle themselves with absolute truth.
They entitle themselves with morality.And yet, people think helping out our fellow brothers is "Entitlement"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542784</id>
	<title>Re:do you trust obama and the dems ?</title>
	<author>Chakra5</author>
	<datestamp>1269032280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another way to look at this is Obama's track record, say with the wall street bail out, where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.</p></div><p>Obama's purpose in bailing out wallstreet was focused on "making sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses??"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Really??

As in, he saw that the bankers were not going to get their astonishingly crass bonus, and said "well, we just can't have THAT, now can we!"??</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another way to look at this is Obama 's track record , say with the wall street bail out , where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.Obama 's purpose in bailing out wallstreet was focused on " making sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses ? ?
" ...Really ? ?
As in , he saw that the bankers were not going to get their astonishingly crass bonus , and said " well , we just ca n't have THAT , now can we ! " ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another way to look at this is Obama's track record, say with the wall street bail out, where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.Obama's purpose in bailing out wallstreet was focused on "making sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses??
" ...Really??
As in, he saw that the bankers were not going to get their astonishingly crass bonus, and said "well, we just can't have THAT, now can we!"?
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542314</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269029940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get frustrated with the "it's socialism and that's bad" arguments. Most of the people (not saying you here, just generally) who argue about socialism are staunch military supporters, despite the fact that the military system is itself a socialist item. Mostly people aren't upset by socialism if it provides something they want, they just use the hot-button word to attack things they don't want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get frustrated with the " it 's socialism and that 's bad " arguments .
Most of the people ( not saying you here , just generally ) who argue about socialism are staunch military supporters , despite the fact that the military system is itself a socialist item .
Mostly people are n't upset by socialism if it provides something they want , they just use the hot-button word to attack things they do n't want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get frustrated with the "it's socialism and that's bad" arguments.
Most of the people (not saying you here, just generally) who argue about socialism are staunch military supporters, despite the fact that the military system is itself a socialist item.
Mostly people aren't upset by socialism if it provides something they want, they just use the hot-button word to attack things they don't want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538408</id>
	<title>Re:Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL "health policy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... in Europe"</p><p>doctor in the street: I have a degree in homeopathic medicine!<br>Truck with loudspeaker: You have a degree in baloney!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL " health policy ... in Europe " doctor in the street : I have a degree in homeopathic medicine ! Truck with loudspeaker : You have a degree in baloney !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL "health policy ... in Europe"doctor in the street: I have a degree in homeopathic medicine!Truck with loudspeaker: You have a degree in baloney!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1269007500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your supply is high. In the UK we have 1.5 doctors per 1,000 people, in the USA, 2.4. Of course, we treat our doctors like crap.</p><p>The USA spends more per head on medical care than the rest of the world but gets poorer service. Either your efficiency is really low, or too much is getting creamed off the top as profit.</p><p>Part of the efficiency problem is that due to your liability culture you throw too many tests and treatments at things.</p><p>Part of the profit problem is that your medical system is run like a business that considers 15\% a low profit margin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your supply is high .
In the UK we have 1.5 doctors per 1,000 people , in the USA , 2.4 .
Of course , we treat our doctors like crap.The USA spends more per head on medical care than the rest of the world but gets poorer service .
Either your efficiency is really low , or too much is getting creamed off the top as profit.Part of the efficiency problem is that due to your liability culture you throw too many tests and treatments at things.Part of the profit problem is that your medical system is run like a business that considers 15 \ % a low profit margin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your supply is high.
In the UK we have 1.5 doctors per 1,000 people, in the USA, 2.4.
Of course, we treat our doctors like crap.The USA spends more per head on medical care than the rest of the world but gets poorer service.
Either your efficiency is really low, or too much is getting creamed off the top as profit.Part of the efficiency problem is that due to your liability culture you throw too many tests and treatments at things.Part of the profit problem is that your medical system is run like a business that considers 15\% a low profit margin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537106</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1269012720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean Medicare Part D, a prescription drug program that will cost the government $727.3 billion from 2009-2018 in payments to the big pharmaceutical companies that pushed the bill through? The bill is that high because the law prevents the federal government from bargaining with the drug companies over the price. That's why Medicare pays $1,485 for Zocor, while the VA pays $127. Oh, and the program hasn't been shown to increase the lifespan of patients.</p><p>I am not aware of any health care tort reform under the Bush Administration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean Medicare Part D , a prescription drug program that will cost the government $ 727.3 billion from 2009-2018 in payments to the big pharmaceutical companies that pushed the bill through ?
The bill is that high because the law prevents the federal government from bargaining with the drug companies over the price .
That 's why Medicare pays $ 1,485 for Zocor , while the VA pays $ 127 .
Oh , and the program has n't been shown to increase the lifespan of patients.I am not aware of any health care tort reform under the Bush Administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean Medicare Part D, a prescription drug program that will cost the government $727.3 billion from 2009-2018 in payments to the big pharmaceutical companies that pushed the bill through?
The bill is that high because the law prevents the federal government from bargaining with the drug companies over the price.
That's why Medicare pays $1,485 for Zocor, while the VA pays $127.
Oh, and the program hasn't been shown to increase the lifespan of patients.I am not aware of any health care tort reform under the Bush Administration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538770</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269016860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let no one get public supported medical insurance including all congressmen, government employees, and the only exception is the army/navy/air force and other veterans. Then we can accept the crookish GOP's claim it costs too much to insure all. If the poor people die, we can import more Mexicans to replace them.  Trillion $, whose money when the GOPs are talking when the congress men taking bribes and squander our tax dollars and allow the insurance companies to collect the bribes back by distributing the corruption charges among all the insurance policy holders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let no one get public supported medical insurance including all congressmen , government employees , and the only exception is the army/navy/air force and other veterans .
Then we can accept the crookish GOP 's claim it costs too much to insure all .
If the poor people die , we can import more Mexicans to replace them .
Trillion $ , whose money when the GOPs are talking when the congress men taking bribes and squander our tax dollars and allow the insurance companies to collect the bribes back by distributing the corruption charges among all the insurance policy holders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let no one get public supported medical insurance including all congressmen, government employees, and the only exception is the army/navy/air force and other veterans.
Then we can accept the crookish GOP's claim it costs too much to insure all.
If the poor people die, we can import more Mexicans to replace them.
Trillion $, whose money when the GOPs are talking when the congress men taking bribes and squander our tax dollars and allow the insurance companies to collect the bribes back by distributing the corruption charges among all the insurance policy holders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540112</id>
	<title>Re:Dear readers with mod points...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1269021120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But please mod me +5 Insightful like you're doing with everyone else, just to be fair.</p></div><p>You've got to bash either the bill, or Obama, or both for that. Sorry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But please mod me + 5 Insightful like you 're doing with everyone else , just to be fair.You 've got to bash either the bill , or Obama , or both for that .
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But please mod me +5 Insightful like you're doing with everyone else, just to be fair.You've got to bash either the bill, or Obama, or both for that.
Sorry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539056</id>
	<title>A big miss on point number 3</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1269017760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3) provide insurance to 30 million people who now lack it</p></div><p>
This bill doesn't actually do that.  It is designed to help some fraction of those 30 million <b>purchase</b> insurance, it doesn't provide much of anything to much of anyone beyond that which is already provided to those who already have something.<br> <br>
So while </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Obama is instituting a new national policy - health care, a basic fundamental right ina civilized society</p></div><p>
Sounds great and all, it has already been stricken from the bill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) provide insurance to 30 million people who now lack it This bill does n't actually do that .
It is designed to help some fraction of those 30 million purchase insurance , it does n't provide much of anything to much of anyone beyond that which is already provided to those who already have something .
So while Obama is instituting a new national policy - health care , a basic fundamental right ina civilized society Sounds great and all , it has already been stricken from the bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3) provide insurance to 30 million people who now lack it
This bill doesn't actually do that.
It is designed to help some fraction of those 30 million purchase insurance, it doesn't provide much of anything to much of anyone beyond that which is already provided to those who already have something.
So while Obama is instituting a new national policy - health care, a basic fundamental right ina civilized society
Sounds great and all, it has already been stricken from the bill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535592</id>
	<title>Do you like HMOs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would you like an HMO run with government efficiency?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you like an HMO run with government efficiency ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you like an HMO run with government efficiency?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537442</id>
	<title>Re:Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope that what PolitiFact calls "overhead" and you call "administrative costs" are comparable, because if they are, there is a stark contrast between their claims and research and yours: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/12/americas-health-insurance-plans/health-insurers-get-small-percentage-overall-healt/.  Despite your profession, I'm going with their number.</p><p>I am not sanguine about improved infant and child health; I know there are bad outcomes to infant and child illness that result from very real cost barriers, but I am certain that a greater factor is formed by softer considerations (transportation, especially in rural areas, low incomes that make it parental education and attitudes--are Europeans as ill-educated as most of our teen moms and are Europeans as blase about vaccination as many Americans are?); these factors will not be mitigated by the current ObamaCare proposal (nor would HillaryCare have helped, nor would market-based solutions).</p><p>If there were ever, in the history of our Republic, a government program that stayed within original estimates of its costs (whole-number error factors, and even the occasional order of magnitude are an ironclad rule, whether it be levees in Louisiana, Medicare or crop subsidies), I might not be shaking my head at the naivete of people (like yourself) who think this might "save" money ultimately. Whether it will be money well-spent, I'm not going there, but anyone who thinks CBO's numbers (which are accepted as gospel only because they are the least partisan numbers, not because they have a track record of accuracy) are reasonably correct is an incurable optimist at best, a fool at worst.</p><p>New stories have circulated here that the Social Security Administration will soon begin to sell the bonds it bought from the Treasury (required by law, since investing the past surpluses of Social Security taxes over Social Security in equities or private debt instruments was anathema to both right and left, for different reasons), meaning that the Treasury will have to borrow money to pay off the Social Security Administration in addition to funding everything else.  With Rube Goldberg financing like this, can you blame me for worrying that missing the cost estimates of ObamaCare by a "mere" 50\% over ten years (long after Citizen Obama retires and writes his memoirs), which would be "only" a trillion dollars (for our European friends, who do their numbers differently, that's 10^12 dollars) off.</p><p>"Saving money" is in the government lexicon, but it is manifestly not in the government's toolkit or history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope that what PolitiFact calls " overhead " and you call " administrative costs " are comparable , because if they are , there is a stark contrast between their claims and research and yours : http : //www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/12/americas-health-insurance-plans/health-insurers-get-small-percentage-overall-healt/ .
Despite your profession , I 'm going with their number.I am not sanguine about improved infant and child health ; I know there are bad outcomes to infant and child illness that result from very real cost barriers , but I am certain that a greater factor is formed by softer considerations ( transportation , especially in rural areas , low incomes that make it parental education and attitudes--are Europeans as ill-educated as most of our teen moms and are Europeans as blase about vaccination as many Americans are ?
) ; these factors will not be mitigated by the current ObamaCare proposal ( nor would HillaryCare have helped , nor would market-based solutions ) .If there were ever , in the history of our Republic , a government program that stayed within original estimates of its costs ( whole-number error factors , and even the occasional order of magnitude are an ironclad rule , whether it be levees in Louisiana , Medicare or crop subsidies ) , I might not be shaking my head at the naivete of people ( like yourself ) who think this might " save " money ultimately .
Whether it will be money well-spent , I 'm not going there , but anyone who thinks CBO 's numbers ( which are accepted as gospel only because they are the least partisan numbers , not because they have a track record of accuracy ) are reasonably correct is an incurable optimist at best , a fool at worst.New stories have circulated here that the Social Security Administration will soon begin to sell the bonds it bought from the Treasury ( required by law , since investing the past surpluses of Social Security taxes over Social Security in equities or private debt instruments was anathema to both right and left , for different reasons ) , meaning that the Treasury will have to borrow money to pay off the Social Security Administration in addition to funding everything else .
With Rube Goldberg financing like this , can you blame me for worrying that missing the cost estimates of ObamaCare by a " mere " 50 \ % over ten years ( long after Citizen Obama retires and writes his memoirs ) , which would be " only " a trillion dollars ( for our European friends , who do their numbers differently , that 's 10 ^ 12 dollars ) off .
" Saving money " is in the government lexicon , but it is manifestly not in the government 's toolkit or history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope that what PolitiFact calls "overhead" and you call "administrative costs" are comparable, because if they are, there is a stark contrast between their claims and research and yours: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/12/americas-health-insurance-plans/health-insurers-get-small-percentage-overall-healt/.
Despite your profession, I'm going with their number.I am not sanguine about improved infant and child health; I know there are bad outcomes to infant and child illness that result from very real cost barriers, but I am certain that a greater factor is formed by softer considerations (transportation, especially in rural areas, low incomes that make it parental education and attitudes--are Europeans as ill-educated as most of our teen moms and are Europeans as blase about vaccination as many Americans are?
); these factors will not be mitigated by the current ObamaCare proposal (nor would HillaryCare have helped, nor would market-based solutions).If there were ever, in the history of our Republic, a government program that stayed within original estimates of its costs (whole-number error factors, and even the occasional order of magnitude are an ironclad rule, whether it be levees in Louisiana, Medicare or crop subsidies), I might not be shaking my head at the naivete of people (like yourself) who think this might "save" money ultimately.
Whether it will be money well-spent, I'm not going there, but anyone who thinks CBO's numbers (which are accepted as gospel only because they are the least partisan numbers, not because they have a track record of accuracy) are reasonably correct is an incurable optimist at best, a fool at worst.New stories have circulated here that the Social Security Administration will soon begin to sell the bonds it bought from the Treasury (required by law, since investing the past surpluses of Social Security taxes over Social Security in equities or private debt instruments was anathema to both right and left, for different reasons), meaning that the Treasury will have to borrow money to pay off the Social Security Administration in addition to funding everything else.
With Rube Goldberg financing like this, can you blame me for worrying that missing the cost estimates of ObamaCare by a "mere" 50\% over ten years (long after Citizen Obama retires and writes his memoirs), which would be "only" a trillion dollars (for our European friends, who do their numbers differently, that's 10^12 dollars) off.
"Saving money" is in the government lexicon, but it is manifestly not in the government's toolkit or history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539638</id>
	<title>Neither... It'll just move the shells.</title>
	<author>scatmull</author>
	<datestamp>1269019560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like most thing political most ideas are never as bad as they are characterized or never as rosy as they are triumphed to be.  I suspect that the increasing sense of entitlement will be a drag on our society going forward but things like mandatory coverage is a really good thing to have.

</p><p>Interestingly things like pre-existing conditions could be done away with with a three-prong approach:

</p><ol>
<li>1. Require every one gets coverage applicable to their age group and health history. </li><li>2. Separate health insurance from employment (like Wyden-Bennett).  That way it is portable and don't have to deal with pre-existing conditions on any switch.</li><li>3. Stop using insurance as healthcare account.  We don't use our auto-insurance to pay for our gas.  Routine things should not be covered by insurance.</li></ol><p>Where are conversations like this in the political arena?  Instead of trying to get to root causes, we make it a debate of force vs. choice and then nothing but posturing gets done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like most thing political most ideas are never as bad as they are characterized or never as rosy as they are triumphed to be .
I suspect that the increasing sense of entitlement will be a drag on our society going forward but things like mandatory coverage is a really good thing to have .
Interestingly things like pre-existing conditions could be done away with with a three-prong approach : 1 .
Require every one gets coverage applicable to their age group and health history .
2. Separate health insurance from employment ( like Wyden-Bennett ) .
That way it is portable and do n't have to deal with pre-existing conditions on any switch.3 .
Stop using insurance as healthcare account .
We do n't use our auto-insurance to pay for our gas .
Routine things should not be covered by insurance.Where are conversations like this in the political arena ?
Instead of trying to get to root causes , we make it a debate of force vs. choice and then nothing but posturing gets done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like most thing political most ideas are never as bad as they are characterized or never as rosy as they are triumphed to be.
I suspect that the increasing sense of entitlement will be a drag on our society going forward but things like mandatory coverage is a really good thing to have.
Interestingly things like pre-existing conditions could be done away with with a three-prong approach:


1.
Require every one gets coverage applicable to their age group and health history.
2. Separate health insurance from employment (like Wyden-Bennett).
That way it is portable and don't have to deal with pre-existing conditions on any switch.3.
Stop using insurance as healthcare account.
We don't use our auto-insurance to pay for our gas.
Routine things should not be covered by insurance.Where are conversations like this in the political arena?
Instead of trying to get to root causes, we make it a debate of force vs. choice and then nothing but posturing gets done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539508</id>
	<title>Huge government giveaway</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1269019080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone believing that the so-called reform of the health insurance industry is going to be positive needs to understand the numbers.  My wife read something yesterday from an Arizona politician that said this would give insurance to 33,000 people in Arizona and improve insurance for over 300,000 people in Arizona.  Not only that, but it would give $54 million dollars to hospitals that no longer had to treat people that couldn't afford to pay.</p><p>Let's see...  Today, if you do not have any health insurance you are working but not at a great job - making enough so that you don't qualify for assistance (which would include Medicaid) but not enough to actually pay for insurance.  So how are these people going to get insurance?  Goverment subsidies.</p><p>Since the payout to the hospitals is going to be coming from insurance premiums, that means in one state with mostly a rural population $54 million is going to be coming from the government and going to the hospitals.  Because of some administration costs, this is actually likely to be more like $60 or $70 million.  Multiply that by 50 (at least - Arizona is a pretty small state population-wise) and you can see on an annual basis this is a huge investment by the government.  Probably the biggest single investment ever made by any government anywhere.</p><p>Obviously, this is going to pass - even if nobody votes for it, it will pass because of sidestepping the actual voting process for it.  So we are going to get this no matter what.</p><p>The money for it is going to come from somewhere.  Probably cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.  Today, health care spending in the US is focused on end-of-life treatments to (perhaps) extend the life of people.  This is fairly unique in the world.  As much as 90\% of all health care spending in the US is spent in the last year of life, regardless of the person's age.  There are plenty of people that believe this is a horrible way to spend money.  I believe with the passage of this reform act we will see this spending end.  It will create an extremely large amount of social turmoil because Americans have a different outlook on life and death than most of the rest of the world, which is why the spending is skewed in the first place.  I don't think Obama and most of the other politicians understand this at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone believing that the so-called reform of the health insurance industry is going to be positive needs to understand the numbers .
My wife read something yesterday from an Arizona politician that said this would give insurance to 33,000 people in Arizona and improve insurance for over 300,000 people in Arizona .
Not only that , but it would give $ 54 million dollars to hospitals that no longer had to treat people that could n't afford to pay.Let 's see... Today , if you do not have any health insurance you are working but not at a great job - making enough so that you do n't qualify for assistance ( which would include Medicaid ) but not enough to actually pay for insurance .
So how are these people going to get insurance ?
Goverment subsidies.Since the payout to the hospitals is going to be coming from insurance premiums , that means in one state with mostly a rural population $ 54 million is going to be coming from the government and going to the hospitals .
Because of some administration costs , this is actually likely to be more like $ 60 or $ 70 million .
Multiply that by 50 ( at least - Arizona is a pretty small state population-wise ) and you can see on an annual basis this is a huge investment by the government .
Probably the biggest single investment ever made by any government anywhere.Obviously , this is going to pass - even if nobody votes for it , it will pass because of sidestepping the actual voting process for it .
So we are going to get this no matter what.The money for it is going to come from somewhere .
Probably cuts in Medicare and Medicaid .
Today , health care spending in the US is focused on end-of-life treatments to ( perhaps ) extend the life of people .
This is fairly unique in the world .
As much as 90 \ % of all health care spending in the US is spent in the last year of life , regardless of the person 's age .
There are plenty of people that believe this is a horrible way to spend money .
I believe with the passage of this reform act we will see this spending end .
It will create an extremely large amount of social turmoil because Americans have a different outlook on life and death than most of the rest of the world , which is why the spending is skewed in the first place .
I do n't think Obama and most of the other politicians understand this at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone believing that the so-called reform of the health insurance industry is going to be positive needs to understand the numbers.
My wife read something yesterday from an Arizona politician that said this would give insurance to 33,000 people in Arizona and improve insurance for over 300,000 people in Arizona.
Not only that, but it would give $54 million dollars to hospitals that no longer had to treat people that couldn't afford to pay.Let's see...  Today, if you do not have any health insurance you are working but not at a great job - making enough so that you don't qualify for assistance (which would include Medicaid) but not enough to actually pay for insurance.
So how are these people going to get insurance?
Goverment subsidies.Since the payout to the hospitals is going to be coming from insurance premiums, that means in one state with mostly a rural population $54 million is going to be coming from the government and going to the hospitals.
Because of some administration costs, this is actually likely to be more like $60 or $70 million.
Multiply that by 50 (at least - Arizona is a pretty small state population-wise) and you can see on an annual basis this is a huge investment by the government.
Probably the biggest single investment ever made by any government anywhere.Obviously, this is going to pass - even if nobody votes for it, it will pass because of sidestepping the actual voting process for it.
So we are going to get this no matter what.The money for it is going to come from somewhere.
Probably cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
Today, health care spending in the US is focused on end-of-life treatments to (perhaps) extend the life of people.
This is fairly unique in the world.
As much as 90\% of all health care spending in the US is spent in the last year of life, regardless of the person's age.
There are plenty of people that believe this is a horrible way to spend money.
I believe with the passage of this reform act we will see this spending end.
It will create an extremely large amount of social turmoil because Americans have a different outlook on life and death than most of the rest of the world, which is why the spending is skewed in the first place.
I don't think Obama and most of the other politicians understand this at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538754</id>
	<title>Insurance is not the problem</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1269016800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is the lack of doctors.  If there were ten time as many physicians in the USA, the cost of health care would not be an issue.  Instead, we make getting an MD the hardest and most expensive of all professions, and our medical educational institutions' output is limited to the point that NOW one third of all practicing doctors are foreign trained.  Today the trend among private practices is to stop taking insurance, including Medicare. When you have a lock on the market you can make the rules.<br> <br>
So, why don't politicians pass laws to make it easier/cheaper to open medical schools and get medical degrees?  When was the last time a politician got elected by promising a solution to an immediate problem that would take 20 years to implement?<br> <br>
Imagine if Microsoft were the only operating system -- no Mac OS, Linux, anything else -- and Microsoft could restrict the development of other OSes AND they could charge whatever they wanted without government restrictions.  They would be Dr. Microsoft.  Would having an OS insurance policy help you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the lack of doctors .
If there were ten time as many physicians in the USA , the cost of health care would not be an issue .
Instead , we make getting an MD the hardest and most expensive of all professions , and our medical educational institutions ' output is limited to the point that NOW one third of all practicing doctors are foreign trained .
Today the trend among private practices is to stop taking insurance , including Medicare .
When you have a lock on the market you can make the rules .
So , why do n't politicians pass laws to make it easier/cheaper to open medical schools and get medical degrees ?
When was the last time a politician got elected by promising a solution to an immediate problem that would take 20 years to implement ?
Imagine if Microsoft were the only operating system -- no Mac OS , Linux , anything else -- and Microsoft could restrict the development of other OSes AND they could charge whatever they wanted without government restrictions .
They would be Dr. Microsoft. Would having an OS insurance policy help you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the lack of doctors.
If there were ten time as many physicians in the USA, the cost of health care would not be an issue.
Instead, we make getting an MD the hardest and most expensive of all professions, and our medical educational institutions' output is limited to the point that NOW one third of all practicing doctors are foreign trained.
Today the trend among private practices is to stop taking insurance, including Medicare.
When you have a lock on the market you can make the rules.
So, why don't politicians pass laws to make it easier/cheaper to open medical schools and get medical degrees?
When was the last time a politician got elected by promising a solution to an immediate problem that would take 20 years to implement?
Imagine if Microsoft were the only operating system -- no Mac OS, Linux, anything else -- and Microsoft could restrict the development of other OSes AND they could charge whatever they wanted without government restrictions.
They would be Dr. Microsoft.  Would having an OS insurance policy help you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535550</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>squinty\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1269008460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bad analogy since the Devil doesn't exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad analogy since the Devil does n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad analogy since the Devil doesn't exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536126</id>
	<title>Re:"Entitlement Generation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Taking care of fellow humans is simply respecting humanity and being willing to love and cherish this one life we have to live...And yet, people think helping out our fellow brothers is "Entitlement"</p></div><p>When you give your own money to the downtrodden, you're "taking care of fellow humans".  When you use the force of government to reach into someone else's pocket and give the money to whoever wins the lobbying game in Washington you're just a hypocrite.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking care of fellow humans is simply respecting humanity and being willing to love and cherish this one life we have to live...And yet , people think helping out our fellow brothers is " Entitlement " When you give your own money to the downtrodden , you 're " taking care of fellow humans " .
When you use the force of government to reach into someone else 's pocket and give the money to whoever wins the lobbying game in Washington you 're just a hypocrite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking care of fellow humans is simply respecting humanity and being willing to love and cherish this one life we have to live...And yet, people think helping out our fellow brothers is "Entitlement"When you give your own money to the downtrodden, you're "taking care of fellow humans".
When you use the force of government to reach into someone else's pocket and give the money to whoever wins the lobbying game in Washington you're just a hypocrite.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31558054</id>
	<title>What about the other side?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269191700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about all the MINORS and ILLEGALS on MEDICAID that covers 100\% of their expenses?  So many people milk the system.  It was supposed to help people when they are down on their luck, not be a way of life as it has become for so many.</p><p>Seniors have paid into the system their entire working life, and in their golden years still have to shell out $$$$ and medicare only covers 80\%.  Doesn't seem fair. The other have the rest of their life to pay back having a kid, etc.  Swapping these two would make sense.</p><p>The biggest problem with the health care/ insurance system today is the INSANE cost of everything.  Lawsuits went out of control that caused malpractice insurance to skyrocket which caused prices to go up.  Only in america can you be charged $250 for an ice pack.  Snowball effect.</p><p>Changes need to be made, but the current administration does not seem to be looking in the right places.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about all the MINORS and ILLEGALS on MEDICAID that covers 100 \ % of their expenses ?
So many people milk the system .
It was supposed to help people when they are down on their luck , not be a way of life as it has become for so many.Seniors have paid into the system their entire working life , and in their golden years still have to shell out $ $ $ $ and medicare only covers 80 \ % .
Does n't seem fair .
The other have the rest of their life to pay back having a kid , etc .
Swapping these two would make sense.The biggest problem with the health care/ insurance system today is the INSANE cost of everything .
Lawsuits went out of control that caused malpractice insurance to skyrocket which caused prices to go up .
Only in america can you be charged $ 250 for an ice pack .
Snowball effect.Changes need to be made , but the current administration does not seem to be looking in the right places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about all the MINORS and ILLEGALS on MEDICAID that covers 100\% of their expenses?
So many people milk the system.
It was supposed to help people when they are down on their luck, not be a way of life as it has become for so many.Seniors have paid into the system their entire working life, and in their golden years still have to shell out $$$$ and medicare only covers 80\%.
Doesn't seem fair.
The other have the rest of their life to pay back having a kid, etc.
Swapping these two would make sense.The biggest problem with the health care/ insurance system today is the INSANE cost of everything.
Lawsuits went out of control that caused malpractice insurance to skyrocket which caused prices to go up.
Only in america can you be charged $250 for an ice pack.
Snowball effect.Changes need to be made, but the current administration does not seem to be looking in the right places.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536592</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269011520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does it cost almost a trillion dollars to set up mandates and some oversight?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does it cost almost a trillion dollars to set up mandates and some oversight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does it cost almost a trillion dollars to set up mandates and some oversight?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539818</id>
	<title>Re:This bill is so wrong.</title>
	<author>tobe</author>
	<datestamp>1269020280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We supposedly pay 17\% now, and we live longer lives, have better medical care, and are generally heather than our contemporaries in other countries"

Except you're not and you're just making shit up:

The US is 38th in life expectancy. Even Cuba does better than the States. Almost every other 'European' nation (plus Japan) does better :

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_life\_expectancy" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_life\_expectancy</a> [wikipedia.org]

Your infant mortality is higher also and you're *much* more likely to die before you're 60.

<a href="http://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/" title="who.int">http://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/</a> [who.int] vs <a href="http://www.who.int/countries/gbr/en/" title="who.int">http://www.who.int/countries/gbr/en/</a> [who.int]

And to get that inferior level of healthcare you spend about 3x per capita as a comparable European nation.

Good job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We supposedly pay 17 \ % now , and we live longer lives , have better medical care , and are generally heather than our contemporaries in other countries " Except you 're not and you 're just making shit up : The US is 38th in life expectancy .
Even Cuba does better than the States .
Almost every other 'European ' nation ( plus Japan ) does better : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _countries \ _by \ _life \ _expectancy [ wikipedia.org ] Your infant mortality is higher also and you 're * much * more likely to die before you 're 60 . http : //www.who.int/countries/usa/en/ [ who.int ] vs http : //www.who.int/countries/gbr/en/ [ who.int ] And to get that inferior level of healthcare you spend about 3x per capita as a comparable European nation .
Good job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We supposedly pay 17\% now, and we live longer lives, have better medical care, and are generally heather than our contemporaries in other countries"

Except you're not and you're just making shit up:

The US is 38th in life expectancy.
Even Cuba does better than the States.
Almost every other 'European' nation (plus Japan) does better :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_life\_expectancy [wikipedia.org]

Your infant mortality is higher also and you're *much* more likely to die before you're 60.

http://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/ [who.int] vs http://www.who.int/countries/gbr/en/ [who.int]

And to get that inferior level of healthcare you spend about 3x per capita as a comparable European nation.
Good job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540796</id>
	<title>Re:Random health care thoughts</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1269023640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*Pfft* On of my fellow engineers at work has a Boxter. Another bought a used (Oops! I mean pre-owned!) 911 Targ- Turb- um, something or other. I don't know if it pushed back their retirements at all, but Porsches are just not that big of a deal, anymore.</p><p>Now if the doctor has a Bugatti Veyron or Ascari A10, you might want to worry.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>If he drives up in a Morgan Aero, run away as fast as you can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Pfft * On of my fellow engineers at work has a Boxter .
Another bought a used ( Oops !
I mean pre-owned !
) 911 Targ- Turb- um , something or other .
I do n't know if it pushed back their retirements at all , but Porsches are just not that big of a deal , anymore.Now if the doctor has a Bugatti Veyron or Ascari A10 , you might want to worry .
; - ) If he drives up in a Morgan Aero , run away as fast as you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Pfft* On of my fellow engineers at work has a Boxter.
Another bought a used (Oops!
I mean pre-owned!
) 911 Targ- Turb- um, something or other.
I don't know if it pushed back their retirements at all, but Porsches are just not that big of a deal, anymore.Now if the doctor has a Bugatti Veyron or Ascari A10, you might want to worry.
;-)If he drives up in a Morgan Aero, run away as fast as you can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31547174</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269017160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prescription Medicine Reform:<br>So far, all that has been signed into law is reduced drug costs for people on Medicare (i.e. seniors). What about the rest of us?</p><p>Tort Reform:<br>Nothing signed into law.</p><p>Yeah, way to go Republicans...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prescription Medicine Reform : So far , all that has been signed into law is reduced drug costs for people on Medicare ( i.e .
seniors ) . What about the rest of us ? Tort Reform : Nothing signed into law.Yeah , way to go Republicans.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prescription Medicine Reform:So far, all that has been signed into law is reduced drug costs for people on Medicare (i.e.
seniors). What about the rest of us?Tort Reform:Nothing signed into law.Yeah, way to go Republicans...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535442</id>
	<title>We need reform but not this way</title>
	<author>YodaToad</author>
	<datestamp>1269008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've gotten sick of debating this bill and the process behind it so I'll let this comic I made last night do the talking for me:</p><p><a href="http://dl.omgninja.net/images/comics/pelosi-healthcare.png" title="omgninja.net">http://dl.omgninja.net/images/comics/pelosi-healthcare.png</a> [omgninja.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've gotten sick of debating this bill and the process behind it so I 'll let this comic I made last night do the talking for me : http : //dl.omgninja.net/images/comics/pelosi-healthcare.png [ omgninja.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've gotten sick of debating this bill and the process behind it so I'll let this comic I made last night do the talking for me:http://dl.omgninja.net/images/comics/pelosi-healthcare.png [omgninja.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540270</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269021660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might want to talk to the college student who got kicked off of his plan after he contracted HIV.</p><p>http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317</p><p>See how well his insurance company took care of him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to talk to the college student who got kicked off of his plan after he contracted HIV.http : //www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317See how well his insurance company took care of him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to talk to the college student who got kicked off of his plan after he contracted HIV.http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317See how well his insurance company took care of him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541436</id>
	<title>Re:this thread...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269026160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anyone actually cares about a debate, then they should read it. I took the time to read it. In fact, when any pundits starts to talk about it they should have to have an affidavit proving that read it, and they should have to give specific reference to back their claims.</p><p>So many damn lies are bing spread by people who oppose it. They have no actually argument, so they rely on FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone actually cares about a debate , then they should read it .
I took the time to read it .
In fact , when any pundits starts to talk about it they should have to have an affidavit proving that read it , and they should have to give specific reference to back their claims.So many damn lies are bing spread by people who oppose it .
They have no actually argument , so they rely on FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone actually cares about a debate, then they should read it.
I took the time to read it.
In fact, when any pundits starts to talk about it they should have to have an affidavit proving that read it, and they should have to give specific reference to back their claims.So many damn lies are bing spread by people who oppose it.
They have no actually argument, so they rely on FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535332</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You voted, and you're a people; therefore, you delegated the power to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You voted , and you 're a people ; therefore , you delegated the power to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You voted, and you're a people; therefore, you delegated the power to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536484</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>LittleKing</author>
	<datestamp>1269011160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another problem with the proposal is that since insurance companies must cover pre-existing conditions is that one could choose to pay the fine (which could cost less than insurance) and then when a major medical bill arises apply for insurance. Doesn't quite seem fair to have someone not paying for coverage until they need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another problem with the proposal is that since insurance companies must cover pre-existing conditions is that one could choose to pay the fine ( which could cost less than insurance ) and then when a major medical bill arises apply for insurance .
Does n't quite seem fair to have someone not paying for coverage until they need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another problem with the proposal is that since insurance companies must cover pre-existing conditions is that one could choose to pay the fine (which could cost less than insurance) and then when a major medical bill arises apply for insurance.
Doesn't quite seem fair to have someone not paying for coverage until they need it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539260</id>
	<title>Re:Random health care thoughts</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1269018300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everybody seems to be in an outrage with doctors making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, but nobody bats an eye when some sports star signs a multi-million dollar contract.</p></div><p>Since you apparently think this is an argument, I'll point out that it isn't.  Neither is your well-known falsehood about tort reform.</p><p>You are merely pointing out here that some people are hypocrites, although you falsely claim that "nobody" bats and eye about sports salaries when in fact there is frequent and lively public discussion of the obscene numbers some athletes make.</p><p>Even granted that falsehood, you are still not making an argument, because it is equally plausible that everyone should be as upset about sports salaries as they are about doctor's pay.  You have provided no reasons for choosing one alternative over the other.  When you do, you will have an argument.  Until then, do please keep trying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody seems to be in an outrage with doctors making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year , but nobody bats an eye when some sports star signs a multi-million dollar contract.Since you apparently think this is an argument , I 'll point out that it is n't .
Neither is your well-known falsehood about tort reform.You are merely pointing out here that some people are hypocrites , although you falsely claim that " nobody " bats and eye about sports salaries when in fact there is frequent and lively public discussion of the obscene numbers some athletes make.Even granted that falsehood , you are still not making an argument , because it is equally plausible that everyone should be as upset about sports salaries as they are about doctor 's pay .
You have provided no reasons for choosing one alternative over the other .
When you do , you will have an argument .
Until then , do please keep trying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody seems to be in an outrage with doctors making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, but nobody bats an eye when some sports star signs a multi-million dollar contract.Since you apparently think this is an argument, I'll point out that it isn't.
Neither is your well-known falsehood about tort reform.You are merely pointing out here that some people are hypocrites, although you falsely claim that "nobody" bats and eye about sports salaries when in fact there is frequent and lively public discussion of the obscene numbers some athletes make.Even granted that falsehood, you are still not making an argument, because it is equally plausible that everyone should be as upset about sports salaries as they are about doctor's pay.
You have provided no reasons for choosing one alternative over the other.
When you do, you will have an argument.
Until then, do please keep trying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538946</id>
	<title>It's not what I hoped for...</title>
	<author>ears\_d</author>
	<datestamp>1269017400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a conservative. Sucks sometimes, but that's the way it is. Fox news is evil.</p><p>
Needless to say, I was against health care reform from the start. But, I listened, and thought about it. At some point it occurred to me that it would be nice to separate my health insurance from my employer; changing jobs should not impact the coverage I provide for my family and myself. My current job is with a DoD contractor, which provides plenty of evidence that I wouldn't be happy with the government in charge of health care. If there were a free and open insurance market, one where price levels could be tied to services provided, and costs were not hidden, then buying medical insurance would be similar to buying auto or home insurance. Oh well, it didn't happen.</p><p>I think this bill will help, some. I also think more is needed. Getting rid of the pre-existing condition cop out is a big gain. But, we've just provided the insurance companies with millions of new customers, some of whom are young and healthy and won't use their insurance, and we haven't significantly changed the way they do business. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a conservative .
Sucks sometimes , but that 's the way it is .
Fox news is evil .
Needless to say , I was against health care reform from the start .
But , I listened , and thought about it .
At some point it occurred to me that it would be nice to separate my health insurance from my employer ; changing jobs should not impact the coverage I provide for my family and myself .
My current job is with a DoD contractor , which provides plenty of evidence that I would n't be happy with the government in charge of health care .
If there were a free and open insurance market , one where price levels could be tied to services provided , and costs were not hidden , then buying medical insurance would be similar to buying auto or home insurance .
Oh well , it did n't happen.I think this bill will help , some .
I also think more is needed .
Getting rid of the pre-existing condition cop out is a big gain .
But , we 've just provided the insurance companies with millions of new customers , some of whom are young and healthy and wo n't use their insurance , and we have n't significantly changed the way they do business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a conservative.
Sucks sometimes, but that's the way it is.
Fox news is evil.
Needless to say, I was against health care reform from the start.
But, I listened, and thought about it.
At some point it occurred to me that it would be nice to separate my health insurance from my employer; changing jobs should not impact the coverage I provide for my family and myself.
My current job is with a DoD contractor, which provides plenty of evidence that I wouldn't be happy with the government in charge of health care.
If there were a free and open insurance market, one where price levels could be tied to services provided, and costs were not hidden, then buying medical insurance would be similar to buying auto or home insurance.
Oh well, it didn't happen.I think this bill will help, some.
I also think more is needed.
Getting rid of the pre-existing condition cop out is a big gain.
But, we've just provided the insurance companies with millions of new customers, some of whom are young and healthy and won't use their insurance, and we haven't significantly changed the way they do business. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537550</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free medicine?  That's an extremely sorry excuse for health care reform.  Perhaps lower-cost medicine combined with assurance of adequate doctor care.  It's access to medical professionals', medical services (particularly emergency or chronic-treatment services), and preventative care which really matter.  The idea that doping people up on one or another widely-available prescription medications can be construed as medical care is simply beyond me.  Also, Tort reform is a nice step, but look at the bottom line difference it creates in overall expenses (hint: it is a raindrop in a bucket).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free medicine ?
That 's an extremely sorry excuse for health care reform .
Perhaps lower-cost medicine combined with assurance of adequate doctor care .
It 's access to medical professionals ' , medical services ( particularly emergency or chronic-treatment services ) , and preventative care which really matter .
The idea that doping people up on one or another widely-available prescription medications can be construed as medical care is simply beyond me .
Also , Tort reform is a nice step , but look at the bottom line difference it creates in overall expenses ( hint : it is a raindrop in a bucket ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free medicine?
That's an extremely sorry excuse for health care reform.
Perhaps lower-cost medicine combined with assurance of adequate doctor care.
It's access to medical professionals', medical services (particularly emergency or chronic-treatment services), and preventative care which really matter.
The idea that doping people up on one or another widely-available prescription medications can be construed as medical care is simply beyond me.
Also, Tort reform is a nice step, but look at the bottom line difference it creates in overall expenses (hint: it is a raindrop in a bucket).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535814</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>dmr001</author>
	<datestamp>1269009240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Medical school enrollment IS increasing (with several new allopathic schools opening in the next few years - in Florida, Pennsylvania) and new osteopathic schools as well. This is unlikely to lower costs, as areas in the US with more doctors tend to have higher spending on physicians services - more doctors simply do more stuff. The same seems to be true of hospital beds - see the reports on <a href="http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/topics/supply\_sensitive.pdf" title="dartmouthatlas.org">supply sensitivity</a> [dartmouthatlas.org] in the Dartmouth Health Atlas. So long as doctors get paid principally for doing stuff, and not for keeping people healthy, you can expect increased costs as a side effect.
<p>
The organization you are looking to blame is the  <a href="http://www.aamc.org/" title="aamc.org">AAMC</a> [aamc.org] by the way, which licenses medical schools, not the AMA, who spend their time making press releases and filling my mailbox with "Renewal invoices" despite the fact I haven't been a member for 10 years.
</p><p>
Sorry about your proposition, but it's really very manifestly wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Medical school enrollment IS increasing ( with several new allopathic schools opening in the next few years - in Florida , Pennsylvania ) and new osteopathic schools as well .
This is unlikely to lower costs , as areas in the US with more doctors tend to have higher spending on physicians services - more doctors simply do more stuff .
The same seems to be true of hospital beds - see the reports on supply sensitivity [ dartmouthatlas.org ] in the Dartmouth Health Atlas .
So long as doctors get paid principally for doing stuff , and not for keeping people healthy , you can expect increased costs as a side effect .
The organization you are looking to blame is the AAMC [ aamc.org ] by the way , which licenses medical schools , not the AMA , who spend their time making press releases and filling my mailbox with " Renewal invoices " despite the fact I have n't been a member for 10 years .
Sorry about your proposition , but it 's really very manifestly wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Medical school enrollment IS increasing (with several new allopathic schools opening in the next few years - in Florida, Pennsylvania) and new osteopathic schools as well.
This is unlikely to lower costs, as areas in the US with more doctors tend to have higher spending on physicians services - more doctors simply do more stuff.
The same seems to be true of hospital beds - see the reports on supply sensitivity [dartmouthatlas.org] in the Dartmouth Health Atlas.
So long as doctors get paid principally for doing stuff, and not for keeping people healthy, you can expect increased costs as a side effect.
The organization you are looking to blame is the  AAMC [aamc.org] by the way, which licenses medical schools, not the AMA, who spend their time making press releases and filling my mailbox with "Renewal invoices" despite the fact I haven't been a member for 10 years.
Sorry about your proposition, but it's really very manifestly wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541074</id>
	<title>Waste of time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269024720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About the only thing this bill will do.. is put a foot in the door to continue making changes down the road and its the Democrats hope that one day leads to a single-payer system by knowing that most companies will drop their coverage for employees due to continual insurance increases.   I think the biggest issue with the cost of health care is not the insurance companies or lawyers.  It's because we have a society that wants to use heath care like a mall.   They want pain pills or anti-depressants or viagra.  They have some gas pain and run to the doctor to run a bunch of tests and since the doctor cant find anything conclusive the person isnt happy unless they are leaving with meds or have their gall bladder removed.  The meds all have side effects which keeps the cycle of symptoms coming.    People are overweight contributing to Diabetes and a host of other illnesses.  Our poor diet and lack of exercise is really the cause of the whole problem.  If we want low health costs..then become healthy!  Don't use the system and costs will come down.  Supply and Demand..its that simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About the only thing this bill will do.. is put a foot in the door to continue making changes down the road and its the Democrats hope that one day leads to a single-payer system by knowing that most companies will drop their coverage for employees due to continual insurance increases .
I think the biggest issue with the cost of health care is not the insurance companies or lawyers .
It 's because we have a society that wants to use heath care like a mall .
They want pain pills or anti-depressants or viagra .
They have some gas pain and run to the doctor to run a bunch of tests and since the doctor cant find anything conclusive the person isnt happy unless they are leaving with meds or have their gall bladder removed .
The meds all have side effects which keeps the cycle of symptoms coming .
People are overweight contributing to Diabetes and a host of other illnesses .
Our poor diet and lack of exercise is really the cause of the whole problem .
If we want low health costs..then become healthy !
Do n't use the system and costs will come down .
Supply and Demand..its that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About the only thing this bill will do.. is put a foot in the door to continue making changes down the road and its the Democrats hope that one day leads to a single-payer system by knowing that most companies will drop their coverage for employees due to continual insurance increases.
I think the biggest issue with the cost of health care is not the insurance companies or lawyers.
It's because we have a society that wants to use heath care like a mall.
They want pain pills or anti-depressants or viagra.
They have some gas pain and run to the doctor to run a bunch of tests and since the doctor cant find anything conclusive the person isnt happy unless they are leaving with meds or have their gall bladder removed.
The meds all have side effects which keeps the cycle of symptoms coming.
People are overweight contributing to Diabetes and a host of other illnesses.
Our poor diet and lack of exercise is really the cause of the whole problem.
If we want low health costs..then become healthy!
Don't use the system and costs will come down.
Supply and Demand..its that simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535318</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1269007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the AMA carefully controls how many new MDs are granted every year</p></div><p>
Have you looked at your local medical school lately?  Many medical schools are at or extremely close to capacity.  We can't just start certifying more doctors this afternoon just because we need them - at least not if we want <i>qualified</i> doctors - we need more schools for training those doctors.  The closest medical school to where I live has an auditorium that seats over 100 students, and is used for many of their first-year-MD classes.  We cannot expect to arbitrarily increase the enrollment numbers and not have the quality of education suffer when the student-teacher ratio changes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the AMA carefully controls how many new MDs are granted every year Have you looked at your local medical school lately ?
Many medical schools are at or extremely close to capacity .
We ca n't just start certifying more doctors this afternoon just because we need them - at least not if we want qualified doctors - we need more schools for training those doctors .
The closest medical school to where I live has an auditorium that seats over 100 students , and is used for many of their first-year-MD classes .
We can not expect to arbitrarily increase the enrollment numbers and not have the quality of education suffer when the student-teacher ratio changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the AMA carefully controls how many new MDs are granted every year
Have you looked at your local medical school lately?
Many medical schools are at or extremely close to capacity.
We can't just start certifying more doctors this afternoon just because we need them - at least not if we want qualified doctors - we need more schools for training those doctors.
The closest medical school to where I live has an auditorium that seats over 100 students, and is used for many of their first-year-MD classes.
We cannot expect to arbitrarily increase the enrollment numbers and not have the quality of education suffer when the student-teacher ratio changes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540058</id>
	<title>Comparing the US to Europe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269020940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like the US to have the same health care system as Europe which is of course none. Each country in Europe has it's own system and that is what we should do in the US. To all Europeans on the board would you want the EU to run your system? Each state can run it's own system as their population sees fit. Of course the states have to stick to a budget and can't print money the same as the EU states.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like the US to have the same health care system as Europe which is of course none .
Each country in Europe has it 's own system and that is what we should do in the US .
To all Europeans on the board would you want the EU to run your system ?
Each state can run it 's own system as their population sees fit .
Of course the states have to stick to a budget and ca n't print money the same as the EU states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like the US to have the same health care system as Europe which is of course none.
Each country in Europe has it's own system and that is what we should do in the US.
To all Europeans on the board would you want the EU to run your system?
Each state can run it's own system as their population sees fit.
Of course the states have to stick to a budget and can't print money the same as the EU states.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535864</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>photozz</author>
	<datestamp>1269009420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The moment you come down with diabetes or another life changing illness and no insurance company will cover you because of a pre-existing condition, I want you to imagine me pointing at you and laughing, you giant idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The moment you come down with diabetes or another life changing illness and no insurance company will cover you because of a pre-existing condition , I want you to imagine me pointing at you and laughing , you giant idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moment you come down with diabetes or another life changing illness and no insurance company will cover you because of a pre-existing condition, I want you to imagine me pointing at you and laughing, you giant idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535640</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>KDN</author>
	<datestamp>1269008700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its worse, its not that they fine you, THEY CAN THROW YOU INTO JAIL FOR FIVE  YEARS for not having what they feel is sufficient health insurance.
It makes not having sufficient health care A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its worse , its not that they fine you , THEY CAN THROW YOU INTO JAIL FOR FIVE YEARS for not having what they feel is sufficient health insurance .
It makes not having sufficient health care A CRIMINAL OFFENSE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its worse, its not that they fine you, THEY CAN THROW YOU INTO JAIL FOR FIVE  YEARS for not having what they feel is sufficient health insurance.
It makes not having sufficient health care A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545398</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1269000780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Prices that companies charge individuals are generally cheap. Prices they charge companies are high</em> <br> <br>
Does somebody else pay for your medical insurance? You've got it exactly backwards. In the U.S. it is <em>far</em> cheaper if you get in on a plan through your employer than if you buy the same plan on your own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prices that companies charge individuals are generally cheap .
Prices they charge companies are high Does somebody else pay for your medical insurance ?
You 've got it exactly backwards .
In the U.S. it is far cheaper if you get in on a plan through your employer than if you buy the same plan on your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prices that companies charge individuals are generally cheap.
Prices they charge companies are high  
Does somebody else pay for your medical insurance?
You've got it exactly backwards.
In the U.S. it is far cheaper if you get in on a plan through your employer than if you buy the same plan on your own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539116</id>
	<title>Re:"Entitlement Generation"</title>
	<author>HaZardman27</author>
	<datestamp>1269017940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see where you're coming from, however we'll also be forced to take care of those unwilling to take care of themselves.  People may think I'm an asshole for thinking this way, but in my opinion if you're not willing to take care of yourself, you don't belong in the gene pool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see where you 're coming from , however we 'll also be forced to take care of those unwilling to take care of themselves .
People may think I 'm an asshole for thinking this way , but in my opinion if you 're not willing to take care of yourself , you do n't belong in the gene pool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see where you're coming from, however we'll also be forced to take care of those unwilling to take care of themselves.
People may think I'm an asshole for thinking this way, but in my opinion if you're not willing to take care of yourself, you don't belong in the gene pool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543288</id>
	<title>Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268991060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>please don't lump libertarians in with teabaggers.  this isn't the time or place, but I am sick of having my political affiliation hijacked by mindless Glen Beck followers.</p><p>Those assholes AREN'T libertarians - they are right wing extremists using our third party as a shield so that if it blows up in their face they have a scapegoat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>please do n't lump libertarians in with teabaggers .
this is n't the time or place , but I am sick of having my political affiliation hijacked by mindless Glen Beck followers.Those assholes ARE N'T libertarians - they are right wing extremists using our third party as a shield so that if it blows up in their face they have a scapegoat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please don't lump libertarians in with teabaggers.
this isn't the time or place, but I am sick of having my political affiliation hijacked by mindless Glen Beck followers.Those assholes AREN'T libertarians - they are right wing extremists using our third party as a shield so that if it blows up in their face they have a scapegoat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535626</id>
	<title>after working for 40 years</title>
	<author>kpjlfm</author>
	<datestamp>1269008700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm all for the *reform*, as long as I don't have to pay for it. I've been paying for 40 years, time for you young fellas to pony up.

BTW, which company has a working DB for handling the health records of over 350 MILLION people, the kind of DB the single payer system would require?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for the * reform * , as long as I do n't have to pay for it .
I 've been paying for 40 years , time for you young fellas to pony up .
BTW , which company has a working DB for handling the health records of over 350 MILLION people , the kind of DB the single payer system would require ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for the *reform*, as long as I don't have to pay for it.
I've been paying for 40 years, time for you young fellas to pony up.
BTW, which company has a working DB for handling the health records of over 350 MILLION people, the kind of DB the single payer system would require?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535822</id>
	<title>There is no spoon</title>
	<author>phrostie</author>
	<datestamp>1269009300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and there has been no reform to the health care system.</p><p>just a legal requirement to be part of a broken insurance system.</p><p>fix it and people will be drawn to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and there has been no reform to the health care system.just a legal requirement to be part of a broken insurance system.fix it and people will be drawn to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and there has been no reform to the health care system.just a legal requirement to be part of a broken insurance system.fix it and people will be drawn to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535484</id>
	<title>A first step</title>
	<author>teneighty</author>
	<datestamp>1269008220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know we're getting trolled, but it's too important an issue to ignore.</p><p>In an ideal world, we would tackle the problem properly by decoupling health insurance from employment. Linking health care to employment was the worst mistake ever made in health care in America. There are probably too many powerful lobbyist in Washington to hope for that to ever change. So we're left with imperfect alternatives. Such is politics, such is life.</p><p>And yes, this is an imperfect bill, but it's a first step towards badly needed reform. Is going to hurt? There's no way health care reform can NOT hurt some interests, while helping others. That's why leadership - political or otherwise - is supposed to take courage. Too bad we don't get that from our leaders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know we 're getting trolled , but it 's too important an issue to ignore.In an ideal world , we would tackle the problem properly by decoupling health insurance from employment .
Linking health care to employment was the worst mistake ever made in health care in America .
There are probably too many powerful lobbyist in Washington to hope for that to ever change .
So we 're left with imperfect alternatives .
Such is politics , such is life.And yes , this is an imperfect bill , but it 's a first step towards badly needed reform .
Is going to hurt ?
There 's no way health care reform can NOT hurt some interests , while helping others .
That 's why leadership - political or otherwise - is supposed to take courage .
Too bad we do n't get that from our leaders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know we're getting trolled, but it's too important an issue to ignore.In an ideal world, we would tackle the problem properly by decoupling health insurance from employment.
Linking health care to employment was the worst mistake ever made in health care in America.
There are probably too many powerful lobbyist in Washington to hope for that to ever change.
So we're left with imperfect alternatives.
Such is politics, such is life.And yes, this is an imperfect bill, but it's a first step towards badly needed reform.
Is going to hurt?
There's no way health care reform can NOT hurt some interests, while helping others.
That's why leadership - political or otherwise - is supposed to take courage.
Too bad we don't get that from our leaders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536230</id>
	<title>Re:Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>Rayonic</author>
	<datestamp>1269010380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable</p></div><p>Is it really?  I have yet to see year-to-year analysis of how government run healthcare is performing in various countries.  It could be good now, but slowly sliding into corruption and inefficiency.  You know, like most government programs.</p><p>It's practically like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  In any government system, performance decreases while costs rise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputableIs it really ?
I have yet to see year-to-year analysis of how government run healthcare is performing in various countries .
It could be good now , but slowly sliding into corruption and inefficiency .
You know , like most government programs.It 's practically like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics .
In any government system , performance decreases while costs rise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputableIs it really?
I have yet to see year-to-year analysis of how government run healthcare is performing in various countries.
It could be good now, but slowly sliding into corruption and inefficiency.
You know, like most government programs.It's practically like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
In any government system, performance decreases while costs rise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539480</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269019020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And where will you go when the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT denies you service?</p><p>You think they'll be any EASIER to sue?</p><p>Under Socialized Medicine, once the National Government says no, you're screwed unless you have the money to fly to another country for for-profit treatment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And where will you go when the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT denies you service ? You think they 'll be any EASIER to sue ? Under Socialized Medicine , once the National Government says no , you 're screwed unless you have the money to fly to another country for for-profit treatment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where will you go when the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT denies you service?You think they'll be any EASIER to sue?Under Socialized Medicine, once the National Government says no, you're screwed unless you have the money to fly to another country for for-profit treatment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540574</id>
	<title>Re:Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269022800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course it's disputable.  What do think this debate has been about?</p><p>As far as government providing what the market cannot, don't be an idiot. The market provides \_all\_ of<br>the healthcare (unless you are in the military or get your healthcare from the VA). But I take it you are<br>not talking about whether your doctor is a government employee or not.  What you're flexed about is the<br>price.  Right?</p><p>The US government pays for 50\% of all health care right now via Medicare and Medicaid. Reimbursement to<br>providers is based on the DRG system (kind of like a mechanic's flat rate schedule).  Problem is, the<br>payment is less than actual cost of the treatment by about 15-20\% on average.  That's a major reason why<br>prices in the non-government 50\% of healthcare are rising.  (Other reasons are defensive medicine (see<br>tort reform) and technology.)</p><p>And corporate profits?  I know, let's pass a law that says they have to do it at a loss!  That'll show<br>the bastards who is boss!</p><p>I do agree with you on the last point though.  I don't trust Congress either.  So why would you trust them<br>to "reform" one sixth of the US economy?  Especially when the distortion in costs was caused by Congress<br>(via Medicaid and Medicare) in the first place.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it 's disputable .
What do think this debate has been about ? As far as government providing what the market can not , do n't be an idiot .
The market provides \ _all \ _ ofthe healthcare ( unless you are in the military or get your healthcare from the VA ) .
But I take it you arenot talking about whether your doctor is a government employee or not .
What you 're flexed about is theprice .
Right ? The US government pays for 50 \ % of all health care right now via Medicare and Medicaid .
Reimbursement toproviders is based on the DRG system ( kind of like a mechanic 's flat rate schedule ) .
Problem is , thepayment is less than actual cost of the treatment by about 15-20 \ % on average .
That 's a major reason whyprices in the non-government 50 \ % of healthcare are rising .
( Other reasons are defensive medicine ( seetort reform ) and technology .
) And corporate profits ?
I know , let 's pass a law that says they have to do it at a loss !
That 'll showthe bastards who is boss ! I do agree with you on the last point though .
I do n't trust Congress either .
So why would you trust themto " reform " one sixth of the US economy ?
Especially when the distortion in costs was caused by Congress ( via Medicaid and Medicare ) in the first place .
       </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it's disputable.
What do think this debate has been about?As far as government providing what the market cannot, don't be an idiot.
The market provides \_all\_ ofthe healthcare (unless you are in the military or get your healthcare from the VA).
But I take it you arenot talking about whether your doctor is a government employee or not.
What you're flexed about is theprice.
Right?The US government pays for 50\% of all health care right now via Medicare and Medicaid.
Reimbursement toproviders is based on the DRG system (kind of like a mechanic's flat rate schedule).
Problem is, thepayment is less than actual cost of the treatment by about 15-20\% on average.
That's a major reason whyprices in the non-government 50\% of healthcare are rising.
(Other reasons are defensive medicine (seetort reform) and technology.
)And corporate profits?
I know, let's pass a law that says they have to do it at a loss!
That'll showthe bastards who is boss!I do agree with you on the last point though.
I don't trust Congress either.
So why would you trust themto "reform" one sixth of the US economy?
Especially when the distortion in costs was caused by Congress(via Medicaid and Medicare) in the first place.
       </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539566</id>
	<title>The Canada thread</title>
	<author>Akoman</author>
	<datestamp>1269019380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Post here if you think the entire healthcare 'debate' in the States is completely fucked. Hell, did I read right that there is no public option? What the hell is the point of this entire exercise!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Post here if you think the entire healthcare 'debate ' in the States is completely fucked .
Hell , did I read right that there is no public option ?
What the hell is the point of this entire exercise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Post here if you think the entire healthcare 'debate' in the States is completely fucked.
Hell, did I read right that there is no public option?
What the hell is the point of this entire exercise!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541540</id>
	<title>#1:</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269026700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the constitution is open to interpretation. your interpretation of it is not the only plausible legal interpretation that exists. legal rulings, in fact, have drifted and contradicted each other over the years owing to this tension. the constitution paints broad concepts that people interpret on their own, and then a few us, as if in a fundamentalist religion, say that their interpretation is the only constitutionally valid one. bullshit. there is NOTHING in the constitution that says universal healthcare is not a valid constitutionally sound concept. if you describe a legal avenue in which it is made it unconstitutional, i will find some other modern governmental practice you hold dear that defies the constitution in the same way, but you make an exception for, because its simply common fucking sense. much like universal healthcare is simply common fucking sense. finally: the world changes, the challenges change, and the constitution's broad important concepts must be adhered to... NOT some minor clause that when creatively expanded upon can maybe block this common sense legislation, simply because you don't agree with it, at first. like the eras surrounding the abolishment slavery: the legal precedents ran fast and furious in either direction. simply put: in a generation or two, the majority of the children and grandchildren of those reading these words, including those who violently oppose universal healthcare, will agree its a no brainer common sense obvious facet of sound society and sound government</p><p>#2: you want common sense?</p><p>ok: goverment run healthcare is extremely inefficient</p><p>ready for some more common sense?</p><p>its STILL BETTER THAN THE INEFFICIENCY OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE. examined in a vacuum, government run healthcare sucks. examined amongst other possible choices, its simply the LEAST suckiest choice</p><p>#3: that this bill will cause coverage to fall is fearmongering. the doctors who threaten to leave medicine are whining much as the democrats who threatened to go to canada when bush was elected in 2004. when the for-profit companies parasitically siphoning off cash, and all the inefficiency that goes with their insertion is finally removed, doctors will make out the same, or even better, under a one payer system. sure the government could mandate doctors get paid little. and doctors, as you suggest, will disappear or suck in quality. so the government needs to mandate good standard of living for doctors. you tell me about the quality of life for doctors in the uk, canada, denmark, etc.</p><p>#4: you don't think we're spending enough on healthcare?</p><p>ok</p><p>well why don't we spend some money on HEALTHCARE. rather than some parasitically inserted companies that siphon off cash, insert inefficiences (paperwork storms worse than govt bureaucracy), work hard to make sure you get LESS healthcare, and are accountable to no one except the almighty buck? govt bloat inefficiency and indifference looks FAR better to me than a corporate entity actively attempting to make sure less goes to my health than i deserve. how does it look to you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the constitution is open to interpretation .
your interpretation of it is not the only plausible legal interpretation that exists .
legal rulings , in fact , have drifted and contradicted each other over the years owing to this tension .
the constitution paints broad concepts that people interpret on their own , and then a few us , as if in a fundamentalist religion , say that their interpretation is the only constitutionally valid one .
bullshit. there is NOTHING in the constitution that says universal healthcare is not a valid constitutionally sound concept .
if you describe a legal avenue in which it is made it unconstitutional , i will find some other modern governmental practice you hold dear that defies the constitution in the same way , but you make an exception for , because its simply common fucking sense .
much like universal healthcare is simply common fucking sense .
finally : the world changes , the challenges change , and the constitution 's broad important concepts must be adhered to... NOT some minor clause that when creatively expanded upon can maybe block this common sense legislation , simply because you do n't agree with it , at first .
like the eras surrounding the abolishment slavery : the legal precedents ran fast and furious in either direction .
simply put : in a generation or two , the majority of the children and grandchildren of those reading these words , including those who violently oppose universal healthcare , will agree its a no brainer common sense obvious facet of sound society and sound government # 2 : you want common sense ? ok : goverment run healthcare is extremely inefficientready for some more common sense ? its STILL BETTER THAN THE INEFFICIENCY OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE .
examined in a vacuum , government run healthcare sucks .
examined amongst other possible choices , its simply the LEAST suckiest choice # 3 : that this bill will cause coverage to fall is fearmongering .
the doctors who threaten to leave medicine are whining much as the democrats who threatened to go to canada when bush was elected in 2004. when the for-profit companies parasitically siphoning off cash , and all the inefficiency that goes with their insertion is finally removed , doctors will make out the same , or even better , under a one payer system .
sure the government could mandate doctors get paid little .
and doctors , as you suggest , will disappear or suck in quality .
so the government needs to mandate good standard of living for doctors .
you tell me about the quality of life for doctors in the uk , canada , denmark , etc. # 4 : you do n't think we 're spending enough on healthcare ? okwell why do n't we spend some money on HEALTHCARE .
rather than some parasitically inserted companies that siphon off cash , insert inefficiences ( paperwork storms worse than govt bureaucracy ) , work hard to make sure you get LESS healthcare , and are accountable to no one except the almighty buck ?
govt bloat inefficiency and indifference looks FAR better to me than a corporate entity actively attempting to make sure less goes to my health than i deserve .
how does it look to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the constitution is open to interpretation.
your interpretation of it is not the only plausible legal interpretation that exists.
legal rulings, in fact, have drifted and contradicted each other over the years owing to this tension.
the constitution paints broad concepts that people interpret on their own, and then a few us, as if in a fundamentalist religion, say that their interpretation is the only constitutionally valid one.
bullshit. there is NOTHING in the constitution that says universal healthcare is not a valid constitutionally sound concept.
if you describe a legal avenue in which it is made it unconstitutional, i will find some other modern governmental practice you hold dear that defies the constitution in the same way, but you make an exception for, because its simply common fucking sense.
much like universal healthcare is simply common fucking sense.
finally: the world changes, the challenges change, and the constitution's broad important concepts must be adhered to... NOT some minor clause that when creatively expanded upon can maybe block this common sense legislation, simply because you don't agree with it, at first.
like the eras surrounding the abolishment slavery: the legal precedents ran fast and furious in either direction.
simply put: in a generation or two, the majority of the children and grandchildren of those reading these words, including those who violently oppose universal healthcare, will agree its a no brainer common sense obvious facet of sound society and sound government#2: you want common sense?ok: goverment run healthcare is extremely inefficientready for some more common sense?its STILL BETTER THAN THE INEFFICIENCY OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE.
examined in a vacuum, government run healthcare sucks.
examined amongst other possible choices, its simply the LEAST suckiest choice#3: that this bill will cause coverage to fall is fearmongering.
the doctors who threaten to leave medicine are whining much as the democrats who threatened to go to canada when bush was elected in 2004. when the for-profit companies parasitically siphoning off cash, and all the inefficiency that goes with their insertion is finally removed, doctors will make out the same, or even better, under a one payer system.
sure the government could mandate doctors get paid little.
and doctors, as you suggest, will disappear or suck in quality.
so the government needs to mandate good standard of living for doctors.
you tell me about the quality of life for doctors in the uk, canada, denmark, etc.#4: you don't think we're spending enough on healthcare?okwell why don't we spend some money on HEALTHCARE.
rather than some parasitically inserted companies that siphon off cash, insert inefficiences (paperwork storms worse than govt bureaucracy), work hard to make sure you get LESS healthcare, and are accountable to no one except the almighty buck?
govt bloat inefficiency and indifference looks FAR better to me than a corporate entity actively attempting to make sure less goes to my health than i deserve.
how does it look to you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541756</id>
	<title>Re:This bill is so wrong.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269027600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are wrong under every single bolded point. It's incredible, you would almost have to be trying to get it that wrong.<br>Your example are straw men, and rife with logical fallacies.</p><p>I posted a long rebuttal, but by the end I realized two things:<br>1) You haven't rad the bill</p><p>2) Everything you posted is based on logical fallacy's to support a preconceived belief.</p><p>Let me know when you have rad the bill and can make a post that doesn't have almost every conceivable logical fallacy in it.</p><p>Of course you can come up with 10 more reasons, hell you can come up with a thousands because they are ALL MADE UP and have no basis in reality. Just like my young daughter can come up with 100's of reason why her magic Unicorn is the best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong under every single bolded point .
It 's incredible , you would almost have to be trying to get it that wrong.Your example are straw men , and rife with logical fallacies.I posted a long rebuttal , but by the end I realized two things : 1 ) You have n't rad the bill2 ) Everything you posted is based on logical fallacy 's to support a preconceived belief.Let me know when you have rad the bill and can make a post that does n't have almost every conceivable logical fallacy in it.Of course you can come up with 10 more reasons , hell you can come up with a thousands because they are ALL MADE UP and have no basis in reality .
Just like my young daughter can come up with 100 's of reason why her magic Unicorn is the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong under every single bolded point.
It's incredible, you would almost have to be trying to get it that wrong.Your example are straw men, and rife with logical fallacies.I posted a long rebuttal, but by the end I realized two things:1) You haven't rad the bill2) Everything you posted is based on logical fallacy's to support a preconceived belief.Let me know when you have rad the bill and can make a post that doesn't have almost every conceivable logical fallacy in it.Of course you can come up with 10 more reasons, hell you can come up with a thousands because they are ALL MADE UP and have no basis in reality.
Just like my young daughter can come up with 100's of reason why her magic Unicorn is the best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535266</id>
	<title>Dear readers with mod points...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do not have anything of actual use to say about this bill, other than common talking points, unsourced blather about what this bill will accomplish, and vague appeals to antiauthoritarianism.  But please mod me +5 Insightful like you're doing with everyone else, just to be fair.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not have anything of actual use to say about this bill , other than common talking points , unsourced blather about what this bill will accomplish , and vague appeals to antiauthoritarianism .
But please mod me + 5 Insightful like you 're doing with everyone else , just to be fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not have anything of actual use to say about this bill, other than common talking points, unsourced blather about what this bill will accomplish, and vague appeals to antiauthoritarianism.
But please mod me +5 Insightful like you're doing with everyone else, just to be fair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542688</id>
	<title>The low class needs to stop leeching</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1269031800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our country is going into a tailspin because government promises more and more money to more and more poor and old people. Once again, the middle and upper classes will be funding a program designed to 'pull' the millions of poor, uneducated, oft-unemployed or otherwise economically idle lower class out of the shithole they're in.</p><p>This is unsustainable. We need to stop letting low-tech workers into this country. We need to document (not necessarily deport; too much work) all illegal occupants of the country, and keep more from coming in illegally. We need to stop providing myriad social services to those who not only don't pay in, but aren't even on the books as being in this country!</p><p>It is a true problem, and I don't wish ill health on anyone. Any normal, decent human wants everyone to be healthy. That doesn't make it feasible to tax the life out of one group of people to fund a marginal increase in living for another.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeboat\_ethics" title="wikipedia.org">Lifeboat Ethics:</a> [wikipedia.org] There are only so many resources for a given number of people. Not only are some resources (jobs, money, land, food) in a balancing act or being depleted, huge numbers of both low- and high- skilled workers (and a lot of unemployed parasites) come to this country every year. At least the high-tech ones contribute to useful research and are a valuable commodity. Get rid of the minimum wage so legal workers can compete with the Mexicans.</p><p>HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO HEALTH CARE REFORM? This is just one more example of government doing what I'm talking about: subsidizing a service that will continue to cost more (the government did nothing to fix health care costs) while paying for it by printing money, borrowing from China, and stealing from the top two classes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our country is going into a tailspin because government promises more and more money to more and more poor and old people .
Once again , the middle and upper classes will be funding a program designed to 'pull ' the millions of poor , uneducated , oft-unemployed or otherwise economically idle lower class out of the shithole they 're in.This is unsustainable .
We need to stop letting low-tech workers into this country .
We need to document ( not necessarily deport ; too much work ) all illegal occupants of the country , and keep more from coming in illegally .
We need to stop providing myriad social services to those who not only do n't pay in , but are n't even on the books as being in this country ! It is a true problem , and I do n't wish ill health on anyone .
Any normal , decent human wants everyone to be healthy .
That does n't make it feasible to tax the life out of one group of people to fund a marginal increase in living for another.Lifeboat Ethics : [ wikipedia.org ] There are only so many resources for a given number of people .
Not only are some resources ( jobs , money , land , food ) in a balancing act or being depleted , huge numbers of both low- and high- skilled workers ( and a lot of unemployed parasites ) come to this country every year .
At least the high-tech ones contribute to useful research and are a valuable commodity .
Get rid of the minimum wage so legal workers can compete with the Mexicans.HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO HEALTH CARE REFORM ?
This is just one more example of government doing what I 'm talking about : subsidizing a service that will continue to cost more ( the government did nothing to fix health care costs ) while paying for it by printing money , borrowing from China , and stealing from the top two classes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our country is going into a tailspin because government promises more and more money to more and more poor and old people.
Once again, the middle and upper classes will be funding a program designed to 'pull' the millions of poor, uneducated, oft-unemployed or otherwise economically idle lower class out of the shithole they're in.This is unsustainable.
We need to stop letting low-tech workers into this country.
We need to document (not necessarily deport; too much work) all illegal occupants of the country, and keep more from coming in illegally.
We need to stop providing myriad social services to those who not only don't pay in, but aren't even on the books as being in this country!It is a true problem, and I don't wish ill health on anyone.
Any normal, decent human wants everyone to be healthy.
That doesn't make it feasible to tax the life out of one group of people to fund a marginal increase in living for another.Lifeboat Ethics: [wikipedia.org] There are only so many resources for a given number of people.
Not only are some resources (jobs, money, land, food) in a balancing act or being depleted, huge numbers of both low- and high- skilled workers (and a lot of unemployed parasites) come to this country every year.
At least the high-tech ones contribute to useful research and are a valuable commodity.
Get rid of the minimum wage so legal workers can compete with the Mexicans.HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO HEALTH CARE REFORM?
This is just one more example of government doing what I'm talking about: subsidizing a service that will continue to cost more (the government did nothing to fix health care costs) while paying for it by printing money, borrowing from China, and stealing from the top two classes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535726</id>
	<title>Personally...</title>
	<author>emagery</author>
	<datestamp>1269008940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm torn on the subject.  There are some negatives in the bill I am not too happy about... there are also some badly needed positives.  I'd rather have seen as a first small but serrated-edged move the creation of a public option available to ALL people.  It does nothing more than offer something for the insurance cartels to compete against... just to stay alive, they'd have to shape up.  Then again, insurers are not the only problem... regional hospital cartels are partially responsible as is pharma and their ludicrous advertisements for drugs, not to mention the hypochondriac nation these things have engendered over the last fill\_in\_the\_blank years.

One thing is true, though... the status quo is fatal, and one sure sign of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm torn on the subject .
There are some negatives in the bill I am not too happy about... there are also some badly needed positives .
I 'd rather have seen as a first small but serrated-edged move the creation of a public option available to ALL people .
It does nothing more than offer something for the insurance cartels to compete against... just to stay alive , they 'd have to shape up .
Then again , insurers are not the only problem... regional hospital cartels are partially responsible as is pharma and their ludicrous advertisements for drugs , not to mention the hypochondriac nation these things have engendered over the last fill \ _in \ _the \ _blank years .
One thing is true , though... the status quo is fatal , and one sure sign of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm torn on the subject.
There are some negatives in the bill I am not too happy about... there are also some badly needed positives.
I'd rather have seen as a first small but serrated-edged move the creation of a public option available to ALL people.
It does nothing more than offer something for the insurance cartels to compete against... just to stay alive, they'd have to shape up.
Then again, insurers are not the only problem... regional hospital cartels are partially responsible as is pharma and their ludicrous advertisements for drugs, not to mention the hypochondriac nation these things have engendered over the last fill\_in\_the\_blank years.
One thing is true, though... the status quo is fatal, and one sure sign of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536134</id>
	<title>Re:Neither</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1269010140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sure does look like corporate welfare. It does not look like the option we voted for.</p><p>It certainly is not single payer, not for profit insurance... which is what we really need as a country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sure does look like corporate welfare .
It does not look like the option we voted for.It certainly is not single payer , not for profit insurance... which is what we really need as a country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sure does look like corporate welfare.
It does not look like the option we voted for.It certainly is not single payer, not for profit insurance... which is what we really need as a country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536308</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1269010680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ron Paul?  You're on Slashdot now??</p><p>The rationale is laid out in the Preamble ("promote the general Welfare") and the power in Article I (Congress) Section 8 ("The Congress shall have Power... to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare").</p><p>Besides which, as this is a bill about health *insurance* (not health *care*), and as it does not really establish any public insurance plan, it's really a corporate regulation bill.  That's squarely within Congress' power according to the Commerce Clause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ron Paul ?
You 're on Slashdot now ?
? The rationale is laid out in the Preamble ( " promote the general Welfare " ) and the power in Article I ( Congress ) Section 8 ( " The Congress shall have Power... to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare " ) .Besides which , as this is a bill about health * insurance * ( not health * care * ) , and as it does not really establish any public insurance plan , it 's really a corporate regulation bill .
That 's squarely within Congress ' power according to the Commerce Clause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ron Paul?
You're on Slashdot now?
?The rationale is laid out in the Preamble ("promote the general Welfare") and the power in Article I (Congress) Section 8 ("The Congress shall have Power... to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare").Besides which, as this is a bill about health *insurance* (not health *care*), and as it does not really establish any public insurance plan, it's really a corporate regulation bill.
That's squarely within Congress' power according to the Commerce Clause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538164</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhere in between.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"....Also HSA accounts which let people put money into accounts to pay for health care tax free will be eliminated...."</p><p>Where are your getting this information?  The only thing I see that the bill changes for HSA is that for drug coverage: only prescriptions and insulin are going to be qualified medical expenses.  This means that you can't purchase vitamins, tylenol, or other "over-the-counter" medications through your HSA.  Everything else stays exactly the same.</p><p>I can find no mention that HSA will be eliminated, as you claim.  Can you provide a link where someone of authority is stating that?</p><p>Perhaps you watch to much Faux?</p><p>Captcha: Superior</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ....Also HSA accounts which let people put money into accounts to pay for health care tax free will be eliminated.... " Where are your getting this information ?
The only thing I see that the bill changes for HSA is that for drug coverage : only prescriptions and insulin are going to be qualified medical expenses .
This means that you ca n't purchase vitamins , tylenol , or other " over-the-counter " medications through your HSA .
Everything else stays exactly the same.I can find no mention that HSA will be eliminated , as you claim .
Can you provide a link where someone of authority is stating that ? Perhaps you watch to much Faux ? Captcha : Superior</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"....Also HSA accounts which let people put money into accounts to pay for health care tax free will be eliminated...."Where are your getting this information?
The only thing I see that the bill changes for HSA is that for drug coverage: only prescriptions and insulin are going to be qualified medical expenses.
This means that you can't purchase vitamins, tylenol, or other "over-the-counter" medications through your HSA.
Everything else stays exactly the same.I can find no mention that HSA will be eliminated, as you claim.
Can you provide a link where someone of authority is stating that?Perhaps you watch to much Faux?Captcha: Superior</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536184</id>
	<title>The US health care system is broken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much of it due to government regulations already implemented.  It needs to be fixed.  ObamaCare instead just takes a really bad situation and multiplies it by a huge factor.  Why?  Because no one is paying attention to the ROOT CAUSES of the broken health care system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much of it due to government regulations already implemented .
It needs to be fixed .
ObamaCare instead just takes a really bad situation and multiplies it by a huge factor .
Why ? Because no one is paying attention to the ROOT CAUSES of the broken health care system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much of it due to government regulations already implemented.
It needs to be fixed.
ObamaCare instead just takes a really bad situation and multiplies it by a huge factor.
Why?  Because no one is paying attention to the ROOT CAUSES of the broken health care system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539524</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>isomer1</author>
	<datestamp>1269019200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You post reminds of the KKK PR materials from the past few years: "It's not that we hate black people, we just love white people more"</htmltext>
<tokenext>You post reminds of the KKK PR materials from the past few years : " It 's not that we hate black people , we just love white people more "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You post reminds of the KKK PR materials from the past few years: "It's not that we hate black people, we just love white people more"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541574</id>
	<title>Healthy Person Pool</title>
	<author>cordivae</author>
	<datestamp>1269026820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it wrong to want to be in a pool of health conscious individuals?  I eat healthy, exercise, and don't smoke ect.   Why the hell should I have to pay for those who do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it wrong to want to be in a pool of health conscious individuals ?
I eat healthy , exercise , and do n't smoke ect .
Why the hell should I have to pay for those who do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it wrong to want to be in a pool of health conscious individuals?
I eat healthy, exercise, and don't smoke ect.
Why the hell should I have to pay for those who do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535914</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mmmm that kool-aid sure is sweet.  You realize that isn't how it actually works, right?  You've been manipulated.</p><p>You say: "I'm healthy now.  I'm young and fit and don't NEED or CARE about health insurance, especially since I don't have any sort of preexisting condition!"</p><p>That may not be the case in ten years.  Or for someone else in your family.  Or for other people around you.  Have some vision and foresight. Short-term decision making is deadly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mmmm that kool-aid sure is sweet .
You realize that is n't how it actually works , right ?
You 've been manipulated.You say : " I 'm healthy now .
I 'm young and fit and do n't NEED or CARE about health insurance , especially since I do n't have any sort of preexisting condition !
" That may not be the case in ten years .
Or for someone else in your family .
Or for other people around you .
Have some vision and foresight .
Short-term decision making is deadly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mmmm that kool-aid sure is sweet.
You realize that isn't how it actually works, right?
You've been manipulated.You say: "I'm healthy now.
I'm young and fit and don't NEED or CARE about health insurance, especially since I don't have any sort of preexisting condition!
"That may not be the case in ten years.
Or for someone else in your family.
Or for other people around you.
Have some vision and foresight.
Short-term decision making is deadly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535402</id>
	<title>so basically higher taxes</title>
	<author>Average\_Joe\_Sixpack</author>
	<datestamp>1269008040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>higher insurance premiums and longer wait times in the emergency room</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>higher insurance premiums and longer wait times in the emergency room</tokentext>
<sentencetext>higher insurance premiums and longer wait times in the emergency room</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535544</id>
	<title>The bill appears to suck but....</title>
	<author>cervo</author>
	<datestamp>1269008460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reality is that the government doesn't seem to get anything done.  I recall Arlen Spector saying that the patriot act was flaws, but he would vote for it as is and fix it later...  Well as you can see, no one has really changed it to fix it.  In 1992/1993 when Bill Clinton tried to make health care, no one agreed with him and he couldn't pass the bill.  The republicans that later got in control of congress failed to make another health care bill.  I think it will be similar with this bill.  The republicans are calling to scrap the bill and start over, or why the hurry.  But pretty much they (and the democrats who vote no) will forget about it.<br> <br>
Still a lot of provisions I don't like.  For example if you get cancer you are screwed with a 5 million per year benefits cap.  But then again my insurance at work has a 5 million dollar lifetime cap, so I am even more screwed.  People like my brother who didn't go to college and work at hourly jobs without benefits need this bill.  He doesn't make enough money to afford health insurance, and the company does not provide it.  So there's really nothing he can do.  If he gets poison ivy, even real bad, he has to sit at home and suffer rather than visiting a doctor to get a prescription for a cortico steroid that could cure it.  That's not right.....
<br> <br>
Also an awful lot of personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills.  There was a time when I graduated college and I was unemployed for almost a year before finding a job.  If I got into a traffic accident or I broke my foot jogging, I would have been in deep trouble.  Sometimes surgeries go into the hundred thousands or even millions....  I don't have that kind of money.  Even now, if I got cancer and went over that 5 million lifetime cap on my company's insurance, I'd have to somehow borrow massive amounts of money that I would never pay back, or just die...  Any system that doesn't value human life over all else is broken....
<br> <br>
This bill pretty much sucks.  The more provisions I see of it, the more I hate it.  Also the parties are busy taking pot shots about things like abortion funding instead of fixing the bill.  I don't really care about abortion funding.  Most Americans don't give a damn either except for a few religious right nuts.  I just want a bill that gives me some security that if I lose my job and get sick, I'm not going to have to declare bankruptcy or suffer with my illness until it gets better or I die......
<br> <br>Considering the Trillions we spend on wars, I think one trillion for health insurance is worth it.  It is an investment in the american people...  And unfortunately if this shitty bill doesn't pass, the same thing that happened in 1992-1993 will happen again, people will scream it is the other party's fault, and then it will go away.....  But it's a shitty Bill for sure.  It is overly complicated, probably on purpose so that no one can read/understand the whole thing before voting on it.  I'm sure there are lots of special interest payments in here......
<br> <br>
It also does nothing to address the over charging on medical supplies.  Ie the $500 paperclip.  Not only that but when you don't have insurance all the rates are way higher than the rates negotiated with insurance companies.  So not only is it harder to pay, it is even more expensive without insurance.  Because those companies have people to say $500 for a paperclip, you're full of shit, we'll give you $1 and the hospital will be like okay, we still make $.95.  And the people doing the billing try to double/triple charge me all the time.  The insurance company and hospital billing often fight for 6 or 7 months before they get the entire bill properly worked out........  The hospital will bill twice, the insurance company will see two bills and reject all the bills, etc...  Then you have to act as mediator to teach the hospital how to code the bill....And the insurance company to be ready for a payment....it wastes a long time....  By yourself you don't have a chance....  The rates are crazy too.  I was well over $1,0</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is that the government does n't seem to get anything done .
I recall Arlen Spector saying that the patriot act was flaws , but he would vote for it as is and fix it later... Well as you can see , no one has really changed it to fix it .
In 1992/1993 when Bill Clinton tried to make health care , no one agreed with him and he could n't pass the bill .
The republicans that later got in control of congress failed to make another health care bill .
I think it will be similar with this bill .
The republicans are calling to scrap the bill and start over , or why the hurry .
But pretty much they ( and the democrats who vote no ) will forget about it .
Still a lot of provisions I do n't like .
For example if you get cancer you are screwed with a 5 million per year benefits cap .
But then again my insurance at work has a 5 million dollar lifetime cap , so I am even more screwed .
People like my brother who did n't go to college and work at hourly jobs without benefits need this bill .
He does n't make enough money to afford health insurance , and the company does not provide it .
So there 's really nothing he can do .
If he gets poison ivy , even real bad , he has to sit at home and suffer rather than visiting a doctor to get a prescription for a cortico steroid that could cure it .
That 's not right.... . Also an awful lot of personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills .
There was a time when I graduated college and I was unemployed for almost a year before finding a job .
If I got into a traffic accident or I broke my foot jogging , I would have been in deep trouble .
Sometimes surgeries go into the hundred thousands or even millions.... I do n't have that kind of money .
Even now , if I got cancer and went over that 5 million lifetime cap on my company 's insurance , I 'd have to somehow borrow massive amounts of money that I would never pay back , or just die... Any system that does n't value human life over all else is broken... . This bill pretty much sucks .
The more provisions I see of it , the more I hate it .
Also the parties are busy taking pot shots about things like abortion funding instead of fixing the bill .
I do n't really care about abortion funding .
Most Americans do n't give a damn either except for a few religious right nuts .
I just want a bill that gives me some security that if I lose my job and get sick , I 'm not going to have to declare bankruptcy or suffer with my illness until it gets better or I die..... . Considering the Trillions we spend on wars , I think one trillion for health insurance is worth it .
It is an investment in the american people... And unfortunately if this shitty bill does n't pass , the same thing that happened in 1992-1993 will happen again , people will scream it is the other party 's fault , and then it will go away..... But it 's a shitty Bill for sure .
It is overly complicated , probably on purpose so that no one can read/understand the whole thing before voting on it .
I 'm sure there are lots of special interest payments in here..... . It also does nothing to address the over charging on medical supplies .
Ie the $ 500 paperclip .
Not only that but when you do n't have insurance all the rates are way higher than the rates negotiated with insurance companies .
So not only is it harder to pay , it is even more expensive without insurance .
Because those companies have people to say $ 500 for a paperclip , you 're full of shit , we 'll give you $ 1 and the hospital will be like okay , we still make $ .95 .
And the people doing the billing try to double/triple charge me all the time .
The insurance company and hospital billing often fight for 6 or 7 months before they get the entire bill properly worked out........ The hospital will bill twice , the insurance company will see two bills and reject all the bills , etc... Then you have to act as mediator to teach the hospital how to code the bill....And the insurance company to be ready for a payment....it wastes a long time.... By yourself you do n't have a chance.... The rates are crazy too .
I was well over $ 1,0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality is that the government doesn't seem to get anything done.
I recall Arlen Spector saying that the patriot act was flaws, but he would vote for it as is and fix it later...  Well as you can see, no one has really changed it to fix it.
In 1992/1993 when Bill Clinton tried to make health care, no one agreed with him and he couldn't pass the bill.
The republicans that later got in control of congress failed to make another health care bill.
I think it will be similar with this bill.
The republicans are calling to scrap the bill and start over, or why the hurry.
But pretty much they (and the democrats who vote no) will forget about it.
Still a lot of provisions I don't like.
For example if you get cancer you are screwed with a 5 million per year benefits cap.
But then again my insurance at work has a 5 million dollar lifetime cap, so I am even more screwed.
People like my brother who didn't go to college and work at hourly jobs without benefits need this bill.
He doesn't make enough money to afford health insurance, and the company does not provide it.
So there's really nothing he can do.
If he gets poison ivy, even real bad, he has to sit at home and suffer rather than visiting a doctor to get a prescription for a cortico steroid that could cure it.
That's not right.....
 
Also an awful lot of personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills.
There was a time when I graduated college and I was unemployed for almost a year before finding a job.
If I got into a traffic accident or I broke my foot jogging, I would have been in deep trouble.
Sometimes surgeries go into the hundred thousands or even millions....  I don't have that kind of money.
Even now, if I got cancer and went over that 5 million lifetime cap on my company's insurance, I'd have to somehow borrow massive amounts of money that I would never pay back, or just die...  Any system that doesn't value human life over all else is broken....
 
This bill pretty much sucks.
The more provisions I see of it, the more I hate it.
Also the parties are busy taking pot shots about things like abortion funding instead of fixing the bill.
I don't really care about abortion funding.
Most Americans don't give a damn either except for a few religious right nuts.
I just want a bill that gives me some security that if I lose my job and get sick, I'm not going to have to declare bankruptcy or suffer with my illness until it gets better or I die......
 Considering the Trillions we spend on wars, I think one trillion for health insurance is worth it.
It is an investment in the american people...  And unfortunately if this shitty bill doesn't pass, the same thing that happened in 1992-1993 will happen again, people will scream it is the other party's fault, and then it will go away.....  But it's a shitty Bill for sure.
It is overly complicated, probably on purpose so that no one can read/understand the whole thing before voting on it.
I'm sure there are lots of special interest payments in here......
 
It also does nothing to address the over charging on medical supplies.
Ie the $500 paperclip.
Not only that but when you don't have insurance all the rates are way higher than the rates negotiated with insurance companies.
So not only is it harder to pay, it is even more expensive without insurance.
Because those companies have people to say $500 for a paperclip, you're full of shit, we'll give you $1 and the hospital will be like okay, we still make $.95.
And the people doing the billing try to double/triple charge me all the time.
The insurance company and hospital billing often fight for 6 or 7 months before they get the entire bill properly worked out........  The hospital will bill twice, the insurance company will see two bills and reject all the bills, etc...  Then you have to act as mediator to teach the hospital how to code the bill....And the insurance company to be ready for a payment....it wastes a long time....  By yourself you don't have a chance....  The rates are crazy too.
I was well over $1,0</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535224</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US Postal Service</p></div><p>I'm not sure where you come from, but in my hometown, forecasting a <a href="http://leadernewspapers.net/modules.php?name=News&amp;file=article&amp;sid=12404&amp;new\_topic=18" title="leadernewspapers.net" rel="nofollow">$238 billion shortfall in 10 years</a> [leadernewspapers.net] is not considered "correct" nor "efficient".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Postal ServiceI 'm not sure where you come from , but in my hometown , forecasting a $ 238 billion shortfall in 10 years [ leadernewspapers.net ] is not considered " correct " nor " efficient " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Postal ServiceI'm not sure where you come from, but in my hometown, forecasting a $238 billion shortfall in 10 years [leadernewspapers.net] is not considered "correct" nor "efficient".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538568</id>
	<title>Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>inthealpine</author>
	<datestamp>1269016320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could make this argument for just about anything that is considered private sector.  What you are talking about is fascism, and I don't mean that in the 'your Hitler' kind of way.  A private industry being directed nearly fully by government.  Basically a government ran private sector.<br> <br>
I would stop using the term "tea baggers" if you want to be taken seriously.  The term is a spiteful sexual derogatory term to put that group of people down.  Tea Bagging means to drop ones scrotum on anthers face - hence tea bagging.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could make this argument for just about anything that is considered private sector .
What you are talking about is fascism , and I do n't mean that in the 'your Hitler ' kind of way .
A private industry being directed nearly fully by government .
Basically a government ran private sector .
I would stop using the term " tea baggers " if you want to be taken seriously .
The term is a spiteful sexual derogatory term to put that group of people down .
Tea Bagging means to drop ones scrotum on anthers face - hence tea bagging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could make this argument for just about anything that is considered private sector.
What you are talking about is fascism, and I don't mean that in the 'your Hitler' kind of way.
A private industry being directed nearly fully by government.
Basically a government ran private sector.
I would stop using the term "tea baggers" if you want to be taken seriously.
The term is a spiteful sexual derogatory term to put that group of people down.
Tea Bagging means to drop ones scrotum on anthers face - hence tea bagging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538764</id>
	<title>Already broken... Don't break it more!</title>
	<author>Anomalyx</author>
	<datestamp>1269016860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think healthcare is broken already, and the gov't is certainly not the one to fix it. In fact, what is planned will break it even further.  How many people have healthcare costs that are because they chose to smoke, or chose to eat crappy fast food every day instead of something decently healthy? I don't want to have to pay for other people's unwillingness to take care of their own bodies.  Maybe we should have government-run car insurance.  If I drive for 2 years without changing oil and the engine blows up, oh well, the government will fix it out of the taxpayers' pocket.  Ridiculous, right? Government health care carries the same scenario.  Don't even get me started on the abortion stuff.  If I say any more though, it'll just start a flame war and that will be anything but productive, so i'll leave it at that</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think healthcare is broken already , and the gov't is certainly not the one to fix it .
In fact , what is planned will break it even further .
How many people have healthcare costs that are because they chose to smoke , or chose to eat crappy fast food every day instead of something decently healthy ?
I do n't want to have to pay for other people 's unwillingness to take care of their own bodies .
Maybe we should have government-run car insurance .
If I drive for 2 years without changing oil and the engine blows up , oh well , the government will fix it out of the taxpayers ' pocket .
Ridiculous , right ?
Government health care carries the same scenario .
Do n't even get me started on the abortion stuff .
If I say any more though , it 'll just start a flame war and that will be anything but productive , so i 'll leave it at that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think healthcare is broken already, and the gov't is certainly not the one to fix it.
In fact, what is planned will break it even further.
How many people have healthcare costs that are because they chose to smoke, or chose to eat crappy fast food every day instead of something decently healthy?
I don't want to have to pay for other people's unwillingness to take care of their own bodies.
Maybe we should have government-run car insurance.
If I drive for 2 years without changing oil and the engine blows up, oh well, the government will fix it out of the taxpayers' pocket.
Ridiculous, right?
Government health care carries the same scenario.
Don't even get me started on the abortion stuff.
If I say any more though, it'll just start a flame war and that will be anything but productive, so i'll leave it at that</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538312</id>
	<title>Re:I Believe We Need Reform</title>
	<author>inthealpine</author>
	<datestamp>1269015660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Public option is just the start of single payer.  That is what Obama has stated may times in the past he wants, this bill is an attempt to remove itself from single payer enough to get passed, but the thought is it will bring everyone one step closer to single payer.<br> <br>
I don't want single payer or a public option, but that's my take for what it's worth to you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Public option is just the start of single payer .
That is what Obama has stated may times in the past he wants , this bill is an attempt to remove itself from single payer enough to get passed , but the thought is it will bring everyone one step closer to single payer .
I do n't want single payer or a public option , but that 's my take for what it 's worth to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Public option is just the start of single payer.
That is what Obama has stated may times in the past he wants, this bill is an attempt to remove itself from single payer enough to get passed, but the thought is it will bring everyone one step closer to single payer.
I don't want single payer or a public option, but that's my take for what it's worth to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536314</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1269010740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have catastrophic insurance, so if I get cancer and my bills go over $20,000 then THEY will cover the cost. Like a safety net.</p></div><p>You mean like a safety net not everyone can afford, not available to everyone who can afford a reasonable price if they've had illness in the past, and a safety net which has huge holes in it because it's provided by a company whose best financial interest is it to fail. Getting catastrophic insurance to pay out is difficult. Trying to do it while very ill is more so. I've been through all this with the insurance company. Needless paperwork and delays and requirements and mistakes and hassles, all while you're very ill. In most cases, you end up paying yourself and then, if you survive, suing them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But most of the time I pay CASH (about $200 a year), which means I deal *directly* with my doctor.</p></div><p>In places with universal single payer healthcare, you deal directly with your doctor as well. The difference being, your doctor is not motivated to cut costs, is motivated to provide preventative treatments, and is not profiting or working for people profiting the more the longer you are ill.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If this Pelosicare Bill forces me to abandon my system of paying cash for product (or else be fined by the government), then I will be very very angry.</p></div><p>You're probably going to be very angry then. But a lot of people will get to keep their homes and get their insulin and fresh needles for it, and fewer children will die needlessly and fewer people will go blind from preventable causes (the US is the worst in the first world on this now). So you'll forgive me if I don't value your stress levels all that highly. Oh, and as a side bonus, we'll finally be reducing the deficit so maybe, in the conceivable future, we could lower taxes overall, and not just for the ultra wealthy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I will also be concerned what else "they" might force down my throat.</p></div><p>This is called the "slippery slope" logical fallacy. </p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is not freedom. This is like a return to 1770 when Parliament dictated to citizens as if they were Serfs.</p></div><p>Why is it the people electing representatives who tax us and provide the service of health insurance is "not freedom" but people electing representatives who tax us and provide the service of arresting serial killers is? Both directly work to protect the lives of the citizenry. Sensationalist pseudo journalists like to spin healthcare reform in the US as though it were fundamentally a new concept, evil socialism or some such nonsense. It's no more socialist than the FBI and our socialist police force and it's just an extension of our current, partially socialist healthcare system that already provides socialized healthcare to the very poor, the elderly, military veterans, and members of congress. It's an incremental change. Of course these are the same sensationalist pseudo journalists that claim setting tax levels/disparity to the same as they were in the early eighties and significantly less than they were in the 50's-70's is some sort of radical measure, instead of what it actually is, a conservative move back towards our historical system and away from the current radically unbalanced level of taxation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have catastrophic insurance , so if I get cancer and my bills go over $ 20,000 then THEY will cover the cost .
Like a safety net.You mean like a safety net not everyone can afford , not available to everyone who can afford a reasonable price if they 've had illness in the past , and a safety net which has huge holes in it because it 's provided by a company whose best financial interest is it to fail .
Getting catastrophic insurance to pay out is difficult .
Trying to do it while very ill is more so .
I 've been through all this with the insurance company .
Needless paperwork and delays and requirements and mistakes and hassles , all while you 're very ill. In most cases , you end up paying yourself and then , if you survive , suing them.But most of the time I pay CASH ( about $ 200 a year ) , which means I deal * directly * with my doctor.In places with universal single payer healthcare , you deal directly with your doctor as well .
The difference being , your doctor is not motivated to cut costs , is motivated to provide preventative treatments , and is not profiting or working for people profiting the more the longer you are ill.If this Pelosicare Bill forces me to abandon my system of paying cash for product ( or else be fined by the government ) , then I will be very very angry.You 're probably going to be very angry then .
But a lot of people will get to keep their homes and get their insulin and fresh needles for it , and fewer children will die needlessly and fewer people will go blind from preventable causes ( the US is the worst in the first world on this now ) .
So you 'll forgive me if I do n't value your stress levels all that highly .
Oh , and as a side bonus , we 'll finally be reducing the deficit so maybe , in the conceivable future , we could lower taxes overall , and not just for the ultra wealthy.I will also be concerned what else " they " might force down my throat.This is called the " slippery slope " logical fallacy .
This is not freedom .
This is like a return to 1770 when Parliament dictated to citizens as if they were Serfs.Why is it the people electing representatives who tax us and provide the service of health insurance is " not freedom " but people electing representatives who tax us and provide the service of arresting serial killers is ?
Both directly work to protect the lives of the citizenry .
Sensationalist pseudo journalists like to spin healthcare reform in the US as though it were fundamentally a new concept , evil socialism or some such nonsense .
It 's no more socialist than the FBI and our socialist police force and it 's just an extension of our current , partially socialist healthcare system that already provides socialized healthcare to the very poor , the elderly , military veterans , and members of congress .
It 's an incremental change .
Of course these are the same sensationalist pseudo journalists that claim setting tax levels/disparity to the same as they were in the early eighties and significantly less than they were in the 50 's-70 's is some sort of radical measure , instead of what it actually is , a conservative move back towards our historical system and away from the current radically unbalanced level of taxation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have catastrophic insurance, so if I get cancer and my bills go over $20,000 then THEY will cover the cost.
Like a safety net.You mean like a safety net not everyone can afford, not available to everyone who can afford a reasonable price if they've had illness in the past, and a safety net which has huge holes in it because it's provided by a company whose best financial interest is it to fail.
Getting catastrophic insurance to pay out is difficult.
Trying to do it while very ill is more so.
I've been through all this with the insurance company.
Needless paperwork and delays and requirements and mistakes and hassles, all while you're very ill. In most cases, you end up paying yourself and then, if you survive, suing them.But most of the time I pay CASH (about $200 a year), which means I deal *directly* with my doctor.In places with universal single payer healthcare, you deal directly with your doctor as well.
The difference being, your doctor is not motivated to cut costs, is motivated to provide preventative treatments, and is not profiting or working for people profiting the more the longer you are ill.If this Pelosicare Bill forces me to abandon my system of paying cash for product (or else be fined by the government), then I will be very very angry.You're probably going to be very angry then.
But a lot of people will get to keep their homes and get their insulin and fresh needles for it, and fewer children will die needlessly and fewer people will go blind from preventable causes (the US is the worst in the first world on this now).
So you'll forgive me if I don't value your stress levels all that highly.
Oh, and as a side bonus, we'll finally be reducing the deficit so maybe, in the conceivable future, we could lower taxes overall, and not just for the ultra wealthy.I will also be concerned what else "they" might force down my throat.This is called the "slippery slope" logical fallacy.
This is not freedom.
This is like a return to 1770 when Parliament dictated to citizens as if they were Serfs.Why is it the people electing representatives who tax us and provide the service of health insurance is "not freedom" but people electing representatives who tax us and provide the service of arresting serial killers is?
Both directly work to protect the lives of the citizenry.
Sensationalist pseudo journalists like to spin healthcare reform in the US as though it were fundamentally a new concept, evil socialism or some such nonsense.
It's no more socialist than the FBI and our socialist police force and it's just an extension of our current, partially socialist healthcare system that already provides socialized healthcare to the very poor, the elderly, military veterans, and members of congress.
It's an incremental change.
Of course these are the same sensationalist pseudo journalists that claim setting tax levels/disparity to the same as they were in the early eighties and significantly less than they were in the 50's-70's is some sort of radical measure, instead of what it actually is, a conservative move back towards our historical system and away from the current radically unbalanced level of taxation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535436</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>tweek</author>
	<datestamp>1269008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other people have said it but essentially, a very LOOSE intepretation of allows for this kind of thing:</p><p>1) Wrap it up in tax code<br>2) Commerce Clause<br>3) General Welfare Clause</p><p>Do you remember when Sonia Sotomayor was being grilled during her confirmation hearings? It was either Diane Fienstien or some other person explicity asked about how loosely she interpreted the Commerce Clause because they use it as the basis for so many laws and that overly strict interpretation would make their job harder or somesuch nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other people have said it but essentially , a very LOOSE intepretation of allows for this kind of thing : 1 ) Wrap it up in tax code2 ) Commerce Clause3 ) General Welfare ClauseDo you remember when Sonia Sotomayor was being grilled during her confirmation hearings ?
It was either Diane Fienstien or some other person explicity asked about how loosely she interpreted the Commerce Clause because they use it as the basis for so many laws and that overly strict interpretation would make their job harder or somesuch nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other people have said it but essentially, a very LOOSE intepretation of allows for this kind of thing:1) Wrap it up in tax code2) Commerce Clause3) General Welfare ClauseDo you remember when Sonia Sotomayor was being grilled during her confirmation hearings?
It was either Diane Fienstien or some other person explicity asked about how loosely she interpreted the Commerce Clause because they use it as the basis for so many laws and that overly strict interpretation would make their job harder or somesuch nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536884</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I second that.  There's some real silver-spooners around here.</p><p>I would argue that liberal equalization (socialist) programs have been at the very core of the decline of this country beginning decades ago.  It's a slow bleed but once a program is in place it never stop draining.  The handout flow only increases as people's sensitive little feelers demand more.</p><p>Government run anything is not a better solution.  It never has been and never will be.  If you want a European style government please move to a European country.</p><p>Once you give a power to a government it's theirs forever.  You cannot take it back.  "The People" don't run a government, politicians do and they are in it for themselves (politician health care is the BEST - for LIFE - at our expense).  I don't care if it's Reps or Dems, you don't want to give government new powers.  Why on one hand is government saying we need government to control health care because they can do it better while saying they don't need to control space flight because commercial companies can do it better?  Space flight won't buy them votes...</p><p>This isn't a video game and soon enough many of you liberals will move out of your parent's houses and figure out how all this crap is paid for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I second that .
There 's some real silver-spooners around here.I would argue that liberal equalization ( socialist ) programs have been at the very core of the decline of this country beginning decades ago .
It 's a slow bleed but once a program is in place it never stop draining .
The handout flow only increases as people 's sensitive little feelers demand more.Government run anything is not a better solution .
It never has been and never will be .
If you want a European style government please move to a European country.Once you give a power to a government it 's theirs forever .
You can not take it back .
" The People " do n't run a government , politicians do and they are in it for themselves ( politician health care is the BEST - for LIFE - at our expense ) .
I do n't care if it 's Reps or Dems , you do n't want to give government new powers .
Why on one hand is government saying we need government to control health care because they can do it better while saying they do n't need to control space flight because commercial companies can do it better ?
Space flight wo n't buy them votes...This is n't a video game and soon enough many of you liberals will move out of your parent 's houses and figure out how all this crap is paid for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second that.
There's some real silver-spooners around here.I would argue that liberal equalization (socialist) programs have been at the very core of the decline of this country beginning decades ago.
It's a slow bleed but once a program is in place it never stop draining.
The handout flow only increases as people's sensitive little feelers demand more.Government run anything is not a better solution.
It never has been and never will be.
If you want a European style government please move to a European country.Once you give a power to a government it's theirs forever.
You cannot take it back.
"The People" don't run a government, politicians do and they are in it for themselves (politician health care is the BEST - for LIFE - at our expense).
I don't care if it's Reps or Dems, you don't want to give government new powers.
Why on one hand is government saying we need government to control health care because they can do it better while saying they don't need to control space flight because commercial companies can do it better?
Space flight won't buy them votes...This isn't a video game and soon enough many of you liberals will move out of your parent's houses and figure out how all this crap is paid for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</id>
	<title>Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From our perspective (I'm a health policy person based in Europe), US health care is staggeringly expensive, very variable, and very unfair. It's the single biggest cause of personal bankruptcy in the States.</p><p>Your health is poor, overall, especially you have poor child health, and relatively poor maternal and infant health.</p><p>A large part of your population have no access to good quality health care, and this imposes large costs on your society.</p><p>Your major companies find high health care costs for staff a major burden, and this sharply reduces the competitiveness of good US employers.</p><p>You have the highest administrative costs for heath care that I know of, now running over 30\%, and at current rates of increase, in thirty years you will be spending 100\% of your GDP on health services.<br>At the top end, there is no better health care anywhere for acute illnesses, but very few people can access this.</p><p>The proposed changes are a start, and only a start. With no public option, there is a real risk that the insurance companies will continue to combine together to rip you off. However, the current proposals will save a lot of money over the next decade, which is why the insurance companies are spending millions buying ads, and influencing politicians to stop the change.</p><p>I hope it passes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From our perspective ( I 'm a health policy person based in Europe ) , US health care is staggeringly expensive , very variable , and very unfair .
It 's the single biggest cause of personal bankruptcy in the States.Your health is poor , overall , especially you have poor child health , and relatively poor maternal and infant health.A large part of your population have no access to good quality health care , and this imposes large costs on your society.Your major companies find high health care costs for staff a major burden , and this sharply reduces the competitiveness of good US employers.You have the highest administrative costs for heath care that I know of , now running over 30 \ % , and at current rates of increase , in thirty years you will be spending 100 \ % of your GDP on health services.At the top end , there is no better health care anywhere for acute illnesses , but very few people can access this.The proposed changes are a start , and only a start .
With no public option , there is a real risk that the insurance companies will continue to combine together to rip you off .
However , the current proposals will save a lot of money over the next decade , which is why the insurance companies are spending millions buying ads , and influencing politicians to stop the change.I hope it passes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From our perspective (I'm a health policy person based in Europe), US health care is staggeringly expensive, very variable, and very unfair.
It's the single biggest cause of personal bankruptcy in the States.Your health is poor, overall, especially you have poor child health, and relatively poor maternal and infant health.A large part of your population have no access to good quality health care, and this imposes large costs on your society.Your major companies find high health care costs for staff a major burden, and this sharply reduces the competitiveness of good US employers.You have the highest administrative costs for heath care that I know of, now running over 30\%, and at current rates of increase, in thirty years you will be spending 100\% of your GDP on health services.At the top end, there is no better health care anywhere for acute illnesses, but very few people can access this.The proposed changes are a start, and only a start.
With no public option, there is a real risk that the insurance companies will continue to combine together to rip you off.
However, the current proposals will save a lot of money over the next decade, which is why the insurance companies are spending millions buying ads, and influencing politicians to stop the change.I hope it passes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535600</id>
	<title>Not a good thing at all.</title>
	<author>Vince56</author>
	<datestamp>1269008640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thirty plus million more people getting access to care with no plan to increase the number of primary care providers - not good.
Most of the newly insured not part of the tax contributing population - not good.
No incentivization to have health insurance or maintain a healthy lifestyle - not good.
More healthcare administration from CMS that has brought us Medicare and Medicaid and its $500B in fraud and waste - not good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thirty plus million more people getting access to care with no plan to increase the number of primary care providers - not good .
Most of the newly insured not part of the tax contributing population - not good .
No incentivization to have health insurance or maintain a healthy lifestyle - not good .
More healthcare administration from CMS that has brought us Medicare and Medicaid and its $ 500B in fraud and waste - not good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thirty plus million more people getting access to care with no plan to increase the number of primary care providers - not good.
Most of the newly insured not part of the tax contributing population - not good.
No incentivization to have health insurance or maintain a healthy lifestyle - not good.
More healthcare administration from CMS that has brought us Medicare and Medicaid and its $500B in fraud and waste - not good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535872</id>
	<title>no need</title>
	<author>xaothewretched</author>
	<datestamp>1269009480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us" title="eh.net" rel="nofollow">http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us</a> [eh.net]

the question isnt healthcare do this or that, question is, does it come from the federal gov't? yes, than we dont need it. its a simple study in liberty, gov't kills liberty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us [ eh.net ] the question isnt healthcare do this or that , question is , does it come from the federal gov't ?
yes , than we dont need it .
its a simple study in liberty , gov't kills liberty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us [eh.net]

the question isnt healthcare do this or that, question is, does it come from the federal gov't?
yes, than we dont need it.
its a simple study in liberty, gov't kills liberty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537354</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>tomp1000</author>
	<datestamp>1269013320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know much about fox news (not being a resident in the US), so I can't comment much about that but what I don't understand it is people are so against this reform. Yes it is a 'socialist' policy but the lives of so many people will be helped by this policy. I know a number of people who have had there lives saved or dramatically improved due to the intervention of the NHS here in the UK. yes the NHS has problems, but rarely is there anything that doesnt. The bill isn't communism, you don't have to have government run healthcare, go private if it bothers you. Granting cheap/free healthcare to those who can't afford insurance isn't a bad thing it would help the US become a better nation
I've used the NHS many a time and never had a problem, In fact I've only used my medical isurance for minor little problems that are more annoying than serious. Don't slam government run healthcare. It's a good thing</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know much about fox news ( not being a resident in the US ) , so I ca n't comment much about that but what I do n't understand it is people are so against this reform .
Yes it is a 'socialist ' policy but the lives of so many people will be helped by this policy .
I know a number of people who have had there lives saved or dramatically improved due to the intervention of the NHS here in the UK .
yes the NHS has problems , but rarely is there anything that doesnt .
The bill is n't communism , you do n't have to have government run healthcare , go private if it bothers you .
Granting cheap/free healthcare to those who ca n't afford insurance is n't a bad thing it would help the US become a better nation I 've used the NHS many a time and never had a problem , In fact I 've only used my medical isurance for minor little problems that are more annoying than serious .
Do n't slam government run healthcare .
It 's a good thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know much about fox news (not being a resident in the US), so I can't comment much about that but what I don't understand it is people are so against this reform.
Yes it is a 'socialist' policy but the lives of so many people will be helped by this policy.
I know a number of people who have had there lives saved or dramatically improved due to the intervention of the NHS here in the UK.
yes the NHS has problems, but rarely is there anything that doesnt.
The bill isn't communism, you don't have to have government run healthcare, go private if it bothers you.
Granting cheap/free healthcare to those who can't afford insurance isn't a bad thing it would help the US become a better nation
I've used the NHS many a time and never had a problem, In fact I've only used my medical isurance for minor little problems that are more annoying than serious.
Don't slam government run healthcare.
It's a good thing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536206</id>
	<title>Re:Very expensive half-assed bill</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1269010320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much is healthcare already costing employers?</p><p>I heard back when the big three started suffering for this most recent recession that they had costs of $2,000 per car compared with their foreign competitors from countries where the government provides healthcare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much is healthcare already costing employers ? I heard back when the big three started suffering for this most recent recession that they had costs of $ 2,000 per car compared with their foreign competitors from countries where the government provides healthcare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much is healthcare already costing employers?I heard back when the big three started suffering for this most recent recession that they had costs of $2,000 per car compared with their foreign competitors from countries where the government provides healthcare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539030</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>kehren77</author>
	<datestamp>1269017700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Buying insurance across state lines will not reduce insurance costs. What it will do is give insurers incentive to all pick up and move to the state with the most relaxed health care regulations. Then they can charge as much as they want for as little care as they can get away with. This is essentially what all of the credit card companies did in the past.</p><p>2. I'm assuming that you are going to limit payout on a scale based on incident right? $100,000 lose of use of a limb, $300,000 for an eye, $1,000,000 for accidental death. I'm not saying there shouldn't be limits, but I think you'd have a tough time getting a consensus on the amount for each. And I don't think that limiting the amount would lower the number of malpractice lawyers. Even with lowered payouts, there is still a ton of money to be made. What we need is a way to discourage frivolous malpractice suits. You know like the people who sue their doctor after their wife has a c-section and now they don't want to have sex with her because or the scar and other stupid crap like that.</p><p>3. I'm not familiar with the drug approval process of Canada, however, I'm guessing that drug companies could lower prices or devote a seriously greater amount of fund to R&amp;D if we'd pass a law banning drug ads on TV. You know the ones that tell you to ask your doctor about their latest drug that has side effects that sound 100 times worse than the condition it's treating.</p><p>4. Again, I'm not as familiar with the workings of HSAs. I don't really see how this is much difference than not having insurance and keeping a rainy day fund for med expenses, except the non-tax part of it. To me I don't see this as a way of reducing costs. It might eat away at Insurance profits if enough people did it.</p><p>5. Ah yes the illegals. Why stop there? What about the homeless? They aren't contributing to the system. Let's just let them all die too. Look, I'm not a fan of illegal immigrant either. I believe that we have a legal way of immigrating into this country and that people should follow the rules for coming here. But I also believe that those rules are just are draconian and messed up as our health care system. If you want to address the problem if illegals in this country then you first need to address the immigration process.</p><p>And from the sound of it, you want to regulate the payment amounts to hospitals (don't want them charging $30 for an aspirin). So would you also want to regulate reimbursement for insured people? I mean why should a hospital charge the Medicare $30 for an aspirin and only charge Blue Cross $10? Sounds a lot like you want someone to start regulating how much doctors and hospitals charge for their services. This sounds an awful lot like a single-payer system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Buying insurance across state lines will not reduce insurance costs .
What it will do is give insurers incentive to all pick up and move to the state with the most relaxed health care regulations .
Then they can charge as much as they want for as little care as they can get away with .
This is essentially what all of the credit card companies did in the past.2 .
I 'm assuming that you are going to limit payout on a scale based on incident right ?
$ 100,000 lose of use of a limb , $ 300,000 for an eye , $ 1,000,000 for accidental death .
I 'm not saying there should n't be limits , but I think you 'd have a tough time getting a consensus on the amount for each .
And I do n't think that limiting the amount would lower the number of malpractice lawyers .
Even with lowered payouts , there is still a ton of money to be made .
What we need is a way to discourage frivolous malpractice suits .
You know like the people who sue their doctor after their wife has a c-section and now they do n't want to have sex with her because or the scar and other stupid crap like that.3 .
I 'm not familiar with the drug approval process of Canada , however , I 'm guessing that drug companies could lower prices or devote a seriously greater amount of fund to R&amp;D if we 'd pass a law banning drug ads on TV .
You know the ones that tell you to ask your doctor about their latest drug that has side effects that sound 100 times worse than the condition it 's treating.4 .
Again , I 'm not as familiar with the workings of HSAs .
I do n't really see how this is much difference than not having insurance and keeping a rainy day fund for med expenses , except the non-tax part of it .
To me I do n't see this as a way of reducing costs .
It might eat away at Insurance profits if enough people did it.5 .
Ah yes the illegals .
Why stop there ?
What about the homeless ?
They are n't contributing to the system .
Let 's just let them all die too .
Look , I 'm not a fan of illegal immigrant either .
I believe that we have a legal way of immigrating into this country and that people should follow the rules for coming here .
But I also believe that those rules are just are draconian and messed up as our health care system .
If you want to address the problem if illegals in this country then you first need to address the immigration process.And from the sound of it , you want to regulate the payment amounts to hospitals ( do n't want them charging $ 30 for an aspirin ) .
So would you also want to regulate reimbursement for insured people ?
I mean why should a hospital charge the Medicare $ 30 for an aspirin and only charge Blue Cross $ 10 ?
Sounds a lot like you want someone to start regulating how much doctors and hospitals charge for their services .
This sounds an awful lot like a single-payer system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Buying insurance across state lines will not reduce insurance costs.
What it will do is give insurers incentive to all pick up and move to the state with the most relaxed health care regulations.
Then they can charge as much as they want for as little care as they can get away with.
This is essentially what all of the credit card companies did in the past.2.
I'm assuming that you are going to limit payout on a scale based on incident right?
$100,000 lose of use of a limb, $300,000 for an eye, $1,000,000 for accidental death.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be limits, but I think you'd have a tough time getting a consensus on the amount for each.
And I don't think that limiting the amount would lower the number of malpractice lawyers.
Even with lowered payouts, there is still a ton of money to be made.
What we need is a way to discourage frivolous malpractice suits.
You know like the people who sue their doctor after their wife has a c-section and now they don't want to have sex with her because or the scar and other stupid crap like that.3.
I'm not familiar with the drug approval process of Canada, however, I'm guessing that drug companies could lower prices or devote a seriously greater amount of fund to R&amp;D if we'd pass a law banning drug ads on TV.
You know the ones that tell you to ask your doctor about their latest drug that has side effects that sound 100 times worse than the condition it's treating.4.
Again, I'm not as familiar with the workings of HSAs.
I don't really see how this is much difference than not having insurance and keeping a rainy day fund for med expenses, except the non-tax part of it.
To me I don't see this as a way of reducing costs.
It might eat away at Insurance profits if enough people did it.5.
Ah yes the illegals.
Why stop there?
What about the homeless?
They aren't contributing to the system.
Let's just let them all die too.
Look, I'm not a fan of illegal immigrant either.
I believe that we have a legal way of immigrating into this country and that people should follow the rules for coming here.
But I also believe that those rules are just are draconian and messed up as our health care system.
If you want to address the problem if illegals in this country then you first need to address the immigration process.And from the sound of it, you want to regulate the payment amounts to hospitals (don't want them charging $30 for an aspirin).
So would you also want to regulate reimbursement for insured people?
I mean why should a hospital charge the Medicare $30 for an aspirin and only charge Blue Cross $10?
Sounds a lot like you want someone to start regulating how much doctors and hospitals charge for their services.
This sounds an awful lot like a single-payer system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538320</id>
	<title>Or...</title>
	<author>bjk002</author>
	<datestamp>1269015720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could argue that those people who feel "entitled" to earn money to another persons detriment are the supposed "Entitlement Generation".</p><p>Every damn time I hear someone slander a concept such as universal health care as an "Entitlement", I want grab a bat and hit some balls...</p><p>We are, after all, still all human here right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could argue that those people who feel " entitled " to earn money to another persons detriment are the supposed " Entitlement Generation " .Every damn time I hear someone slander a concept such as universal health care as an " Entitlement " , I want grab a bat and hit some balls...We are , after all , still all human here right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could argue that those people who feel "entitled" to earn money to another persons detriment are the supposed "Entitlement Generation".Every damn time I hear someone slander a concept such as universal health care as an "Entitlement", I want grab a bat and hit some balls...We are, after all, still all human here right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541960</id>
	<title>This post is so wrong</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1269028500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Constitutionality:<br>The constitution says people cannot be coerced into signing a contract.</p></div> </blockquote><p>This part you got right - there is nothing in the Constitution that suggest the federal government can require citizens to sign contracts with private companies.  Nothing.  But don't expect that to stop hacks like Alito and Roberts from rubber stamping it.</p><blockquote><div><p>Common sense<br>The kings of <b>efficiency</b>.</p></div> </blockquote><p>FTFY.  Social Security and Medicare have 2\%-4\% overhead.  Compared to the 20\%-30\% for private insurance.  Because with Medicare, you get what you pay for - health care.  As opposed to private insurance, who's entire business model depends on charging you the most they possibly can for premiums while denying your claims as much as possible.  And federal officials are paid far less ($400,000 for the president vs $10 million for an insurance CEO) and their salaries aren't tied to the aforementioned business model.</p><blockquote><div><p>to the point that the two programs have unfunded liabilities of over $100 trillion</p></div></blockquote><p>Lies, damned lies, and statistics.  These are based on pulled-from-the-ass numbers over an indefinite timeline, while only looking at "entitlements" - how about that Pentagon spending?</p><blockquote><div><p>This bill causes lack of care (not coverage)</p></div> </blockquote><p>This bill doesn't cause the lack of care, it just doesn't help it any.  Because Obama and the rest of the corporatist Democrats in power decided that extending the broken insurance industry to the non-insured (by force/taxpayer subsidization) rather a public option, or even better, single payer.</p><blockquote><div><p>Tell it to the people in the UK or Canada who are waiting 6 months for a CT scan, where here in the U.S. it's unusual to wait for more than a few days.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Ah, the old "you'd have to wait in lines" canard.  This is a batch of sophistry, as it's comparing non-emergency wait times in other countries to ideal conditions in the United States - where we have plenty of lines ourselves.</p><blockquote><div><p>We will have a government panel deciding who is worth said liver transplant and deciding who gets to live and die, instead of your doctor or a panel of your doctors.</p></div></blockquote><p>A right wing lie with zero basis in reality.  Seriously, pull your head out of Sarah Palin's <a href="http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/03/10/sarah-palin-used-canadian-health-care/" title="bvblackspin.com">hypocricial</a> [bvblackspin.com] ass.</p><blockquote><div><p>How much is too much?<br>People in this country continue to live longer and longer.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Actually, it's barely budged for decades, and we're far behind other nations in both life expectancy and infant mortality.</p><blockquote><div><p>Dems say that our  private insurance is increasing at too fast a rate (3\%/yr)</p></div></blockquote><p>3\% on what planet?!?  We've seen double digit increases in the cost of insurance just about every year in the last decade.  And insurer in California announced an increase of <b>39\%</b> this year.</p><blockquote><div><p>and are generally heather than our contemporaries in other countries, so much so that when people in other countries can afford it they come here, from all over, the U.K., Canada, Cuba.</p></div></blockquote><p>That the wealthy can afford to travel all over the world to find the best specialists says....what exactly about the level of care in this country?</p><blockquote><div><p>Cancer survival rates are a much better indicator of the quality of the medical system [google.com] than the life expectancy.</p></div></blockquote><p><b>Not when it only looks at those who are treated <i>and</i> not thrown off their insurance because of a job loss or benefit cap, it's not</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Constitutionality : The constitution says people can not be coerced into signing a contract .
This part you got right - there is nothing in the Constitution that suggest the federal government can require citizens to sign contracts with private companies .
Nothing. But do n't expect that to stop hacks like Alito and Roberts from rubber stamping it.Common senseThe kings of efficiency .
FTFY. Social Security and Medicare have 2 \ % -4 \ % overhead .
Compared to the 20 \ % -30 \ % for private insurance .
Because with Medicare , you get what you pay for - health care .
As opposed to private insurance , who 's entire business model depends on charging you the most they possibly can for premiums while denying your claims as much as possible .
And federal officials are paid far less ( $ 400,000 for the president vs $ 10 million for an insurance CEO ) and their salaries are n't tied to the aforementioned business model.to the point that the two programs have unfunded liabilities of over $ 100 trillionLies , damned lies , and statistics .
These are based on pulled-from-the-ass numbers over an indefinite timeline , while only looking at " entitlements " - how about that Pentagon spending ? This bill causes lack of care ( not coverage ) This bill does n't cause the lack of care , it just does n't help it any .
Because Obama and the rest of the corporatist Democrats in power decided that extending the broken insurance industry to the non-insured ( by force/taxpayer subsidization ) rather a public option , or even better , single payer.Tell it to the people in the UK or Canada who are waiting 6 months for a CT scan , where here in the U.S. it 's unusual to wait for more than a few days .
Ah , the old " you 'd have to wait in lines " canard .
This is a batch of sophistry , as it 's comparing non-emergency wait times in other countries to ideal conditions in the United States - where we have plenty of lines ourselves.We will have a government panel deciding who is worth said liver transplant and deciding who gets to live and die , instead of your doctor or a panel of your doctors.A right wing lie with zero basis in reality .
Seriously , pull your head out of Sarah Palin 's hypocricial [ bvblackspin.com ] ass.How much is too much ? People in this country continue to live longer and longer .
Actually , it 's barely budged for decades , and we 're far behind other nations in both life expectancy and infant mortality.Dems say that our private insurance is increasing at too fast a rate ( 3 \ % /yr ) 3 \ % on what planet ? ! ?
We 've seen double digit increases in the cost of insurance just about every year in the last decade .
And insurer in California announced an increase of 39 \ % this year.and are generally heather than our contemporaries in other countries , so much so that when people in other countries can afford it they come here , from all over , the U.K. , Canada , Cuba.That the wealthy can afford to travel all over the world to find the best specialists says....what exactly about the level of care in this country ? Cancer survival rates are a much better indicator of the quality of the medical system [ google.com ] than the life expectancy.Not when it only looks at those who are treated and not thrown off their insurance because of a job loss or benefit cap , it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Constitutionality:The constitution says people cannot be coerced into signing a contract.
This part you got right - there is nothing in the Constitution that suggest the federal government can require citizens to sign contracts with private companies.
Nothing.  But don't expect that to stop hacks like Alito and Roberts from rubber stamping it.Common senseThe kings of efficiency.
FTFY.  Social Security and Medicare have 2\%-4\% overhead.
Compared to the 20\%-30\% for private insurance.
Because with Medicare, you get what you pay for - health care.
As opposed to private insurance, who's entire business model depends on charging you the most they possibly can for premiums while denying your claims as much as possible.
And federal officials are paid far less ($400,000 for the president vs $10 million for an insurance CEO) and their salaries aren't tied to the aforementioned business model.to the point that the two programs have unfunded liabilities of over $100 trillionLies, damned lies, and statistics.
These are based on pulled-from-the-ass numbers over an indefinite timeline, while only looking at "entitlements" - how about that Pentagon spending?This bill causes lack of care (not coverage) This bill doesn't cause the lack of care, it just doesn't help it any.
Because Obama and the rest of the corporatist Democrats in power decided that extending the broken insurance industry to the non-insured (by force/taxpayer subsidization) rather a public option, or even better, single payer.Tell it to the people in the UK or Canada who are waiting 6 months for a CT scan, where here in the U.S. it's unusual to wait for more than a few days.
Ah, the old "you'd have to wait in lines" canard.
This is a batch of sophistry, as it's comparing non-emergency wait times in other countries to ideal conditions in the United States - where we have plenty of lines ourselves.We will have a government panel deciding who is worth said liver transplant and deciding who gets to live and die, instead of your doctor or a panel of your doctors.A right wing lie with zero basis in reality.
Seriously, pull your head out of Sarah Palin's hypocricial [bvblackspin.com] ass.How much is too much?People in this country continue to live longer and longer.
Actually, it's barely budged for decades, and we're far behind other nations in both life expectancy and infant mortality.Dems say that our  private insurance is increasing at too fast a rate (3\%/yr)3\% on what planet?!?
We've seen double digit increases in the cost of insurance just about every year in the last decade.
And insurer in California announced an increase of 39\% this year.and are generally heather than our contemporaries in other countries, so much so that when people in other countries can afford it they come here, from all over, the U.K., Canada, Cuba.That the wealthy can afford to travel all over the world to find the best specialists says....what exactly about the level of care in this country?Cancer survival rates are a much better indicator of the quality of the medical system [google.com] than the life expectancy.Not when it only looks at those who are treated and not thrown off their insurance because of a job loss or benefit cap, it's not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539670</id>
	<title>Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1269019680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>universal healthcare is a form of investment in your society that pays dividends</p></div><p>Let's see, what sort of dividends does it pay?</p><ol>
<li>More government power over our lives.</li>
<li>More people to handle the money and drive costs up.</li>
<li>Universal health care doesn't fix the more pressing problem of expensive health care.</li>
<li>There's no explicit constitutional authority for universal health coverage.</li>
</ol><p>

The third point (about the absence of correlation between universal health care and cheap health care) warrants some elaboration. It's worth noting here that private insurance pays somewhere around $2800 per capita (not per customer!) for health care. Government (US, states, etc) pays almost as much. And with $800 out of pocket, that roughly makes up the $6600 per capita spent by the US on health care costs. The implicit assumption is that by having universal coverage, the US would slide into one of the many existing schemes. I don't see that this would happen. The US is in a unique situation, and to be blunt, the current crop of politicians has massively fucked up markets before (for example, the California electricity crisis and cap-and-trade, a couple of older examples are public transportation and Superfund).<br> <br>

This discussion of universal health care ignores also that the US is not about to implement such a scheme. Whatever the US eventually implements will be unique for various reasons. cts, you haven't done so, but I've seen some people argue that health costs will go down because more people will get insurance (more accurately, they'll choose between losing 2.5\% of their income and paying insurance, a choice which I imagine will still lead to a lot of people choosing not to get insurance).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>universal healthcare is a form of investment in your society that pays dividendsLet 's see , what sort of dividends does it pay ?
More government power over our lives .
More people to handle the money and drive costs up .
Universal health care does n't fix the more pressing problem of expensive health care .
There 's no explicit constitutional authority for universal health coverage .
The third point ( about the absence of correlation between universal health care and cheap health care ) warrants some elaboration .
It 's worth noting here that private insurance pays somewhere around $ 2800 per capita ( not per customer !
) for health care .
Government ( US , states , etc ) pays almost as much .
And with $ 800 out of pocket , that roughly makes up the $ 6600 per capita spent by the US on health care costs .
The implicit assumption is that by having universal coverage , the US would slide into one of the many existing schemes .
I do n't see that this would happen .
The US is in a unique situation , and to be blunt , the current crop of politicians has massively fucked up markets before ( for example , the California electricity crisis and cap-and-trade , a couple of older examples are public transportation and Superfund ) .
This discussion of universal health care ignores also that the US is not about to implement such a scheme .
Whatever the US eventually implements will be unique for various reasons .
cts , you have n't done so , but I 've seen some people argue that health costs will go down because more people will get insurance ( more accurately , they 'll choose between losing 2.5 \ % of their income and paying insurance , a choice which I imagine will still lead to a lot of people choosing not to get insurance ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>universal healthcare is a form of investment in your society that pays dividendsLet's see, what sort of dividends does it pay?
More government power over our lives.
More people to handle the money and drive costs up.
Universal health care doesn't fix the more pressing problem of expensive health care.
There's no explicit constitutional authority for universal health coverage.
The third point (about the absence of correlation between universal health care and cheap health care) warrants some elaboration.
It's worth noting here that private insurance pays somewhere around $2800 per capita (not per customer!
) for health care.
Government (US, states, etc) pays almost as much.
And with $800 out of pocket, that roughly makes up the $6600 per capita spent by the US on health care costs.
The implicit assumption is that by having universal coverage, the US would slide into one of the many existing schemes.
I don't see that this would happen.
The US is in a unique situation, and to be blunt, the current crop of politicians has massively fucked up markets before (for example, the California electricity crisis and cap-and-trade, a couple of older examples are public transportation and Superfund).
This discussion of universal health care ignores also that the US is not about to implement such a scheme.
Whatever the US eventually implements will be unique for various reasons.
cts, you haven't done so, but I've seen some people argue that health costs will go down because more people will get insurance (more accurately, they'll choose between losing 2.5\% of their income and paying insurance, a choice which I imagine will still lead to a lot of people choosing not to get insurance).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542374</id>
	<title>Re:Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1269030300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Efficiency and quality in which dimension?  I get better health care than anyone on a government run single payer plan.  I have an HSA and can do pretty much as I like with regards to health care, and after a maximum amount spent it becomes "free".</p><p>If you have good insurance in the US you have the best health care in the world.  We do the most research, we have the best equipment, the highest number of good doctors, etc...</p><p>Other countries have... availability to poor people.  This is in some ways efficiency and quality, but not in any way that means much to me.</p><p>If you're poor, you should have poorer health care.  Bill Gates has much better health care than I do, even, and he's earned it.</p><p>Personally, I'm all for some kind of shitty medicare type coverage for poor people in conjunction with some simple, step by step changes to our current system to control costs and make sure good insurance is reasonably priced.  A single payer system is bullshit in the US - all these success stories you hear about are a) in countries smaller than California and b) in countries doomed to collapse under their own socialist policies in the coming decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Efficiency and quality in which dimension ?
I get better health care than anyone on a government run single payer plan .
I have an HSA and can do pretty much as I like with regards to health care , and after a maximum amount spent it becomes " free " .If you have good insurance in the US you have the best health care in the world .
We do the most research , we have the best equipment , the highest number of good doctors , etc...Other countries have... availability to poor people .
This is in some ways efficiency and quality , but not in any way that means much to me.If you 're poor , you should have poorer health care .
Bill Gates has much better health care than I do , even , and he 's earned it.Personally , I 'm all for some kind of shitty medicare type coverage for poor people in conjunction with some simple , step by step changes to our current system to control costs and make sure good insurance is reasonably priced .
A single payer system is bullshit in the US - all these success stories you hear about are a ) in countries smaller than California and b ) in countries doomed to collapse under their own socialist policies in the coming decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Efficiency and quality in which dimension?
I get better health care than anyone on a government run single payer plan.
I have an HSA and can do pretty much as I like with regards to health care, and after a maximum amount spent it becomes "free".If you have good insurance in the US you have the best health care in the world.
We do the most research, we have the best equipment, the highest number of good doctors, etc...Other countries have... availability to poor people.
This is in some ways efficiency and quality, but not in any way that means much to me.If you're poor, you should have poorer health care.
Bill Gates has much better health care than I do, even, and he's earned it.Personally, I'm all for some kind of shitty medicare type coverage for poor people in conjunction with some simple, step by step changes to our current system to control costs and make sure good insurance is reasonably priced.
A single payer system is bullshit in the US - all these success stories you hear about are a) in countries smaller than California and b) in countries doomed to collapse under their own socialist policies in the coming decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535906</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>organgtool</author>
	<datestamp>1269009600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WHAT ENTITLEMENT???!!  This bill has NOTHING to do with entitlement.  This bill was supposed to prevent insurance companies from collecting tens of thousands of dollars over the course of years from someone and then drop their coverage as soon as that person gets sick.  This bill was supposed to provide a public option that someone can afford to PAY for their own health care plan in the event that they get laid off or are too sick to work.  But you'll be happy to know that that those provisions have been watered down or removed completely so we can continue to enjoy our freedom - freedom to be poor if we get sick or laid off.  We're the richest country in the world, but we can't even bother to do these two things to bring up the standard of health care coverage to that of nations that have a fraction of our resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WHAT ENTITLEMENT ? ? ? ! !
This bill has NOTHING to do with entitlement .
This bill was supposed to prevent insurance companies from collecting tens of thousands of dollars over the course of years from someone and then drop their coverage as soon as that person gets sick .
This bill was supposed to provide a public option that someone can afford to PAY for their own health care plan in the event that they get laid off or are too sick to work .
But you 'll be happy to know that that those provisions have been watered down or removed completely so we can continue to enjoy our freedom - freedom to be poor if we get sick or laid off .
We 're the richest country in the world , but we ca n't even bother to do these two things to bring up the standard of health care coverage to that of nations that have a fraction of our resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHAT ENTITLEMENT???!!
This bill has NOTHING to do with entitlement.
This bill was supposed to prevent insurance companies from collecting tens of thousands of dollars over the course of years from someone and then drop their coverage as soon as that person gets sick.
This bill was supposed to provide a public option that someone can afford to PAY for their own health care plan in the event that they get laid off or are too sick to work.
But you'll be happy to know that that those provisions have been watered down or removed completely so we can continue to enjoy our freedom - freedom to be poor if we get sick or laid off.
We're the richest country in the world, but we can't even bother to do these two things to bring up the standard of health care coverage to that of nations that have a fraction of our resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535930</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>s122604</author>
	<datestamp>1269009660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I have catastrophic insurance, so if I get cancer and my bills go over $20,000 then THEY will cover the cost. Like a safety net.</p></div><p> Thats what you hope at least...
</p><p>http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/health-insurer-targets-hiv-patients-d</p><p>
You are probably happy with the setup because you are are probably young and without a doubt, healthy, and because you are young and healthy, you've never had to use it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have catastrophic insurance , so if I get cancer and my bills go over $ 20,000 then THEY will cover the cost .
Like a safety net .
Thats what you hope at least.. . http : //crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/health-insurer-targets-hiv-patients-d You are probably happy with the setup because you are are probably young and without a doubt , healthy , and because you are young and healthy , you 've never had to use it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I have catastrophic insurance, so if I get cancer and my bills go over $20,000 then THEY will cover the cost.
Like a safety net.
Thats what you hope at least...
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/health-insurer-targets-hiv-patients-d
You are probably happy with the setup because you are are probably young and without a doubt, healthy, and because you are young and healthy, you've never had to use it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542934</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1268989680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More often than not, doctors will charge double what they do with insurance companies for cash / self-pay people.</p></div><p>They'll often bill everyone identically, which means that insurance companies negotiate it down to about half.  This is a carry-over from when insurance companies would pay a fixed portion (e.g. 100\%) of the bill, so doctors would bill more in hopes of getting paid more.  If you speak with your doctor then there's a pretty good chance they'll reduce the bill to whatever the insurance companies pay (or less, many doctors are charitable if you're uninsured due to economic hardship).<br> <br>
A couple years ago I heard a presentation about the intricacies of healthcare and the Amish.  Apparently they (as in the local ones) don't believe in using insurance (no clue about how that'll fly if this bill passes).  Instead, they pool their money and pay collectively whenever a member of the colony gets sick (they also use a lot of herbal medicine and don't go to "extremes" to keep people alive).  One issue that came up was that they paid 100\% of their bills, which was about twice that of what insurance companies paid.  It became cheaper for them to pay for someone to drive them to another hospital a couple hours aways.  Obviously the local hospital thought this was ridiculous and changed their policy.  The problem was that nobody at the hospital really noticed until the Amish stopped showing up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More often than not , doctors will charge double what they do with insurance companies for cash / self-pay people.They 'll often bill everyone identically , which means that insurance companies negotiate it down to about half .
This is a carry-over from when insurance companies would pay a fixed portion ( e.g .
100 \ % ) of the bill , so doctors would bill more in hopes of getting paid more .
If you speak with your doctor then there 's a pretty good chance they 'll reduce the bill to whatever the insurance companies pay ( or less , many doctors are charitable if you 're uninsured due to economic hardship ) .
A couple years ago I heard a presentation about the intricacies of healthcare and the Amish .
Apparently they ( as in the local ones ) do n't believe in using insurance ( no clue about how that 'll fly if this bill passes ) .
Instead , they pool their money and pay collectively whenever a member of the colony gets sick ( they also use a lot of herbal medicine and do n't go to " extremes " to keep people alive ) .
One issue that came up was that they paid 100 \ % of their bills , which was about twice that of what insurance companies paid .
It became cheaper for them to pay for someone to drive them to another hospital a couple hours aways .
Obviously the local hospital thought this was ridiculous and changed their policy .
The problem was that nobody at the hospital really noticed until the Amish stopped showing up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More often than not, doctors will charge double what they do with insurance companies for cash / self-pay people.They'll often bill everyone identically, which means that insurance companies negotiate it down to about half.
This is a carry-over from when insurance companies would pay a fixed portion (e.g.
100\%) of the bill, so doctors would bill more in hopes of getting paid more.
If you speak with your doctor then there's a pretty good chance they'll reduce the bill to whatever the insurance companies pay (or less, many doctors are charitable if you're uninsured due to economic hardship).
A couple years ago I heard a presentation about the intricacies of healthcare and the Amish.
Apparently they (as in the local ones) don't believe in using insurance (no clue about how that'll fly if this bill passes).
Instead, they pool their money and pay collectively whenever a member of the colony gets sick (they also use a lot of herbal medicine and don't go to "extremes" to keep people alive).
One issue that came up was that they paid 100\% of their bills, which was about twice that of what insurance companies paid.
It became cheaper for them to pay for someone to drive them to another hospital a couple hours aways.
Obviously the local hospital thought this was ridiculous and changed their policy.
The problem was that nobody at the hospital really noticed until the Amish stopped showing up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535492</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>OzPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1269008280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The USA spends more per head on medical care than the rest of the world but gets poorer service. Either your efficiency is really low, or too much is getting creamed off the top as profit.</p></div><p>I discussed this with my (Australian) doctor once and his opinion was that the US spends most of its big $$ supporting very expensive procedures for a few people, compared with other places spending the $$ for more basic health care for many people.  After having seen the treatment in the US I would tend to agree.  You get excellent big ticket treatment, but absolutely shit GP appointments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA spends more per head on medical care than the rest of the world but gets poorer service .
Either your efficiency is really low , or too much is getting creamed off the top as profit.I discussed this with my ( Australian ) doctor once and his opinion was that the US spends most of its big $ $ supporting very expensive procedures for a few people , compared with other places spending the $ $ for more basic health care for many people .
After having seen the treatment in the US I would tend to agree .
You get excellent big ticket treatment , but absolutely shit GP appointments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA spends more per head on medical care than the rest of the world but gets poorer service.
Either your efficiency is really low, or too much is getting creamed off the top as profit.I discussed this with my (Australian) doctor once and his opinion was that the US spends most of its big $$ supporting very expensive procedures for a few people, compared with other places spending the $$ for more basic health care for many people.
After having seen the treatment in the US I would tend to agree.
You get excellent big ticket treatment, but absolutely shit GP appointments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535700</id>
	<title>Re:News for nerds. Stuff that matters</title>
	<author>cervo</author>
	<datestamp>1269008880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this matters for when you your internet enabled sex toy gets stuck and you need the emergency room to get it off you...after making a hasty retreat from your parents' basement of course without being seen....<br> <br>
But seriously geeks get sick.  Some have chronic illnesses which is what gives them so much time to lay in bed and read/play with the computer.  It's not uncommon to see geeks with glasses (although I'm not sure the bill covers eye care...but anyway).  Or geeks with asthma.  Also look at Stephen Hawking.  He needs a lot of medical care and he is an uber geek...  Look at Steve Jobs, he needed an organ.  What happens if you don't run apple.  Although his geek status is a question.  But a reality distortion field is very geeky<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this matters for when you your internet enabled sex toy gets stuck and you need the emergency room to get it off you...after making a hasty retreat from your parents ' basement of course without being seen... . But seriously geeks get sick .
Some have chronic illnesses which is what gives them so much time to lay in bed and read/play with the computer .
It 's not uncommon to see geeks with glasses ( although I 'm not sure the bill covers eye care...but anyway ) .
Or geeks with asthma .
Also look at Stephen Hawking .
He needs a lot of medical care and he is an uber geek... Look at Steve Jobs , he needed an organ .
What happens if you do n't run apple .
Although his geek status is a question .
But a reality distortion field is very geeky : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this matters for when you your internet enabled sex toy gets stuck and you need the emergency room to get it off you...after making a hasty retreat from your parents' basement of course without being seen.... 
But seriously geeks get sick.
Some have chronic illnesses which is what gives them so much time to lay in bed and read/play with the computer.
It's not uncommon to see geeks with glasses (although I'm not sure the bill covers eye care...but anyway).
Or geeks with asthma.
Also look at Stephen Hawking.
He needs a lot of medical care and he is an uber geek...  Look at Steve Jobs, he needed an organ.
What happens if you don't run apple.
Although his geek status is a question.
But a reality distortion field is very geeky :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535504</id>
	<title>Hard to have a debate</title>
	<author>CaroKann</author>
	<datestamp>1269008280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The healthcare bill is so huge and complex that it is difficult to have any intelligent debate over it.  People mostly make simple, sound bite sized remarks.  Very few people seem to understand the bill.  I don't understand it myself.
<br> <br>
That said, the conventional wisdom states that the bill will be extremely expensive, on the scale of Social Security or Medicare.  While I agree the current health care system leaves a lot to be desired, I think the timing is terrible.  Our financial house is not in order and the economy seems to be in the middle of a long term case of fatigue.  In short, I don't think we can afford it.  I'm worried it could be the straw, or bale, that breaks the camel's back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The healthcare bill is so huge and complex that it is difficult to have any intelligent debate over it .
People mostly make simple , sound bite sized remarks .
Very few people seem to understand the bill .
I do n't understand it myself .
That said , the conventional wisdom states that the bill will be extremely expensive , on the scale of Social Security or Medicare .
While I agree the current health care system leaves a lot to be desired , I think the timing is terrible .
Our financial house is not in order and the economy seems to be in the middle of a long term case of fatigue .
In short , I do n't think we can afford it .
I 'm worried it could be the straw , or bale , that breaks the camel 's back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The healthcare bill is so huge and complex that it is difficult to have any intelligent debate over it.
People mostly make simple, sound bite sized remarks.
Very few people seem to understand the bill.
I don't understand it myself.
That said, the conventional wisdom states that the bill will be extremely expensive, on the scale of Social Security or Medicare.
While I agree the current health care system leaves a lot to be desired, I think the timing is terrible.
Our financial house is not in order and the economy seems to be in the middle of a long term case of fatigue.
In short, I don't think we can afford it.
I'm worried it could be the straw, or bale, that breaks the camel's back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535382</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>Wolvenhaven</author>
	<datestamp>1269007980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can I sign up for your newsletter?  I argue the 10th amendment pretty much every time a debate like this comes up and people dismiss it because they only know the first 2-3.  Here at college I have seen a disgusting trend towards "the constitution is broken so let's just ignore it" among both students and teachers and I can't wrap my mind around how they came up with such a idiotic idea.
<br> <br>
Government intrusion into healthcare caused the cost to go up, restricting the number of doctors, requiring cookie cutter instead of modular health insurance plans, "oversight" and "control" which create bureaucratic empire building jobs, all increasing the cost while doing little to help.
<br>
Even if it were constitutional, the public wanted it, and it got signed into law, does anyone really want the people who can't manage the programs already there?  Medicare is billions of dollars in debt, the Post Office is as well, and the VA hospital is one of the most poorly run, inefficient, and costly medical service there is.  If they cannot even give affordable, quality healthcare to our veterans, how well do you think it will work for everyone?
<br>
<i>(Note, "you" is not referring to parent, it's a plural argumentative "you")</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I sign up for your newsletter ?
I argue the 10th amendment pretty much every time a debate like this comes up and people dismiss it because they only know the first 2-3 .
Here at college I have seen a disgusting trend towards " the constitution is broken so let 's just ignore it " among both students and teachers and I ca n't wrap my mind around how they came up with such a idiotic idea .
Government intrusion into healthcare caused the cost to go up , restricting the number of doctors , requiring cookie cutter instead of modular health insurance plans , " oversight " and " control " which create bureaucratic empire building jobs , all increasing the cost while doing little to help .
Even if it were constitutional , the public wanted it , and it got signed into law , does anyone really want the people who ca n't manage the programs already there ?
Medicare is billions of dollars in debt , the Post Office is as well , and the VA hospital is one of the most poorly run , inefficient , and costly medical service there is .
If they can not even give affordable , quality healthcare to our veterans , how well do you think it will work for everyone ?
( Note , " you " is not referring to parent , it 's a plural argumentative " you " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I sign up for your newsletter?
I argue the 10th amendment pretty much every time a debate like this comes up and people dismiss it because they only know the first 2-3.
Here at college I have seen a disgusting trend towards "the constitution is broken so let's just ignore it" among both students and teachers and I can't wrap my mind around how they came up with such a idiotic idea.
Government intrusion into healthcare caused the cost to go up, restricting the number of doctors, requiring cookie cutter instead of modular health insurance plans, "oversight" and "control" which create bureaucratic empire building jobs, all increasing the cost while doing little to help.
Even if it were constitutional, the public wanted it, and it got signed into law, does anyone really want the people who can't manage the programs already there?
Medicare is billions of dollars in debt, the Post Office is as well, and the VA hospital is one of the most poorly run, inefficient, and costly medical service there is.
If they cannot even give affordable, quality healthcare to our veterans, how well do you think it will work for everyone?
(Note, "you" is not referring to parent, it's a plural argumentative "you")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535578</id>
	<title>HANDS OFF MY BODY</title>
	<author>dazedNconfuzed</author>
	<datestamp>1269008580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep government out of the doctor's office.<br>The doctor/patient privilege is one of the few sacrosanct sociopolitical relationships (along with husband/wife and clergy/parishioner).<br>As for who pays for it, that's between the patient, doctor, and any insurance company the two VOLUNTARILY choose.</p><p>You have a touching anecdote? come up with legislation which helps that situation, without interfering with the &gt;250,000,000 cases where there isn't a problem.</p><p>Any "democracy" which passes legislation without voting on it isn't.</p><p>And no, this isn't a suitable topic for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep government out of the doctor 's office.The doctor/patient privilege is one of the few sacrosanct sociopolitical relationships ( along with husband/wife and clergy/parishioner ) .As for who pays for it , that 's between the patient , doctor , and any insurance company the two VOLUNTARILY choose.You have a touching anecdote ?
come up with legislation which helps that situation , without interfering with the &gt; 250,000,000 cases where there is n't a problem.Any " democracy " which passes legislation without voting on it is n't.And no , this is n't a suitable topic for / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep government out of the doctor's office.The doctor/patient privilege is one of the few sacrosanct sociopolitical relationships (along with husband/wife and clergy/parishioner).As for who pays for it, that's between the patient, doctor, and any insurance company the two VOLUNTARILY choose.You have a touching anecdote?
come up with legislation which helps that situation, without interfering with the &gt;250,000,000 cases where there isn't a problem.Any "democracy" which passes legislation without voting on it isn't.And no, this isn't a suitable topic for /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535274</id>
	<title>Just look to the North...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the health care reform plan goes through then it signals the end of civilization as you know. Just look at where I am from, Canada, where we introduced universal health care in 1962. Since then, we've been living in barbaric fiefdoms, the likes of which have not been seen outside of the Hyborian kingdom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the health care reform plan goes through then it signals the end of civilization as you know .
Just look at where I am from , Canada , where we introduced universal health care in 1962 .
Since then , we 've been living in barbaric fiefdoms , the likes of which have not been seen outside of the Hyborian kingdom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the health care reform plan goes through then it signals the end of civilization as you know.
Just look at where I am from, Canada, where we introduced universal health care in 1962.
Since then, we've been living in barbaric fiefdoms, the likes of which have not been seen outside of the Hyborian kingdom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31544998</id>
	<title>Re:no reform.</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1268998620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Pelosi and Obama and the rest of them are lying sacks of shit</em> <br> <br>
More generally, American politicians starting around the county level on up are lying sacks of shit representing the interests of mobsters.
<br> <br>
All the world's a "free" market, and we are but its mules.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pelosi and Obama and the rest of them are lying sacks of shit More generally , American politicians starting around the county level on up are lying sacks of shit representing the interests of mobsters .
All the world 's a " free " market , and we are but its mules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pelosi and Obama and the rest of them are lying sacks of shit  
More generally, American politicians starting around the county level on up are lying sacks of shit representing the interests of mobsters.
All the world's a "free" market, and we are but its mules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536790</id>
	<title>Bogus bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bill is nothing but a pissing match between the two parties, "We will pass it", "No you won't". That's all it has come down to. I personally believe that it's not even about the issue at hand, it's just about who wins. It's sad to see our government stooping to this level and it's nonsense. I haven't read the latest bill or watched the news about it recently, but my personal feelings on it are mixed. If there is a centralized healthcare system, then it will be their job to regulate the substances we can take into our bodies as part of the health care coverage they provide. They will then crack down harder on tobacco companies, fast food restaurants and many other day to day opportunities that millions of Americans support. Other people say "This works in my country" but have you seen our population or our budget? We're broke and to offer coverage to millions of people is just ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill is nothing but a pissing match between the two parties , " We will pass it " , " No you wo n't " .
That 's all it has come down to .
I personally believe that it 's not even about the issue at hand , it 's just about who wins .
It 's sad to see our government stooping to this level and it 's nonsense .
I have n't read the latest bill or watched the news about it recently , but my personal feelings on it are mixed .
If there is a centralized healthcare system , then it will be their job to regulate the substances we can take into our bodies as part of the health care coverage they provide .
They will then crack down harder on tobacco companies , fast food restaurants and many other day to day opportunities that millions of Americans support .
Other people say " This works in my country " but have you seen our population or our budget ?
We 're broke and to offer coverage to millions of people is just ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill is nothing but a pissing match between the two parties, "We will pass it", "No you won't".
That's all it has come down to.
I personally believe that it's not even about the issue at hand, it's just about who wins.
It's sad to see our government stooping to this level and it's nonsense.
I haven't read the latest bill or watched the news about it recently, but my personal feelings on it are mixed.
If there is a centralized healthcare system, then it will be their job to regulate the substances we can take into our bodies as part of the health care coverage they provide.
They will then crack down harder on tobacco companies, fast food restaurants and many other day to day opportunities that millions of Americans support.
Other people say "This works in my country" but have you seen our population or our budget?
We're broke and to offer coverage to millions of people is just ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537594</id>
	<title>Re:Hard to have a debate</title>
	<author>kaiser423</author>
	<datestamp>1269013980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at the numbers.  We already can't afford our current system.  It making our companies uncompetitive and it's driving the federal government into massive debt all the while our population becomes less healthy, and therefore, less competitive.
<br> <br>
I don't necessarily like this plan, but to do nothing at this point is pull a Nero and fiddle while the country burns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the numbers .
We already ca n't afford our current system .
It making our companies uncompetitive and it 's driving the federal government into massive debt all the while our population becomes less healthy , and therefore , less competitive .
I do n't necessarily like this plan , but to do nothing at this point is pull a Nero and fiddle while the country burns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the numbers.
We already can't afford our current system.
It making our companies uncompetitive and it's driving the federal government into massive debt all the while our population becomes less healthy, and therefore, less competitive.
I don't necessarily like this plan, but to do nothing at this point is pull a Nero and fiddle while the country burns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Sircus</author>
	<datestamp>1269007140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently?</p></div><p>Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?  If there is, I'd missed it.  It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do, but it doesn't set up a public option (aka government-run health care).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently ? Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run ?
If there is , I 'd missed it .
It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do , but it does n't set up a public option ( aka government-run health care ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently?Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?
If there is, I'd missed it.
It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do, but it doesn't set up a public option (aka government-run health care).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536222</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional Mandate</title>
	<author>digitalnoise615</author>
	<datestamp>1269010380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know how mandating citizens to purchase health insurance is going to pass Constitutional muster.</p></div><p>The same question can be asked about states that require that drivers must have car insurance - yet none of those laws have ever been successfully challenged.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how mandating citizens to purchase health insurance is going to pass Constitutional muster.The same question can be asked about states that require that drivers must have car insurance - yet none of those laws have ever been successfully challenged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how mandating citizens to purchase health insurance is going to pass Constitutional muster.The same question can be asked about states that require that drivers must have car insurance - yet none of those laws have ever been successfully challenged.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540984</id>
	<title>Re:Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269024300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"US health care is staggeringly expensive,"</p><p>It is, but that's because people aren't involved with the actual costs and complaining that shit is so expensive.  Overnight hosptial stays are like $1,200 to $1,800 a night, generally unmonitored.  That's more than the average pimped out high end 4-5 star hotel in a metro area plus hooker.</p><p>I'm healthy, relatively.  I have a minor pre-existing condition.  I buy brand-name prescription drugs online through a US pharmacy (saves about $20 per 100 pills).  I pay everything out of pocket, from $400 eyeglasses ($320 lenses, I'm not blind, but I've got coke bottles), my dental care, my ER visits, to my blood tests and specialist checkups.</p><p>I still come out $5,000 a year cheaper than the lowest comprehensive health care plan when I was quoted 4 years ago.  My understanding is that rates have gone up.  Most don't include eye or dental.  My friend that has a company bought health care, I come out $3,000 cheaper than what we estimate his company pays for his group.  When he goes skiing, he doesn't care if he really blows out a knee.  I'm more touchy, since I don't like pain or the cost.</p><p>The eye opener was when *I* shop for my care.  If I got get the blood tests done at the hospital branch the specialist recommends because he's affiliated with the hopsital (his office and the hospital are in the same system), it's $180, with discount for self-pay and early pay, $145.  iow, they charge the insurance company $180, they say their cost is $145.  The same test, at the local unaffiliated for-profit blood test company that only does blood tests and sends it out, is $85 up front.  And despite faxing or mailing the results, gets the results to the doctor 2 days prior to the more expensive and electronically filed one.  And is a 10 minute wait versus 25 minutes and are better and more careful at the draw (who are you, this is you right, previously been here, have cash or check, hand over dough, go to this room, sit down, tag the vial, blood drawn, check you 5 minutes later, leave).</p><p>My ER visit, which came after a trip to my primary care family physician, would have been denied when I had a foot infection that went up to my knee, cost me $3,000 for an overnight.  $1,800 was for the "room" (costing 3x a high end hotel).  I'd rather have my leg than some shit doctor saying I don't need to be inpatient, then is pushing vancomycin(sp) 8 hours later shocked that the infection moved up 8 inches.  This is at the same shit hospital system that has the jacked up blood tests.  I could have gone to 3 other area hospitals.</p><p>When you pay for your own care, you find out WHO IS FUCKING YOU OVER IN COSTS.  My dentist was charging $185.  My current, nicer and more efficient dentist charges $105, film is $5 cheaper per shot, and is just plain better.</p><p>My father, has a heart problem, has medicare, goes to the hospital, and suddenly has a train of 5 cardiologists and affiliates stroll in as soon as they find out he's never used his medicare significantly before.  Hospital bill?  $125,000.  Note that this is the government system already in place, it's that high, and that's supposed to be efficient.  Also note medicare is a system people were supposed to pay INTO, as he's put 15\% of his wages toward, which he has, so he's paid for his care and bought into the system, and it's still that high.  I'd like to see that same bill for the same procedure from a EU or British Commonwealth nation.</p><p>btw, I have a benign parotid growth.  I was unquote, unsure by the otolarynologist, $10,000 for the procedure with pathology report and overnight stay.  If I went elsewhere, I was quoted half that, travel costs included.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" US health care is staggeringly expensive , " It is , but that 's because people are n't involved with the actual costs and complaining that shit is so expensive .
Overnight hosptial stays are like $ 1,200 to $ 1,800 a night , generally unmonitored .
That 's more than the average pimped out high end 4-5 star hotel in a metro area plus hooker.I 'm healthy , relatively .
I have a minor pre-existing condition .
I buy brand-name prescription drugs online through a US pharmacy ( saves about $ 20 per 100 pills ) .
I pay everything out of pocket , from $ 400 eyeglasses ( $ 320 lenses , I 'm not blind , but I 've got coke bottles ) , my dental care , my ER visits , to my blood tests and specialist checkups.I still come out $ 5,000 a year cheaper than the lowest comprehensive health care plan when I was quoted 4 years ago .
My understanding is that rates have gone up .
Most do n't include eye or dental .
My friend that has a company bought health care , I come out $ 3,000 cheaper than what we estimate his company pays for his group .
When he goes skiing , he does n't care if he really blows out a knee .
I 'm more touchy , since I do n't like pain or the cost.The eye opener was when * I * shop for my care .
If I got get the blood tests done at the hospital branch the specialist recommends because he 's affiliated with the hopsital ( his office and the hospital are in the same system ) , it 's $ 180 , with discount for self-pay and early pay , $ 145 .
iow , they charge the insurance company $ 180 , they say their cost is $ 145 .
The same test , at the local unaffiliated for-profit blood test company that only does blood tests and sends it out , is $ 85 up front .
And despite faxing or mailing the results , gets the results to the doctor 2 days prior to the more expensive and electronically filed one .
And is a 10 minute wait versus 25 minutes and are better and more careful at the draw ( who are you , this is you right , previously been here , have cash or check , hand over dough , go to this room , sit down , tag the vial , blood drawn , check you 5 minutes later , leave ) .My ER visit , which came after a trip to my primary care family physician , would have been denied when I had a foot infection that went up to my knee , cost me $ 3,000 for an overnight .
$ 1,800 was for the " room " ( costing 3x a high end hotel ) .
I 'd rather have my leg than some shit doctor saying I do n't need to be inpatient , then is pushing vancomycin ( sp ) 8 hours later shocked that the infection moved up 8 inches .
This is at the same shit hospital system that has the jacked up blood tests .
I could have gone to 3 other area hospitals.When you pay for your own care , you find out WHO IS FUCKING YOU OVER IN COSTS .
My dentist was charging $ 185 .
My current , nicer and more efficient dentist charges $ 105 , film is $ 5 cheaper per shot , and is just plain better.My father , has a heart problem , has medicare , goes to the hospital , and suddenly has a train of 5 cardiologists and affiliates stroll in as soon as they find out he 's never used his medicare significantly before .
Hospital bill ?
$ 125,000. Note that this is the government system already in place , it 's that high , and that 's supposed to be efficient .
Also note medicare is a system people were supposed to pay INTO , as he 's put 15 \ % of his wages toward , which he has , so he 's paid for his care and bought into the system , and it 's still that high .
I 'd like to see that same bill for the same procedure from a EU or British Commonwealth nation.btw , I have a benign parotid growth .
I was unquote , unsure by the otolarynologist , $ 10,000 for the procedure with pathology report and overnight stay .
If I went elsewhere , I was quoted half that , travel costs included .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"US health care is staggeringly expensive,"It is, but that's because people aren't involved with the actual costs and complaining that shit is so expensive.
Overnight hosptial stays are like $1,200 to $1,800 a night, generally unmonitored.
That's more than the average pimped out high end 4-5 star hotel in a metro area plus hooker.I'm healthy, relatively.
I have a minor pre-existing condition.
I buy brand-name prescription drugs online through a US pharmacy (saves about $20 per 100 pills).
I pay everything out of pocket, from $400 eyeglasses ($320 lenses, I'm not blind, but I've got coke bottles), my dental care, my ER visits, to my blood tests and specialist checkups.I still come out $5,000 a year cheaper than the lowest comprehensive health care plan when I was quoted 4 years ago.
My understanding is that rates have gone up.
Most don't include eye or dental.
My friend that has a company bought health care, I come out $3,000 cheaper than what we estimate his company pays for his group.
When he goes skiing, he doesn't care if he really blows out a knee.
I'm more touchy, since I don't like pain or the cost.The eye opener was when *I* shop for my care.
If I got get the blood tests done at the hospital branch the specialist recommends because he's affiliated with the hopsital (his office and the hospital are in the same system), it's $180, with discount for self-pay and early pay, $145.
iow, they charge the insurance company $180, they say their cost is $145.
The same test, at the local unaffiliated for-profit blood test company that only does blood tests and sends it out, is $85 up front.
And despite faxing or mailing the results, gets the results to the doctor 2 days prior to the more expensive and electronically filed one.
And is a 10 minute wait versus 25 minutes and are better and more careful at the draw (who are you, this is you right, previously been here, have cash or check, hand over dough, go to this room, sit down, tag the vial, blood drawn, check you 5 minutes later, leave).My ER visit, which came after a trip to my primary care family physician, would have been denied when I had a foot infection that went up to my knee, cost me $3,000 for an overnight.
$1,800 was for the "room" (costing 3x a high end hotel).
I'd rather have my leg than some shit doctor saying I don't need to be inpatient, then is pushing vancomycin(sp) 8 hours later shocked that the infection moved up 8 inches.
This is at the same shit hospital system that has the jacked up blood tests.
I could have gone to 3 other area hospitals.When you pay for your own care, you find out WHO IS FUCKING YOU OVER IN COSTS.
My dentist was charging $185.
My current, nicer and more efficient dentist charges $105, film is $5 cheaper per shot, and is just plain better.My father, has a heart problem, has medicare, goes to the hospital, and suddenly has a train of 5 cardiologists and affiliates stroll in as soon as they find out he's never used his medicare significantly before.
Hospital bill?
$125,000.  Note that this is the government system already in place, it's that high, and that's supposed to be efficient.
Also note medicare is a system people were supposed to pay INTO, as he's put 15\% of his wages toward, which he has, so he's paid for his care and bought into the system, and it's still that high.
I'd like to see that same bill for the same procedure from a EU or British Commonwealth nation.btw, I have a benign parotid growth.
I was unquote, unsure by the otolarynologist, $10,000 for the procedure with pathology report and overnight stay.
If I went elsewhere, I was quoted half that, travel costs included.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537396</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that people would choose to help the people they love (e.g. family, friends) over the rest of society is the root problem which government <i>itself</i> solves.  Your model leads to both vicious and virtuous cycles, leading to some groups becoming dominant and others dying out.  Inheritance tax, for instance, prevents families becoming too powerful.  And orphanages take care of kids who would otherwise die.  This was known to the ancient Greeks.</p><p>No-one is forced to do anything in a free country, because they can always leave*.  If they choose to stay, and enjoy the fruits of living in that country, there is a social contract which says, broadly speaking, that you get to pay taxes in return for the benefits.  The idea that these taxes are paid "at gunpoint" is ridiculous.  This isn't Soviet-era East Germany.</p><p>As for your Stallmanesque insistence that we "should" all have libertarian ideals: no, we shouldn't.</p><p>* yes I am aware that if you leave you are still expected to pay US income tax.  Sucks to be American.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that people would choose to help the people they love ( e.g .
family , friends ) over the rest of society is the root problem which government itself solves .
Your model leads to both vicious and virtuous cycles , leading to some groups becoming dominant and others dying out .
Inheritance tax , for instance , prevents families becoming too powerful .
And orphanages take care of kids who would otherwise die .
This was known to the ancient Greeks.No-one is forced to do anything in a free country , because they can always leave * .
If they choose to stay , and enjoy the fruits of living in that country , there is a social contract which says , broadly speaking , that you get to pay taxes in return for the benefits .
The idea that these taxes are paid " at gunpoint " is ridiculous .
This is n't Soviet-era East Germany.As for your Stallmanesque insistence that we " should " all have libertarian ideals : no , we should n't .
* yes I am aware that if you leave you are still expected to pay US income tax .
Sucks to be American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that people would choose to help the people they love (e.g.
family, friends) over the rest of society is the root problem which government itself solves.
Your model leads to both vicious and virtuous cycles, leading to some groups becoming dominant and others dying out.
Inheritance tax, for instance, prevents families becoming too powerful.
And orphanages take care of kids who would otherwise die.
This was known to the ancient Greeks.No-one is forced to do anything in a free country, because they can always leave*.
If they choose to stay, and enjoy the fruits of living in that country, there is a social contract which says, broadly speaking, that you get to pay taxes in return for the benefits.
The idea that these taxes are paid "at gunpoint" is ridiculous.
This isn't Soviet-era East Germany.As for your Stallmanesque insistence that we "should" all have libertarian ideals: no, we shouldn't.
* yes I am aware that if you leave you are still expected to pay US income tax.
Sucks to be American.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541952</id>
	<title>Re:Random health care thoughts</title>
	<author>bigNuns</author>
	<datestamp>1269028440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tort reform isn't the problem, there are several comments above about it... Texas tried that, has it made their health insurance any cheaper? No. Has it helped Joe Consumer pay his medical expenses? No.</p><p>Having personally gone to doctors for open heart surgery I can actually answer your question. I went to Canada and had surgery there the second time because the heart surgeon in Toronto was better than the heart surgeon in Buffalo. So, yes, I'd be okay with going to a cheaper doctor as long as they were good at what they do. How many times have sports teams payed WAY too much for a star player only to see they got a mediocre player instead? That happens more often than not, no? Sure, some star players are totally worth the money they are paid (to their teams) but many are not. Basically, the amount of money someone makes in no way determines how good at their job they actually are, it just shows that they are interested in making lots of money. Would you rather have a doctor who wants to make a lot of money or one who gets excited about his job? Is windows better than linux because it costs more? Certainly since they are able to charge more money for it it must be better right?</p><p>I don't think people are mad that doctors are making lots of money, I think people are mad that insurance companies are making lots of money. Why are we paying a private companies to make money off our health problems? That to me seems stupid.</p><p>Still, this bill sucks and does very little to actually improve the system here. In fact, I think it is probably going to make things worse for a lot of people. The upper class will continue to get good coverage as they have always gotten and the middle class will have to feel the burden of helping out the poor. I do think we should help out the poor, but I think the insurance companies should not be private companies. I don't think our tax money should be fed to the private insurance companies to help the poor afford their overpriced service. I think they should be forced to provide service at a reasonable price instead but this bill does little to nothing to make that actually happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tort reform is n't the problem , there are several comments above about it... Texas tried that , has it made their health insurance any cheaper ?
No. Has it helped Joe Consumer pay his medical expenses ?
No.Having personally gone to doctors for open heart surgery I can actually answer your question .
I went to Canada and had surgery there the second time because the heart surgeon in Toronto was better than the heart surgeon in Buffalo .
So , yes , I 'd be okay with going to a cheaper doctor as long as they were good at what they do .
How many times have sports teams payed WAY too much for a star player only to see they got a mediocre player instead ?
That happens more often than not , no ?
Sure , some star players are totally worth the money they are paid ( to their teams ) but many are not .
Basically , the amount of money someone makes in no way determines how good at their job they actually are , it just shows that they are interested in making lots of money .
Would you rather have a doctor who wants to make a lot of money or one who gets excited about his job ?
Is windows better than linux because it costs more ?
Certainly since they are able to charge more money for it it must be better right ? I do n't think people are mad that doctors are making lots of money , I think people are mad that insurance companies are making lots of money .
Why are we paying a private companies to make money off our health problems ?
That to me seems stupid.Still , this bill sucks and does very little to actually improve the system here .
In fact , I think it is probably going to make things worse for a lot of people .
The upper class will continue to get good coverage as they have always gotten and the middle class will have to feel the burden of helping out the poor .
I do think we should help out the poor , but I think the insurance companies should not be private companies .
I do n't think our tax money should be fed to the private insurance companies to help the poor afford their overpriced service .
I think they should be forced to provide service at a reasonable price instead but this bill does little to nothing to make that actually happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tort reform isn't the problem, there are several comments above about it... Texas tried that, has it made their health insurance any cheaper?
No. Has it helped Joe Consumer pay his medical expenses?
No.Having personally gone to doctors for open heart surgery I can actually answer your question.
I went to Canada and had surgery there the second time because the heart surgeon in Toronto was better than the heart surgeon in Buffalo.
So, yes, I'd be okay with going to a cheaper doctor as long as they were good at what they do.
How many times have sports teams payed WAY too much for a star player only to see they got a mediocre player instead?
That happens more often than not, no?
Sure, some star players are totally worth the money they are paid (to their teams) but many are not.
Basically, the amount of money someone makes in no way determines how good at their job they actually are, it just shows that they are interested in making lots of money.
Would you rather have a doctor who wants to make a lot of money or one who gets excited about his job?
Is windows better than linux because it costs more?
Certainly since they are able to charge more money for it it must be better right?I don't think people are mad that doctors are making lots of money, I think people are mad that insurance companies are making lots of money.
Why are we paying a private companies to make money off our health problems?
That to me seems stupid.Still, this bill sucks and does very little to actually improve the system here.
In fact, I think it is probably going to make things worse for a lot of people.
The upper class will continue to get good coverage as they have always gotten and the middle class will have to feel the burden of helping out the poor.
I do think we should help out the poor, but I think the insurance companies should not be private companies.
I don't think our tax money should be fed to the private insurance companies to help the poor afford their overpriced service.
I think they should be forced to provide service at a reasonable price instead but this bill does little to nothing to make that actually happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538116</id>
	<title>Fox News/MSNBC</title>
	<author>mgandalf</author>
	<datestamp>1269015180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm tired of hearing the opinions of Fox &amp; friends as well as MSNBC. The stations call themselves news stations, but really their nothing but pundits. If either one really wanted to be a REAL new channel, they would report on both sides of the debate and LEAVE IT UP TO THE VIEWERS to form THEIR OWN OPINION!</p><p>- Mark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of hearing the opinions of Fox &amp; friends as well as MSNBC .
The stations call themselves news stations , but really their nothing but pundits .
If either one really wanted to be a REAL new channel , they would report on both sides of the debate and LEAVE IT UP TO THE VIEWERS to form THEIR OWN OPINION ! - Mark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of hearing the opinions of Fox &amp; friends as well as MSNBC.
The stations call themselves news stations, but really their nothing but pundits.
If either one really wanted to be a REAL new channel, they would report on both sides of the debate and LEAVE IT UP TO THE VIEWERS to form THEIR OWN OPINION!- Mark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536436</id>
	<title>government</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1269011040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the reason why it is linked with employment is because of tax incentives and policy decisions made by government in the 1940's.</p><p>Government breaks your legs and tells you they are the only people to give you crutches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the reason why it is linked with employment is because of tax incentives and policy decisions made by government in the 1940 's.Government breaks your legs and tells you they are the only people to give you crutches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the reason why it is linked with employment is because of tax incentives and policy decisions made by government in the 1940's.Government breaks your legs and tells you they are the only people to give you crutches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540756</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1269023520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a 43 year old Slashdotter, my answer to your second question is "yes".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a 43 year old Slashdotter , my answer to your second question is " yes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a 43 year old Slashdotter, my answer to your second question is "yes".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064</id>
	<title>This bill is so wrong.</title>
	<author>Coolhand2120</author>
	<datestamp>1269015060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me count the ways:
<br>
<b>Constitutionality:</b> <br>
The constitution says people cannot be coerced into signing a contract.  By anyone.  If you don't like it amend the constitution, but you cannot just make up your own laws.  That's called anarchy.  So right there the bill is dead.  But let me go on.
<br> <br>
<b>Common sense</b> <br>
The kings of inefficiency.  The same people who spent so much of your social security and medicare money on things <i>besides</i> social security and medicare, to the point that the two programs have <a href="http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662" title="ncpa.org" rel="nofollow">unfunded liabilities of over $100 trillion</a> [ncpa.org], are now going to, according to the bill, take 500B from medicare to pay for the <i>new</i> program and supposedly expand the roles of people on medicare and the new plan.  Do some simple math!  If you have a system that's already out of money, and you take more money from it to start a similar system, more than triple the number of people receiving benefits, it's going to cost <i>more</i> not less!  You have to be insane if you think adding people to the government's dole will somehow lower costs as progressives claim.  Keep in mind that <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-02-09-edit\_x.htm" title="usatoday.com" rel="nofollow">in 1965 lawmakers predicted it would only cost 9$ billion by 1990</a> [usatoday.com], unfortuanly the real cost was $67 billion.  But don't worry they were only off by <i>A FACTTOR OF 7</i>.  I'm sure they are better and more trustworthy in making cost estimates <i>today</i>.  Congress would never deceive us!<br> <br>

<b>This bill causes lack of care (not coverage)</b> <br>
Sure the government will cover you for all preexisting conditions, there will just be no faciliteis or doctors to treat you!  OH BUT YOU'RE COVERED!!!   Tell it to the people in the UK or Canada who are waiting 6 months for a CT scan, where here in the U.S. it's unusual to wait for more than a few days.  <a href="http://www.nejmjobs.org/rpt/physician-survey-health-reform-impact.aspx" title="nejmjobs.org" rel="nofollow">The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that a full 1/3 of doctors will "QUIT PRACTICING MEDICINE" if the bill passes</a> [nejmjobs.org], further eroding our resources.  So ya, you're covered, but you're going to have to wait a few years for that liver transplant now.  People other countries will no longer have a "capitalist health care system" to save them, unfortunately nether will we.  We will have a government panel deciding who is worth said liver transplant and deciding who gets to live and die, instead of your doctor or a panel of <i>your</i> doctors.  A healthy 19 yr/old kid, who hasn't put a dime into the system will be placed higher on the list than say a 60 yr/old man who has paid into the system his whole life.  In essence the 60 yr/old man worked his whole life paying into a system that will deem him unworthy and spend his money on someone whom he has never met while he suffers and dies while younger "more economically viable" people will get treatment first.  In the existing system, the same 60 yr/old man would be able to do whatever it takes for him to get his liver (insurance,debt,sell car/house etc.).  While dems try and portray private insurers as evil for turning down procedures, drugs etc. keep in mind that <a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf" title="ama-assn.org" rel="nofollow">the number 1 denier of care per capita is medicare!</a> [ama-assn.org]  So there's another false argument made to try and pass this bill.<br> <br>

<b>How much is too much?</b> <br>
People in this country continue to live longer and longer.  This is attributable not to better diets or healthier living, but as a direct result of having invested such large sums of money into our health care system.  I've heard 17\% from democrats, decrying the amount.  Dems say that our <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8758/11-13-LT-Health.pdf" title="cbo.gov" rel="nofollow"> private insurance is increasing at too fast a rate (3\%/yr)</a> [cbo.gov] but they want to change us to a system that is similar to the unfunded medicare, but <a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/9/849" title="nejm.org" rel="nofollow">medicare is increasing at a rate much faste</a> [nejm.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me count the ways : Constitutionality : The constitution says people can not be coerced into signing a contract .
By anyone .
If you do n't like it amend the constitution , but you can not just make up your own laws .
That 's called anarchy .
So right there the bill is dead .
But let me go on .
Common sense The kings of inefficiency .
The same people who spent so much of your social security and medicare money on things besides social security and medicare , to the point that the two programs have unfunded liabilities of over $ 100 trillion [ ncpa.org ] , are now going to , according to the bill , take 500B from medicare to pay for the new program and supposedly expand the roles of people on medicare and the new plan .
Do some simple math !
If you have a system that 's already out of money , and you take more money from it to start a similar system , more than triple the number of people receiving benefits , it 's going to cost more not less !
You have to be insane if you think adding people to the government 's dole will somehow lower costs as progressives claim .
Keep in mind that in 1965 lawmakers predicted it would only cost 9 $ billion by 1990 [ usatoday.com ] , unfortuanly the real cost was $ 67 billion .
But do n't worry they were only off by A FACTTOR OF 7 .
I 'm sure they are better and more trustworthy in making cost estimates today .
Congress would never deceive us !
This bill causes lack of care ( not coverage ) Sure the government will cover you for all preexisting conditions , there will just be no faciliteis or doctors to treat you !
OH BUT YOU 'RE COVERED ! ! !
Tell it to the people in the UK or Canada who are waiting 6 months for a CT scan , where here in the U.S. it 's unusual to wait for more than a few days .
The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that a full 1/3 of doctors will " QUIT PRACTICING MEDICINE " if the bill passes [ nejmjobs.org ] , further eroding our resources .
So ya , you 're covered , but you 're going to have to wait a few years for that liver transplant now .
People other countries will no longer have a " capitalist health care system " to save them , unfortunately nether will we .
We will have a government panel deciding who is worth said liver transplant and deciding who gets to live and die , instead of your doctor or a panel of your doctors .
A healthy 19 yr/old kid , who has n't put a dime into the system will be placed higher on the list than say a 60 yr/old man who has paid into the system his whole life .
In essence the 60 yr/old man worked his whole life paying into a system that will deem him unworthy and spend his money on someone whom he has never met while he suffers and dies while younger " more economically viable " people will get treatment first .
In the existing system , the same 60 yr/old man would be able to do whatever it takes for him to get his liver ( insurance,debt,sell car/house etc. ) .
While dems try and portray private insurers as evil for turning down procedures , drugs etc .
keep in mind that the number 1 denier of care per capita is medicare !
[ ama-assn.org ] So there 's another false argument made to try and pass this bill .
How much is too much ?
People in this country continue to live longer and longer .
This is attributable not to better diets or healthier living , but as a direct result of having invested such large sums of money into our health care system .
I 've heard 17 \ % from democrats , decrying the amount .
Dems say that our private insurance is increasing at too fast a rate ( 3 \ % /yr ) [ cbo.gov ] but they want to change us to a system that is similar to the unfunded medicare , but medicare is increasing at a rate much faste [ nejm.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me count the ways:

Constitutionality: 
The constitution says people cannot be coerced into signing a contract.
By anyone.
If you don't like it amend the constitution, but you cannot just make up your own laws.
That's called anarchy.
So right there the bill is dead.
But let me go on.
Common sense 
The kings of inefficiency.
The same people who spent so much of your social security and medicare money on things besides social security and medicare, to the point that the two programs have unfunded liabilities of over $100 trillion [ncpa.org], are now going to, according to the bill, take 500B from medicare to pay for the new program and supposedly expand the roles of people on medicare and the new plan.
Do some simple math!
If you have a system that's already out of money, and you take more money from it to start a similar system, more than triple the number of people receiving benefits, it's going to cost more not less!
You have to be insane if you think adding people to the government's dole will somehow lower costs as progressives claim.
Keep in mind that in 1965 lawmakers predicted it would only cost 9$ billion by 1990 [usatoday.com], unfortuanly the real cost was $67 billion.
But don't worry they were only off by A FACTTOR OF 7.
I'm sure they are better and more trustworthy in making cost estimates today.
Congress would never deceive us!
This bill causes lack of care (not coverage) 
Sure the government will cover you for all preexisting conditions, there will just be no faciliteis or doctors to treat you!
OH BUT YOU'RE COVERED!!!
Tell it to the people in the UK or Canada who are waiting 6 months for a CT scan, where here in the U.S. it's unusual to wait for more than a few days.
The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that a full 1/3 of doctors will "QUIT PRACTICING MEDICINE" if the bill passes [nejmjobs.org], further eroding our resources.
So ya, you're covered, but you're going to have to wait a few years for that liver transplant now.
People other countries will no longer have a "capitalist health care system" to save them, unfortunately nether will we.
We will have a government panel deciding who is worth said liver transplant and deciding who gets to live and die, instead of your doctor or a panel of your doctors.
A healthy 19 yr/old kid, who hasn't put a dime into the system will be placed higher on the list than say a 60 yr/old man who has paid into the system his whole life.
In essence the 60 yr/old man worked his whole life paying into a system that will deem him unworthy and spend his money on someone whom he has never met while he suffers and dies while younger "more economically viable" people will get treatment first.
In the existing system, the same 60 yr/old man would be able to do whatever it takes for him to get his liver (insurance,debt,sell car/house etc.).
While dems try and portray private insurers as evil for turning down procedures, drugs etc.
keep in mind that the number 1 denier of care per capita is medicare!
[ama-assn.org]  So there's another false argument made to try and pass this bill.
How much is too much?
People in this country continue to live longer and longer.
This is attributable not to better diets or healthier living, but as a direct result of having invested such large sums of money into our health care system.
I've heard 17\% from democrats, decrying the amount.
Dems say that our  private insurance is increasing at too fast a rate (3\%/yr) [cbo.gov] but they want to change us to a system that is similar to the unfunded medicare, but medicare is increasing at a rate much faste [nejm.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539942</id>
	<title>As a Canadian...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269020640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to see the Americans get universal health care.  Welcome to the 20th century!  (Now that it's over...)</p><p>But, I have a feeling it won't happen.  This is for the simple reason that you cannot help someone who does not want to be helped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see the Americans get universal health care .
Welcome to the 20th century !
( Now that it 's over... ) But , I have a feeling it wo n't happen .
This is for the simple reason that you can not help someone who does not want to be helped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see the Americans get universal health care.
Welcome to the 20th century!
(Now that it's over...)But, I have a feeling it won't happen.
This is for the simple reason that you cannot help someone who does not want to be helped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542246</id>
	<title>Re:do you trust obama and the dems ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269029640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama bailed out Wall Street?  I don't think so.  Congress (both parties) did it.  And it was George W. Bush that was president when it happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama bailed out Wall Street ?
I do n't think so .
Congress ( both parties ) did it .
And it was George W. Bush that was president when it happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama bailed out Wall Street?
I don't think so.
Congress (both parties) did it.
And it was George W. Bush that was president when it happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541394</id>
	<title>Re:I will go for this when....</title>
	<author>Random BedHead Ed</author>
	<datestamp>1269025980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One? You're joking.</p><p>How about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural\_Utilities\_Service" title="wikipedia.org">Rural Electrification Administration</a> [wikipedia.org], without which much of the US would still be in the nineteenth century because electrical utilities companies weren't expanding beyond cities? Or the federal prison system? The government runs that. There's also the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate\_Highway\_System" title="wikipedia.org">Eisenhower Interstate System</a> [wikipedia.org], which believe it or not was created by the government and not some "Eisenhower Interstate Corporation."</p><p>If you care more about healthcare specifically, <a href="http://www.medicare.gov/" title="medicare.gov">Medicare</a> [medicare.gov] is the reason our elderly and disabled have medical coverage, particularly useful to the elderly if their personal savings were invested in Enron or MCI or one of the many companies that were walloped over the past few years (particularly in 2008). Medicare is a great example because it provides healthcare coverage more cheaply than private insurance companies do. So does <a href="http://www.va.gov/" title="va.gov">the VA system</a> [va.gov], which covers our veterans. They do excellent <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8892/MainText.3.1.shtml#box3" title="cbo.gov">cost control</a> [cbo.gov] according to the CBO.</p><p>Or was the point of your comment that it "has worked as planned?" That's a tall order. Name some private company initiatives that have worked as planned. Most don't. I've worked for private companies most of my adult life and I see the same waste and errors people complain about in government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One ?
You 're joking.How about the Rural Electrification Administration [ wikipedia.org ] , without which much of the US would still be in the nineteenth century because electrical utilities companies were n't expanding beyond cities ?
Or the federal prison system ?
The government runs that .
There 's also the Eisenhower Interstate System [ wikipedia.org ] , which believe it or not was created by the government and not some " Eisenhower Interstate Corporation .
" If you care more about healthcare specifically , Medicare [ medicare.gov ] is the reason our elderly and disabled have medical coverage , particularly useful to the elderly if their personal savings were invested in Enron or MCI or one of the many companies that were walloped over the past few years ( particularly in 2008 ) .
Medicare is a great example because it provides healthcare coverage more cheaply than private insurance companies do .
So does the VA system [ va.gov ] , which covers our veterans .
They do excellent cost control [ cbo.gov ] according to the CBO.Or was the point of your comment that it " has worked as planned ?
" That 's a tall order .
Name some private company initiatives that have worked as planned .
Most do n't .
I 've worked for private companies most of my adult life and I see the same waste and errors people complain about in government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One?
You're joking.How about the Rural Electrification Administration [wikipedia.org], without which much of the US would still be in the nineteenth century because electrical utilities companies weren't expanding beyond cities?
Or the federal prison system?
The government runs that.
There's also the Eisenhower Interstate System [wikipedia.org], which believe it or not was created by the government and not some "Eisenhower Interstate Corporation.
"If you care more about healthcare specifically, Medicare [medicare.gov] is the reason our elderly and disabled have medical coverage, particularly useful to the elderly if their personal savings were invested in Enron or MCI or one of the many companies that were walloped over the past few years (particularly in 2008).
Medicare is a great example because it provides healthcare coverage more cheaply than private insurance companies do.
So does the VA system [va.gov], which covers our veterans.
They do excellent cost control [cbo.gov] according to the CBO.Or was the point of your comment that it "has worked as planned?
" That's a tall order.
Name some private company initiatives that have worked as planned.
Most don't.
I've worked for private companies most of my adult life and I see the same waste and errors people complain about in government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545126</id>
	<title>Going to the DMV</title>
	<author>frankgod</author>
	<datestamp>1268999160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I enjoy the claims that universal health care will make doctor's visits like going to the DMV.

When I moved states in 2008 I had to go to the DMV to switch my license and registration. There was a convenient online appointment system. When I arrived the staff helped me take care of my business and I was out in about an hour.

When we switched healthcare plans this year we had a problem getting a prescription filled. The pharmacy preferred to use a mail-order system but they got our address wrong. In trying to resolve this my wife had difficulty reaching a real person. There was additional difficulty reaching a \_competent\_ real person. It took about a dozen phone calls and a lot of headaches over several days.

So I am actually looking forward to health care becoming more like the DMV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I enjoy the claims that universal health care will make doctor 's visits like going to the DMV .
When I moved states in 2008 I had to go to the DMV to switch my license and registration .
There was a convenient online appointment system .
When I arrived the staff helped me take care of my business and I was out in about an hour .
When we switched healthcare plans this year we had a problem getting a prescription filled .
The pharmacy preferred to use a mail-order system but they got our address wrong .
In trying to resolve this my wife had difficulty reaching a real person .
There was additional difficulty reaching a \ _competent \ _ real person .
It took about a dozen phone calls and a lot of headaches over several days .
So I am actually looking forward to health care becoming more like the DMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I enjoy the claims that universal health care will make doctor's visits like going to the DMV.
When I moved states in 2008 I had to go to the DMV to switch my license and registration.
There was a convenient online appointment system.
When I arrived the staff helped me take care of my business and I was out in about an hour.
When we switched healthcare plans this year we had a problem getting a prescription filled.
The pharmacy preferred to use a mail-order system but they got our address wrong.
In trying to resolve this my wife had difficulty reaching a real person.
There was additional difficulty reaching a \_competent\_ real person.
It took about a dozen phone calls and a lot of headaches over several days.
So I am actually looking forward to health care becoming more like the DMV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535776</id>
	<title>If the left had written the bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a good job that the USA has absolutely no far left in its government then!  The Democratic Party, for example, fits in well with "mainstream right" parties in other countries such as the UK Conservatives who share some advisers with them.</p><p>So if the Repubs see them as wayyy left, where does that leave them if they are well right of moderate right wingers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a good job that the USA has absolutely no far left in its government then !
The Democratic Party , for example , fits in well with " mainstream right " parties in other countries such as the UK Conservatives who share some advisers with them.So if the Repubs see them as wayyy left , where does that leave them if they are well right of moderate right wingers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a good job that the USA has absolutely no far left in its government then!
The Democratic Party, for example, fits in well with "mainstream right" parties in other countries such as the UK Conservatives who share some advisers with them.So if the Repubs see them as wayyy left, where does that leave them if they are well right of moderate right wingers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535552</id>
	<title>Without single payer, there's no point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have single payer defense, single payer firefighters, single payer cops, and for 65+ we have single payer medicine. Those under 65 have had their right to life revoked to create a false market so health insurance companies can siphon billions from hospitals and doctors.</p><p>With single payer, there is a financial incentive to cure people, so you don't have to treat them again. With private health insurance only, the financial incentive is to deny care, to boot people out of their insurance.</p><p>Almost 200,000 Americans will die before the prohibition on denying care based on existing conditions goes into effect in 4 years.</p><p>The worst part is, this bill makes it illegal not to have private health insurance if you are under 65, no matter the cost. So this false market will continue to drain us dry. It's a kind of taxation without representation.</p><p>I was as much an Obama supporter last year as anyone. He lost me with this. He was elected to provide Medicare for all, and didn't even try. We have the worst infant mortality in the developed world. We have gross obesity because it's not stopped before it gets too far. We have people with warts and other skin conditions, totally untreated. We have people dropping dead who haven't seen a doctor in the preceding 10 years. We have people getting healthier after they turn 65, soley because they finally get health care. We have tuberculosis going untreated, we have many epidemics. We would be the laughing stock of the world if they weren't so fucking horrified by it all.</p><p>In 2012, if trends continue, we will have the same access to health care as Dickensian England. Remember Tiny Tim? He was going to die until Scrooge got visited by 3 ghosts and paid for his health care out of charity. Well, health care is not charity any more than cops are charity. Your neighbor getting his tuberculosis cured benefits you as well as him.</p><p>The irony is, the US inspired universal health care in many countries after World War 2. It's a right in the UN Charter which we helped write. It's a right in the founding documents, which clearly defines a right to life.</p><p>Finally, the much less important business argument: we cannot compete globally if we waste half our health care money and our workers are sick. People in Europe do not worry they cannot see a doctor, they focus on their work. We change jobs every year now and we're supposed to play roulette with our health care such as it is? Completely unproductive.</p><p>So I am extremely disappointed in this bill. We have no representation. We are going to have to have sick ins, we are going to have to all cancel our private health insurance, we are going to have to build a nationwide network of free clinics on our own.</p><p>Shame on us all. Shame.</p><p>Respect for mothers? America kills its mothers, the only ones in the developed world who have to beg for care or go without care. Next time you hear that bullshit line about Mom and Apple Pie, feel ashamed of yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have single payer defense , single payer firefighters , single payer cops , and for 65 + we have single payer medicine .
Those under 65 have had their right to life revoked to create a false market so health insurance companies can siphon billions from hospitals and doctors.With single payer , there is a financial incentive to cure people , so you do n't have to treat them again .
With private health insurance only , the financial incentive is to deny care , to boot people out of their insurance.Almost 200,000 Americans will die before the prohibition on denying care based on existing conditions goes into effect in 4 years.The worst part is , this bill makes it illegal not to have private health insurance if you are under 65 , no matter the cost .
So this false market will continue to drain us dry .
It 's a kind of taxation without representation.I was as much an Obama supporter last year as anyone .
He lost me with this .
He was elected to provide Medicare for all , and did n't even try .
We have the worst infant mortality in the developed world .
We have gross obesity because it 's not stopped before it gets too far .
We have people with warts and other skin conditions , totally untreated .
We have people dropping dead who have n't seen a doctor in the preceding 10 years .
We have people getting healthier after they turn 65 , soley because they finally get health care .
We have tuberculosis going untreated , we have many epidemics .
We would be the laughing stock of the world if they were n't so fucking horrified by it all.In 2012 , if trends continue , we will have the same access to health care as Dickensian England .
Remember Tiny Tim ?
He was going to die until Scrooge got visited by 3 ghosts and paid for his health care out of charity .
Well , health care is not charity any more than cops are charity .
Your neighbor getting his tuberculosis cured benefits you as well as him.The irony is , the US inspired universal health care in many countries after World War 2 .
It 's a right in the UN Charter which we helped write .
It 's a right in the founding documents , which clearly defines a right to life.Finally , the much less important business argument : we can not compete globally if we waste half our health care money and our workers are sick .
People in Europe do not worry they can not see a doctor , they focus on their work .
We change jobs every year now and we 're supposed to play roulette with our health care such as it is ?
Completely unproductive.So I am extremely disappointed in this bill .
We have no representation .
We are going to have to have sick ins , we are going to have to all cancel our private health insurance , we are going to have to build a nationwide network of free clinics on our own.Shame on us all .
Shame.Respect for mothers ?
America kills its mothers , the only ones in the developed world who have to beg for care or go without care .
Next time you hear that bullshit line about Mom and Apple Pie , feel ashamed of yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have single payer defense, single payer firefighters, single payer cops, and for 65+ we have single payer medicine.
Those under 65 have had their right to life revoked to create a false market so health insurance companies can siphon billions from hospitals and doctors.With single payer, there is a financial incentive to cure people, so you don't have to treat them again.
With private health insurance only, the financial incentive is to deny care, to boot people out of their insurance.Almost 200,000 Americans will die before the prohibition on denying care based on existing conditions goes into effect in 4 years.The worst part is, this bill makes it illegal not to have private health insurance if you are under 65, no matter the cost.
So this false market will continue to drain us dry.
It's a kind of taxation without representation.I was as much an Obama supporter last year as anyone.
He lost me with this.
He was elected to provide Medicare for all, and didn't even try.
We have the worst infant mortality in the developed world.
We have gross obesity because it's not stopped before it gets too far.
We have people with warts and other skin conditions, totally untreated.
We have people dropping dead who haven't seen a doctor in the preceding 10 years.
We have people getting healthier after they turn 65, soley because they finally get health care.
We have tuberculosis going untreated, we have many epidemics.
We would be the laughing stock of the world if they weren't so fucking horrified by it all.In 2012, if trends continue, we will have the same access to health care as Dickensian England.
Remember Tiny Tim?
He was going to die until Scrooge got visited by 3 ghosts and paid for his health care out of charity.
Well, health care is not charity any more than cops are charity.
Your neighbor getting his tuberculosis cured benefits you as well as him.The irony is, the US inspired universal health care in many countries after World War 2.
It's a right in the UN Charter which we helped write.
It's a right in the founding documents, which clearly defines a right to life.Finally, the much less important business argument: we cannot compete globally if we waste half our health care money and our workers are sick.
People in Europe do not worry they cannot see a doctor, they focus on their work.
We change jobs every year now and we're supposed to play roulette with our health care such as it is?
Completely unproductive.So I am extremely disappointed in this bill.
We have no representation.
We are going to have to have sick ins, we are going to have to all cancel our private health insurance, we are going to have to build a nationwide network of free clinics on our own.Shame on us all.
Shame.Respect for mothers?
America kills its mothers, the only ones in the developed world who have to beg for care or go without care.
Next time you hear that bullshit line about Mom and Apple Pie, feel ashamed of yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537996</id>
	<title>Capitalist Ideas</title>
	<author>rpguru</author>
	<datestamp>1269015000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen a lot of posts wanting capitalist reform (some would say republican ideas).  FYI, alot of these things are in the bill. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas" title="whitehouse.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas</a> [whitehouse.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen a lot of posts wanting capitalist reform ( some would say republican ideas ) .
FYI , alot of these things are in the bill .
http : //www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas [ whitehouse.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen a lot of posts wanting capitalist reform (some would say republican ideas).
FYI, alot of these things are in the bill.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas [whitehouse.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536128</id>
	<title>The dim, flickering light of rejectionism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The underlying problem is that we are engaged in a panic economy. As fickle consumers of media, we have a taste for the loudest and the shrillest of voices, and even when we vehemently disagree or even mock them, we lavish hem with our attention.  And in the age of 24-hour cable news and the Internet, attention is money.  So, we essentially pay people to wave their hands in the air and yell "boo!" at the screen. It seems silly that so many of us are honestly surprised that people are scared.</p><p>The bill is going to be streamlined and fixed over the next few years in smaller bills. But who cares about that? It's so much easier to reject the whole thing out of hand over deliberate lies (death panels) or language that isn't actually in the bill (coverage for illegal aliens).   Best of all, rejection gives you the freedom to sit back and complain without accepting any civic responsibility.</p><p>This thing is a long, dull process that's going to require that people stand up and state their case, over and over again, until this thing is right.  So, at a time like this you have to ask yourself something. Are you the stand-and-fight sort of person or a rejectionist?</p><p>Personally, I'm spoiling for a fight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The underlying problem is that we are engaged in a panic economy .
As fickle consumers of media , we have a taste for the loudest and the shrillest of voices , and even when we vehemently disagree or even mock them , we lavish hem with our attention .
And in the age of 24-hour cable news and the Internet , attention is money .
So , we essentially pay people to wave their hands in the air and yell " boo !
" at the screen .
It seems silly that so many of us are honestly surprised that people are scared.The bill is going to be streamlined and fixed over the next few years in smaller bills .
But who cares about that ?
It 's so much easier to reject the whole thing out of hand over deliberate lies ( death panels ) or language that is n't actually in the bill ( coverage for illegal aliens ) .
Best of all , rejection gives you the freedom to sit back and complain without accepting any civic responsibility.This thing is a long , dull process that 's going to require that people stand up and state their case , over and over again , until this thing is right .
So , at a time like this you have to ask yourself something .
Are you the stand-and-fight sort of person or a rejectionist ? Personally , I 'm spoiling for a fight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The underlying problem is that we are engaged in a panic economy.
As fickle consumers of media, we have a taste for the loudest and the shrillest of voices, and even when we vehemently disagree or even mock them, we lavish hem with our attention.
And in the age of 24-hour cable news and the Internet, attention is money.
So, we essentially pay people to wave their hands in the air and yell "boo!
" at the screen.
It seems silly that so many of us are honestly surprised that people are scared.The bill is going to be streamlined and fixed over the next few years in smaller bills.
But who cares about that?
It's so much easier to reject the whole thing out of hand over deliberate lies (death panels) or language that isn't actually in the bill (coverage for illegal aliens).
Best of all, rejection gives you the freedom to sit back and complain without accepting any civic responsibility.This thing is a long, dull process that's going to require that people stand up and state their case, over and over again, until this thing is right.
So, at a time like this you have to ask yourself something.
Are you the stand-and-fight sort of person or a rejectionist?Personally, I'm spoiling for a fight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537478</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhere in between.</title>
	<author>ddeplonty</author>
	<datestamp>1269013620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also HSA accounts which let people put money into accounts to pay for health care tax free will be eliminated, if this bill was really about making health care more affordable a program that gives people a 30\%-40\% savings in health care costs would not be eliminated.</p></div><p>Where do you get your information that HSA's will be eliminated?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also HSA accounts which let people put money into accounts to pay for health care tax free will be eliminated , if this bill was really about making health care more affordable a program that gives people a 30 \ % -40 \ % savings in health care costs would not be eliminated.Where do you get your information that HSA 's will be eliminated ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also HSA accounts which let people put money into accounts to pay for health care tax free will be eliminated, if this bill was really about making health care more affordable a program that gives people a 30\%-40\% savings in health care costs would not be eliminated.Where do you get your information that HSA's will be eliminated?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539764</id>
	<title>The gov should run the claims process</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1269020100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Each insurer should publish what they cover electronically in such a way that a single connection to a single claims settlement system will allow all claims to be resolved in one pass. Otherwise it takes hours of my time, my wife's time and the doctor's support staff time to get things approved and paid for. That would be a great step toward better efficiency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Each insurer should publish what they cover electronically in such a way that a single connection to a single claims settlement system will allow all claims to be resolved in one pass .
Otherwise it takes hours of my time , my wife 's time and the doctor 's support staff time to get things approved and paid for .
That would be a great step toward better efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each insurer should publish what they cover electronically in such a way that a single connection to a single claims settlement system will allow all claims to be resolved in one pass.
Otherwise it takes hours of my time, my wife's time and the doctor's support staff time to get things approved and paid for.
That would be a great step toward better efficiency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539378</id>
	<title>IMHO,  the root of the problem:</title>
	<author>spammacus</author>
	<datestamp>1269018780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  health care just costs too darn much.</p><p>Individuals can't afford it anywhere.<br>Corporations can't afford the insurance premiums for their employees in America<br>Governments can't afford if for their citizens in other countries.</p><p>The problem is not who pays for it (taxpayers vs. insurance companies).  The problem is that no entity of any kind can properly afford it.</p><p>This is what happens when you insist on using the market to assign equilibrium pricing to something which is not a luxury good or service - if you're dying, you'll take on as much debt as you have to.  If you're a democracy with an unhealthy and unhappy electorate, you'll take on as much government debt as you have to.</p><p>There is no equilibrium price in this situation - the only market pressure points upwards, and encourages price gouging at every step of the supplier chain.</p><p>Pharmaceutical companies overcharge for prescriptions.  Makers of medical equipment overcharge for machinery which in many cases is orders of magnitude less complicated than a commodity desktop computer.  Doctors and their practices overcharge for consultation time.  Labs overcharge for test results.  Insurers have to actually pay all these costs and therefore resort to high premiums and really sketchy reasons for denying coverage.</p><p>This is a dramatic failure of the market to regulate prices and benefit anyone, least of all the consumer of health care services.</p><p>This flies in the face of market capitalism.<br>This flies in the face of economics.<br>And yes, it flies in the face of common sense.</p><p>Finally, as a non American, I'm tempted to argue that the USA's insistence of following this abuse of the market not only drives up costs for American individuals, but it drives up costs for the government-run systems in other countries.  Why would Canadian or Australian doctors stick around when they can price-gouge with impunity in America, for example?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>health care just costs too darn much.Individuals ca n't afford it anywhere.Corporations ca n't afford the insurance premiums for their employees in AmericaGovernments ca n't afford if for their citizens in other countries.The problem is not who pays for it ( taxpayers vs. insurance companies ) .
The problem is that no entity of any kind can properly afford it.This is what happens when you insist on using the market to assign equilibrium pricing to something which is not a luxury good or service - if you 're dying , you 'll take on as much debt as you have to .
If you 're a democracy with an unhealthy and unhappy electorate , you 'll take on as much government debt as you have to.There is no equilibrium price in this situation - the only market pressure points upwards , and encourages price gouging at every step of the supplier chain.Pharmaceutical companies overcharge for prescriptions .
Makers of medical equipment overcharge for machinery which in many cases is orders of magnitude less complicated than a commodity desktop computer .
Doctors and their practices overcharge for consultation time .
Labs overcharge for test results .
Insurers have to actually pay all these costs and therefore resort to high premiums and really sketchy reasons for denying coverage.This is a dramatic failure of the market to regulate prices and benefit anyone , least of all the consumer of health care services.This flies in the face of market capitalism.This flies in the face of economics.And yes , it flies in the face of common sense.Finally , as a non American , I 'm tempted to argue that the USA 's insistence of following this abuse of the market not only drives up costs for American individuals , but it drives up costs for the government-run systems in other countries .
Why would Canadian or Australian doctors stick around when they can price-gouge with impunity in America , for example ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  health care just costs too darn much.Individuals can't afford it anywhere.Corporations can't afford the insurance premiums for their employees in AmericaGovernments can't afford if for their citizens in other countries.The problem is not who pays for it (taxpayers vs. insurance companies).
The problem is that no entity of any kind can properly afford it.This is what happens when you insist on using the market to assign equilibrium pricing to something which is not a luxury good or service - if you're dying, you'll take on as much debt as you have to.
If you're a democracy with an unhealthy and unhappy electorate, you'll take on as much government debt as you have to.There is no equilibrium price in this situation - the only market pressure points upwards, and encourages price gouging at every step of the supplier chain.Pharmaceutical companies overcharge for prescriptions.
Makers of medical equipment overcharge for machinery which in many cases is orders of magnitude less complicated than a commodity desktop computer.
Doctors and their practices overcharge for consultation time.
Labs overcharge for test results.
Insurers have to actually pay all these costs and therefore resort to high premiums and really sketchy reasons for denying coverage.This is a dramatic failure of the market to regulate prices and benefit anyone, least of all the consumer of health care services.This flies in the face of market capitalism.This flies in the face of economics.And yes, it flies in the face of common sense.Finally, as a non American, I'm tempted to argue that the USA's insistence of following this abuse of the market not only drives up costs for American individuals, but it drives up costs for the government-run systems in other countries.
Why would Canadian or Australian doctors stick around when they can price-gouge with impunity in America, for example?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537766</id>
	<title>Re:Hard to have a debate</title>
	<author>guyfawkes-11-5</author>
	<datestamp>1269014340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The healthcare bill is so huge and complex that it is difficult to have any intelligent debate over it.  People mostly make simple, sound bite sized remarks.  Very few people seem to understand the bill.  I don't understand it myself.



That said, the conventional wisdom states that the bill will be extremely expensive, on the scale of Social Security or Medicare.  While I agree the current health care system leaves a lot to be desired, I think the timing is terrible.  Our financial house is not in order and the economy seems to be in the middle of a long term case of fatigue.  In short, I don't think we can afford it.  I'm worried it could be the straw, or bale, that breaks the camel's back.</p></div><p>I agree the timing is terrible, but for historical precedence universal health care in the UK was created immediately after WWII, a time that the UK was not in any condition to create a new program.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The healthcare bill is so huge and complex that it is difficult to have any intelligent debate over it .
People mostly make simple , sound bite sized remarks .
Very few people seem to understand the bill .
I do n't understand it myself .
That said , the conventional wisdom states that the bill will be extremely expensive , on the scale of Social Security or Medicare .
While I agree the current health care system leaves a lot to be desired , I think the timing is terrible .
Our financial house is not in order and the economy seems to be in the middle of a long term case of fatigue .
In short , I do n't think we can afford it .
I 'm worried it could be the straw , or bale , that breaks the camel 's back.I agree the timing is terrible , but for historical precedence universal health care in the UK was created immediately after WWII , a time that the UK was not in any condition to create a new program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The healthcare bill is so huge and complex that it is difficult to have any intelligent debate over it.
People mostly make simple, sound bite sized remarks.
Very few people seem to understand the bill.
I don't understand it myself.
That said, the conventional wisdom states that the bill will be extremely expensive, on the scale of Social Security or Medicare.
While I agree the current health care system leaves a lot to be desired, I think the timing is terrible.
Our financial house is not in order and the economy seems to be in the middle of a long term case of fatigue.
In short, I don't think we can afford it.
I'm worried it could be the straw, or bale, that breaks the camel's back.I agree the timing is terrible, but for historical precedence universal health care in the UK was created immediately after WWII, a time that the UK was not in any condition to create a new program.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536594</id>
	<title>False dichotomy much, summary?</title>
	<author>obijuanvaldez</author>
	<datestamp>1269011520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will this bill do what the administration claims to do, or is it as bad for the future of America as Fox says?</p></div><p>
Or perhaps it will do neither.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this bill do what the administration claims to do , or is it as bad for the future of America as Fox says ?
Or perhaps it will do neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this bill do what the administration claims to do, or is it as bad for the future of America as Fox says?
Or perhaps it will do neither.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540106</id>
	<title>Re:Every other European democracy has this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269021120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No but I have an observation. Spain, Italy, Greece and the UK are already bankrupt. ( or very close to it )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No but I have an observation .
Spain , Italy , Greece and the UK are already bankrupt .
( or very close to it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No but I have an observation.
Spain, Italy, Greece and the UK are already bankrupt.
( or very close to it )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535668</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check your cap on the catastrophic insurance before you deliver a verdict.  Some of them cap at half a million, or typically a million if you're lucky as a lifetime cap.  Which you will get to within months of getting something 'catastrophic'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check your cap on the catastrophic insurance before you deliver a verdict .
Some of them cap at half a million , or typically a million if you 're lucky as a lifetime cap .
Which you will get to within months of getting something 'catastrophic' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check your cap on the catastrophic insurance before you deliver a verdict.
Some of them cap at half a million, or typically a million if you're lucky as a lifetime cap.
Which you will get to within months of getting something 'catastrophic'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535586</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>gclef</author>
	<datestamp>1269008580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Between the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General\_Welfare\_clause" title="wikipedia.org">general welfare clause</a> [wikipedia.org] and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce\_Clause" title="wikipedia.org">commerce clause</a> [wikipedia.org] (insurance being an interstate commerce issue) of the constitution, their constitutional authority is pretty strong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Between the general welfare clause [ wikipedia.org ] and the commerce clause [ wikipedia.org ] ( insurance being an interstate commerce issue ) of the constitution , their constitutional authority is pretty strong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Between the general welfare clause [wikipedia.org] and the commerce clause [wikipedia.org] (insurance being an interstate commerce issue) of the constitution, their constitutional authority is pretty strong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538306</id>
	<title>My take</title>
	<author>Hausenwulf</author>
	<datestamp>1269015660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three points:</p><p>1. The healthcare bill will likely be the bill that brings the country to financial ruin. We can't afford to maintain what we have now, let alone pay for a huge, new program. Even if you think this is otherwise a good program, is it fair to destroy your children's future over it?</p><p>2. Historically, the government has a bad track record running public services. Since there is no competition, there is no incentive to excel. While some on the low income side who couldn't afford it will receive healthcare, the overall quality of healthcare will drop. There will also be little incentive for major medical and pharmaceutical companies to innovate.</p><p>3. On the other side of things, just saying "no" to this bill is not enough. America needs healthcare reform, just not as presented in this bill. It's shameful for those opposing the bill not to provide alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three points : 1 .
The healthcare bill will likely be the bill that brings the country to financial ruin .
We ca n't afford to maintain what we have now , let alone pay for a huge , new program .
Even if you think this is otherwise a good program , is it fair to destroy your children 's future over it ? 2 .
Historically , the government has a bad track record running public services .
Since there is no competition , there is no incentive to excel .
While some on the low income side who could n't afford it will receive healthcare , the overall quality of healthcare will drop .
There will also be little incentive for major medical and pharmaceutical companies to innovate.3 .
On the other side of things , just saying " no " to this bill is not enough .
America needs healthcare reform , just not as presented in this bill .
It 's shameful for those opposing the bill not to provide alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three points:1.
The healthcare bill will likely be the bill that brings the country to financial ruin.
We can't afford to maintain what we have now, let alone pay for a huge, new program.
Even if you think this is otherwise a good program, is it fair to destroy your children's future over it?2.
Historically, the government has a bad track record running public services.
Since there is no competition, there is no incentive to excel.
While some on the low income side who couldn't afford it will receive healthcare, the overall quality of healthcare will drop.
There will also be little incentive for major medical and pharmaceutical companies to innovate.3.
On the other side of things, just saying "no" to this bill is not enough.
America needs healthcare reform, just not as presented in this bill.
It's shameful for those opposing the bill not to provide alternatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537682</id>
	<title>Just FYI</title>
	<author>Veretax</author>
	<datestamp>1269014160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most Americans think some reform or change is needed in Health Care.
<br>
Most americans also Don't think government managed care is the answer either (and before you say there is no single payer option hold that thought)  So many progressives are saying this is a good first step.  Even Kuccinic (sp?) who just flip flopped has said as much, and noone was a more vocal supporter of a single payer system.
<br>
<br>
Here are my gripes with the legislation:
<br> <br>
1. Slashing Medicare will adversely affect seniors, those least in position to make up additional income to pay for insurance gaps in Medicare<br>
2. Mandates.  Since when has the Federal Government Ever mandated anything like this in all of History?  The Mandate is unconstitutional at best, at worst it is a Federal Power grab to weasel in and turn the US into a Big Brother Society where sugary drinks will be gone (sorry coke and pepsi), fun foods will be a thing of the past (Snickers, Hershey, Doritos, etc) and you will eventually see a very plain supply of food offered at higher prices than today and probably breadlines like they had in the USSR.<br>
3. Puts restrictions and penalties on small businesses who cannot afford to fully fund insurance for their poorest employees.  (Yes its fine, the Businesses who already struggle thus killing many small businesses.)<br>
4. Does absolutely zero to ensure increased supply of providers which right now is an even bigger problem that cost.<br>
5. Will force more americans into a High Risk Pool that will cost as much as 20\% or more than normal premiums, and when that cost overruns those premiums, you can bet that one of two things will happen.  Regular premiums will rise, States will have to make up short fall with taxes on policy owners (another way of increasing premiums) or some other way to tax or soak either Sin Taxes, Sales Taxes, Income Taxes, or some other means of basically hitting those that probably can't afford the offset in higher premium on their own but now will get taxed for it anyways.<br>
6. It is the least transparent bill to come out of congress in a long time.  It's negotiation was not conducted in front of cameras of CSPAN as Obama promised, and the moving of assumptions in a rather unchanged bill to get better CBO numbers is like trying to have your grade score based on number of problems completed not the actual number of problems on the test.<br>
7. The American people don't want it.  Polls all across the country show that only about 30\% of the population are actually in favor of this legislation, and what's worse a majority oppose this plan, either for reasons of fiscal trouble for the government, its policies, or just in general not liking its provisions.<br> <br>

So there are probably some reasons I didn't list, but this bill will do very little to cut costs, it will result in increased costs, will stifle insurance competition as more companies just leave the sector entirely, oh and more providers will opt out.  How great is that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most Americans think some reform or change is needed in Health Care .
Most americans also Do n't think government managed care is the answer either ( and before you say there is no single payer option hold that thought ) So many progressives are saying this is a good first step .
Even Kuccinic ( sp ?
) who just flip flopped has said as much , and noone was a more vocal supporter of a single payer system .
Here are my gripes with the legislation : 1 .
Slashing Medicare will adversely affect seniors , those least in position to make up additional income to pay for insurance gaps in Medicare 2 .
Mandates. Since when has the Federal Government Ever mandated anything like this in all of History ?
The Mandate is unconstitutional at best , at worst it is a Federal Power grab to weasel in and turn the US into a Big Brother Society where sugary drinks will be gone ( sorry coke and pepsi ) , fun foods will be a thing of the past ( Snickers , Hershey , Doritos , etc ) and you will eventually see a very plain supply of food offered at higher prices than today and probably breadlines like they had in the USSR .
3. Puts restrictions and penalties on small businesses who can not afford to fully fund insurance for their poorest employees .
( Yes its fine , the Businesses who already struggle thus killing many small businesses .
) 4 .
Does absolutely zero to ensure increased supply of providers which right now is an even bigger problem that cost .
5. Will force more americans into a High Risk Pool that will cost as much as 20 \ % or more than normal premiums , and when that cost overruns those premiums , you can bet that one of two things will happen .
Regular premiums will rise , States will have to make up short fall with taxes on policy owners ( another way of increasing premiums ) or some other way to tax or soak either Sin Taxes , Sales Taxes , Income Taxes , or some other means of basically hitting those that probably ca n't afford the offset in higher premium on their own but now will get taxed for it anyways .
6. It is the least transparent bill to come out of congress in a long time .
It 's negotiation was not conducted in front of cameras of CSPAN as Obama promised , and the moving of assumptions in a rather unchanged bill to get better CBO numbers is like trying to have your grade score based on number of problems completed not the actual number of problems on the test .
7. The American people do n't want it .
Polls all across the country show that only about 30 \ % of the population are actually in favor of this legislation , and what 's worse a majority oppose this plan , either for reasons of fiscal trouble for the government , its policies , or just in general not liking its provisions .
So there are probably some reasons I did n't list , but this bill will do very little to cut costs , it will result in increased costs , will stifle insurance competition as more companies just leave the sector entirely , oh and more providers will opt out .
How great is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most Americans think some reform or change is needed in Health Care.
Most americans also Don't think government managed care is the answer either (and before you say there is no single payer option hold that thought)  So many progressives are saying this is a good first step.
Even Kuccinic (sp?
) who just flip flopped has said as much, and noone was a more vocal supporter of a single payer system.
Here are my gripes with the legislation:
 
1.
Slashing Medicare will adversely affect seniors, those least in position to make up additional income to pay for insurance gaps in Medicare
2.
Mandates.  Since when has the Federal Government Ever mandated anything like this in all of History?
The Mandate is unconstitutional at best, at worst it is a Federal Power grab to weasel in and turn the US into a Big Brother Society where sugary drinks will be gone (sorry coke and pepsi), fun foods will be a thing of the past (Snickers, Hershey, Doritos, etc) and you will eventually see a very plain supply of food offered at higher prices than today and probably breadlines like they had in the USSR.
3. Puts restrictions and penalties on small businesses who cannot afford to fully fund insurance for their poorest employees.
(Yes its fine, the Businesses who already struggle thus killing many small businesses.
)
4.
Does absolutely zero to ensure increased supply of providers which right now is an even bigger problem that cost.
5. Will force more americans into a High Risk Pool that will cost as much as 20\% or more than normal premiums, and when that cost overruns those premiums, you can bet that one of two things will happen.
Regular premiums will rise, States will have to make up short fall with taxes on policy owners (another way of increasing premiums) or some other way to tax or soak either Sin Taxes, Sales Taxes, Income Taxes, or some other means of basically hitting those that probably can't afford the offset in higher premium on their own but now will get taxed for it anyways.
6. It is the least transparent bill to come out of congress in a long time.
It's negotiation was not conducted in front of cameras of CSPAN as Obama promised, and the moving of assumptions in a rather unchanged bill to get better CBO numbers is like trying to have your grade score based on number of problems completed not the actual number of problems on the test.
7. The American people don't want it.
Polls all across the country show that only about 30\% of the population are actually in favor of this legislation, and what's worse a majority oppose this plan, either for reasons of fiscal trouble for the government, its policies, or just in general not liking its provisions.
So there are probably some reasons I didn't list, but this bill will do very little to cut costs, it will result in increased costs, will stifle insurance competition as more companies just leave the sector entirely, oh and more providers will opt out.
How great is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536382</id>
	<title>There are a few of us left...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...who want the strongest economy possible with the lowest possible taxes and government blockades to success so we can go out, find good jobs, move up when we're ready, and <i>provide for ourselves</i>. The more the government tells me what I can and cannot do and siphons off the fruits of my achievement, the worse my prospects get for living well. There are a ton of places you can go if you want the nanny state to wipe your ass. Let's keep America the place where people manage their own affairs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...who want the strongest economy possible with the lowest possible taxes and government blockades to success so we can go out , find good jobs , move up when we 're ready , and provide for ourselves .
The more the government tells me what I can and can not do and siphons off the fruits of my achievement , the worse my prospects get for living well .
There are a ton of places you can go if you want the nanny state to wipe your ass .
Let 's keep America the place where people manage their own affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...who want the strongest economy possible with the lowest possible taxes and government blockades to success so we can go out, find good jobs, move up when we're ready, and provide for ourselves.
The more the government tells me what I can and cannot do and siphons off the fruits of my achievement, the worse my prospects get for living well.
There are a ton of places you can go if you want the nanny state to wipe your ass.
Let's keep America the place where people manage their own affairs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537726</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1269014280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick. So they have an incentive to keep people well and only recommend useful medications.</p></div><p>So, what you're saying is that with government run health care, there will be an incentive for the government to order your life such that you stay healthy?  Since they are footing the bill, they will have the right to determine what activities you may participate in, how often you exercise, and what you eat?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick .
So they have an incentive to keep people well and only recommend useful medications.So , what you 're saying is that with government run health care , there will be an incentive for the government to order your life such that you stay healthy ?
Since they are footing the bill , they will have the right to determine what activities you may participate in , how often you exercise , and what you eat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick.
So they have an incentive to keep people well and only recommend useful medications.So, what you're saying is that with government run health care, there will be an incentive for the government to order your life such that you stay healthy?
Since they are footing the bill, they will have the right to determine what activities you may participate in, how often you exercise, and what you eat?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536410</id>
	<title>Re:Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>Entrope</author>
	<datestamp>1269010920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are awfully poorly informed for a health policy person based in Europe.</p><p>The studies that blame bankruptcy on medical costs were basically cooked.  They've been debunked left and right since they came out.  This bill will drive more people to bankruptcy (or jail) because of the insurance mandates.</p><p>Our poor health outcomes are heavily skewed towards minorities (especially Blacks and Hispanics).  Oddly, those are the same groups that get more government-funded health care now.  This bill doesn't really do anything to reduce the maternal, infant or child health that you mention.</p><p>The cost of uncharged emergency room care is tiny compared to the cost of this bill.</p><p>Republican proposals for health care reform would largely eliminate the health care costs for employers, by removing the tax subsidy that makes it worthwhile to give employees health insurance rather than additional money for health care.  This bill will do nothing to reduce those costs.</p><p>I would continue, but I'm getting bored.  I can just hope that you're not inflicting similar scales of ignorance on your fellow Europeans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are awfully poorly informed for a health policy person based in Europe.The studies that blame bankruptcy on medical costs were basically cooked .
They 've been debunked left and right since they came out .
This bill will drive more people to bankruptcy ( or jail ) because of the insurance mandates.Our poor health outcomes are heavily skewed towards minorities ( especially Blacks and Hispanics ) .
Oddly , those are the same groups that get more government-funded health care now .
This bill does n't really do anything to reduce the maternal , infant or child health that you mention.The cost of uncharged emergency room care is tiny compared to the cost of this bill.Republican proposals for health care reform would largely eliminate the health care costs for employers , by removing the tax subsidy that makes it worthwhile to give employees health insurance rather than additional money for health care .
This bill will do nothing to reduce those costs.I would continue , but I 'm getting bored .
I can just hope that you 're not inflicting similar scales of ignorance on your fellow Europeans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are awfully poorly informed for a health policy person based in Europe.The studies that blame bankruptcy on medical costs were basically cooked.
They've been debunked left and right since they came out.
This bill will drive more people to bankruptcy (or jail) because of the insurance mandates.Our poor health outcomes are heavily skewed towards minorities (especially Blacks and Hispanics).
Oddly, those are the same groups that get more government-funded health care now.
This bill doesn't really do anything to reduce the maternal, infant or child health that you mention.The cost of uncharged emergency room care is tiny compared to the cost of this bill.Republican proposals for health care reform would largely eliminate the health care costs for employers, by removing the tax subsidy that makes it worthwhile to give employees health insurance rather than additional money for health care.
This bill will do nothing to reduce those costs.I would continue, but I'm getting bored.
I can just hope that you're not inflicting similar scales of ignorance on your fellow Europeans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535010</id>
	<title>A false choice, of course...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269006480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><strong>Nothing</strong> is as bad for the future of America as Fox says.</p><p>BTW, I've seen thousands of comment trolls, but I think this is the first story submission troll I've seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing is as bad for the future of America as Fox says.BTW , I 've seen thousands of comment trolls , but I think this is the first story submission troll I 've seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing is as bad for the future of America as Fox says.BTW, I've seen thousands of comment trolls, but I think this is the first story submission troll I've seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537552</id>
	<title>Re:do you trust obama and the dems ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obama is instituting a new national policy - health care, a basic fundamental right ina civilized society, is providd by for profit companies, and the FED. Govt requires you to pay these for profit compnies<br>its horrible</p><p>Another way to look at this is Obama's track record, say with the wall street bail out, where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.</p><p>how on earth could anyone trust this guy with a track record like that ??</p></div><p>1. The dems would have done a single payer or public option if the gop didn't bitch and moan and cry "Armageddon" at the very mention of it<br>2. The wall street bailout was the idea of the Bush administration. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency\_Economic\_Stabilization\_Act\_of\_2008</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is instituting a new national policy - health care , a basic fundamental right ina civilized society , is providd by for profit companies , and the FED .
Govt requires you to pay these for profit compniesits horribleAnother way to look at this is Obama 's track record , say with the wall street bail out , where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.how on earth could anyone trust this guy with a track record like that ? ? 1 .
The dems would have done a single payer or public option if the gop did n't bitch and moan and cry " Armageddon " at the very mention of it2 .
The wall street bailout was the idea of the Bush administration .
See : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency \ _Economic \ _Stabilization \ _Act \ _of \ _2008</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is instituting a new national policy - health care, a basic fundamental right ina civilized society, is providd by for profit companies, and the FED.
Govt requires you to pay these for profit compniesits horribleAnother way to look at this is Obama's track record, say with the wall street bail out, where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.how on earth could anyone trust this guy with a track record like that ??1.
The dems would have done a single payer or public option if the gop didn't bitch and moan and cry "Armageddon" at the very mention of it2.
The wall street bailout was the idea of the Bush administration.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency\_Economic\_Stabilization\_Act\_of\_2008
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541692</id>
	<title>Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1269027300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>teabaggers and libertarians: in SOME avenues of life, not all, the government is good, and works for you. you reject it at the price of your own impoverishment. that's the simple obvious truth</p></div><p>Simple and obvious to anyone who isn't innumerate, but the people you are trying to talk to are by definition innumerate.  Otherwise they wouldn't have to lean on the crutch of ideology, which is what innumerate people are wont to do.  Otherwise they would have to deal with actual quantitative reality, rather than black-and-white abstractions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>teabaggers and libertarians : in SOME avenues of life , not all , the government is good , and works for you .
you reject it at the price of your own impoverishment .
that 's the simple obvious truthSimple and obvious to anyone who is n't innumerate , but the people you are trying to talk to are by definition innumerate .
Otherwise they would n't have to lean on the crutch of ideology , which is what innumerate people are wont to do .
Otherwise they would have to deal with actual quantitative reality , rather than black-and-white abstractions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>teabaggers and libertarians: in SOME avenues of life, not all, the government is good, and works for you.
you reject it at the price of your own impoverishment.
that's the simple obvious truthSimple and obvious to anyone who isn't innumerate, but the people you are trying to talk to are by definition innumerate.
Otherwise they wouldn't have to lean on the crutch of ideology, which is what innumerate people are wont to do.
Otherwise they would have to deal with actual quantitative reality, rather than black-and-white abstractions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535674</id>
	<title>Said from who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Said the guy with great parents (no alchoholism)? Great upbringing (no gang-banging)? Great friends (no overly drug-addicts etc.)? Great opportunities at school, and then in work-life you have it pretty smooth?</p><p>Face it, you're living off whatever you inherited by your parents, which is also entitlement.</p><p>The constitution says everyone should have equal opportunities, but surely you must see that not everybody has the same opportunities, and then they get sick and die, because of assholes like yourself that doesn't care about other people.</p><p>In any other country in Europe, health care is in most cases next to free, and much more cheap overall than the cartel you have there in the US.<br>Companies making a living by killing people, yeah, that's freedom for you.<br>A country is getting big trouble when it sees its people as assets for billion-dollar sickness-industry, and is not interested in educating and making people useful.<br>You've been duped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Said the guy with great parents ( no alchoholism ) ?
Great upbringing ( no gang-banging ) ?
Great friends ( no overly drug-addicts etc. ) ?
Great opportunities at school , and then in work-life you have it pretty smooth ? Face it , you 're living off whatever you inherited by your parents , which is also entitlement.The constitution says everyone should have equal opportunities , but surely you must see that not everybody has the same opportunities , and then they get sick and die , because of assholes like yourself that does n't care about other people.In any other country in Europe , health care is in most cases next to free , and much more cheap overall than the cartel you have there in the US.Companies making a living by killing people , yeah , that 's freedom for you.A country is getting big trouble when it sees its people as assets for billion-dollar sickness-industry , and is not interested in educating and making people useful.You 've been duped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Said the guy with great parents (no alchoholism)?
Great upbringing (no gang-banging)?
Great friends (no overly drug-addicts etc.)?
Great opportunities at school, and then in work-life you have it pretty smooth?Face it, you're living off whatever you inherited by your parents, which is also entitlement.The constitution says everyone should have equal opportunities, but surely you must see that not everybody has the same opportunities, and then they get sick and die, because of assholes like yourself that doesn't care about other people.In any other country in Europe, health care is in most cases next to free, and much more cheap overall than the cartel you have there in the US.Companies making a living by killing people, yeah, that's freedom for you.A country is getting big trouble when it sees its people as assets for billion-dollar sickness-industry, and is not interested in educating and making people useful.You've been duped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535866</id>
	<title>How about single-payer computing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't computing be a right in this day and age?</p><p>Finland has already declared a right to broadband.</p><p>It's time for the US to take a leadership position.</p><p>If it doesn't, the poor are going to fall further and further behind.</p><p>Every resident (whether citizen or not, taxpayer or not) has this right, because rights are not dependent upon citizenship status.</p><p>Everyone should get a computer, LCD monitor, mouse and keyboard with Windows. (That's every person, not every household. People have rights, not groups.) Everyone would get a new computer every 3 years, and free virus cleaning and computer "physicals".  People might have to wait in a waiting list to get a computer, but this is better than the current system, which is based on a profit-motive, first-come, first-served basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't computing be a right in this day and age ? Finland has already declared a right to broadband.It 's time for the US to take a leadership position.If it does n't , the poor are going to fall further and further behind.Every resident ( whether citizen or not , taxpayer or not ) has this right , because rights are not dependent upon citizenship status.Everyone should get a computer , LCD monitor , mouse and keyboard with Windows .
( That 's every person , not every household .
People have rights , not groups .
) Everyone would get a new computer every 3 years , and free virus cleaning and computer " physicals " .
People might have to wait in a waiting list to get a computer , but this is better than the current system , which is based on a profit-motive , first-come , first-served basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't computing be a right in this day and age?Finland has already declared a right to broadband.It's time for the US to take a leadership position.If it doesn't, the poor are going to fall further and further behind.Every resident (whether citizen or not, taxpayer or not) has this right, because rights are not dependent upon citizenship status.Everyone should get a computer, LCD monitor, mouse and keyboard with Windows.
(That's every person, not every household.
People have rights, not groups.
) Everyone would get a new computer every 3 years, and free virus cleaning and computer "physicals".
People might have to wait in a waiting list to get a computer, but this is better than the current system, which is based on a profit-motive, first-come, first-served basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535736</id>
	<title>Good intentions but off target</title>
	<author>chowdahhead</author>
	<datestamp>1269009000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The purpose of health care reform originally stated during the presidential campaign was to reduce the cost of health care, thereby extending health care to more than 38 million uninsured Americans.  Being a healthcare provider, I skimmed an early draft of HR 3200 and was struck by how little politicians understand how our health care system works, the problems within, and how to elucidate possible solutions.  And there are solutions, like repealing the anti-trust exemption for health insurance providers (in the works), streamlining Medicare benefits, regulating the prices of pharmaceuticals, developing methods to evaluate and approve generic biopharmaceuticals, and so forth.  There just aren't any meaningful reductions in the cost of health care in this proposal.  We're looking at a situation similar to the extension of Medicare to part D, championed by the Bush administration and a noble idea, but has cost much more than initially anticipated.  And honestly, the largest barrier we face is ourselves, by the inordinate amount of dollars we spend on preventable disease in this country.  Low cost, affordable health care would be easily attainable if Americans just took better care of themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The purpose of health care reform originally stated during the presidential campaign was to reduce the cost of health care , thereby extending health care to more than 38 million uninsured Americans .
Being a healthcare provider , I skimmed an early draft of HR 3200 and was struck by how little politicians understand how our health care system works , the problems within , and how to elucidate possible solutions .
And there are solutions , like repealing the anti-trust exemption for health insurance providers ( in the works ) , streamlining Medicare benefits , regulating the prices of pharmaceuticals , developing methods to evaluate and approve generic biopharmaceuticals , and so forth .
There just are n't any meaningful reductions in the cost of health care in this proposal .
We 're looking at a situation similar to the extension of Medicare to part D , championed by the Bush administration and a noble idea , but has cost much more than initially anticipated .
And honestly , the largest barrier we face is ourselves , by the inordinate amount of dollars we spend on preventable disease in this country .
Low cost , affordable health care would be easily attainable if Americans just took better care of themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The purpose of health care reform originally stated during the presidential campaign was to reduce the cost of health care, thereby extending health care to more than 38 million uninsured Americans.
Being a healthcare provider, I skimmed an early draft of HR 3200 and was struck by how little politicians understand how our health care system works, the problems within, and how to elucidate possible solutions.
And there are solutions, like repealing the anti-trust exemption for health insurance providers (in the works), streamlining Medicare benefits, regulating the prices of pharmaceuticals, developing methods to evaluate and approve generic biopharmaceuticals, and so forth.
There just aren't any meaningful reductions in the cost of health care in this proposal.
We're looking at a situation similar to the extension of Medicare to part D, championed by the Bush administration and a noble idea, but has cost much more than initially anticipated.
And honestly, the largest barrier we face is ourselves, by the inordinate amount of dollars we spend on preventable disease in this country.
Low cost, affordable health care would be easily attainable if Americans just took better care of themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537690</id>
	<title>My few cents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's my feeling on it...<br>1) The Republicans complain about the government not being able to do anything right are being hypocritical in that they believe the military, a government institution, and the intelligence community, another government institution (several actually) - they believe these organizations run just fine and we should give them more money every year.<br>2) The Republicans are also being hypocritical about all the "out of control spending". Lets say the price tag is 1 trillion, which is over 10 years. That's 100 billion a year. Fine, lets double it to 200 billion. That's still cheaper than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the unnecessary waste from the Pentagon (star wars is still being funded, you know). But instead of doing real cuts there that, lets face it, aren't really helping the public, they want to kill this bill that will actually help some people.<br>3) The Democrats aren't much better. The bill has a lot of giveaways, something that's a part of every bill, and I actually wanted a public option (simply because the insurance market is in a state of collusion over prices so the public option will actually make them run for the money). I also don't like the hazy language about illegal aliens being given any care (I'm fine with legal immigrants, not illegal aliens, getting coverage).<br>4) The abortion debate is a "flag burning distraction". Abortion, like it or not, is the law of the land. The inclusion of any such services is, therefore, legal. Besides, it's not like money is allocated specifically for abortion, it's allocated for healthcare coverage which includes abortion. It also includes money for amputation and plastic surgery but nobody's complaining about those. This cynical complaint is made to increase support against this bill from single issue voters that want abortion banned.<br>5) I like a lot of the ideas that the Republicans proposed, stuff like buying access across state lines and all of that is in the bill. It seems that most people agree with most parts of this bill in parts but they hate the bill in its entirety which is absurd. That to me smell like something, especially when the Republicans are voting against their own ideas. It's not far fetched to say that the Republicans have been blocking most of the things the Democrats have been doing and this is no different. Yes, the Democrats tried to reach out in the beginning but after the Republicans snubbed them, the Democrats did they own thing. Who is at fault? Both of them.<br>6) I disagree with tort reform (lawsuits) simply because the data shows that less than 5\% of all healthcare costs are tied to lawsuits and its insurance. Why focus on the 5\%? It also stands to make sense to include it, since it's such a small thing, just to get Republicans on board, but that won't happen to due to the point above. Besides, the trial lawyers that favor Democrats will be mad and if there's no Republican benefit, why bother?</p><p>The major problem is the Republicans wanted to say no from the very beginning on this. Now that they see that it's important, they want to start over and thereby attach their party to the credit of any bill that comes forward. That's why they want to do that. They agree with 70\% or so of the bill since their own proposals are included in it (including removing of the public option - their idea).</p><p>I think having this bill in all its awfullness is better than having insurance companies continue to raise prices without end. I also think that if we do things step by step, Republicans idea, that it will fail because of the shared risk pool that will lower prices for everyone (since most people are not sick most of the time).</p><p>The way to sell this bill is simple:<br>1) Remove any kickback provisions by embarassing the senators that ask for them and get the public to yell at those senators.<br>2) Focus on the savings benefit. If we have to spend a trillion now to save 1.2 trillion within a decade, that's a 20\% return in my book.<br>3) Explain and/or write additional language to make it clear to the A</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my feeling on it...1 ) The Republicans complain about the government not being able to do anything right are being hypocritical in that they believe the military , a government institution , and the intelligence community , another government institution ( several actually ) - they believe these organizations run just fine and we should give them more money every year.2 ) The Republicans are also being hypocritical about all the " out of control spending " .
Lets say the price tag is 1 trillion , which is over 10 years .
That 's 100 billion a year .
Fine , lets double it to 200 billion .
That 's still cheaper than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the unnecessary waste from the Pentagon ( star wars is still being funded , you know ) .
But instead of doing real cuts there that , lets face it , are n't really helping the public , they want to kill this bill that will actually help some people.3 ) The Democrats are n't much better .
The bill has a lot of giveaways , something that 's a part of every bill , and I actually wanted a public option ( simply because the insurance market is in a state of collusion over prices so the public option will actually make them run for the money ) .
I also do n't like the hazy language about illegal aliens being given any care ( I 'm fine with legal immigrants , not illegal aliens , getting coverage ) .4 ) The abortion debate is a " flag burning distraction " .
Abortion , like it or not , is the law of the land .
The inclusion of any such services is , therefore , legal .
Besides , it 's not like money is allocated specifically for abortion , it 's allocated for healthcare coverage which includes abortion .
It also includes money for amputation and plastic surgery but nobody 's complaining about those .
This cynical complaint is made to increase support against this bill from single issue voters that want abortion banned.5 ) I like a lot of the ideas that the Republicans proposed , stuff like buying access across state lines and all of that is in the bill .
It seems that most people agree with most parts of this bill in parts but they hate the bill in its entirety which is absurd .
That to me smell like something , especially when the Republicans are voting against their own ideas .
It 's not far fetched to say that the Republicans have been blocking most of the things the Democrats have been doing and this is no different .
Yes , the Democrats tried to reach out in the beginning but after the Republicans snubbed them , the Democrats did they own thing .
Who is at fault ?
Both of them.6 ) I disagree with tort reform ( lawsuits ) simply because the data shows that less than 5 \ % of all healthcare costs are tied to lawsuits and its insurance .
Why focus on the 5 \ % ?
It also stands to make sense to include it , since it 's such a small thing , just to get Republicans on board , but that wo n't happen to due to the point above .
Besides , the trial lawyers that favor Democrats will be mad and if there 's no Republican benefit , why bother ? The major problem is the Republicans wanted to say no from the very beginning on this .
Now that they see that it 's important , they want to start over and thereby attach their party to the credit of any bill that comes forward .
That 's why they want to do that .
They agree with 70 \ % or so of the bill since their own proposals are included in it ( including removing of the public option - their idea ) .I think having this bill in all its awfullness is better than having insurance companies continue to raise prices without end .
I also think that if we do things step by step , Republicans idea , that it will fail because of the shared risk pool that will lower prices for everyone ( since most people are not sick most of the time ) .The way to sell this bill is simple : 1 ) Remove any kickback provisions by embarassing the senators that ask for them and get the public to yell at those senators.2 ) Focus on the savings benefit .
If we have to spend a trillion now to save 1.2 trillion within a decade , that 's a 20 \ % return in my book.3 ) Explain and/or write additional language to make it clear to the A</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my feeling on it...1) The Republicans complain about the government not being able to do anything right are being hypocritical in that they believe the military, a government institution, and the intelligence community, another government institution (several actually) - they believe these organizations run just fine and we should give them more money every year.2) The Republicans are also being hypocritical about all the "out of control spending".
Lets say the price tag is 1 trillion, which is over 10 years.
That's 100 billion a year.
Fine, lets double it to 200 billion.
That's still cheaper than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the unnecessary waste from the Pentagon (star wars is still being funded, you know).
But instead of doing real cuts there that, lets face it, aren't really helping the public, they want to kill this bill that will actually help some people.3) The Democrats aren't much better.
The bill has a lot of giveaways, something that's a part of every bill, and I actually wanted a public option (simply because the insurance market is in a state of collusion over prices so the public option will actually make them run for the money).
I also don't like the hazy language about illegal aliens being given any care (I'm fine with legal immigrants, not illegal aliens, getting coverage).4) The abortion debate is a "flag burning distraction".
Abortion, like it or not, is the law of the land.
The inclusion of any such services is, therefore, legal.
Besides, it's not like money is allocated specifically for abortion, it's allocated for healthcare coverage which includes abortion.
It also includes money for amputation and plastic surgery but nobody's complaining about those.
This cynical complaint is made to increase support against this bill from single issue voters that want abortion banned.5) I like a lot of the ideas that the Republicans proposed, stuff like buying access across state lines and all of that is in the bill.
It seems that most people agree with most parts of this bill in parts but they hate the bill in its entirety which is absurd.
That to me smell like something, especially when the Republicans are voting against their own ideas.
It's not far fetched to say that the Republicans have been blocking most of the things the Democrats have been doing and this is no different.
Yes, the Democrats tried to reach out in the beginning but after the Republicans snubbed them, the Democrats did they own thing.
Who is at fault?
Both of them.6) I disagree with tort reform (lawsuits) simply because the data shows that less than 5\% of all healthcare costs are tied to lawsuits and its insurance.
Why focus on the 5\%?
It also stands to make sense to include it, since it's such a small thing, just to get Republicans on board, but that won't happen to due to the point above.
Besides, the trial lawyers that favor Democrats will be mad and if there's no Republican benefit, why bother?The major problem is the Republicans wanted to say no from the very beginning on this.
Now that they see that it's important, they want to start over and thereby attach their party to the credit of any bill that comes forward.
That's why they want to do that.
They agree with 70\% or so of the bill since their own proposals are included in it (including removing of the public option - their idea).I think having this bill in all its awfullness is better than having insurance companies continue to raise prices without end.
I also think that if we do things step by step, Republicans idea, that it will fail because of the shared risk pool that will lower prices for everyone (since most people are not sick most of the time).The way to sell this bill is simple:1) Remove any kickback provisions by embarassing the senators that ask for them and get the public to yell at those senators.2) Focus on the savings benefit.
If we have to spend a trillion now to save 1.2 trillion within a decade, that's a 20\% return in my book.3) Explain and/or write additional language to make it clear to the A</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538468</id>
	<title>Re:The bill appears to suck but....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269016020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does your hourly wage brother have a cell phone? Does he spend money on video games and entertainment, eating out regularly? Those lifestyle expenditures, for many, cost the same as or more than health coverage. I understand many don't have the wherewithal to curb their comfort spending to cover the non glamorous things like health. Personal responsibility seems to be a dirty word anymore. Give up the cell phone, live without the playstation, the nintendo, do you really need 500 channels? Cut all fixed expenses as much as possible, instead of watching that pay per view, for Pete's sake talk to another human, play cards or a board game, go for a walk, read a book from your local library.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does your hourly wage brother have a cell phone ?
Does he spend money on video games and entertainment , eating out regularly ?
Those lifestyle expenditures , for many , cost the same as or more than health coverage .
I understand many do n't have the wherewithal to curb their comfort spending to cover the non glamorous things like health .
Personal responsibility seems to be a dirty word anymore .
Give up the cell phone , live without the playstation , the nintendo , do you really need 500 channels ?
Cut all fixed expenses as much as possible , instead of watching that pay per view , for Pete 's sake talk to another human , play cards or a board game , go for a walk , read a book from your local library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does your hourly wage brother have a cell phone?
Does he spend money on video games and entertainment, eating out regularly?
Those lifestyle expenditures, for many, cost the same as or more than health coverage.
I understand many don't have the wherewithal to curb their comfort spending to cover the non glamorous things like health.
Personal responsibility seems to be a dirty word anymore.
Give up the cell phone, live without the playstation, the nintendo, do you really need 500 channels?
Cut all fixed expenses as much as possible, instead of watching that pay per view, for Pete's sake talk to another human, play cards or a board game, go for a walk, read a book from your local library.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537734</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a sad thing that you were modded insightful, but I guess your modding reflects the mentality of Americans.</p><p>Here is a simple question: if you make taxes optional, then what would you do if 90\% of the people choose not to pay taxes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a sad thing that you were modded insightful , but I guess your modding reflects the mentality of Americans.Here is a simple question : if you make taxes optional , then what would you do if 90 \ % of the people choose not to pay taxes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a sad thing that you were modded insightful, but I guess your modding reflects the mentality of Americans.Here is a simple question: if you make taxes optional, then what would you do if 90\% of the people choose not to pay taxes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537782</id>
	<title>It'll be great ... for 10 years.</title>
	<author>bkeahl</author>
	<datestamp>1269014400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, the system is broken. There are things that should be done.  But what is on the verge of passing now is the entirely wrong thing on moral, constitutional, and economic grounds.<br> <br>
Our system is broken because the consumer (patient) isn't the purchaser (the employer) of the insurance.  The provider of benefits (the doctor) is paid by a party (insurance company) hired by someone other than the consumer (the patient). If the consumer (patient) is unhappy it does not good to talk to the provider of service (the doctor), he calls the payer (insurance company) who knows that the consumer (the patient) isn't the purchaser (the employer) and therefore isn't all that likely to be cooperative with the service provider (the doctor) or the consumer (the patient).  The consumer (patient) can go the the purchaser (HR at his company) who didn't receive any service and has no direct relationship with the provider (the doctor), but wants to keep the cost of the payer (insurance company) down.  No wonder its messed up. The private system is pretty much a more efficient version of a government one!<br> <br>
So we replace that with a system where we pay taxes for four years before most of the benefits kick in.  Then the thing balances out for the next six.  But what happens when that four-years of pay-without-service money isn't there to cover the costs? Tighter regulation and 'prioritizing' of patients (ie rationing).  We've yet to see the governments health-care systems: Medicare and Medicaid come in anywhere near on budget while providers are running away from them. VA hospitals are  great as long as you don't get too sick, but they don't have the resources to provide consistent high quality healthcare.<br> <br>
This is really about co-opting a big chunk of  nearly free-market money to cover the failure of the other programs. Medicare is broke, Medicaid is busting the budget, and Social Security is at cross-over - we'll be paying more money out to recipients than we've taken in AND there's no more money for the government to take from it to fund the budget, AND we have to start paying Social Security "Trust Fund" back. Think about how many times Pelosi will make odd references to medicare and medicaid.  Less so Obama and Reid, but they still do it.  It's because they know the only way to save those programs is to get more resources redirected from the healthcare system the rest of us use.<br> <br>
Get employers out of providing healthcare (let them offer a reimbursement or stipend to employees as part of the incentive package).  Now we all go out hunting for health insurance like we do for our house, car, and death. I'll bet the health insurance companies get much more client friendly when its the client who can take their money elsewhere and not some drone in HR. Yeah, we'll need to tweak pre-existing conditions to deal with portability and the transition to a real independent system.<br> <br>
We'll need to fix tort. The lawyers won't like it, but the system is too litigious.  We have to allow for doctors to not be perfect, and they can quit trying to act like they are. I'd rather have a doctor, especially in an emergency, more worried about how to save my life than cover his butt from a lawsuit later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , the system is broken .
There are things that should be done .
But what is on the verge of passing now is the entirely wrong thing on moral , constitutional , and economic grounds .
Our system is broken because the consumer ( patient ) is n't the purchaser ( the employer ) of the insurance .
The provider of benefits ( the doctor ) is paid by a party ( insurance company ) hired by someone other than the consumer ( the patient ) .
If the consumer ( patient ) is unhappy it does not good to talk to the provider of service ( the doctor ) , he calls the payer ( insurance company ) who knows that the consumer ( the patient ) is n't the purchaser ( the employer ) and therefore is n't all that likely to be cooperative with the service provider ( the doctor ) or the consumer ( the patient ) .
The consumer ( patient ) can go the the purchaser ( HR at his company ) who did n't receive any service and has no direct relationship with the provider ( the doctor ) , but wants to keep the cost of the payer ( insurance company ) down .
No wonder its messed up .
The private system is pretty much a more efficient version of a government one !
So we replace that with a system where we pay taxes for four years before most of the benefits kick in .
Then the thing balances out for the next six .
But what happens when that four-years of pay-without-service money is n't there to cover the costs ?
Tighter regulation and 'prioritizing ' of patients ( ie rationing ) .
We 've yet to see the governments health-care systems : Medicare and Medicaid come in anywhere near on budget while providers are running away from them .
VA hospitals are great as long as you do n't get too sick , but they do n't have the resources to provide consistent high quality healthcare .
This is really about co-opting a big chunk of nearly free-market money to cover the failure of the other programs .
Medicare is broke , Medicaid is busting the budget , and Social Security is at cross-over - we 'll be paying more money out to recipients than we 've taken in AND there 's no more money for the government to take from it to fund the budget , AND we have to start paying Social Security " Trust Fund " back .
Think about how many times Pelosi will make odd references to medicare and medicaid .
Less so Obama and Reid , but they still do it .
It 's because they know the only way to save those programs is to get more resources redirected from the healthcare system the rest of us use .
Get employers out of providing healthcare ( let them offer a reimbursement or stipend to employees as part of the incentive package ) .
Now we all go out hunting for health insurance like we do for our house , car , and death .
I 'll bet the health insurance companies get much more client friendly when its the client who can take their money elsewhere and not some drone in HR .
Yeah , we 'll need to tweak pre-existing conditions to deal with portability and the transition to a real independent system .
We 'll need to fix tort .
The lawyers wo n't like it , but the system is too litigious .
We have to allow for doctors to not be perfect , and they can quit trying to act like they are .
I 'd rather have a doctor , especially in an emergency , more worried about how to save my life than cover his butt from a lawsuit later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, the system is broken.
There are things that should be done.
But what is on the verge of passing now is the entirely wrong thing on moral, constitutional, and economic grounds.
Our system is broken because the consumer (patient) isn't the purchaser (the employer) of the insurance.
The provider of benefits (the doctor) is paid by a party (insurance company) hired by someone other than the consumer (the patient).
If the consumer (patient) is unhappy it does not good to talk to the provider of service (the doctor), he calls the payer (insurance company) who knows that the consumer (the patient) isn't the purchaser (the employer) and therefore isn't all that likely to be cooperative with the service provider (the doctor) or the consumer (the patient).
The consumer (patient) can go the the purchaser (HR at his company) who didn't receive any service and has no direct relationship with the provider (the doctor), but wants to keep the cost of the payer (insurance company) down.
No wonder its messed up.
The private system is pretty much a more efficient version of a government one!
So we replace that with a system where we pay taxes for four years before most of the benefits kick in.
Then the thing balances out for the next six.
But what happens when that four-years of pay-without-service money isn't there to cover the costs?
Tighter regulation and 'prioritizing' of patients (ie rationing).
We've yet to see the governments health-care systems: Medicare and Medicaid come in anywhere near on budget while providers are running away from them.
VA hospitals are  great as long as you don't get too sick, but they don't have the resources to provide consistent high quality healthcare.
This is really about co-opting a big chunk of  nearly free-market money to cover the failure of the other programs.
Medicare is broke, Medicaid is busting the budget, and Social Security is at cross-over - we'll be paying more money out to recipients than we've taken in AND there's no more money for the government to take from it to fund the budget, AND we have to start paying Social Security "Trust Fund" back.
Think about how many times Pelosi will make odd references to medicare and medicaid.
Less so Obama and Reid, but they still do it.
It's because they know the only way to save those programs is to get more resources redirected from the healthcare system the rest of us use.
Get employers out of providing healthcare (let them offer a reimbursement or stipend to employees as part of the incentive package).
Now we all go out hunting for health insurance like we do for our house, car, and death.
I'll bet the health insurance companies get much more client friendly when its the client who can take their money elsewhere and not some drone in HR.
Yeah, we'll need to tweak pre-existing conditions to deal with portability and the transition to a real independent system.
We'll need to fix tort.
The lawyers won't like it, but the system is too litigious.
We have to allow for doctors to not be perfect, and they can quit trying to act like they are.
I'd rather have a doctor, especially in an emergency, more worried about how to save my life than cover his butt from a lawsuit later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538730</id>
	<title>Still a step in the right direction</title>
	<author>FridayBob</author>
	<datestamp>1269016740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disclaimer: I'm an American, but live in Europe.<br>
<br>
Right now the situation with health insurance in the USA is so awful that <b>any</b> change is welcome, just as long as that change does not actually come from the health insurance industry itself.<br>
<br>
The problem with the health insurance industry in the USA is that it is hardly regulated at all. It's unforgivable that the law currently allows them to choose not to insure people based on their personal medical histories, and even worse that people who are insured (and pay the highest premiums of any developed nation) can be (and often are) given such a hard time when health insurance companies decide that they simply don't want to pay.<br>
<br>
Still, so many people in the States seem reluctant to accept any new government proposals for change, because they fear that their already bad situation may actually get worse. They shouldn't be. The only ones who really have anything to fear are the health insurance companies, who are, incidentally, fighting the proposed legislation tooth and nail. That alone should allay people's fears, but amazingly, few seem to notice.<br>
<br>
This coming weekend, if Obama fails to pass his health care plan, it will be a very sad day indeed for the American people. But, I won't blame Obama: as president, he can only do so much when congress refuses to cooperate. I want to see that Americans are still capable of helping themselves, but I fear they are not.<br>
<br>
Let's face it, America has been a plutocracy for decades: it's run by the rich top percentile who cynically manipulate public opinion to their advantage... not hard to do in a country where most people have a pretty miserable education. Wake up, Americans: your country's star is fading fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I 'm an American , but live in Europe .
Right now the situation with health insurance in the USA is so awful that any change is welcome , just as long as that change does not actually come from the health insurance industry itself .
The problem with the health insurance industry in the USA is that it is hardly regulated at all .
It 's unforgivable that the law currently allows them to choose not to insure people based on their personal medical histories , and even worse that people who are insured ( and pay the highest premiums of any developed nation ) can be ( and often are ) given such a hard time when health insurance companies decide that they simply do n't want to pay .
Still , so many people in the States seem reluctant to accept any new government proposals for change , because they fear that their already bad situation may actually get worse .
They should n't be .
The only ones who really have anything to fear are the health insurance companies , who are , incidentally , fighting the proposed legislation tooth and nail .
That alone should allay people 's fears , but amazingly , few seem to notice .
This coming weekend , if Obama fails to pass his health care plan , it will be a very sad day indeed for the American people .
But , I wo n't blame Obama : as president , he can only do so much when congress refuses to cooperate .
I want to see that Americans are still capable of helping themselves , but I fear they are not .
Let 's face it , America has been a plutocracy for decades : it 's run by the rich top percentile who cynically manipulate public opinion to their advantage... not hard to do in a country where most people have a pretty miserable education .
Wake up , Americans : your country 's star is fading fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I'm an American, but live in Europe.
Right now the situation with health insurance in the USA is so awful that any change is welcome, just as long as that change does not actually come from the health insurance industry itself.
The problem with the health insurance industry in the USA is that it is hardly regulated at all.
It's unforgivable that the law currently allows them to choose not to insure people based on their personal medical histories, and even worse that people who are insured (and pay the highest premiums of any developed nation) can be (and often are) given such a hard time when health insurance companies decide that they simply don't want to pay.
Still, so many people in the States seem reluctant to accept any new government proposals for change, because they fear that their already bad situation may actually get worse.
They shouldn't be.
The only ones who really have anything to fear are the health insurance companies, who are, incidentally, fighting the proposed legislation tooth and nail.
That alone should allay people's fears, but amazingly, few seem to notice.
This coming weekend, if Obama fails to pass his health care plan, it will be a very sad day indeed for the American people.
But, I won't blame Obama: as president, he can only do so much when congress refuses to cooperate.
I want to see that Americans are still capable of helping themselves, but I fear they are not.
Let's face it, America has been a plutocracy for decades: it's run by the rich top percentile who cynically manipulate public opinion to their advantage... not hard to do in a country where most people have a pretty miserable education.
Wake up, Americans: your country's star is fading fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31548088</id>
	<title>Re:Random health care thoughts</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1269077040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext> "Random" is accurate.  "Thoughts" less so.  People are not in an outrage over "doctors" pay - they are in an outrage over the parasitic insurance companies' profiteering.  Tort reform is not the "biggest money issue".  You trumpet "negative public opinion", but then when you express *your* opinions they don't make any sense.

<br> <br>What's even sadder than the fact that you are obviously of above average intelligence and education, yet still a dolt, is that this bill does fuck all to actually improve the quality of life in the US for "the people."  The reason it does fuck all to improve the quality of life is precisely because of hordes of nearly mindless parrots such as yourself.  You completely fail to perform any sort of rational analysis of the real issues of health care.  You and your ilk are the blight, not "lawyers".

<br> <br>I will give you this much: the one and only change I would make to the legal profession is simply this: no one who ever takes and passes a bar exam, should ever be permitted to serve as an elected member of any legislative body.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Random " is accurate .
" Thoughts " less so .
People are not in an outrage over " doctors " pay - they are in an outrage over the parasitic insurance companies ' profiteering .
Tort reform is not the " biggest money issue " .
You trumpet " negative public opinion " , but then when you express * your * opinions they do n't make any sense .
What 's even sadder than the fact that you are obviously of above average intelligence and education , yet still a dolt , is that this bill does fuck all to actually improve the quality of life in the US for " the people .
" The reason it does fuck all to improve the quality of life is precisely because of hordes of nearly mindless parrots such as yourself .
You completely fail to perform any sort of rational analysis of the real issues of health care .
You and your ilk are the blight , not " lawyers " .
I will give you this much : the one and only change I would make to the legal profession is simply this : no one who ever takes and passes a bar exam , should ever be permitted to serve as an elected member of any legislative body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Random" is accurate.
"Thoughts" less so.
People are not in an outrage over "doctors" pay - they are in an outrage over the parasitic insurance companies' profiteering.
Tort reform is not the "biggest money issue".
You trumpet "negative public opinion", but then when you express *your* opinions they don't make any sense.
What's even sadder than the fact that you are obviously of above average intelligence and education, yet still a dolt, is that this bill does fuck all to actually improve the quality of life in the US for "the people.
"  The reason it does fuck all to improve the quality of life is precisely because of hordes of nearly mindless parrots such as yourself.
You completely fail to perform any sort of rational analysis of the real issues of health care.
You and your ilk are the blight, not "lawyers".
I will give you this much: the one and only change I would make to the legal profession is simply this: no one who ever takes and passes a bar exam, should ever be permitted to serve as an elected member of any legislative body.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542160</id>
	<title>Re:sign everybody up for veterans' healthcare</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1269029220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that most people who vote aren't veterans. And most veterans don't use the VA because they now get private insurance through their jobs.  The VA serves a tiny minority which in a democracy means they don't get served well.</p><p>Now if most everyone signed up for a national health care system, then deficiencies would become campaign issues for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that most people who vote are n't veterans .
And most veterans do n't use the VA because they now get private insurance through their jobs .
The VA serves a tiny minority which in a democracy means they do n't get served well.Now if most everyone signed up for a national health care system , then deficiencies would become campaign issues for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that most people who vote aren't veterans.
And most veterans don't use the VA because they now get private insurance through their jobs.
The VA serves a tiny minority which in a democracy means they don't get served well.Now if most everyone signed up for a national health care system, then deficiencies would become campaign issues for sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542918</id>
	<title>We have already crossed that bridge.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268989620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've already decided that forcing the public to pay for helping their fellow man was a good idea.  If you want to belong to this particular (and popular) society, you have to pay your taxes so we can have things like police departments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've already decided that forcing the public to pay for helping their fellow man was a good idea .
If you want to belong to this particular ( and popular ) society , you have to pay your taxes so we can have things like police departments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've already decided that forcing the public to pay for helping their fellow man was a good idea.
If you want to belong to this particular (and popular) society, you have to pay your taxes so we can have things like police departments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535486</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Care to define who the "entitlement generation" is?   According to <a href="http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/02/16/study-ages-of-social-network-users/" title="pingdom.com">this recent study</a> [pingdom.com], the average age of slashdot readers is 40.4.  Are you implying that aging boomers/Gen X-ers are that "entitlement generation?"</p><p>(Or are you just trolling?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to define who the " entitlement generation " is ?
According to this recent study [ pingdom.com ] , the average age of slashdot readers is 40.4 .
Are you implying that aging boomers/Gen X-ers are that " entitlement generation ?
" ( Or are you just trolling ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to define who the "entitlement generation" is?
According to this recent study [pingdom.com], the average age of slashdot readers is 40.4.
Are you implying that aging boomers/Gen X-ers are that "entitlement generation?
"(Or are you just trolling?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542112</id>
	<title>Re:Sure.</title>
	<author>iamhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1269028980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>rather have multiple TV's, cars and luxury items rather than buy health insurance</p></div><p>Yeah, I see soooo many people at the free clinic with a dozen TVs, multiple new cars and *prada bags.  Even if true...<br>
32 inch TV = $500<br>
Car payment = $300<br>
New earrings/luxury item every month = $200<br>
And that is still less than what me and my employer pay each month for my family's healthcare (3 people)<br>



<br> <br>*The real ones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>rather have multiple TV 's , cars and luxury items rather than buy health insuranceYeah , I see soooo many people at the free clinic with a dozen TVs , multiple new cars and * prada bags .
Even if true.. . 32 inch TV = $ 500 Car payment = $ 300 New earrings/luxury item every month = $ 200 And that is still less than what me and my employer pay each month for my family 's healthcare ( 3 people ) * The real ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rather have multiple TV's, cars and luxury items rather than buy health insuranceYeah, I see soooo many people at the free clinic with a dozen TVs, multiple new cars and *prada bags.
Even if true...
32 inch TV = $500
Car payment = $300
New earrings/luxury item every month = $200
And that is still less than what me and my employer pay each month for my family's healthcare (3 people)



 *The real ones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543924</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268993820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm one of those who get "free" medicine.  I pay almost $400 a month and still have to pay nearly $8,000 a year for both me and my wife.  On top of that, my 'great' drug coverage goes straight to the deficit.  This bill should pass for fixing that alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm one of those who get " free " medicine .
I pay almost $ 400 a month and still have to pay nearly $ 8,000 a year for both me and my wife .
On top of that , my 'great ' drug coverage goes straight to the deficit .
This bill should pass for fixing that alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm one of those who get "free" medicine.
I pay almost $400 a month and still have to pay nearly $8,000 a year for both me and my wife.
On top of that, my 'great' drug coverage goes straight to the deficit.
This bill should pass for fixing that alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537970</id>
	<title>Re:OK, then why doesn't the EU have universal care</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1269014940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying that only two countries in Europe have proper universal health care?</p><p>It seems your zipper is wide open; it's showing your stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying that only two countries in Europe have proper universal health care ? It seems your zipper is wide open ; it 's showing your stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying that only two countries in Europe have proper universal health care?It seems your zipper is wide open; it's showing your stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537452</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>TBone</author>
	<datestamp>1269013560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the US Government will spend $960,000,000,000 ($960B for the comma-deficient) to manage existing and new health care costs in the U.S.

</p><p>The other option is that this bill does NOT pass, and we spend 1,090,000,000,000 ($1.09T) to provide exactly the same health care services we have now, to what ends up being a smaller population. (That's the cost you outline, plus the CBO's estimate of $130B savings over 10 years.  That does not include the CBO's savings estimate of an additional $1.2T over the second 10).

</p><p>Yes, they're big numbers.  The question isn't if they're big, the question is which is more cost effective. Unless math has changed since I learned it, there is no argument to be presented that shows that providing health insurance for an additional ~32M people at $130B less money than would be spent anyway is not more cost effective than what we're doing now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the US Government will spend $ 960,000,000,000 ( $ 960B for the comma-deficient ) to manage existing and new health care costs in the U.S . The other option is that this bill does NOT pass , and we spend 1,090,000,000,000 ( $ 1.09T ) to provide exactly the same health care services we have now , to what ends up being a smaller population .
( That 's the cost you outline , plus the CBO 's estimate of $ 130B savings over 10 years .
That does not include the CBO 's savings estimate of an additional $ 1.2T over the second 10 ) .
Yes , they 're big numbers .
The question is n't if they 're big , the question is which is more cost effective .
Unless math has changed since I learned it , there is no argument to be presented that shows that providing health insurance for an additional ~ 32M people at $ 130B less money than would be spent anyway is not more cost effective than what we 're doing now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the US Government will spend $960,000,000,000 ($960B for the comma-deficient) to manage existing and new health care costs in the U.S.

The other option is that this bill does NOT pass, and we spend 1,090,000,000,000 ($1.09T) to provide exactly the same health care services we have now, to what ends up being a smaller population.
(That's the cost you outline, plus the CBO's estimate of $130B savings over 10 years.
That does not include the CBO's savings estimate of an additional $1.2T over the second 10).
Yes, they're big numbers.
The question isn't if they're big, the question is which is more cost effective.
Unless math has changed since I learned it, there is no argument to be presented that shows that providing health insurance for an additional ~32M people at $130B less money than would be spent anyway is not more cost effective than what we're doing now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536324</id>
	<title>You guys make me laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am from Europe (yeeeaaah Europe) and seriously you americans make me laugh with your hesitations about this...<br>On one hand you complain about your healthcare being crap when you are not filthy rich... (even then it is quite crap considering the prices your doctors charge)<br>and on the other hand you go "oh but it is unconstitutional! its not the american way!"<br>so the american way is to get shafted again and again and complain about it but not do anything about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am from Europe ( yeeeaaah Europe ) and seriously you americans make me laugh with your hesitations about this...On one hand you complain about your healthcare being crap when you are not filthy rich... ( even then it is quite crap considering the prices your doctors charge ) and on the other hand you go " oh but it is unconstitutional !
its not the american way !
" so the american way is to get shafted again and again and complain about it but not do anything about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am from Europe (yeeeaaah Europe) and seriously you americans make me laugh with your hesitations about this...On one hand you complain about your healthcare being crap when you are not filthy rich... (even then it is quite crap considering the prices your doctors charge)and on the other hand you go "oh but it is unconstitutional!
its not the american way!
"so the american way is to get shafted again and again and complain about it but not do anything about it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538592</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>Negadecimal</author>
	<datestamp>1269016380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally agree.</p><p>Late last year, I had some "required pre-op bloodwork" done in preparation for minor neck surgery. I drove to the hospital, signed some papers, and was ushered to a back room where a nurse drew two vials of blood, then sent me on my way. My car was still warm when I got back in it.</p><p>I was billed $1,200 for the hospital visit. My insurance, which I send about $7k in premiums each year, found a dozen "reasons" to deny payment on the subsequent claim. I'm still fighting.</p><p>Now, I don't blame the providers for trying to milk insurance for everything they're worth, and for amortizing costs across $30 aspirin and $20 toothbrushes. I also don't blame insurance companies for avoiding payment - they have a bottom line, too. I blame costs. When a blood draw costs as much as a CAT scan, we shouldn't be focused on access to insurance; we should be lowering the cost of the blood draw. Our system lacks efficiency, transparency, and common sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally agree.Late last year , I had some " required pre-op bloodwork " done in preparation for minor neck surgery .
I drove to the hospital , signed some papers , and was ushered to a back room where a nurse drew two vials of blood , then sent me on my way .
My car was still warm when I got back in it.I was billed $ 1,200 for the hospital visit .
My insurance , which I send about $ 7k in premiums each year , found a dozen " reasons " to deny payment on the subsequent claim .
I 'm still fighting.Now , I do n't blame the providers for trying to milk insurance for everything they 're worth , and for amortizing costs across $ 30 aspirin and $ 20 toothbrushes .
I also do n't blame insurance companies for avoiding payment - they have a bottom line , too .
I blame costs .
When a blood draw costs as much as a CAT scan , we should n't be focused on access to insurance ; we should be lowering the cost of the blood draw .
Our system lacks efficiency , transparency , and common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally agree.Late last year, I had some "required pre-op bloodwork" done in preparation for minor neck surgery.
I drove to the hospital, signed some papers, and was ushered to a back room where a nurse drew two vials of blood, then sent me on my way.
My car was still warm when I got back in it.I was billed $1,200 for the hospital visit.
My insurance, which I send about $7k in premiums each year, found a dozen "reasons" to deny payment on the subsequent claim.
I'm still fighting.Now, I don't blame the providers for trying to milk insurance for everything they're worth, and for amortizing costs across $30 aspirin and $20 toothbrushes.
I also don't blame insurance companies for avoiding payment - they have a bottom line, too.
I blame costs.
When a blood draw costs as much as a CAT scan, we shouldn't be focused on access to insurance; we should be lowering the cost of the blood draw.
Our system lacks efficiency, transparency, and common sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Republicans had years in which they could have pushed through health care reform</p><p>They did.<br>Or have you forgotten the new Prescription Medicine Reform where people can get "free" medicine?  Or the Tort Reform to help reduce expenses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Republicans had years in which they could have pushed through health care reformThey did.Or have you forgotten the new Prescription Medicine Reform where people can get " free " medicine ?
Or the Tort Reform to help reduce expenses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Republicans had years in which they could have pushed through health care reformThey did.Or have you forgotten the new Prescription Medicine Reform where people can get "free" medicine?
Or the Tort Reform to help reduce expenses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542664</id>
	<title>I know how to pay for it all</title>
	<author>crsuperman34</author>
	<datestamp>1269031740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know how to pay for healthcare and more quite simply:
end the failed, horribly antiquated 'war on drugs' (+$19 billion)
save on jail and federal prison sentencing and jailing (+10 billion)
legalize pot &amp; tax the bejeesus out of it (+ 3 billion)
monitor, legislate and control other narcotics (+1 billion)

That wouldn't be a bad start. You would end alot of violence, broken families and the unemployment rates would go down since future 'convicts' will be able to land jobs. Being that they're not a 'criminal' anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know how to pay for healthcare and more quite simply : end the failed , horribly antiquated 'war on drugs ' ( + $ 19 billion ) save on jail and federal prison sentencing and jailing ( + 10 billion ) legalize pot &amp; tax the bejeesus out of it ( + 3 billion ) monitor , legislate and control other narcotics ( + 1 billion ) That would n't be a bad start .
You would end alot of violence , broken families and the unemployment rates would go down since future 'convicts ' will be able to land jobs .
Being that they 're not a 'criminal ' anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know how to pay for healthcare and more quite simply:
end the failed, horribly antiquated 'war on drugs' (+$19 billion)
save on jail and federal prison sentencing and jailing (+10 billion)
legalize pot &amp; tax the bejeesus out of it (+ 3 billion)
monitor, legislate and control other narcotics (+1 billion)

That wouldn't be a bad start.
You would end alot of violence, broken families and the unemployment rates would go down since future 'convicts' will be able to land jobs.
Being that they're not a 'criminal' anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535268</id>
	<title>It'll do both</title>
	<author>Orne</author>
	<datestamp>1269007560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bill will</p><ul><li>... Fundamentally transform how health care <b>insurance</b> is managed in the United States</li><li>... Probably result in lower standards of health care <b>service</b>, as businesses are forced into tightening their budgets.  We already see that Walgreens has decided to <a href="http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/18/121\_Walgreens\_Stores\_to\_Stop\_Taking\_New\_Medicaid\_Patients/" title="wn.com" rel="nofollow">drop Medicaid patients</a> [wn.com] because the government is reimbursing them a fraction of wholesale.</li><li>... Allows the federal government to provide funds for abortions.  This is the political sticking point that is fracturing the Democrat party at the moment.</li><li>... Allows the Republicans to sit on the sidelines and nit-pick, since the House is Democrat controlled, and Senate is 59/100 (but their bill passed already).</li><li>... Piss off the American public.  <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public\_content/politics/current\_events/healthcare/september\_2009/health\_care\_reform" title="rasmussenreports.com" rel="nofollow">53\% of the polled public</a> [rasmussenreports.com] oppose the bill as written.</li></ul><p>The bill will probably pass.  There is an indication that many Democrats will vote Yes in a "scorched earth" fashion, as many are already polling to lose their positions in November.  The Republicans will probably sweep in the fall elections, akin to 1994, stalling Obama's progressive run of the last year and a half.  Since his administration has shown no inkling of actually being "bi-partisan", unless he fundamentally changes his approach to politics, Obama will probably be remembered as Jimmy Carter II.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill will... Fundamentally transform how health care insurance is managed in the United States... Probably result in lower standards of health care service , as businesses are forced into tightening their budgets .
We already see that Walgreens has decided to drop Medicaid patients [ wn.com ] because the government is reimbursing them a fraction of wholesale.... Allows the federal government to provide funds for abortions .
This is the political sticking point that is fracturing the Democrat party at the moment.... Allows the Republicans to sit on the sidelines and nit-pick , since the House is Democrat controlled , and Senate is 59/100 ( but their bill passed already ) .... Piss off the American public .
53 \ % of the polled public [ rasmussenreports.com ] oppose the bill as written.The bill will probably pass .
There is an indication that many Democrats will vote Yes in a " scorched earth " fashion , as many are already polling to lose their positions in November .
The Republicans will probably sweep in the fall elections , akin to 1994 , stalling Obama 's progressive run of the last year and a half .
Since his administration has shown no inkling of actually being " bi-partisan " , unless he fundamentally changes his approach to politics , Obama will probably be remembered as Jimmy Carter II .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill will... Fundamentally transform how health care insurance is managed in the United States... Probably result in lower standards of health care service, as businesses are forced into tightening their budgets.
We already see that Walgreens has decided to drop Medicaid patients [wn.com] because the government is reimbursing them a fraction of wholesale.... Allows the federal government to provide funds for abortions.
This is the political sticking point that is fracturing the Democrat party at the moment.... Allows the Republicans to sit on the sidelines and nit-pick, since the House is Democrat controlled, and Senate is 59/100 (but their bill passed already).... Piss off the American public.
53\% of the polled public [rasmussenreports.com] oppose the bill as written.The bill will probably pass.
There is an indication that many Democrats will vote Yes in a "scorched earth" fashion, as many are already polling to lose their positions in November.
The Republicans will probably sweep in the fall elections, akin to 1994, stalling Obama's progressive run of the last year and a half.
Since his administration has shown no inkling of actually being "bi-partisan", unless he fundamentally changes his approach to politics, Obama will probably be remembered as Jimmy Carter II.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536266</id>
	<title>Re:They should come for IT next</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1269010620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As I have pointed out [codemonkeyramblings.com], IT is as wasteful, if not more so, than the health care system. </i></p><p>Well, the minute IT is responsible for routinely bankrupting people because of conditions that are completely outside their realm of control, let me know.  And the minute IT is responsible for truly astonishing levels of drag on the economy, placing a massive burden on the small businesses which are the engine of the American economy, well maybe then you might have a point.  And when IT, like healthcare, becomes a service that everyone will, at some point in their lives, be forced to personally avail themselves, well, then your little metaphor might be worth considering.</p><p>Until then, I think it's safe to say that healthcare and IT are such drastically different industries that to compare the two is the height of idiocy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I have pointed out [ codemonkeyramblings.com ] , IT is as wasteful , if not more so , than the health care system .
Well , the minute IT is responsible for routinely bankrupting people because of conditions that are completely outside their realm of control , let me know .
And the minute IT is responsible for truly astonishing levels of drag on the economy , placing a massive burden on the small businesses which are the engine of the American economy , well maybe then you might have a point .
And when IT , like healthcare , becomes a service that everyone will , at some point in their lives , be forced to personally avail themselves , well , then your little metaphor might be worth considering.Until then , I think it 's safe to say that healthcare and IT are such drastically different industries that to compare the two is the height of idiocy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I have pointed out [codemonkeyramblings.com], IT is as wasteful, if not more so, than the health care system.
Well, the minute IT is responsible for routinely bankrupting people because of conditions that are completely outside their realm of control, let me know.
And the minute IT is responsible for truly astonishing levels of drag on the economy, placing a massive burden on the small businesses which are the engine of the American economy, well maybe then you might have a point.
And when IT, like healthcare, becomes a service that everyone will, at some point in their lives, be forced to personally avail themselves, well, then your little metaphor might be worth considering.Until then, I think it's safe to say that healthcare and IT are such drastically different industries that to compare the two is the height of idiocy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537888</id>
	<title>Re:do you trust obama and the dems ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, we should have kept in the oil barons who went to war with Iraq and gave the reconstruction contracts to their own companies.  We can trust those guys!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , we should have kept in the oil barons who went to war with Iraq and gave the reconstruction contracts to their own companies .
We can trust those guys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, we should have kept in the oil barons who went to war with Iraq and gave the reconstruction contracts to their own companies.
We can trust those guys!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535752</id>
	<title>sign everybody up for veterans' healthcare</title>
	<author>rkww</author>
	<datestamp>1269009060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me you already have a government-run healthcare system in the way of the Department of <a href="http://www1.va.gov/opa/publications/benefits\_book/benefits\_chap01.asp" title="va.gov">Veteran Affairs</a> [va.gov]. Or am I missing something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me you already have a government-run healthcare system in the way of the Department of Veteran Affairs [ va.gov ] .
Or am I missing something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me you already have a government-run healthcare system in the way of the Department of Veteran Affairs [va.gov].
Or am I missing something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536358</id>
	<title>Re:Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is possible that all the other single payer systems in the world have remained efficient and of high quality because the world's leading economy (USA) has been willing to respond to market incentives and foot the enormous bill for private research and development.  If health care technologies lose the US free market as a way to monetize their investment, we are likely to see a dramatic decrease in medical innovation.</p><p>Strangely, that will probably help control costs, as most new technologies do increase the cost of health care, but we'll never know how much suffering and death would have been avoided by innovations that will simply never come to light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is possible that all the other single payer systems in the world have remained efficient and of high quality because the world 's leading economy ( USA ) has been willing to respond to market incentives and foot the enormous bill for private research and development .
If health care technologies lose the US free market as a way to monetize their investment , we are likely to see a dramatic decrease in medical innovation.Strangely , that will probably help control costs , as most new technologies do increase the cost of health care , but we 'll never know how much suffering and death would have been avoided by innovations that will simply never come to light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is possible that all the other single payer systems in the world have remained efficient and of high quality because the world's leading economy (USA) has been willing to respond to market incentives and foot the enormous bill for private research and development.
If health care technologies lose the US free market as a way to monetize their investment, we are likely to see a dramatic decrease in medical innovation.Strangely, that will probably help control costs, as most new technologies do increase the cost of health care, but we'll never know how much suffering and death would have been avoided by innovations that will simply never come to light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538166</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1269015300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that Harry Reid has no balls.  He gave the Republicans everything they asked for, and then they complained the bill was too long.</p><p>You want a small bill? How about this: let any business or individual buy into Medicare at a price set actuarially to reduce the program contribution to combined state and federal deficit by some fixed figure; let's say a half trillion dollars over the course of a decade.  That's roughly the net effect of the current bill.  Subsequently premiums would be set so that the net change in government debt over the coming decade would be 0.  Three would be no change in regulation of private insurance.  Private insurers would be free to shed their sick patients on the Medicare.   To discourage this, higher co-payments would be required for patients priced out of their private insurance by being sick, but with hardship exceptions. Even so, private insurance would be free to dump their unprofitable patients on the government, rather than on health care providers' charity.  They'd have to moderate that practice only to the degree a rational person might question the value of an insurance product that does not insure.</p><p>This bill is pretty much the Republican counter-proposal to Clinton's health plan.  Does it include every idea that Republicans have dreamed up in the last year?  No.  But based on their track record they ought to be able to get the Democrats to sign on to many of those, too.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that Harry Reid has no balls .
He gave the Republicans everything they asked for , and then they complained the bill was too long.You want a small bill ?
How about this : let any business or individual buy into Medicare at a price set actuarially to reduce the program contribution to combined state and federal deficit by some fixed figure ; let 's say a half trillion dollars over the course of a decade .
That 's roughly the net effect of the current bill .
Subsequently premiums would be set so that the net change in government debt over the coming decade would be 0 .
Three would be no change in regulation of private insurance .
Private insurers would be free to shed their sick patients on the Medicare .
To discourage this , higher co-payments would be required for patients priced out of their private insurance by being sick , but with hardship exceptions .
Even so , private insurance would be free to dump their unprofitable patients on the government , rather than on health care providers ' charity .
They 'd have to moderate that practice only to the degree a rational person might question the value of an insurance product that does not insure.This bill is pretty much the Republican counter-proposal to Clinton 's health plan .
Does it include every idea that Republicans have dreamed up in the last year ?
No. But based on their track record they ought to be able to get the Democrats to sign on to many of those , too .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that Harry Reid has no balls.
He gave the Republicans everything they asked for, and then they complained the bill was too long.You want a small bill?
How about this: let any business or individual buy into Medicare at a price set actuarially to reduce the program contribution to combined state and federal deficit by some fixed figure; let's say a half trillion dollars over the course of a decade.
That's roughly the net effect of the current bill.
Subsequently premiums would be set so that the net change in government debt over the coming decade would be 0.
Three would be no change in regulation of private insurance.
Private insurers would be free to shed their sick patients on the Medicare.
To discourage this, higher co-payments would be required for patients priced out of their private insurance by being sick, but with hardship exceptions.
Even so, private insurance would be free to dump their unprofitable patients on the government, rather than on health care providers' charity.
They'd have to moderate that practice only to the degree a rational person might question the value of an insurance product that does not insure.This bill is pretty much the Republican counter-proposal to Clinton's health plan.
Does it include every idea that Republicans have dreamed up in the last year?
No.  But based on their track record they ought to be able to get the Democrats to sign on to many of those, too.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545580</id>
	<title>Euro-hippies</title>
	<author>juventasone</author>
	<datestamp>1269002160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Next thing you know they'll be invading American schools and teaching metric.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next thing you know they 'll be invading American schools and teaching metric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next thing you know they'll be invading American schools and teaching metric.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539066</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269017820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Prices that companies charge individuals are generally cheap.</p></div><p>In what alternate dimension do you live, where insurance purchased on the individual market in the US is cheaper than buying group insurance?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Prices they charge companies are high and prices they charge goverments are INSANE?</p></div><p>Actually they pay less, because they buy insurance for large groups which spreads the risk around. There's also a volume discount in some cases. One of the reasons for the exchange is to allow individuals to buy insurance at group rates.</p><p>Most of your items read as very partisan talking points, which have some degree of merit, but don't deal with risk discrimination or covering the uninsured.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prices that companies charge individuals are generally cheap.In what alternate dimension do you live , where insurance purchased on the individual market in the US is cheaper than buying group insurance ? Prices they charge companies are high and prices they charge goverments are INSANE ? Actually they pay less , because they buy insurance for large groups which spreads the risk around .
There 's also a volume discount in some cases .
One of the reasons for the exchange is to allow individuals to buy insurance at group rates.Most of your items read as very partisan talking points , which have some degree of merit , but do n't deal with risk discrimination or covering the uninsured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prices that companies charge individuals are generally cheap.In what alternate dimension do you live, where insurance purchased on the individual market in the US is cheaper than buying group insurance?Prices they charge companies are high and prices they charge goverments are INSANE?Actually they pay less, because they buy insurance for large groups which spreads the risk around.
There's also a volume discount in some cases.
One of the reasons for the exchange is to allow individuals to buy insurance at group rates.Most of your items read as very partisan talking points, which have some degree of merit, but don't deal with risk discrimination or covering the uninsured.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537182</id>
	<title>it is worse that Fox reports</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bill is bad on many levels.<br>It is purely partisan (Cathedral rather than Bazaar).<br>It forces Americans to buy healthcare.<br>It forces all Americans to pay for abortions.<br>It takes over 1/6th of the economy.<br>It puts an army of bureaucrats between you and your doctor.<br>It is big brother squared.<br>It takes away individual and state rights.<br>Bribes, kickbacks, and unconstitutional procedures.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill is bad on many levels.It is purely partisan ( Cathedral rather than Bazaar ) .It forces Americans to buy healthcare.It forces all Americans to pay for abortions.It takes over 1/6th of the economy.It puts an army of bureaucrats between you and your doctor.It is big brother squared.It takes away individual and state rights.Bribes , kickbacks , and unconstitutional procedures .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill is bad on many levels.It is purely partisan (Cathedral rather than Bazaar).It forces Americans to buy healthcare.It forces all Americans to pay for abortions.It takes over 1/6th of the economy.It puts an army of bureaucrats between you and your doctor.It is big brother squared.It takes away individual and state rights.Bribes, kickbacks, and unconstitutional procedures.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535404</id>
	<title>bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read it for yourself.
What I read is a wet dream for the insurance companies and penalizes anyone who is self-reliant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read it for yourself .
What I read is a wet dream for the insurance companies and penalizes anyone who is self-reliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read it for yourself.
What I read is a wet dream for the insurance companies and penalizes anyone who is self-reliant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535452</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>rpjs</author>
	<datestamp>1269008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let us know if you finally do decide to join the civilised world America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let us know if you finally do decide to join the civilised world America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let us know if you finally do decide to join the civilised world America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541050</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional Mandate</title>
	<author>doug</author>
	<datestamp>1269024600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> If I understand things, VA just made that a violation of state law.  It is now on the books there, so passing this law will give VA something to sue over. We all know that Federal law nearly always trumps state laws, but I think the Republican plan is to rush it to SCOTUS and let the 5-4 conservative majority declare it to be unconstitutional.  After Obama's comment about the SCOTUS in his SotU, some of the Supremes might be looking forward to this case. </p><p> - doug </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I understand things , VA just made that a violation of state law .
It is now on the books there , so passing this law will give VA something to sue over .
We all know that Federal law nearly always trumps state laws , but I think the Republican plan is to rush it to SCOTUS and let the 5-4 conservative majority declare it to be unconstitutional .
After Obama 's comment about the SCOTUS in his SotU , some of the Supremes might be looking forward to this case .
- doug</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If I understand things, VA just made that a violation of state law.
It is now on the books there, so passing this law will give VA something to sue over.
We all know that Federal law nearly always trumps state laws, but I think the Republican plan is to rush it to SCOTUS and let the 5-4 conservative majority declare it to be unconstitutional.
After Obama's comment about the SCOTUS in his SotU, some of the Supremes might be looking forward to this case.
- doug </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538314</id>
	<title>Re:do you trust obama and the dems ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As opposed to the current system, where the pressure of 'natural' selection on the 'underclass' who can't afford insurance keeps their numbers down.</p><p>Nice try.  A bad hospital is usually better than no hospital.</p><p>Also, in all seriousness, think of all the insurance company functionaries this keeps out of the breadline.  It's basically a privatized choice of payment processor for a national system, and means that instead of 'the gubbmint' unilaterally declaring which treatments are supported, the 'market' selects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to the current system , where the pressure of 'natural ' selection on the 'underclass ' who ca n't afford insurance keeps their numbers down.Nice try .
A bad hospital is usually better than no hospital.Also , in all seriousness , think of all the insurance company functionaries this keeps out of the breadline .
It 's basically a privatized choice of payment processor for a national system , and means that instead of 'the gubbmint ' unilaterally declaring which treatments are supported , the 'market ' selects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to the current system, where the pressure of 'natural' selection on the 'underclass' who can't afford insurance keeps their numbers down.Nice try.
A bad hospital is usually better than no hospital.Also, in all seriousness, think of all the insurance company functionaries this keeps out of the breadline.
It's basically a privatized choice of payment processor for a national system, and means that instead of 'the gubbmint' unilaterally declaring which treatments are supported, the 'market' selects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540352</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269021960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>5. Ah yes the illegals.</p> </div><p>Yes, the problem that people like you love to dismiss.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why stop there? What about the homeless?</p></div><p>WARNING: STRAWMAN ALERT LEVEL TO DEFCON 3!</p><p>Because the homeless are citizens, asshole.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Look, I'm not a fan of illegal immigrant either.</p></div><p>That sounds like when racists say "Some of my best friends are black!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 .
Ah yes the illegals .
Yes , the problem that people like you love to dismiss.Why stop there ?
What about the homeless ? WARNING : STRAWMAN ALERT LEVEL TO DEFCON 3 ! Because the homeless are citizens , asshole.Look , I 'm not a fan of illegal immigrant either.That sounds like when racists say " Some of my best friends are black !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5.
Ah yes the illegals.
Yes, the problem that people like you love to dismiss.Why stop there?
What about the homeless?WARNING: STRAWMAN ALERT LEVEL TO DEFCON 3!Because the homeless are citizens, asshole.Look, I'm not a fan of illegal immigrant either.That sounds like when racists say "Some of my best friends are black!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31548770</id>
	<title>Re:Hard to have a debate</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1269092220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that hard - don't be intimidated by the size of the bill.  It's what's left out that's important - there is no public option to force costs down, there is no end to the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by insurers, to bring costs down.</p><blockquote><div><p>While I agree the current health care system leaves a lot to be desired, I think the timing is terrible. Our financial house is not in order and the economy seems to be in the middle of a long term case of fatigue. In short, I don't think we can afford it.</p></div></blockquote><p>We can't afford <i>not</i> to do it.  If you think this is expensive, how about the fact that insurance companies have been upping their rates by double digits every year - 39\% in California this year alone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that hard - do n't be intimidated by the size of the bill .
It 's what 's left out that 's important - there is no public option to force costs down , there is no end to the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by insurers , to bring costs down.While I agree the current health care system leaves a lot to be desired , I think the timing is terrible .
Our financial house is not in order and the economy seems to be in the middle of a long term case of fatigue .
In short , I do n't think we can afford it.We ca n't afford not to do it .
If you think this is expensive , how about the fact that insurance companies have been upping their rates by double digits every year - 39 \ % in California this year alone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that hard - don't be intimidated by the size of the bill.
It's what's left out that's important - there is no public option to force costs down, there is no end to the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by insurers, to bring costs down.While I agree the current health care system leaves a lot to be desired, I think the timing is terrible.
Our financial house is not in order and the economy seems to be in the middle of a long term case of fatigue.
In short, I don't think we can afford it.We can't afford not to do it.
If you think this is expensive, how about the fact that insurance companies have been upping their rates by double digits every year - 39\% in California this year alone?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543040</id>
	<title>Re:Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1268990100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in thirty years you will be spending 100\% of your GDP on health services.</p></div><p>I'm undoing mods to post this, but this is EXACTLY the kind of logic that makes me die a little inside.  Didn't we learn better from Malthus? <b>The fact that extrapolating growth leads to an impossible outcome means that growth won't continue that way</b>.  Surely you're not suggesting that people will sign away the entirety of their paycheck on health insurance and opt not to eat, clothe themselves, and otherwise live their lives.  There is some hidden limit to what amount of expenditure the economy will support, and eventually we'll hit it and people will have to ask themselves what sort of health care they're actually willing to pay for.
<br> <br>
Government intervention <i>delays</i>, not prevents, that day, by making us able to continue spending more (societally instead of out of pocket).  I'm not suggesting reform isn't a good idea, only we stop kidding ourselves if we think anything that doesn't actually cut costs is going to help anything.  It may or may not be that THIS reform isn't a good idea on those grounds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in thirty years you will be spending 100 \ % of your GDP on health services.I 'm undoing mods to post this , but this is EXACTLY the kind of logic that makes me die a little inside .
Did n't we learn better from Malthus ?
The fact that extrapolating growth leads to an impossible outcome means that growth wo n't continue that way .
Surely you 're not suggesting that people will sign away the entirety of their paycheck on health insurance and opt not to eat , clothe themselves , and otherwise live their lives .
There is some hidden limit to what amount of expenditure the economy will support , and eventually we 'll hit it and people will have to ask themselves what sort of health care they 're actually willing to pay for .
Government intervention delays , not prevents , that day , by making us able to continue spending more ( societally instead of out of pocket ) .
I 'm not suggesting reform is n't a good idea , only we stop kidding ourselves if we think anything that does n't actually cut costs is going to help anything .
It may or may not be that THIS reform is n't a good idea on those grounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in thirty years you will be spending 100\% of your GDP on health services.I'm undoing mods to post this, but this is EXACTLY the kind of logic that makes me die a little inside.
Didn't we learn better from Malthus?
The fact that extrapolating growth leads to an impossible outcome means that growth won't continue that way.
Surely you're not suggesting that people will sign away the entirety of their paycheck on health insurance and opt not to eat, clothe themselves, and otherwise live their lives.
There is some hidden limit to what amount of expenditure the economy will support, and eventually we'll hit it and people will have to ask themselves what sort of health care they're actually willing to pay for.
Government intervention delays, not prevents, that day, by making us able to continue spending more (societally instead of out of pocket).
I'm not suggesting reform isn't a good idea, only we stop kidding ourselves if we think anything that doesn't actually cut costs is going to help anything.
It may or may not be that THIS reform isn't a good idea on those grounds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062</id>
	<title>Somewhere in between.</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1269006780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But then everyone knew that already.</p><p>I expect it will at least mitigate my issues getting health insurance after getting kicked off my parents' plan, so there's that.</p><p>As for the Republicans' complaints, I'm not really clear on what there is in this bill the Republicans didn't argue for. If the left had written the bill, it would dismantle the insurance industry and set up single payer. The only thing it's missing is tort reform, and the fact is that tort reform is a red herring. It accounts for 1-2\% of healthcare expenditures, and that sounds about right. There should be a process for handling legitimate malpractice claims, and it's never going to be free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But then everyone knew that already.I expect it will at least mitigate my issues getting health insurance after getting kicked off my parents ' plan , so there 's that.As for the Republicans ' complaints , I 'm not really clear on what there is in this bill the Republicans did n't argue for .
If the left had written the bill , it would dismantle the insurance industry and set up single payer .
The only thing it 's missing is tort reform , and the fact is that tort reform is a red herring .
It accounts for 1-2 \ % of healthcare expenditures , and that sounds about right .
There should be a process for handling legitimate malpractice claims , and it 's never going to be free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then everyone knew that already.I expect it will at least mitigate my issues getting health insurance after getting kicked off my parents' plan, so there's that.As for the Republicans' complaints, I'm not really clear on what there is in this bill the Republicans didn't argue for.
If the left had written the bill, it would dismantle the insurance industry and set up single payer.
The only thing it's missing is tort reform, and the fact is that tort reform is a red herring.
It accounts for 1-2\% of healthcare expenditures, and that sounds about right.
There should be a process for handling legitimate malpractice claims, and it's never going to be free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538658</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269016560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet... this has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrat.  It has to do with the American people and according to recent polls, the majority of American people do not support this bill: <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public\_content/politics/current\_events/healthcare/september\_2009/health\_care\_reform" title="rasmussenreports.com" rel="nofollow">Rasmussen Reports</a> [rasmussenreports.com] 43\% support, 53\% Oppose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet... this has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrat .
It has to do with the American people and according to recent polls , the majority of American people do not support this bill : Rasmussen Reports [ rasmussenreports.com ] 43 \ % support , 53 \ % Oppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet... this has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrat.
It has to do with the American people and according to recent polls, the majority of American people do not support this bill: Rasmussen Reports [rasmussenreports.com] 43\% support, 53\% Oppose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535300</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1269007740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad.</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you know how crowded it is down there?  If you saw the labor requirements for just the inprocessing facility, you'd know the Devil would prefer more virtuous behavior from the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad.Do you know how crowded it is down there ?
If you saw the labor requirements for just the inprocessing facility , you 'd know the Devil would prefer more virtuous behavior from the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad.Do you know how crowded it is down there?
If you saw the labor requirements for just the inprocessing facility, you'd know the Devil would prefer more virtuous behavior from the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536282</id>
	<title>Re:Dear readers with mod points...</title>
	<author>Cimexus</author>
	<datestamp>1269010620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe that actually worked!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe that actually worked !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe that actually worked!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535744</id>
	<title>I Believe We Need Reform</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1269009000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just can't help but think this bill isn't going to do it.  I'm sad about the lack of a public option and I'm disappointed in the Democrats for their lack of solidarity.  The GOP is a stubborn bunch but they remain effective in their unity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just ca n't help but think this bill is n't going to do it .
I 'm sad about the lack of a public option and I 'm disappointed in the Democrats for their lack of solidarity .
The GOP is a stubborn bunch but they remain effective in their unity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just can't help but think this bill isn't going to do it.
I'm sad about the lack of a public option and I'm disappointed in the Democrats for their lack of solidarity.
The GOP is a stubborn bunch but they remain effective in their unity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538288</id>
	<title>I don't see too many highlighting...</title>
	<author>ScientiaPotentiaEst</author>
	<datestamp>1269015600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the mandatory requirement to purchase a product.
</p><p>
I have wondered in times past what would drive me to drop out.  I think this is it.  I shall not be forced under pain of fine and imprisonment to purchase another's private product.  No.  Enough.
</p><p>
Worse still than this bill's moral absurdity is the precedent it sets.  There are legal scholars now who promote the idea of mandatory tort liability insurance for everone ([1]).  No doubt they would be pleased to see this camel's nose lifting the tent's edge.
</p><p>
Mandatory medical insurance or go to prison?  The irony is too rich.
</p><p>
[1] <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=844210" title="ssrn.com" rel="nofollow">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=844210</a> [ssrn.com]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the mandatory requirement to purchase a product .
I have wondered in times past what would drive me to drop out .
I think this is it .
I shall not be forced under pain of fine and imprisonment to purchase another 's private product .
No. Enough .
Worse still than this bill 's moral absurdity is the precedent it sets .
There are legal scholars now who promote the idea of mandatory tort liability insurance for everone ( [ 1 ] ) .
No doubt they would be pleased to see this camel 's nose lifting the tent 's edge .
Mandatory medical insurance or go to prison ?
The irony is too rich .
[ 1 ] http : //papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ? abstract \ _id = 844210 [ ssrn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... the mandatory requirement to purchase a product.
I have wondered in times past what would drive me to drop out.
I think this is it.
I shall not be forced under pain of fine and imprisonment to purchase another's private product.
No.  Enough.
Worse still than this bill's moral absurdity is the precedent it sets.
There are legal scholars now who promote the idea of mandatory tort liability insurance for everone ([1]).
No doubt they would be pleased to see this camel's nose lifting the tent's edge.
Mandatory medical insurance or go to prison?
The irony is too rich.
[1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=844210 [ssrn.com]
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537032</id>
	<title>Re:Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Your health is poor, overall, especially you have poor child health, and relatively poor maternal and infant health."</p><p>Try again.  The US infant health is lower, because we try to save and deliver high risk pregnancies.  Many other countries abort or do not give the baby a chance.  The health of infants is much higher in US when looking at low-risk vs high-risk categories than any other country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Your health is poor , overall , especially you have poor child health , and relatively poor maternal and infant health .
" Try again .
The US infant health is lower , because we try to save and deliver high risk pregnancies .
Many other countries abort or do not give the baby a chance .
The health of infants is much higher in US when looking at low-risk vs high-risk categories than any other country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Your health is poor, overall, especially you have poor child health, and relatively poor maternal and infant health.
"Try again.
The US infant health is lower, because we try to save and deliver high risk pregnancies.
Many other countries abort or do not give the baby a chance.
The health of infants is much higher in US when looking at low-risk vs high-risk categories than any other country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540526</id>
	<title>this thread...</title>
	<author>ta ma de</author>
	<datestamp>1269022620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is bigger than the Health care bill. Who has time to read it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>is bigger than the Health care bill .
Who has time to read it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is bigger than the Health care bill.
Who has time to read it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541988</id>
	<title>Some great summaries of what's really in the bill</title>
	<author>jimgagne</author>
	<datestamp>1269028560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I practice internal medicine near Los Angeles (http://drgagne.com). It's clear to any physician currently in practice that the health care system is broken and falling apart rapidly. If reform fails to pass, unless you work for a Fortune 500 firm, you will almost certainly lose your insurance within the next few years. Opponents of reform are using FUD to scare you, but almost all of their claims are lies. For example, there NEVER were any "death panels."

Here are some great descriptions of what's in the bill and what's not:

1. Quick summary from the Washington Post: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/health-care-reconciliation/" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/health-care-reconciliation/</a> [washingtonpost.com]

2. Nice graphic of how much it costs and why it lowers the deficit: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-031910-sc\_health\_care\_costs-g,0,6098627.graphic" title="latimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-031910-sc\_health\_care\_costs-g,0,6098627.graphic</a> [latimes.com]

3. Fabulous answers to "twenty questions" about what's REALLY in the bill: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-oe-kmiecweb19-2010mar19,0,6451390.story" title="latimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-oe-kmiecweb19-2010mar19,0,6451390.story</a> [latimes.com]

---Jim Gagne, MD---</htmltext>
<tokenext>I practice internal medicine near Los Angeles ( http : //drgagne.com ) .
It 's clear to any physician currently in practice that the health care system is broken and falling apart rapidly .
If reform fails to pass , unless you work for a Fortune 500 firm , you will almost certainly lose your insurance within the next few years .
Opponents of reform are using FUD to scare you , but almost all of their claims are lies .
For example , there NEVER were any " death panels .
" Here are some great descriptions of what 's in the bill and what 's not : 1 .
Quick summary from the Washington Post : http : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/health-care-reconciliation/ [ washingtonpost.com ] 2 .
Nice graphic of how much it costs and why it lowers the deficit : http : //www.latimes.com/features/health/la-031910-sc \ _health \ _care \ _costs-g,0,6098627.graphic [ latimes.com ] 3 .
Fabulous answers to " twenty questions " about what 's REALLY in the bill : http : //www.latimes.com/features/health/la-oe-kmiecweb19-2010mar19,0,6451390.story [ latimes.com ] ---Jim Gagne , MD---</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I practice internal medicine near Los Angeles (http://drgagne.com).
It's clear to any physician currently in practice that the health care system is broken and falling apart rapidly.
If reform fails to pass, unless you work for a Fortune 500 firm, you will almost certainly lose your insurance within the next few years.
Opponents of reform are using FUD to scare you, but almost all of their claims are lies.
For example, there NEVER were any "death panels.
"

Here are some great descriptions of what's in the bill and what's not:

1.
Quick summary from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/health-care-reconciliation/ [washingtonpost.com]

2.
Nice graphic of how much it costs and why it lowers the deficit: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-031910-sc\_health\_care\_costs-g,0,6098627.graphic [latimes.com]

3.
Fabulous answers to "twenty questions" about what's REALLY in the bill: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-oe-kmiecweb19-2010mar19,0,6451390.story [latimes.com]

---Jim Gagne, MD---</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539542</id>
	<title>Anyone who listens to Fox "News" is an idiot</title>
	<author>wevets</author>
	<datestamp>1269019260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fox "News" has shown repeatedly that they cannot seperate opinion from fact.  I have now problem with them having any opinion they want, but they cannot make up their own facts, which they habitually do.  That makes thier opinions suspect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fox " News " has shown repeatedly that they can not seperate opinion from fact .
I have now problem with them having any opinion they want , but they can not make up their own facts , which they habitually do .
That makes thier opinions suspect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fox "News" has shown repeatedly that they cannot seperate opinion from fact.
I have now problem with them having any opinion they want, but they cannot make up their own facts, which they habitually do.
That makes thier opinions suspect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</id>
	<title>Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking care of fellow humans, with loving and cherising their lives as much as your own, and with giving them your money so they can live longer and healthier lives. Except that this bill is not about that. It's about forcing you to do these things at gunpoint (and yes, a gunpoint is somewhere in your future if you stop paying your taxes) by raising taxes (by 3.8\%) and by forcing you to buy health insurance when you don't want to do so. This is the core problem of socialism: it's not that we should hate helping our fellow man, it's that we should hate being forced to do so. It's that we should hate not being able to choose whom to help with our efforts, and so to not be able to value the lives of the people we love more than the people we don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking care of fellow humans , with loving and cherising their lives as much as your own , and with giving them your money so they can live longer and healthier lives .
Except that this bill is not about that .
It 's about forcing you to do these things at gunpoint ( and yes , a gunpoint is somewhere in your future if you stop paying your taxes ) by raising taxes ( by 3.8 \ % ) and by forcing you to buy health insurance when you do n't want to do so .
This is the core problem of socialism : it 's not that we should hate helping our fellow man , it 's that we should hate being forced to do so .
It 's that we should hate not being able to choose whom to help with our efforts , and so to not be able to value the lives of the people we love more than the people we do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking care of fellow humans, with loving and cherising their lives as much as your own, and with giving them your money so they can live longer and healthier lives.
Except that this bill is not about that.
It's about forcing you to do these things at gunpoint (and yes, a gunpoint is somewhere in your future if you stop paying your taxes) by raising taxes (by 3.8\%) and by forcing you to buy health insurance when you don't want to do so.
This is the core problem of socialism: it's not that we should hate helping our fellow man, it's that we should hate being forced to do so.
It's that we should hate not being able to choose whom to help with our efforts, and so to not be able to value the lives of the people we love more than the people we don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536110</id>
	<title>Polotician's greed is never as good as it seems.</title>
	<author>boweniant</author>
	<datestamp>1269010080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This bill does the following

1.  They want to claim a ride to fame, when in reality it will be infamy
2.  They want to control America, this is without a doubt
3.  This is only the beginning, as several politicians lay claim to it being akin to a "Starter Home"
4.  This bill also includes student loans, and it makes the new graduates subservient to the government
5.  Through this bill they will be able to control various aspects of American's lives as this and that will have an impact on your government imposed insurance.

Things to remember.
1.  Healthcare insurance is not a right, but a good / service that is to be purchased.
2.  It is in no way constitutional to force this upon Americans
3.  Equating this to car insurance is BS, not all of us have cars, but all of us that are alive do not need insurance.
4.  Under this imposed system the rich will all the much more have the unequal distribution of health care that they claim to not like.  Look at Canada, every time someone rich / powerful needs some health care right now they take a trip to USA.
5.  This bill is so bad that it's been stalled by the Democrats for over a year.  The Republicans have not had enough senators, until recently, nor enough democrats to stall, or otherwise interfere with the legislation.  With most of the legislation being one sided anyway.
6.  When was the last time the government budget estimations lived up to what they actually spent?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill does the following 1 .
They want to claim a ride to fame , when in reality it will be infamy 2 .
They want to control America , this is without a doubt 3 .
This is only the beginning , as several politicians lay claim to it being akin to a " Starter Home " 4 .
This bill also includes student loans , and it makes the new graduates subservient to the government 5 .
Through this bill they will be able to control various aspects of American 's lives as this and that will have an impact on your government imposed insurance .
Things to remember .
1. Healthcare insurance is not a right , but a good / service that is to be purchased .
2. It is in no way constitutional to force this upon Americans 3 .
Equating this to car insurance is BS , not all of us have cars , but all of us that are alive do not need insurance .
4. Under this imposed system the rich will all the much more have the unequal distribution of health care that they claim to not like .
Look at Canada , every time someone rich / powerful needs some health care right now they take a trip to USA .
5. This bill is so bad that it 's been stalled by the Democrats for over a year .
The Republicans have not had enough senators , until recently , nor enough democrats to stall , or otherwise interfere with the legislation .
With most of the legislation being one sided anyway .
6. When was the last time the government budget estimations lived up to what they actually spent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill does the following

1.
They want to claim a ride to fame, when in reality it will be infamy
2.
They want to control America, this is without a doubt
3.
This is only the beginning, as several politicians lay claim to it being akin to a "Starter Home"
4.
This bill also includes student loans, and it makes the new graduates subservient to the government
5.
Through this bill they will be able to control various aspects of American's lives as this and that will have an impact on your government imposed insurance.
Things to remember.
1.  Healthcare insurance is not a right, but a good / service that is to be purchased.
2.  It is in no way constitutional to force this upon Americans
3.
Equating this to car insurance is BS, not all of us have cars, but all of us that are alive do not need insurance.
4.  Under this imposed system the rich will all the much more have the unequal distribution of health care that they claim to not like.
Look at Canada, every time someone rich / powerful needs some health care right now they take a trip to USA.
5.  This bill is so bad that it's been stalled by the Democrats for over a year.
The Republicans have not had enough senators, until recently, nor enough democrats to stall, or otherwise interfere with the legislation.
With most of the legislation being one sided anyway.
6.  When was the last time the government budget estimations lived up to what they actually spent?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535506</id>
	<title>As long as you're even about it.</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1269008340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we can't afford to give my neighbor health care, we can't afford a trillion dollars a year for warfare and imperialist adventures, or any other corporate welfare programs.</p><p>When we gave Wall St hundreds of billions to fix their fuckups, they continued bonusing themselves tens of millions of dollars. I don't think access to basic medical care is in the same universe of entitlement of the wealthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we ca n't afford to give my neighbor health care , we ca n't afford a trillion dollars a year for warfare and imperialist adventures , or any other corporate welfare programs.When we gave Wall St hundreds of billions to fix their fuckups , they continued bonusing themselves tens of millions of dollars .
I do n't think access to basic medical care is in the same universe of entitlement of the wealthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we can't afford to give my neighbor health care, we can't afford a trillion dollars a year for warfare and imperialist adventures, or any other corporate welfare programs.When we gave Wall St hundreds of billions to fix their fuckups, they continued bonusing themselves tens of millions of dollars.
I don't think access to basic medical care is in the same universe of entitlement of the wealthy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535958</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhere in between.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have tort reform for auto insurance here in NJ.  We also have some of the most expensive insurance costs in the country.  It is a red herring...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have tort reform for auto insurance here in NJ .
We also have some of the most expensive insurance costs in the country .
It is a red herring.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have tort reform for auto insurance here in NJ.
We also have some of the most expensive insurance costs in the country.
It is a red herring...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536044</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1269009960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to think this was all a show.</p><p>The real insurance crisis was that the insurance industry wants more profit but cant see how to get it without raising rates even higher. Now rates cant go any higher or else this country will die. My current plan is $1,150 a month. America is already dying so how could they raise profit again?</p><p>Simple... lobby the government to force every American into private insurance plans.</p><p>I'm not sure Single Payer was ever an option, or that the option was even ever an option.</p><p>I have no trust in our government. If we were real American's we would have rid them from our country by now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to think this was all a show.The real insurance crisis was that the insurance industry wants more profit but cant see how to get it without raising rates even higher .
Now rates cant go any higher or else this country will die .
My current plan is $ 1,150 a month .
America is already dying so how could they raise profit again ? Simple... lobby the government to force every American into private insurance plans.I 'm not sure Single Payer was ever an option , or that the option was even ever an option.I have no trust in our government .
If we were real American 's we would have rid them from our country by now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to think this was all a show.The real insurance crisis was that the insurance industry wants more profit but cant see how to get it without raising rates even higher.
Now rates cant go any higher or else this country will die.
My current plan is $1,150 a month.
America is already dying so how could they raise profit again?Simple... lobby the government to force every American into private insurance plans.I'm not sure Single Payer was ever an option, or that the option was even ever an option.I have no trust in our government.
If we were real American's we would have rid them from our country by now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537248</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>MarkGriz</author>
	<datestamp>1269013080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its worse, its not that they fine you, THEY CAN THROW YOU INTO JAIL FOR FIVE  YEARS...</p> </div><p>Not a bad deal really.</p><p>Then you'll get free room, board AND healthcare.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its worse , its not that they fine you , THEY CAN THROW YOU INTO JAIL FOR FIVE YEARS... Not a bad deal really.Then you 'll get free room , board AND healthcare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its worse, its not that they fine you, THEY CAN THROW YOU INTO JAIL FOR FIVE  YEARS... Not a bad deal really.Then you'll get free room, board AND healthcare.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536240</id>
	<title>Re:"Entitlement Generation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With that line of reasoning, you can justify government taking over anything.  Doesn't taking care of your fellow human mean feeding, clothing, providing shelter, employment, etc...  Government from cradle to grave.  No thanks, you take care of yourself and I'll take care of my self.  Just provide a level playing field.</p><p>Healthcare is just one aspect of this, but so were Social Security, welfare, medicare, medicaide, etc...  All of them are struggling to balance the books and all of them either operate at a deficit or will soon be operating at a deficit.  Taking care of your fellow man is a noble thing to do, but it is a personal choice to do it or not and how you want to go about doing it.  That's the nature of freedom.  You get to make those choices and the government doesn't make them for you.  Sounds harsh, but freedom has never been easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With that line of reasoning , you can justify government taking over anything .
Does n't taking care of your fellow human mean feeding , clothing , providing shelter , employment , etc... Government from cradle to grave .
No thanks , you take care of yourself and I 'll take care of my self .
Just provide a level playing field.Healthcare is just one aspect of this , but so were Social Security , welfare , medicare , medicaide , etc... All of them are struggling to balance the books and all of them either operate at a deficit or will soon be operating at a deficit .
Taking care of your fellow man is a noble thing to do , but it is a personal choice to do it or not and how you want to go about doing it .
That 's the nature of freedom .
You get to make those choices and the government does n't make them for you .
Sounds harsh , but freedom has never been easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With that line of reasoning, you can justify government taking over anything.
Doesn't taking care of your fellow human mean feeding, clothing, providing shelter, employment, etc...  Government from cradle to grave.
No thanks, you take care of yourself and I'll take care of my self.
Just provide a level playing field.Healthcare is just one aspect of this, but so were Social Security, welfare, medicare, medicaide, etc...  All of them are struggling to balance the books and all of them either operate at a deficit or will soon be operating at a deficit.
Taking care of your fellow man is a noble thing to do, but it is a personal choice to do it or not and how you want to go about doing it.
That's the nature of freedom.
You get to make those choices and the government doesn't make them for you.
Sounds harsh, but freedom has never been easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539860</id>
	<title>An actual, FACTUAL, list of myths...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269020400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536588</id>
	<title>Re:"Entitlement Generation"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are free to help out your fellows. That's great. It's called charity. However, it ceases to be charity when it's done under threat of force and loses all altruism associated with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are free to help out your fellows .
That 's great .
It 's called charity .
However , it ceases to be charity when it 's done under threat of force and loses all altruism associated with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are free to help out your fellows.
That's great.
It's called charity.
However, it ceases to be charity when it's done under threat of force and loses all altruism associated with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535112</id>
	<title>Concerned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269006960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is so bad for this country. People think "free health care for all, that makes sense", but in essence, this bill will put your politician in the drivers seat of health care. You will have to plead with politicians to get better care. It will be a nightmare and the quality of our care in the US will decline for all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is so bad for this country .
People think " free health care for all , that makes sense " , but in essence , this bill will put your politician in the drivers seat of health care .
You will have to plead with politicians to get better care .
It will be a nightmare and the quality of our care in the US will decline for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is so bad for this country.
People think "free health care for all, that makes sense", but in essence, this bill will put your politician in the drivers seat of health care.
You will have to plead with politicians to get better care.
It will be a nightmare and the quality of our care in the US will decline for all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538270</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhere in between.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got this upside down<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Insurance companies only account for a small percentage of healthcare expenditures.  Malpractice lawsuits (and the fear of them) account for a huge percentage of healthcare cost increases (and loss of doctors).</p><p>And by the way, without this healthcare bill you can still get insurance once your parents "kick" you off of their policy.  It's called the free market<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  You may not want to spend your money for insurance because you're a healthy, young person, but that's your (real) right - not to spend my money for your health insurance (that you don't want anyway).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got this upside down ...Insurance companies only account for a small percentage of healthcare expenditures .
Malpractice lawsuits ( and the fear of them ) account for a huge percentage of healthcare cost increases ( and loss of doctors ) .And by the way , without this healthcare bill you can still get insurance once your parents " kick " you off of their policy .
It 's called the free market ... You may not want to spend your money for insurance because you 're a healthy , young person , but that 's your ( real ) right - not to spend my money for your health insurance ( that you do n't want anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got this upside down ...Insurance companies only account for a small percentage of healthcare expenditures.
Malpractice lawsuits (and the fear of them) account for a huge percentage of healthcare cost increases (and loss of doctors).And by the way, without this healthcare bill you can still get insurance once your parents "kick" you off of their policy.
It's called the free market ...  You may not want to spend your money for insurance because you're a healthy, young person, but that's your (real) right - not to spend my money for your health insurance (that you don't want anyway).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539214</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>JTsyo</author>
	<datestamp>1269018180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the major reasons sited for growth in cost has new new technologies.

"Our new Life Extender Machine can keep your 84yr old grandma alive for six more months for a mere 10K/day. There's no price on love."</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the major reasons sited for growth in cost has new new technologies .
" Our new Life Extender Machine can keep your 84yr old grandma alive for six more months for a mere 10K/day .
There 's no price on love .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the major reasons sited for growth in cost has new new technologies.
"Our new Life Extender Machine can keep your 84yr old grandma alive for six more months for a mere 10K/day.
There's no price on love.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538214</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The principal reason meds cost less in Canada is that no publicity is allowed, so no publicity budget included in the price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The principal reason meds cost less in Canada is that no publicity is allowed , so no publicity budget included in the price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The principal reason meds cost less in Canada is that no publicity is allowed, so no publicity budget included in the price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537822</id>
	<title>Can't let you troll that, Fox News!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269014520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't let you troll that, Fox News!</p><p>Side note: I've never felt the need to negatively rate an article as "Stupid". Congratulations trolls, you have reached new heights in power. Enjoy your 15 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't let you troll that , Fox News ! Side note : I 've never felt the need to negatively rate an article as " Stupid " .
Congratulations trolls , you have reached new heights in power .
Enjoy your 15 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't let you troll that, Fox News!Side note: I've never felt the need to negatively rate an article as "Stupid".
Congratulations trolls, you have reached new heights in power.
Enjoy your 15 minutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542556</id>
	<title>It's a Door Opener</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269031200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         The Health Care Reform Act is a door opener. Apparently in order to overcome fears or resistance from the right wing this bill simply gets the ball rolling for better and cheaper health care for Americans.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Obviously the bill will be altered as time passes so that areas that need more attention can be taken care of. Getting everything just right in one draft is next to impossible. And the only reason it is so convoluted is right wing resistance. For example simply extending the Federal Employee Health Care Insurance to every American would have been better and a far,far, shorter bill. But the right wing wants more protection for big businesses such as hospitals and wealthy doctors.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But even more important than saving countless lives and preventing needless suffering this bill may keep America from total collapse as the current medical system is bankrupting America. That truth is blatantly conspicuous. As an example our returning soldiers who are severely wounded in combat often get poor medical treatment because the government can not afford to repiar these people. And then because they get poor medical care they often are doomed to stay on military disability forever at several thousand dollars a month for decade after decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Health Care Reform Act is a door opener .
Apparently in order to overcome fears or resistance from the right wing this bill simply gets the ball rolling for better and cheaper health care for Americans .
                  Obviously the bill will be altered as time passes so that areas that need more attention can be taken care of .
Getting everything just right in one draft is next to impossible .
And the only reason it is so convoluted is right wing resistance .
For example simply extending the Federal Employee Health Care Insurance to every American would have been better and a far,far , shorter bill .
But the right wing wants more protection for big businesses such as hospitals and wealthy doctors .
                  But even more important than saving countless lives and preventing needless suffering this bill may keep America from total collapse as the current medical system is bankrupting America .
That truth is blatantly conspicuous .
As an example our returning soldiers who are severely wounded in combat often get poor medical treatment because the government can not afford to repiar these people .
And then because they get poor medical care they often are doomed to stay on military disability forever at several thousand dollars a month for decade after decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         The Health Care Reform Act is a door opener.
Apparently in order to overcome fears or resistance from the right wing this bill simply gets the ball rolling for better and cheaper health care for Americans.
                  Obviously the bill will be altered as time passes so that areas that need more attention can be taken care of.
Getting everything just right in one draft is next to impossible.
And the only reason it is so convoluted is right wing resistance.
For example simply extending the Federal Employee Health Care Insurance to every American would have been better and a far,far, shorter bill.
But the right wing wants more protection for big businesses such as hospitals and wealthy doctors.
                  But even more important than saving countless lives and preventing needless suffering this bill may keep America from total collapse as the current medical system is bankrupting America.
That truth is blatantly conspicuous.
As an example our returning soldiers who are severely wounded in combat often get poor medical treatment because the government can not afford to repiar these people.
And then because they get poor medical care they often are doomed to stay on military disability forever at several thousand dollars a month for decade after decade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536964</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one where they lied about the true cost of the program?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one where they lied about the true cost of the program ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one where they lied about the true cost of the program?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535146</id>
	<title>Unconstitutional Mandate</title>
	<author>OakDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1269007140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know how mandating citizens to purchase health insurance is going to pass Constitutional muster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how mandating citizens to purchase health insurance is going to pass Constitutional muster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how mandating citizens to purchase health insurance is going to pass Constitutional muster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535342</id>
	<title>You got the wrong generation</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1269007860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Greatest Generation and Baby Boomer's are costing 10k's to 100k's of thousands of dollars of year in health care costs and you blame this generation?  Who smokes less, drinks less and is in overall better health than the three previous generations?  Give me a break.  My Uncle who worked maybe 10 years of his adult life started receiving Medicare last year and he is already up to half a million in costs with his congestive heart failure alone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Greatest Generation and Baby Boomer 's are costing 10k 's to 100k 's of thousands of dollars of year in health care costs and you blame this generation ?
Who smokes less , drinks less and is in overall better health than the three previous generations ?
Give me a break .
My Uncle who worked maybe 10 years of his adult life started receiving Medicare last year and he is already up to half a million in costs with his congestive heart failure alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greatest Generation and Baby Boomer's are costing 10k's to 100k's of thousands of dollars of year in health care costs and you blame this generation?
Who smokes less, drinks less and is in overall better health than the three previous generations?
Give me a break.
My Uncle who worked maybe 10 years of his adult life started receiving Medicare last year and he is already up to half a million in costs with his congestive heart failure alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536224</id>
	<title>The religious right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep hearing from the right that this is bad, but if's your Christian<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if your agnostic, wika or whatever this about universal health care coverage like this... "I am my brothers keeper".  No one should lose there house, car whatever to cover serious medical expenses for them selves there wife or husband or child.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep hearing from the right that this is bad , but if 's your Christian ... if your agnostic , wika or whatever this about universal health care coverage like this... " I am my brothers keeper " .
No one should lose there house , car whatever to cover serious medical expenses for them selves there wife or husband or child .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep hearing from the right that this is bad, but if's your Christian ... if your agnostic, wika or whatever this about universal health care coverage like this... "I am my brothers keeper".
No one should lose there house, car whatever to cover serious medical expenses for them selves there wife or husband or child.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536750</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Slash.Poop</author>
	<datestamp>1269011940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"It appears that today might be the end of a very long road to health care reform."</p></div></blockquote><p>
No it doesn't. They won't even vote until Sunday. Which is not today. Even then, depending on what they actually vote on it might go back to the Senate and then back to the House.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It appears that today might be the end of a very long road to health care reform .
" No it does n't .
They wo n't even vote until Sunday .
Which is not today .
Even then , depending on what they actually vote on it might go back to the Senate and then back to the House .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It appears that today might be the end of a very long road to health care reform.
"
No it doesn't.
They won't even vote until Sunday.
Which is not today.
Even then, depending on what they actually vote on it might go back to the Senate and then back to the House.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538436</id>
	<title>Re:Trusting Faux News?</title>
	<author>Funk\_dat69</author>
	<datestamp>1269015960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always hear this knee-jerk Fox bashing.<br>Guess what? All news sources have a slant, and bashing Fox just shows your bias.</p><p>Right Slant<br>----------------<br>Fox</p><p>Left Slant<br>--------------<br>CNN<br>MSNBC<br>ABC<br>CBS<br>Comedy-f'king-Central</p><p>So watch your TV with your brain turned on at all times, I would think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always hear this knee-jerk Fox bashing.Guess what ?
All news sources have a slant , and bashing Fox just shows your bias.Right Slant----------------FoxLeft Slant--------------CNNMSNBCABCCBSComedy-f'king-CentralSo watch your TV with your brain turned on at all times , I would think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always hear this knee-jerk Fox bashing.Guess what?
All news sources have a slant, and bashing Fox just shows your bias.Right Slant----------------FoxLeft Slant--------------CNNMSNBCABCCBSComedy-f'king-CentralSo watch your TV with your brain turned on at all times, I would think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542484</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1269030840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is all exactly what we should do, as a first step.  This actually addresses the real costs of health care.  People like to rabble rouse and lie that it's the Fat Cat (rabble rousers love that phrase) Insurance Companies that are making health care expensive.  Odd, then, that they post like 3-4\% profit margins.  Pretty tiny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all exactly what we should do , as a first step .
This actually addresses the real costs of health care .
People like to rabble rouse and lie that it 's the Fat Cat ( rabble rousers love that phrase ) Insurance Companies that are making health care expensive .
Odd , then , that they post like 3-4 \ % profit margins .
Pretty tiny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all exactly what we should do, as a first step.
This actually addresses the real costs of health care.
People like to rabble rouse and lie that it's the Fat Cat (rabble rousers love that phrase) Insurance Companies that are making health care expensive.
Odd, then, that they post like 3-4\% profit margins.
Pretty tiny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104</id>
	<title>Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>Kludge</author>
	<datestamp>1269006900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing will improve in health care in the US until we have more doctors.  Prices are high because demand is high and supply is low.  Unfortunately the AMA carefully controls how many new MDs are granted every year, and purposely keep the number low to keep their salaries high.<br>Requiring people to buy health insurance will only make our problems worse.  It will drive up prices higher.  Until the MD cartel is broken, health care will be a big mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing will improve in health care in the US until we have more doctors .
Prices are high because demand is high and supply is low .
Unfortunately the AMA carefully controls how many new MDs are granted every year , and purposely keep the number low to keep their salaries high.Requiring people to buy health insurance will only make our problems worse .
It will drive up prices higher .
Until the MD cartel is broken , health care will be a big mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing will improve in health care in the US until we have more doctors.
Prices are high because demand is high and supply is low.
Unfortunately the AMA carefully controls how many new MDs are granted every year, and purposely keep the number low to keep their salaries high.Requiring people to buy health insurance will only make our problems worse.
It will drive up prices higher.
Until the MD cartel is broken, health care will be a big mess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536736</id>
	<title>Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in other words, libertarian and tea bagger rejection of universal healthcare is based on a lack of ability to understand that life is complicated. what happens if you DON'T pay for healthcare as a society? people who get sick just disappear off the face of the earth? they are all paragons of personal financial virtue and never need aid? you yourself never need a helping hand? think about reality, then form an opinion</p></div><p>universal healthcare will be a disaster, mark my words<br>and now back to earth.<br>1. the US currently runs a deficit of 1.5trillion dollars, don't think that such reform can be done without bankrupting the country, especially when economy is on life support now, even without that bill. How long can you pile up debts, no less than 1T every year? In pursue of universal happiness there will be universal downgrade of everything.<br>2. libertarians don't mind paying for insurance but they oppose MANDATORY insurance and that's the case. You go to jail if you don't have insurance if i got it right.<br>3. government run healthcare is unconstitutional - but who cares about the constitution<br>4. problems with the US healthcare:<br>- insurance tied to employer bacause of the tax code, any system where 3rd party pays doesn't put downward pressure on prices, quite the opposite. People should shop around with their own money<br>- no competition across the state borders so there are de facto monopolies on the state level - bad for prices<br>- doctors practise defensive medicine and run every test possible not to be sued - bad for prices<br>5. i know first hand how government run healthcare works - in my country there are monthly limits of procedures, so for example if you happen to get cancer, you may wait several months for a potentially life saving procedure. And this system is permanently in the red. There is always more money needed. Maybe other countries got it right but i don't think any of government run healthcare systems works without pumping tons of money into the system.</p><p>disclaimer: i used to be idealist leftist but after hearing what Peter Schiff has to say I converted to libertarianism.<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcwzC-2LigM" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcwzC-2LigM</a> [youtube.com]  - about HC reform</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in other words , libertarian and tea bagger rejection of universal healthcare is based on a lack of ability to understand that life is complicated .
what happens if you DO N'T pay for healthcare as a society ?
people who get sick just disappear off the face of the earth ?
they are all paragons of personal financial virtue and never need aid ?
you yourself never need a helping hand ?
think about reality , then form an opinionuniversal healthcare will be a disaster , mark my wordsand now back to earth.1 .
the US currently runs a deficit of 1.5trillion dollars , do n't think that such reform can be done without bankrupting the country , especially when economy is on life support now , even without that bill .
How long can you pile up debts , no less than 1T every year ?
In pursue of universal happiness there will be universal downgrade of everything.2 .
libertarians do n't mind paying for insurance but they oppose MANDATORY insurance and that 's the case .
You go to jail if you do n't have insurance if i got it right.3 .
government run healthcare is unconstitutional - but who cares about the constitution4 .
problems with the US healthcare : - insurance tied to employer bacause of the tax code , any system where 3rd party pays does n't put downward pressure on prices , quite the opposite .
People should shop around with their own money- no competition across the state borders so there are de facto monopolies on the state level - bad for prices- doctors practise defensive medicine and run every test possible not to be sued - bad for prices5 .
i know first hand how government run healthcare works - in my country there are monthly limits of procedures , so for example if you happen to get cancer , you may wait several months for a potentially life saving procedure .
And this system is permanently in the red .
There is always more money needed .
Maybe other countries got it right but i do n't think any of government run healthcare systems works without pumping tons of money into the system.disclaimer : i used to be idealist leftist but after hearing what Peter Schiff has to say I converted to libertarianism.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = rcwzC-2LigM [ youtube.com ] - about HC reform</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in other words, libertarian and tea bagger rejection of universal healthcare is based on a lack of ability to understand that life is complicated.
what happens if you DON'T pay for healthcare as a society?
people who get sick just disappear off the face of the earth?
they are all paragons of personal financial virtue and never need aid?
you yourself never need a helping hand?
think about reality, then form an opinionuniversal healthcare will be a disaster, mark my wordsand now back to earth.1.
the US currently runs a deficit of 1.5trillion dollars, don't think that such reform can be done without bankrupting the country, especially when economy is on life support now, even without that bill.
How long can you pile up debts, no less than 1T every year?
In pursue of universal happiness there will be universal downgrade of everything.2.
libertarians don't mind paying for insurance but they oppose MANDATORY insurance and that's the case.
You go to jail if you don't have insurance if i got it right.3.
government run healthcare is unconstitutional - but who cares about the constitution4.
problems with the US healthcare:- insurance tied to employer bacause of the tax code, any system where 3rd party pays doesn't put downward pressure on prices, quite the opposite.
People should shop around with their own money- no competition across the state borders so there are de facto monopolies on the state level - bad for prices- doctors practise defensive medicine and run every test possible not to be sued - bad for prices5.
i know first hand how government run healthcare works - in my country there are monthly limits of procedures, so for example if you happen to get cancer, you may wait several months for a potentially life saving procedure.
And this system is permanently in the red.
There is always more money needed.
Maybe other countries got it right but i don't think any of government run healthcare systems works without pumping tons of money into the system.disclaimer: i used to be idealist leftist but after hearing what Peter Schiff has to say I converted to libertarianism.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcwzC-2LigM [youtube.com]  - about HC reform
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536368</id>
	<title>Re:Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know which government you work for but you clearly don't know the numbers.</p><p>The *average* cancer survival rate in Europe is 55-75\% that of the US, wait times for electives (you know, things like hip replacement) average at 6 days in the US while average in Europe is 8 months.</p><p>The majority of people in the US do have access to the high quality care, the fact that roughly 10 million US citizens do not have access to regular healthcare and need it is not a reason to penalise the other 300 million.</p><p>The one fact you are correct about is the administration, 80c of every healthcare dollar is not spent on healthcare with the majority being consumed by insurance and their agents. Do you really think the best solution to this issue is to hand insurance companies even more healthcare money?</p><p>Those of us who self-fund via HSA's and a catastrophic policy and seek out non-insurance doctors get the best deal. What I pay for a visit to my doctor is less then most people copay for their visits and the doctor actually (or rather claims) to make more now we his not insurance affiliated then prior. On the issue of ongoing conditions my wife has three regular prescriptions, one of which is DEA scheduled so we can't get it imported, and generally needs to a doctor once every month or two, we sill are paying less then if we had "standard" insurance or indeed loosing less from out pay check if we took up employer insurance.</p><p>Also insurance companies are generally supportive of the bill despite what the media suggests, they lobbied lightly against the equal cost of pre-existing conditions but that was it. The government is about to hand them tens of millions of extra customers and effectively grant them a monopoly on healthcare provision.</p><p>Having moved from the UK 5 years ago I also have to point out that certainly in the case of the UK the suggestion of higher costs here in the US is complete and utter crap. The average contributor in the UK pays 20\% more then an average contributor in the US pays for insurance *and* federal contributions for entitlement healthcare, so the situation is actually that you get higher quality care in the US while paying less even with the insanely high overheads from insurance. Perhaps while reading the WHO reports on the issue you should go and take a look at how they calculate things like costs and you will note two significant issues: affordability is measured in absolute cost not based on per capita GDP and healthcare for the US includes cosmetic which is not included with most other countries costs.</p><p>Finally I should not be penalised because people make stupid decisions, I left the socialist states of Europe precisely because they seem to think this is acceptable. I am not responsible for any one else's decisions unless I choose to be, on this I don't choose to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know which government you work for but you clearly do n't know the numbers.The * average * cancer survival rate in Europe is 55-75 \ % that of the US , wait times for electives ( you know , things like hip replacement ) average at 6 days in the US while average in Europe is 8 months.The majority of people in the US do have access to the high quality care , the fact that roughly 10 million US citizens do not have access to regular healthcare and need it is not a reason to penalise the other 300 million.The one fact you are correct about is the administration , 80c of every healthcare dollar is not spent on healthcare with the majority being consumed by insurance and their agents .
Do you really think the best solution to this issue is to hand insurance companies even more healthcare money ? Those of us who self-fund via HSA 's and a catastrophic policy and seek out non-insurance doctors get the best deal .
What I pay for a visit to my doctor is less then most people copay for their visits and the doctor actually ( or rather claims ) to make more now we his not insurance affiliated then prior .
On the issue of ongoing conditions my wife has three regular prescriptions , one of which is DEA scheduled so we ca n't get it imported , and generally needs to a doctor once every month or two , we sill are paying less then if we had " standard " insurance or indeed loosing less from out pay check if we took up employer insurance.Also insurance companies are generally supportive of the bill despite what the media suggests , they lobbied lightly against the equal cost of pre-existing conditions but that was it .
The government is about to hand them tens of millions of extra customers and effectively grant them a monopoly on healthcare provision.Having moved from the UK 5 years ago I also have to point out that certainly in the case of the UK the suggestion of higher costs here in the US is complete and utter crap .
The average contributor in the UK pays 20 \ % more then an average contributor in the US pays for insurance * and * federal contributions for entitlement healthcare , so the situation is actually that you get higher quality care in the US while paying less even with the insanely high overheads from insurance .
Perhaps while reading the WHO reports on the issue you should go and take a look at how they calculate things like costs and you will note two significant issues : affordability is measured in absolute cost not based on per capita GDP and healthcare for the US includes cosmetic which is not included with most other countries costs.Finally I should not be penalised because people make stupid decisions , I left the socialist states of Europe precisely because they seem to think this is acceptable .
I am not responsible for any one else 's decisions unless I choose to be , on this I do n't choose to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know which government you work for but you clearly don't know the numbers.The *average* cancer survival rate in Europe is 55-75\% that of the US, wait times for electives (you know, things like hip replacement) average at 6 days in the US while average in Europe is 8 months.The majority of people in the US do have access to the high quality care, the fact that roughly 10 million US citizens do not have access to regular healthcare and need it is not a reason to penalise the other 300 million.The one fact you are correct about is the administration, 80c of every healthcare dollar is not spent on healthcare with the majority being consumed by insurance and their agents.
Do you really think the best solution to this issue is to hand insurance companies even more healthcare money?Those of us who self-fund via HSA's and a catastrophic policy and seek out non-insurance doctors get the best deal.
What I pay for a visit to my doctor is less then most people copay for their visits and the doctor actually (or rather claims) to make more now we his not insurance affiliated then prior.
On the issue of ongoing conditions my wife has three regular prescriptions, one of which is DEA scheduled so we can't get it imported, and generally needs to a doctor once every month or two, we sill are paying less then if we had "standard" insurance or indeed loosing less from out pay check if we took up employer insurance.Also insurance companies are generally supportive of the bill despite what the media suggests, they lobbied lightly against the equal cost of pre-existing conditions but that was it.
The government is about to hand them tens of millions of extra customers and effectively grant them a monopoly on healthcare provision.Having moved from the UK 5 years ago I also have to point out that certainly in the case of the UK the suggestion of higher costs here in the US is complete and utter crap.
The average contributor in the UK pays 20\% more then an average contributor in the US pays for insurance *and* federal contributions for entitlement healthcare, so the situation is actually that you get higher quality care in the US while paying less even with the insanely high overheads from insurance.
Perhaps while reading the WHO reports on the issue you should go and take a look at how they calculate things like costs and you will note two significant issues: affordability is measured in absolute cost not based on per capita GDP and healthcare for the US includes cosmetic which is not included with most other countries costs.Finally I should not be penalised because people make stupid decisions, I left the socialist states of Europe precisely because they seem to think this is acceptable.
I am not responsible for any one else's decisions unless I choose to be, on this I don't choose to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535070</id>
	<title>News for nerds. Stuff that matters</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1269006780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is so hard to understand in slashdot's slogan ?<br> <br>
Plus, insensitive clod, not everybody cares about this purely US-centric news. A lot of us live in developed countries and our birth were covered by a national healthcare.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is so hard to understand in slashdot 's slogan ?
Plus , insensitive clod , not everybody cares about this purely US-centric news .
A lot of us live in developed countries and our birth were covered by a national healthcare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is so hard to understand in slashdot's slogan ?
Plus, insensitive clod, not everybody cares about this purely US-centric news.
A lot of us live in developed countries and our birth were covered by a national healthcare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538666</id>
	<title>Nice try, but....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269016560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mandating that people buy health insurance is wrong.   They already had to add an exception to this proposal for groups who are opposed to this mandate based on religious grounds (the Amish... etc.).  Many states are also already starting initiatives to exempt their constituents.   Any group or individual who wants to care for themselves through other means than for-profit insurance companies deserves this basic right.  True health reform would provide an option for people who are unable to care for themselves due to financial poverty (through use of insurance or directly paying their own care costs) or who are rejected by the private insurance companies for whatever reason (pre-existing condition, etc.) to gain assistance through an alternative non-profit government program, and also directly address cleaning up fraud and waste in the existing Medicare system.  The problem is, how to fund such a measure, and how to get such a measure passed when the existing system has too many insurance industry lobbyists and controlled politicians (Lieberman, etc.) fiercely opposed to upsetting their collusive monopoly.  I don't have the answer, and I don't think this proposal is the answer either.  The "flip" answer is to re-budget : stop spending so much tax money on defense (where a LOT of waste could be trimmed with no adverse impact on national security) and instead use a small fraction of it to care for the underpriveleged/unfortunate in society.  I honestly do not mind at all, and am actually happy, that some of my tax money goes to help underprivileged people.  I would much rather have that than send the money to a bunch of fat-cat insurance companies by decree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mandating that people buy health insurance is wrong .
They already had to add an exception to this proposal for groups who are opposed to this mandate based on religious grounds ( the Amish.. .
etc. ) . Many states are also already starting initiatives to exempt their constituents .
Any group or individual who wants to care for themselves through other means than for-profit insurance companies deserves this basic right .
True health reform would provide an option for people who are unable to care for themselves due to financial poverty ( through use of insurance or directly paying their own care costs ) or who are rejected by the private insurance companies for whatever reason ( pre-existing condition , etc .
) to gain assistance through an alternative non-profit government program , and also directly address cleaning up fraud and waste in the existing Medicare system .
The problem is , how to fund such a measure , and how to get such a measure passed when the existing system has too many insurance industry lobbyists and controlled politicians ( Lieberman , etc .
) fiercely opposed to upsetting their collusive monopoly .
I do n't have the answer , and I do n't think this proposal is the answer either .
The " flip " answer is to re-budget : stop spending so much tax money on defense ( where a LOT of waste could be trimmed with no adverse impact on national security ) and instead use a small fraction of it to care for the underpriveleged/unfortunate in society .
I honestly do not mind at all , and am actually happy , that some of my tax money goes to help underprivileged people .
I would much rather have that than send the money to a bunch of fat-cat insurance companies by decree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mandating that people buy health insurance is wrong.
They already had to add an exception to this proposal for groups who are opposed to this mandate based on religious grounds (the Amish...
etc.).  Many states are also already starting initiatives to exempt their constituents.
Any group or individual who wants to care for themselves through other means than for-profit insurance companies deserves this basic right.
True health reform would provide an option for people who are unable to care for themselves due to financial poverty (through use of insurance or directly paying their own care costs) or who are rejected by the private insurance companies for whatever reason (pre-existing condition, etc.
) to gain assistance through an alternative non-profit government program, and also directly address cleaning up fraud and waste in the existing Medicare system.
The problem is, how to fund such a measure, and how to get such a measure passed when the existing system has too many insurance industry lobbyists and controlled politicians (Lieberman, etc.
) fiercely opposed to upsetting their collusive monopoly.
I don't have the answer, and I don't think this proposal is the answer either.
The "flip" answer is to re-budget : stop spending so much tax money on defense (where a LOT of waste could be trimmed with no adverse impact on national security) and instead use a small fraction of it to care for the underpriveleged/unfortunate in society.
I honestly do not mind at all, and am actually happy, that some of my tax money goes to help underprivileged people.
I would much rather have that than send the money to a bunch of fat-cat insurance companies by decree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538560</id>
	<title>I thought SlashDot had smart people for posters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269016260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently that level of intelligence falls off a cliff on social matters.  Healthcare as an entitlement?  Do you even know what an entitlement is?  Tort Reform to fix healthcare costs?  Where did you get your accounting and finance degrees?  They owe you your money back.  Government has a shitty resume and cannot run organizations?  Well that statement is so obviously full of shit and retarded I won't even respond.</p><p>Stick to computers nerds.  You know jack shit about social issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently that level of intelligence falls off a cliff on social matters .
Healthcare as an entitlement ?
Do you even know what an entitlement is ?
Tort Reform to fix healthcare costs ?
Where did you get your accounting and finance degrees ?
They owe you your money back .
Government has a shitty resume and can not run organizations ?
Well that statement is so obviously full of shit and retarded I wo n't even respond.Stick to computers nerds .
You know jack shit about social issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently that level of intelligence falls off a cliff on social matters.
Healthcare as an entitlement?
Do you even know what an entitlement is?
Tort Reform to fix healthcare costs?
Where did you get your accounting and finance degrees?
They owe you your money back.
Government has a shitty resume and cannot run organizations?
Well that statement is so obviously full of shit and retarded I won't even respond.Stick to computers nerds.
You know jack shit about social issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31563346</id>
	<title>Wake up you idiot, moron, corrupt, democrats!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269190260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wake up you idiot, moron, corrupt, democrats!</p><p>The health care bill and the 'fix bill' are as CORRUPT, ILLEGAL and BAD as those of us with common sense know it to be!</p><p>b.o. and the idiot, moron, democrats do lie, cheat and steal - everyone knows that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wake up you idiot , moron , corrupt , democrats ! The health care bill and the 'fix bill ' are as CORRUPT , ILLEGAL and BAD as those of us with common sense know it to be ! b.o .
and the idiot , moron , democrats do lie , cheat and steal - everyone knows that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wake up you idiot, moron, corrupt, democrats!The health care bill and the 'fix bill' are as CORRUPT, ILLEGAL and BAD as those of us with common sense know it to be!b.o.
and the idiot, moron, democrats do lie, cheat and steal - everyone knows that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540314</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1269021840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick. So they have an incentive to <b>redefine what sick means</b>.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>There, fixed that for you (see <a href="http://www.shadowstats.com/article/consumer\_price\_index" title="shadowstats.com" rel="nofollow">CPI</a> [shadowstats.com]  for similar example).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick .
So they have an incentive to redefine what sick means .
There , fixed that for you ( see CPI [ shadowstats.com ] for similar example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick.
So they have an incentive to redefine what sick means.
There, fixed that for you (see CPI [shadowstats.com]  for similar example).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535684</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1269008820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have pointed out, the current generation are not the ones bleeding the Medicare and Social Security systems dry (after repeatedly voting to cut funding so that those systems would collapse once the baby boomer generation passed through).  Cut me a break -- I'm 22, and expect to be working until the day I die because of my parents' generation's stupidity.</p><p><b>I</b> don't expect any entitlements, and have received virtually none over the course of my life.  However, I'm going to vote to support them, because I readily recognize just how much better they would have made my life.</p><p>That said, I'm failing to see how the healthcare bill sets up <i>any</i> entitlements for anybody except for the desperately poor (who already receive free emergency care under most state laws).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have pointed out , the current generation are not the ones bleeding the Medicare and Social Security systems dry ( after repeatedly voting to cut funding so that those systems would collapse once the baby boomer generation passed through ) .
Cut me a break -- I 'm 22 , and expect to be working until the day I die because of my parents ' generation 's stupidity.I do n't expect any entitlements , and have received virtually none over the course of my life .
However , I 'm going to vote to support them , because I readily recognize just how much better they would have made my life.That said , I 'm failing to see how the healthcare bill sets up any entitlements for anybody except for the desperately poor ( who already receive free emergency care under most state laws ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have pointed out, the current generation are not the ones bleeding the Medicare and Social Security systems dry (after repeatedly voting to cut funding so that those systems would collapse once the baby boomer generation passed through).
Cut me a break -- I'm 22, and expect to be working until the day I die because of my parents' generation's stupidity.I don't expect any entitlements, and have received virtually none over the course of my life.
However, I'm going to vote to support them, because I readily recognize just how much better they would have made my life.That said, I'm failing to see how the healthcare bill sets up any entitlements for anybody except for the desperately poor (who already receive free emergency care under most state laws).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537998</id>
	<title>So much for "Obama vs FOX talking points",</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as this topic has been framed in the summary.</p><p>Slashdot has demonstrated that the progressive talking points re healthcare are quite popular, in spite of hearing so little about those from either FOX or Obama.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as this topic has been framed in the summary.Slashdot has demonstrated that the progressive talking points re healthcare are quite popular , in spite of hearing so little about those from either FOX or Obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as this topic has been framed in the summary.Slashdot has demonstrated that the progressive talking points re healthcare are quite popular, in spite of hearing so little about those from either FOX or Obama.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537600</id>
	<title>Re:Random health care thoughts</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1269013980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery, would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open?</i></p><p>Are you really saying that most surgeons don't take their job seriously? That their main motivation for keeping you alive and doing a good job isn't their sense of ethics and pride as a doctor, but their income?</p><p><i>I'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche.</i></p><p>There is a Porsche in the staff parking lot of our public hospital. Some governments actually pay their doctors quite well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery , would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open ? Are you really saying that most surgeons do n't take their job seriously ?
That their main motivation for keeping you alive and doing a good job is n't their sense of ethics and pride as a doctor , but their income ? I 'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche.There is a Porsche in the staff parking lot of our public hospital .
Some governments actually pay their doctors quite well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you were going to the hospital for open heart surgery, would you want the lowest paid doctor that has no incentive for good performance cutting you open?Are you really saying that most surgeons don't take their job seriously?
That their main motivation for keeping you alive and doing a good job isn't their sense of ethics and pride as a doctor, but their income?I'd want the super-star doctor that drives the Porche.There is a Porsche in the staff parking lot of our public hospital.
Some governments actually pay their doctors quite well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536454</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269011100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the HSA stuff as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the HSA stuff as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the HSA stuff as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539766</id>
	<title>My HC payments up 76\% this month</title>
	<author>tchdab1</author>
	<datestamp>1269020100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My health care payments, for the same coverage and the same provider and the same source (everything the same) went from $670 to $1184 this month.</p><p>I am trying to decide, quickly, what to do about it.</p><p>Secondarily, I wonder if this increase actually reflects cost increases, and if it has something to do with positioning profits of the provider in advance of the limits that will be invoked if HCR passes.<br>Right now I am at their mercy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My health care payments , for the same coverage and the same provider and the same source ( everything the same ) went from $ 670 to $ 1184 this month.I am trying to decide , quickly , what to do about it.Secondarily , I wonder if this increase actually reflects cost increases , and if it has something to do with positioning profits of the provider in advance of the limits that will be invoked if HCR passes.Right now I am at their mercy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My health care payments, for the same coverage and the same provider and the same source (everything the same) went from $670 to $1184 this month.I am trying to decide, quickly, what to do about it.Secondarily, I wonder if this increase actually reflects cost increases, and if it has something to do with positioning profits of the provider in advance of the limits that will be invoked if HCR passes.Right now I am at their mercy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540274</id>
	<title>Re:Other reform options</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1269021660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience is that paying out of pocket is way more expensive in some cases because a practitioner (say, a physical therapist) is going to try to inflate your invoice as much as he can under the assumption that insurance is just going to eat it all.</p><p>I could see how the OP's assertion might be true in the case of smaller practices though, where there might be significant time involved in dealing with the insurance company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience is that paying out of pocket is way more expensive in some cases because a practitioner ( say , a physical therapist ) is going to try to inflate your invoice as much as he can under the assumption that insurance is just going to eat it all.I could see how the OP 's assertion might be true in the case of smaller practices though , where there might be significant time involved in dealing with the insurance company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience is that paying out of pocket is way more expensive in some cases because a practitioner (say, a physical therapist) is going to try to inflate your invoice as much as he can under the assumption that insurance is just going to eat it all.I could see how the OP's assertion might be true in the case of smaller practices though, where there might be significant time involved in dealing with the insurance company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540002</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhere in between. -- CBO study disagrees</title>
	<author>llamafirst</author>
	<datestamp>1269020760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand how someone could say that tort reform is a red herring.</p><p>In terms of the direct financial impact of malpractice insurance and litigation costs, tort reform doesn't help more than a few percent or so.  But in terms of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on unnecessary treatment because doctors are paralyzed to do anything besides order the extra tests and procedures, tort reform would make a HUGE difference.</p></div><p>The Congressional Budget Office studied this and agrees with you that the savings for "less utilitization of health services" due to tort reform is important... 150\% bigger than the direct financial impact. But it disagrees with you about the amount... and says <a href="http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=389" title="cbo.gov" rel="nofollow">that even combined, it's less than 1 percent of the total cost of health, all things considered</a> [cbo.gov].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how someone could say that tort reform is a red herring.In terms of the direct financial impact of malpractice insurance and litigation costs , tort reform does n't help more than a few percent or so .
But in terms of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on unnecessary treatment because doctors are paralyzed to do anything besides order the extra tests and procedures , tort reform would make a HUGE difference.The Congressional Budget Office studied this and agrees with you that the savings for " less utilitization of health services " due to tort reform is important... 150 \ % bigger than the direct financial impact .
But it disagrees with you about the amount... and says that even combined , it 's less than 1 percent of the total cost of health , all things considered [ cbo.gov ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how someone could say that tort reform is a red herring.In terms of the direct financial impact of malpractice insurance and litigation costs, tort reform doesn't help more than a few percent or so.
But in terms of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on unnecessary treatment because doctors are paralyzed to do anything besides order the extra tests and procedures, tort reform would make a HUGE difference.The Congressional Budget Office studied this and agrees with you that the savings for "less utilitization of health services" due to tort reform is important... 150\% bigger than the direct financial impact.
But it disagrees with you about the amount... and says that even combined, it's less than 1 percent of the total cost of health, all things considered [cbo.gov].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535446</id>
	<title>Who Cares?!</title>
	<author>organgtool</author>
	<datestamp>1269008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bill has been neutered so badly that I don't think it matters whether it passes or not.  If it does pass, the Democrats will claim victory despite the fact that most of the important stuff had to be cut out of the bill just to get it to pass.  The Republicans will claim it's the end of the world despite the fact that the bill does very little to actually reform health care.  At the end of the day, we're basically right where we started.</p><p>And on that note, trying to improve anything in this country is a waste of effort.  Americans seem happy with what we have and there is no motivation to make things better despite the fact that there's plenty of room for improvement.  It's gotten to the point where anyone who tries to make things better here is either an idiot or completely masochistic.  But on the bright side, at least it's Friday!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill has been neutered so badly that I do n't think it matters whether it passes or not .
If it does pass , the Democrats will claim victory despite the fact that most of the important stuff had to be cut out of the bill just to get it to pass .
The Republicans will claim it 's the end of the world despite the fact that the bill does very little to actually reform health care .
At the end of the day , we 're basically right where we started.And on that note , trying to improve anything in this country is a waste of effort .
Americans seem happy with what we have and there is no motivation to make things better despite the fact that there 's plenty of room for improvement .
It 's gotten to the point where anyone who tries to make things better here is either an idiot or completely masochistic .
But on the bright side , at least it 's Friday !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill has been neutered so badly that I don't think it matters whether it passes or not.
If it does pass, the Democrats will claim victory despite the fact that most of the important stuff had to be cut out of the bill just to get it to pass.
The Republicans will claim it's the end of the world despite the fact that the bill does very little to actually reform health care.
At the end of the day, we're basically right where we started.And on that note, trying to improve anything in this country is a waste of effort.
Americans seem happy with what we have and there is no motivation to make things better despite the fact that there's plenty of room for improvement.
It's gotten to the point where anyone who tries to make things better here is either an idiot or completely masochistic.
But on the bright side, at least it's Friday!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542170</id>
	<title>Re:do you trust obama and the dems ?</title>
	<author>iamhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1269029280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>low payments to doctors and hospitals, so only really bad hospitals will take people on this plan</p></div><p>You know, maybe if we had an actual free market like you assholes like to pretend we do, that would already happen.  Why isn't there an option for a poor person to go to a doctor for $10?  Weren't there any doctors that made C's and D's?  Like the guys that work the helpdesk now, those docs should be working for the poor for a bad salary.<br> <br>

So please, let's find some way to actually bring some free-market fundamentals to healthcare - I guess if it takes government intrusion, so be it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>low payments to doctors and hospitals , so only really bad hospitals will take people on this planYou know , maybe if we had an actual free market like you assholes like to pretend we do , that would already happen .
Why is n't there an option for a poor person to go to a doctor for $ 10 ?
Were n't there any doctors that made C 's and D 's ?
Like the guys that work the helpdesk now , those docs should be working for the poor for a bad salary .
So please , let 's find some way to actually bring some free-market fundamentals to healthcare - I guess if it takes government intrusion , so be it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>low payments to doctors and hospitals, so only really bad hospitals will take people on this planYou know, maybe if we had an actual free market like you assholes like to pretend we do, that would already happen.
Why isn't there an option for a poor person to go to a doctor for $10?
Weren't there any doctors that made C's and D's?
Like the guys that work the helpdesk now, those docs should be working for the poor for a bad salary.
So please, let's find some way to actually bring some free-market fundamentals to healthcare - I guess if it takes government intrusion, so be it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537438</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>kaiser423</author>
	<datestamp>1269013560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the Republicans did do healthcare.  Remember Medicare Part D, one of the largest pork fests and inefficient government programs ever?  The one that buys prescription medicine at such a high price that it actually cost more than the current bill?
<br> <br>
So let's take a look at this.  For the price of this healthcare bill, the Democrats are somewhat protecting us from abuse from insurance companies, and insuring 30+ million more Americans, allowing them to go to the doctor, get better and get back to work.  The Republicans for the same price managed to get some more prescriptions for seniors and line the pockets of the pharma companies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the Republicans did do healthcare .
Remember Medicare Part D , one of the largest pork fests and inefficient government programs ever ?
The one that buys prescription medicine at such a high price that it actually cost more than the current bill ?
So let 's take a look at this .
For the price of this healthcare bill , the Democrats are somewhat protecting us from abuse from insurance companies , and insuring 30 + million more Americans , allowing them to go to the doctor , get better and get back to work .
The Republicans for the same price managed to get some more prescriptions for seniors and line the pockets of the pharma companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the Republicans did do healthcare.
Remember Medicare Part D, one of the largest pork fests and inefficient government programs ever?
The one that buys prescription medicine at such a high price that it actually cost more than the current bill?
So let's take a look at this.
For the price of this healthcare bill, the Democrats are somewhat protecting us from abuse from insurance companies, and insuring 30+ million more Americans, allowing them to go to the doctor, get better and get back to work.
The Republicans for the same price managed to get some more prescriptions for seniors and line the pockets of the pharma companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545144</id>
	<title>Re:Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1268999160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Is it really? I have yet to see year-to-year analysis of how government run healthcare is performing in various countries. It could be good now, but slowly sliding into corruption and inefficiency. You know, like most government programs.</i></p><p>I don't know about year-to-year analysis, but there's dozens of analyses out there that compare cost-per-person or cost-as-fraction-of-GDP with population health metrics. Just google "health care ranking by country." If you find one where the U.S. comes out on top, lemme know, but by nearly every systemic measure I've seen, we spend more AND get less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really ?
I have yet to see year-to-year analysis of how government run healthcare is performing in various countries .
It could be good now , but slowly sliding into corruption and inefficiency .
You know , like most government programs.I do n't know about year-to-year analysis , but there 's dozens of analyses out there that compare cost-per-person or cost-as-fraction-of-GDP with population health metrics .
Just google " health care ranking by country .
" If you find one where the U.S. comes out on top , lem me know , but by nearly every systemic measure I 've seen , we spend more AND get less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really?
I have yet to see year-to-year analysis of how government run healthcare is performing in various countries.
It could be good now, but slowly sliding into corruption and inefficiency.
You know, like most government programs.I don't know about year-to-year analysis, but there's dozens of analyses out there that compare cost-per-person or cost-as-fraction-of-GDP with population health metrics.
Just google "health care ranking by country.
" If you find one where the U.S. comes out on top, lemme know, but by nearly every systemic measure I've seen, we spend more AND get less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536412</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, flat out wrong.  Insurance companies lose money if people are sick too, hence the whole controversy of companies dropping people with really bad health issues.  It's vastly more expensive for insurance companies to treat sick patients than to provide preventative care.  Technically if someone is really sick, like they have some long term ongoing problem, then the premiums raise so they bring in more revenue, but their expenses also raise so they have greater costs.</p><p>I have an HMO, Kaiser Permanente, out here on the west coast.  Kaiser has done a tremendous job in cutting costs with a tremendous focus on preventitive care.  Through my company at least if you and any of your family do their annual checkup not only is there no co-pay, they give you a $25 gift card just for going and a chance to win a TV every quarter.  That's because Kaiser figured out, just like most other HMOs where the insurance company runs the facilities you go to, that preventitive care is vastly cheaper than treatment care.</p><p>Considering my company also is a government contractor and I am very familiar with how the government operates, frankly this whole obamacare mess scares the living hell out of me.  It doesn't matter if they're running it or regulating it.  The fed broke up AT&amp;T in the 70s-80s and look at the mess the telecom industry went through.  They broke up ALCOA a few decades back and totally screwed up the metals industry in the US which has never recovered.  Nearly every defense program is vastly overbudget and behind schedule.  Excuse me for my conservative/libertarian views, but I'd vastly prefer that the government just shut the hell up, go back to what it should do such as security (military, police), and with everything else including healthcare is go back to Teddy Roosevelt's policy of "walk softly and carry a big stick"; they should just stay out of people's way and lurk in the shadows, ready to jump out and whack anyone getting too far out of line, but otherwise stay put.</p><p>Sorry for the rant, but seriously.  Too much empire building in this administration.  What they should have done, as others have pointed out above, is break up the small monopolies on health insurance that exist since many states allow only one or a small number of companies to provide health insurance, tort reform (never going to happen, Trial Lawyers lobby is a huge Democrat supporter), and in particular somehow find a way to take healthcare providing away from employers and move it to an individual purchase, which if you know how insurance inherintly works this is probably the most difficult, but not impossible, fix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , flat out wrong .
Insurance companies lose money if people are sick too , hence the whole controversy of companies dropping people with really bad health issues .
It 's vastly more expensive for insurance companies to treat sick patients than to provide preventative care .
Technically if someone is really sick , like they have some long term ongoing problem , then the premiums raise so they bring in more revenue , but their expenses also raise so they have greater costs.I have an HMO , Kaiser Permanente , out here on the west coast .
Kaiser has done a tremendous job in cutting costs with a tremendous focus on preventitive care .
Through my company at least if you and any of your family do their annual checkup not only is there no co-pay , they give you a $ 25 gift card just for going and a chance to win a TV every quarter .
That 's because Kaiser figured out , just like most other HMOs where the insurance company runs the facilities you go to , that preventitive care is vastly cheaper than treatment care.Considering my company also is a government contractor and I am very familiar with how the government operates , frankly this whole obamacare mess scares the living hell out of me .
It does n't matter if they 're running it or regulating it .
The fed broke up AT&amp;T in the 70s-80s and look at the mess the telecom industry went through .
They broke up ALCOA a few decades back and totally screwed up the metals industry in the US which has never recovered .
Nearly every defense program is vastly overbudget and behind schedule .
Excuse me for my conservative/libertarian views , but I 'd vastly prefer that the government just shut the hell up , go back to what it should do such as security ( military , police ) , and with everything else including healthcare is go back to Teddy Roosevelt 's policy of " walk softly and carry a big stick " ; they should just stay out of people 's way and lurk in the shadows , ready to jump out and whack anyone getting too far out of line , but otherwise stay put.Sorry for the rant , but seriously .
Too much empire building in this administration .
What they should have done , as others have pointed out above , is break up the small monopolies on health insurance that exist since many states allow only one or a small number of companies to provide health insurance , tort reform ( never going to happen , Trial Lawyers lobby is a huge Democrat supporter ) , and in particular somehow find a way to take healthcare providing away from employers and move it to an individual purchase , which if you know how insurance inherintly works this is probably the most difficult , but not impossible , fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, flat out wrong.
Insurance companies lose money if people are sick too, hence the whole controversy of companies dropping people with really bad health issues.
It's vastly more expensive for insurance companies to treat sick patients than to provide preventative care.
Technically if someone is really sick, like they have some long term ongoing problem, then the premiums raise so they bring in more revenue, but their expenses also raise so they have greater costs.I have an HMO, Kaiser Permanente, out here on the west coast.
Kaiser has done a tremendous job in cutting costs with a tremendous focus on preventitive care.
Through my company at least if you and any of your family do their annual checkup not only is there no co-pay, they give you a $25 gift card just for going and a chance to win a TV every quarter.
That's because Kaiser figured out, just like most other HMOs where the insurance company runs the facilities you go to, that preventitive care is vastly cheaper than treatment care.Considering my company also is a government contractor and I am very familiar with how the government operates, frankly this whole obamacare mess scares the living hell out of me.
It doesn't matter if they're running it or regulating it.
The fed broke up AT&amp;T in the 70s-80s and look at the mess the telecom industry went through.
They broke up ALCOA a few decades back and totally screwed up the metals industry in the US which has never recovered.
Nearly every defense program is vastly overbudget and behind schedule.
Excuse me for my conservative/libertarian views, but I'd vastly prefer that the government just shut the hell up, go back to what it should do such as security (military, police), and with everything else including healthcare is go back to Teddy Roosevelt's policy of "walk softly and carry a big stick"; they should just stay out of people's way and lurk in the shadows, ready to jump out and whack anyone getting too far out of line, but otherwise stay put.Sorry for the rant, but seriously.
Too much empire building in this administration.
What they should have done, as others have pointed out above, is break up the small monopolies on health insurance that exist since many states allow only one or a small number of companies to provide health insurance, tort reform (never going to happen, Trial Lawyers lobby is a huge Democrat supporter), and in particular somehow find a way to take healthcare providing away from employers and move it to an individual purchase, which if you know how insurance inherintly works this is probably the most difficult, but not impossible, fix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31546560</id>
	<title>no-one wants to do things that will actually help</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1269010260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I walk into a store and buy a shirt off the rack, it costs a certain amount no matter how I choose to pay (cash, card, whatever). Same for most goods and services.</p><p>Health care should be the same. The government should mandate that a given item must cost the same amount no matter how its being paid for. Medicare. Corporate health plan. Individual health plan. Cash payments. Also, ban insurance companies from saying "we will only give benefit if you go to OUR hospital or see OUR doctor". And ban insurance companies from saying that they will give benefit for treatment X but not for treatment Y (even when treatment Y may be a better option or in fact a cheaper option than treatment X). Oh and this applies to drugs, operations, surgery, hospital stays, doctor visits, tests, x-rays/CTs/MRIs/etc, implants, prosthetics, transplants, everything that the health care provider provides.</p><p>Change and simplify the tax rules for health care. Every American would be allowed to take up to $x in pre-tax income (the amount would be the same for everyone no matter their actual income) and that amount would be able to be used to buy any health insurance policy anywhere OR to put into a special health savings account that can only be used to pay for health expenses.<br>The amount would be identical no matter whether you are earning hourly wages, fixed yearly salary, commissions, self-employed, business owner or any other source of income.</p><p>Right now many medical tests are done that are likely not necessary due to the risk of lawsuits. Pass whatever laws are required to put an end to these unnecessary tests, if that means medical malpractice reform, so be it.</p><p>Make it easier for people to switch providers without penalty. Ban providers from declaring something as a "pre-existing condition" if you have had health coverage for that item in the past year from any provider (Medicare included). They can still stop someone who hasn't had health coverage in years getting hit with something major and signing up for insurance just to get coverage for their sudden injury/illness.</p><p>Make it easy for people to choose from any insurance company anywhere in the US. Remove red tape and paperwork required in the running of health insurance and make it easier for new providers to enter the market. Put pressure on the states to remove or reform any state legislation that applies to health care and insurance. Remove any rules governing what insurance companies are allowed to charge, who they are allowed to insure and what they are allowed to give coverage for.</p><p>And finally, eliminate the corporate health plan. If all the other stuff is done, it should be possible for people to get insurance on their own without a corporate health plan. With my points about increasing competition, it encourages new players to enter the market that can offer better service (including actually paying decent benefits when people get injured or sick and giving coverage to people who have been rejected in the past due to previous illness which may or may not still be a problem)</p><p>No need to force people to get insurance, if the market is opened to competition (anyone who thinks the health system is anything like a free market right now has no clue about economics) it will solve a lot of the problem.</p><p>People who cant get insurance right now (the "uninsurable") may be able to get insurance from a new player. Or they could opt for a health savings account instead if they think the amount they could put in (both the allowed pre-tax amount and any extra post-tax amount they can afford to put into it) would be enough to cover health costs in the future.</p><p>To cover those unable to afford regular insurance, the government could run a subsidized insurance scheme for these people that provides them coverage. Anyone who can demonstrate a low enough income that they cant afford even the most basic insurance would be eligible.</p><p>Also insurance companies would be encouraged to offer coverage for preventative health measures such as regular checkups at a doctor that can pick up health problems BEFORE they turn into major dramas requiring a long stay in hospital.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I walk into a store and buy a shirt off the rack , it costs a certain amount no matter how I choose to pay ( cash , card , whatever ) .
Same for most goods and services.Health care should be the same .
The government should mandate that a given item must cost the same amount no matter how its being paid for .
Medicare. Corporate health plan .
Individual health plan .
Cash payments .
Also , ban insurance companies from saying " we will only give benefit if you go to OUR hospital or see OUR doctor " .
And ban insurance companies from saying that they will give benefit for treatment X but not for treatment Y ( even when treatment Y may be a better option or in fact a cheaper option than treatment X ) .
Oh and this applies to drugs , operations , surgery , hospital stays , doctor visits , tests , x-rays/CTs/MRIs/etc , implants , prosthetics , transplants , everything that the health care provider provides.Change and simplify the tax rules for health care .
Every American would be allowed to take up to $ x in pre-tax income ( the amount would be the same for everyone no matter their actual income ) and that amount would be able to be used to buy any health insurance policy anywhere OR to put into a special health savings account that can only be used to pay for health expenses.The amount would be identical no matter whether you are earning hourly wages , fixed yearly salary , commissions , self-employed , business owner or any other source of income.Right now many medical tests are done that are likely not necessary due to the risk of lawsuits .
Pass whatever laws are required to put an end to these unnecessary tests , if that means medical malpractice reform , so be it.Make it easier for people to switch providers without penalty .
Ban providers from declaring something as a " pre-existing condition " if you have had health coverage for that item in the past year from any provider ( Medicare included ) .
They can still stop someone who has n't had health coverage in years getting hit with something major and signing up for insurance just to get coverage for their sudden injury/illness.Make it easy for people to choose from any insurance company anywhere in the US .
Remove red tape and paperwork required in the running of health insurance and make it easier for new providers to enter the market .
Put pressure on the states to remove or reform any state legislation that applies to health care and insurance .
Remove any rules governing what insurance companies are allowed to charge , who they are allowed to insure and what they are allowed to give coverage for.And finally , eliminate the corporate health plan .
If all the other stuff is done , it should be possible for people to get insurance on their own without a corporate health plan .
With my points about increasing competition , it encourages new players to enter the market that can offer better service ( including actually paying decent benefits when people get injured or sick and giving coverage to people who have been rejected in the past due to previous illness which may or may not still be a problem ) No need to force people to get insurance , if the market is opened to competition ( anyone who thinks the health system is anything like a free market right now has no clue about economics ) it will solve a lot of the problem.People who cant get insurance right now ( the " uninsurable " ) may be able to get insurance from a new player .
Or they could opt for a health savings account instead if they think the amount they could put in ( both the allowed pre-tax amount and any extra post-tax amount they can afford to put into it ) would be enough to cover health costs in the future.To cover those unable to afford regular insurance , the government could run a subsidized insurance scheme for these people that provides them coverage .
Anyone who can demonstrate a low enough income that they cant afford even the most basic insurance would be eligible.Also insurance companies would be encouraged to offer coverage for preventative health measures such as regular checkups at a doctor that can pick up health problems BEFORE they turn into major dramas requiring a long stay in hospital .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I walk into a store and buy a shirt off the rack, it costs a certain amount no matter how I choose to pay (cash, card, whatever).
Same for most goods and services.Health care should be the same.
The government should mandate that a given item must cost the same amount no matter how its being paid for.
Medicare. Corporate health plan.
Individual health plan.
Cash payments.
Also, ban insurance companies from saying "we will only give benefit if you go to OUR hospital or see OUR doctor".
And ban insurance companies from saying that they will give benefit for treatment X but not for treatment Y (even when treatment Y may be a better option or in fact a cheaper option than treatment X).
Oh and this applies to drugs, operations, surgery, hospital stays, doctor visits, tests, x-rays/CTs/MRIs/etc, implants, prosthetics, transplants, everything that the health care provider provides.Change and simplify the tax rules for health care.
Every American would be allowed to take up to $x in pre-tax income (the amount would be the same for everyone no matter their actual income) and that amount would be able to be used to buy any health insurance policy anywhere OR to put into a special health savings account that can only be used to pay for health expenses.The amount would be identical no matter whether you are earning hourly wages, fixed yearly salary, commissions, self-employed, business owner or any other source of income.Right now many medical tests are done that are likely not necessary due to the risk of lawsuits.
Pass whatever laws are required to put an end to these unnecessary tests, if that means medical malpractice reform, so be it.Make it easier for people to switch providers without penalty.
Ban providers from declaring something as a "pre-existing condition" if you have had health coverage for that item in the past year from any provider (Medicare included).
They can still stop someone who hasn't had health coverage in years getting hit with something major and signing up for insurance just to get coverage for their sudden injury/illness.Make it easy for people to choose from any insurance company anywhere in the US.
Remove red tape and paperwork required in the running of health insurance and make it easier for new providers to enter the market.
Put pressure on the states to remove or reform any state legislation that applies to health care and insurance.
Remove any rules governing what insurance companies are allowed to charge, who they are allowed to insure and what they are allowed to give coverage for.And finally, eliminate the corporate health plan.
If all the other stuff is done, it should be possible for people to get insurance on their own without a corporate health plan.
With my points about increasing competition, it encourages new players to enter the market that can offer better service (including actually paying decent benefits when people get injured or sick and giving coverage to people who have been rejected in the past due to previous illness which may or may not still be a problem)No need to force people to get insurance, if the market is opened to competition (anyone who thinks the health system is anything like a free market right now has no clue about economics) it will solve a lot of the problem.People who cant get insurance right now (the "uninsurable") may be able to get insurance from a new player.
Or they could opt for a health savings account instead if they think the amount they could put in (both the allowed pre-tax amount and any extra post-tax amount they can afford to put into it) would be enough to cover health costs in the future.To cover those unable to afford regular insurance, the government could run a subsidized insurance scheme for these people that provides them coverage.
Anyone who can demonstrate a low enough income that they cant afford even the most basic insurance would be eligible.Also insurance companies would be encouraged to offer coverage for preventative health measures such as regular checkups at a doctor that can pick up health problems BEFORE they turn into major dramas requiring a long stay in hospital.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537264</id>
	<title>Re:do you trust obama and the dems ?</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1269013140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wall Street bailout (the TARP program) was passed by the Bush Administration. I don't understand why people who do not know the facts and who do not understand the issues continues to run their mouths off as though they know what they're talking about. I know that's mean, but the quality of the debate is in the shitter because of people yelling out "death panels" without any basis in fact for doing so.</p><p>The current health care system will bankruptcy us. That is a fact. Escalating costs will eat our economy alive in a few decades unless steps are taken to drive down costs. You seem to think that's okay but responsible grownups want to prevent our economy from failure in the future. Don't get in their way with incorrect drivel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wall Street bailout ( the TARP program ) was passed by the Bush Administration .
I do n't understand why people who do not know the facts and who do not understand the issues continues to run their mouths off as though they know what they 're talking about .
I know that 's mean , but the quality of the debate is in the shitter because of people yelling out " death panels " without any basis in fact for doing so.The current health care system will bankruptcy us .
That is a fact .
Escalating costs will eat our economy alive in a few decades unless steps are taken to drive down costs .
You seem to think that 's okay but responsible grownups want to prevent our economy from failure in the future .
Do n't get in their way with incorrect drivel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wall Street bailout (the TARP program) was passed by the Bush Administration.
I don't understand why people who do not know the facts and who do not understand the issues continues to run their mouths off as though they know what they're talking about.
I know that's mean, but the quality of the debate is in the shitter because of people yelling out "death panels" without any basis in fact for doing so.The current health care system will bankruptcy us.
That is a fact.
Escalating costs will eat our economy alive in a few decades unless steps are taken to drive down costs.
You seem to think that's okay but responsible grownups want to prevent our economy from failure in the future.
Don't get in their way with incorrect drivel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541078</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269024720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're assuming that "health care reform" can only take the form of something "comparable to other modern countries", in other words a universal, single-payer system.  The reason Republicans didn't get the same thing passed when they controlled congress is because their solution is in the opposite direction of a universal, single-payer system.  Republicans preach personal responsibility and savings and the dissolution of the stranglehold that insurance companies have had on the medical service industry.  Democrats preach entitlement and government run insurance that they can directly control and fund through taxation.  Both are theoretically sound, but are practically subject to so much corruption that it's not really worth the time and effort of the national government to try and support or denounce one way or the other and simply leave the problem solving to the state and local governments who can better diagnose and treat their particular problems.</p><p>Yes, I'm one of those people that still actually believes Federalism was a good idea.  To think about how our government is run nowadays makes my soul cringe... so I try not to as often as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming that " health care reform " can only take the form of something " comparable to other modern countries " , in other words a universal , single-payer system .
The reason Republicans did n't get the same thing passed when they controlled congress is because their solution is in the opposite direction of a universal , single-payer system .
Republicans preach personal responsibility and savings and the dissolution of the stranglehold that insurance companies have had on the medical service industry .
Democrats preach entitlement and government run insurance that they can directly control and fund through taxation .
Both are theoretically sound , but are practically subject to so much corruption that it 's not really worth the time and effort of the national government to try and support or denounce one way or the other and simply leave the problem solving to the state and local governments who can better diagnose and treat their particular problems.Yes , I 'm one of those people that still actually believes Federalism was a good idea .
To think about how our government is run nowadays makes my soul cringe... so I try not to as often as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming that "health care reform" can only take the form of something "comparable to other modern countries", in other words a universal, single-payer system.
The reason Republicans didn't get the same thing passed when they controlled congress is because their solution is in the opposite direction of a universal, single-payer system.
Republicans preach personal responsibility and savings and the dissolution of the stranglehold that insurance companies have had on the medical service industry.
Democrats preach entitlement and government run insurance that they can directly control and fund through taxation.
Both are theoretically sound, but are practically subject to so much corruption that it's not really worth the time and effort of the national government to try and support or denounce one way or the other and simply leave the problem solving to the state and local governments who can better diagnose and treat their particular problems.Yes, I'm one of those people that still actually believes Federalism was a good idea.
To think about how our government is run nowadays makes my soul cringe... so I try not to as often as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536146</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an interesting side of America : in health as in education, American feel like they have to give money to receive attention :<br>"I like it that way because it makes the doctor attentive to MY needs".<br>That's not all bad, of course, but everything is a transaction, everything is business, everything is a product. And health as a business feels wrong, no matter how you justify it ("freedom", really ?).</p><p>Coming from a country where health and education is free (for *everyone*, even illegal immigrants), I can say that free, universal health care is not a blow on freedom, but ensure that a basic equality of chance (to *live*), and mutual respect (because we don't let each other die). Yes, we all take care of each-others medical costs. And I'd like to think that it makes us just a bit stronger as a country. And I have yet to meet someone that feels it's a breach in their basic freedom.</p><p>By the way "Buy a Prius or other hybrid, else we'll fine you $1000" is not a bad idea. Why should the right to pollute the planet more than other people should be free ? Freedom *does not* mean freedom to do evil. Freedom means freedom to do anything as long as it does not hurt others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an interesting side of America : in health as in education , American feel like they have to give money to receive attention : " I like it that way because it makes the doctor attentive to MY needs " .That 's not all bad , of course , but everything is a transaction , everything is business , everything is a product .
And health as a business feels wrong , no matter how you justify it ( " freedom " , really ?
) .Coming from a country where health and education is free ( for * everyone * , even illegal immigrants ) , I can say that free , universal health care is not a blow on freedom , but ensure that a basic equality of chance ( to * live * ) , and mutual respect ( because we do n't let each other die ) .
Yes , we all take care of each-others medical costs .
And I 'd like to think that it makes us just a bit stronger as a country .
And I have yet to meet someone that feels it 's a breach in their basic freedom.By the way " Buy a Prius or other hybrid , else we 'll fine you $ 1000 " is not a bad idea .
Why should the right to pollute the planet more than other people should be free ?
Freedom * does not * mean freedom to do evil .
Freedom means freedom to do anything as long as it does not hurt others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an interesting side of America : in health as in education, American feel like they have to give money to receive attention :"I like it that way because it makes the doctor attentive to MY needs".That's not all bad, of course, but everything is a transaction, everything is business, everything is a product.
And health as a business feels wrong, no matter how you justify it ("freedom", really ?
).Coming from a country where health and education is free (for *everyone*, even illegal immigrants), I can say that free, universal health care is not a blow on freedom, but ensure that a basic equality of chance (to *live*), and mutual respect (because we don't let each other die).
Yes, we all take care of each-others medical costs.
And I'd like to think that it makes us just a bit stronger as a country.
And I have yet to meet someone that feels it's a breach in their basic freedom.By the way "Buy a Prius or other hybrid, else we'll fine you $1000" is not a bad idea.
Why should the right to pollute the planet more than other people should be free ?
Freedom *does not* mean freedom to do evil.
Freedom means freedom to do anything as long as it does not hurt others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537496</id>
	<title>Re:Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable."</p><p>Is that like when a Canadian politician flies to the US to get surgery he'd have to wait months for at home?</p><p>You're more likely to get diagnosed with a disease in Canada. You're more likely to actually survive that disease in the US.</p><p>Indisputable. rofl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable .
" Is that like when a Canadian politician flies to the US to get surgery he 'd have to wait months for at home ? You 're more likely to get diagnosed with a disease in Canada .
You 're more likely to actually survive that disease in the US.Indisputable .
rofl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable.
"Is that like when a Canadian politician flies to the US to get surgery he'd have to wait months for at home?You're more likely to get diagnosed with a disease in Canada.
You're more likely to actually survive that disease in the US.Indisputable.
rofl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535556</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Commerce Clause.  Do some research -- you might also want to focus on Justice Marshall's view of this clause.</p><p>Do they not teach Civics in schools anymore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Commerce Clause .
Do some research -- you might also want to focus on Justice Marshall 's view of this clause.Do they not teach Civics in schools anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Commerce Clause.
Do some research -- you might also want to focus on Justice Marshall's view of this clause.Do they not teach Civics in schools anymore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537404</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I could mod higher than 5 (hell, as a permanent AC I just wish I could mod...)</p><p>The above poster has everything correct.  This is the problem "conservatives" have with socialist systems.  It's a matter of motivation.  Teaching a person to love and cherish his fellow man is a noble goal all intelligent people should be aiming for.  Forcing another person to love and cherish his fellow man doesn't work.  No system is perfect, people will always find a way to work around it, or corrupt it until they are willing to buy into it on their own terms.</p><p>And here's the rub, if everyone was willing to help their fellows on their own terms, we wouldn't need the government stepping in to force anyone to begin with.  This pretty much states that the whole socialist ideal of getting everyone together is nothing but a clever ruse.  If you really wanted everyone to help their neighbors you'd teach them why it was important, and how to do so in our current system.   You wouldn't just steal all their money and send them to jail if they disagree with your ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I could mod higher than 5 ( hell , as a permanent AC I just wish I could mod... ) The above poster has everything correct .
This is the problem " conservatives " have with socialist systems .
It 's a matter of motivation .
Teaching a person to love and cherish his fellow man is a noble goal all intelligent people should be aiming for .
Forcing another person to love and cherish his fellow man does n't work .
No system is perfect , people will always find a way to work around it , or corrupt it until they are willing to buy into it on their own terms.And here 's the rub , if everyone was willing to help their fellows on their own terms , we would n't need the government stepping in to force anyone to begin with .
This pretty much states that the whole socialist ideal of getting everyone together is nothing but a clever ruse .
If you really wanted everyone to help their neighbors you 'd teach them why it was important , and how to do so in our current system .
You would n't just steal all their money and send them to jail if they disagree with your ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I could mod higher than 5 (hell, as a permanent AC I just wish I could mod...)The above poster has everything correct.
This is the problem "conservatives" have with socialist systems.
It's a matter of motivation.
Teaching a person to love and cherish his fellow man is a noble goal all intelligent people should be aiming for.
Forcing another person to love and cherish his fellow man doesn't work.
No system is perfect, people will always find a way to work around it, or corrupt it until they are willing to buy into it on their own terms.And here's the rub, if everyone was willing to help their fellows on their own terms, we wouldn't need the government stepping in to force anyone to begin with.
This pretty much states that the whole socialist ideal of getting everyone together is nothing but a clever ruse.
If you really wanted everyone to help their neighbors you'd teach them why it was important, and how to do so in our current system.
You wouldn't just steal all their money and send them to jail if they disagree with your ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539150</id>
	<title>It isn't reform.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269018060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a payoff to health insurance companies and a way for Democrats to gain a foothold towards completely socialized medicine.  It won't lower the cost of health care to the consumer or to the federal government.  They can say that it does and that it will reduce the deficit.  It's a white lie.  It will do the exact opposite, and anyone who's paid attention to government expenditures over the years knows that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a payoff to health insurance companies and a way for Democrats to gain a foothold towards completely socialized medicine .
It wo n't lower the cost of health care to the consumer or to the federal government .
They can say that it does and that it will reduce the deficit .
It 's a white lie .
It will do the exact opposite , and anyone who 's paid attention to government expenditures over the years knows that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a payoff to health insurance companies and a way for Democrats to gain a foothold towards completely socialized medicine.
It won't lower the cost of health care to the consumer or to the federal government.
They can say that it does and that it will reduce the deficit.
It's a white lie.
It will do the exact opposite, and anyone who's paid attention to government expenditures over the years knows that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540774</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>doug</author>
	<datestamp>1269023580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US Postal Service</p></div><p> In the 18th century, there was no other means of delivering mail everywhere.  It was a huge investment, and losing money was worth it because it was a big deal.  Now days, not so much.  I think I'd rather that the USPS subsidy went to building out our broadband footprint in rural areas. </p><p> - doug </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Postal Service In the 18th century , there was no other means of delivering mail everywhere .
It was a huge investment , and losing money was worth it because it was a big deal .
Now days , not so much .
I think I 'd rather that the USPS subsidy went to building out our broadband footprint in rural areas .
- doug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Postal Service In the 18th century, there was no other means of delivering mail everywhere.
It was a huge investment, and losing money was worth it because it was a big deal.
Now days, not so much.
I think I'd rather that the USPS subsidy went to building out our broadband footprint in rural areas.
- doug 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31564208</id>
	<title>This legislation is crap.</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1269200400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While we need major health care reform, THIS was NOT the way to go. First off, this violates our 4th amendment rights. Let me explain. Our money that we have worked so hard for is our property to spend as we see fit. It is also a MAJOR component to our security. It is, in effect, an essential core component of the 4th amendment. This is an unreasonable seizure of our personal effects and papers, and a violation to our personal security.</p><p>Next off, this is nothing more than a thinly-veiled handout to the HI Industry. Requiring us to purchase health insurance "in case something happens" is like requiring us to purchase condoms "in case we have sex.' It's already happened with car insurance. With an adequate universal health care system in place, car insurance wouldn't really be necessary, except to repair the vehicle, not pay for damages done to a human being.</p><p>But next thing you know, they'll be passing a law requiring us to buy a car by the time we are a certain age, which of course comes with the prerequisite that you must get insurance for the car - instant handout/bailout to the car/truck and insurance industry.</p><p>Don't celebrate your 'victory' too hard, now. Really you're just fooling yourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we need major health care reform , THIS was NOT the way to go .
First off , this violates our 4th amendment rights .
Let me explain .
Our money that we have worked so hard for is our property to spend as we see fit .
It is also a MAJOR component to our security .
It is , in effect , an essential core component of the 4th amendment .
This is an unreasonable seizure of our personal effects and papers , and a violation to our personal security.Next off , this is nothing more than a thinly-veiled handout to the HI Industry .
Requiring us to purchase health insurance " in case something happens " is like requiring us to purchase condoms " in case we have sex .
' It 's already happened with car insurance .
With an adequate universal health care system in place , car insurance would n't really be necessary , except to repair the vehicle , not pay for damages done to a human being.But next thing you know , they 'll be passing a law requiring us to buy a car by the time we are a certain age , which of course comes with the prerequisite that you must get insurance for the car - instant handout/bailout to the car/truck and insurance industry.Do n't celebrate your 'victory ' too hard , now .
Really you 're just fooling yourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we need major health care reform, THIS was NOT the way to go.
First off, this violates our 4th amendment rights.
Let me explain.
Our money that we have worked so hard for is our property to spend as we see fit.
It is also a MAJOR component to our security.
It is, in effect, an essential core component of the 4th amendment.
This is an unreasonable seizure of our personal effects and papers, and a violation to our personal security.Next off, this is nothing more than a thinly-veiled handout to the HI Industry.
Requiring us to purchase health insurance "in case something happens" is like requiring us to purchase condoms "in case we have sex.
' It's already happened with car insurance.
With an adequate universal health care system in place, car insurance wouldn't really be necessary, except to repair the vehicle, not pay for damages done to a human being.But next thing you know, they'll be passing a law requiring us to buy a car by the time we are a certain age, which of course comes with the prerequisite that you must get insurance for the car - instant handout/bailout to the car/truck and insurance industry.Don't celebrate your 'victory' too hard, now.
Really you're just fooling yourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541348</id>
	<title>Re:Trusting Faux News?</title>
	<author>Pranadevil2k</author>
	<datestamp>1269025800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I guess Fox is as far to the right as they are because they have to make up for the 5 networks that are on the left?<br>I guess that's why they claim 'balance.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess Fox is as far to the right as they are because they have to make up for the 5 networks that are on the left ? I guess that 's why they claim 'balance .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess Fox is as far to the right as they are because they have to make up for the 5 networks that are on the left?I guess that's why they claim 'balance.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536896</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>bored\_lurker</author>
	<datestamp>1269012300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, kind of - but you have to stop reading the slanted news from Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC and start going to the horse's mouth. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/summary-presidents-proposal.pdf" title="whitehouse.gov" rel="nofollow">Go to the actual proposal on whitehouse.gov</a> [whitehouse.gov] and read it for yourself.</p><p> In it you will see that there is an expansion of Medicaid and Medicare (both government run insurance last I checked), a tax on those who are uninsured to cover then when they need public health care, and funding for "community health centers".</p><p> I am not commenting on whether this is good or bad (I think it has some of both) but you should know what is being proposed and to say there is nothing "government run" means you don't know what is in the proposal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , kind of - but you have to stop reading the slanted news from Fox , MSNBC , CNN , NPR and the BBC and start going to the horse 's mouth .
Go to the actual proposal on whitehouse.gov [ whitehouse.gov ] and read it for yourself .
In it you will see that there is an expansion of Medicaid and Medicare ( both government run insurance last I checked ) , a tax on those who are uninsured to cover then when they need public health care , and funding for " community health centers " .
I am not commenting on whether this is good or bad ( I think it has some of both ) but you should know what is being proposed and to say there is nothing " government run " means you do n't know what is in the proposal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, kind of - but you have to stop reading the slanted news from Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC and start going to the horse's mouth.
Go to the actual proposal on whitehouse.gov [whitehouse.gov] and read it for yourself.
In it you will see that there is an expansion of Medicaid and Medicare (both government run insurance last I checked), a tax on those who are uninsured to cover then when they need public health care, and funding for "community health centers".
I am not commenting on whether this is good or bad (I think it has some of both) but you should know what is being proposed and to say there is nothing "government run" means you don't know what is in the proposal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048</id>
	<title>It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you really want to fix healthcare, do tort reform first.  Then break up the AMA cartel.  Then look at other things that may need to be changed.</p><p>Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really want to fix healthcare , do tort reform first .
Then break up the AMA cartel .
Then look at other things that may need to be changed.Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you really want to fix healthcare, do tort reform first.
Then break up the AMA cartel.
Then look at other things that may need to be changed.Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535692</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>hibiki\_r</author>
	<datestamp>1269008820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then I guess the UK is a complete straggler in that respect, because most of Continental Europe still treats their doctors like crap, and they have over 3 doctors per 1000. Heck, often enough they don't train enough doctors locally, and they have to bring amounts of immigrants covering specialists positions, if just because those specialists leave due to how much better they get paid in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then I guess the UK is a complete straggler in that respect , because most of Continental Europe still treats their doctors like crap , and they have over 3 doctors per 1000 .
Heck , often enough they do n't train enough doctors locally , and they have to bring amounts of immigrants covering specialists positions , if just because those specialists leave due to how much better they get paid in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then I guess the UK is a complete straggler in that respect, because most of Continental Europe still treats their doctors like crap, and they have over 3 doctors per 1000.
Heck, often enough they don't train enough doctors locally, and they have to bring amounts of immigrants covering specialists positions, if just because those specialists leave due to how much better they get paid in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541800</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269027720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535514</id>
	<title>They should come for IT next</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1269008340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com/2009/02/lies-and-health-care/" title="codemonkeyramblings.com">As I have pointed out</a> [codemonkeyramblings.com], IT is as wasteful, if not more so, than the health care system. It is also filled with far more errors, failures, etc. than would <strong>ever</strong> be tolerated from the health care system. Even if you believe this is comparing apples to oranges, they're still fruit; both are extremely complicated, technically-challenging fields which have added a significant benefit to the lives of most modern people and the efficiency of our economic system. Medical professionals are as educated, if not more so, on average, than most IT workers and software developers. They are also significantly more regulated than most of us who have to work for on business infrastructure so we don't get to use the excuse of obstacles with them.
<br> <br>
Yet, no one on Slashdot and other left-leaning sites wants to see a similar smashing of major enterprise IT firms like Oracle simply on the basis that their products are bloated, inefficient are so overly complicated that their "ecosystem" of support professionals is damn near a make-work program considering the delta between what most customers actually need, and what the computer industry rams down their throats. I don't want to see more regulation, I want to see less, but at this point I freely say to a lot of the geeks I meet who make big bucks on software that is as bloated, inefficient and overpriced as they say the health care industry is "yuck it up chuckles, they may come for your ass next."</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I have pointed out [ codemonkeyramblings.com ] , IT is as wasteful , if not more so , than the health care system .
It is also filled with far more errors , failures , etc .
than would ever be tolerated from the health care system .
Even if you believe this is comparing apples to oranges , they 're still fruit ; both are extremely complicated , technically-challenging fields which have added a significant benefit to the lives of most modern people and the efficiency of our economic system .
Medical professionals are as educated , if not more so , on average , than most IT workers and software developers .
They are also significantly more regulated than most of us who have to work for on business infrastructure so we do n't get to use the excuse of obstacles with them .
Yet , no one on Slashdot and other left-leaning sites wants to see a similar smashing of major enterprise IT firms like Oracle simply on the basis that their products are bloated , inefficient are so overly complicated that their " ecosystem " of support professionals is damn near a make-work program considering the delta between what most customers actually need , and what the computer industry rams down their throats .
I do n't want to see more regulation , I want to see less , but at this point I freely say to a lot of the geeks I meet who make big bucks on software that is as bloated , inefficient and overpriced as they say the health care industry is " yuck it up chuckles , they may come for your ass next .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I have pointed out [codemonkeyramblings.com], IT is as wasteful, if not more so, than the health care system.
It is also filled with far more errors, failures, etc.
than would ever be tolerated from the health care system.
Even if you believe this is comparing apples to oranges, they're still fruit; both are extremely complicated, technically-challenging fields which have added a significant benefit to the lives of most modern people and the efficiency of our economic system.
Medical professionals are as educated, if not more so, on average, than most IT workers and software developers.
They are also significantly more regulated than most of us who have to work for on business infrastructure so we don't get to use the excuse of obstacles with them.
Yet, no one on Slashdot and other left-leaning sites wants to see a similar smashing of major enterprise IT firms like Oracle simply on the basis that their products are bloated, inefficient are so overly complicated that their "ecosystem" of support professionals is damn near a make-work program considering the delta between what most customers actually need, and what the computer industry rams down their throats.
I don't want to see more regulation, I want to see less, but at this point I freely say to a lot of the geeks I meet who make big bucks on software that is as bloated, inefficient and overpriced as they say the health care industry is "yuck it up chuckles, they may come for your ass next.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535310</id>
	<title>Silly Scully</title>
	<author>snorb</author>
	<datestamp>1269007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't she ever learn? Fox's paranoia is always proven justified in the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't she ever learn ?
Fox 's paranoia is always proven justified in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't she ever learn?
Fox's paranoia is always proven justified in the end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536268</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1269010620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope it's rushed through, because then it may give ammo for the Supreme Court to rule the action as unconstitutional/illegal...  Not to mention that Fed healthcare as it stands is unconstitutional...  Amendment 10 of the constitution states:</p><blockquote><div><p>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people</p></div></blockquote><p>
So explain to me how the US government has the power/right to do this?</p></div><p>It's in the Constitution, Article 8:</p><p><i> <b>The Congress shall have power To  </b>lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and <b>provide for the </b>common defence and <b>general welfare </b>of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;</i> </p><p>In short, Congress has been granted pretty broad power to govern the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope it 's rushed through , because then it may give ammo for the Supreme Court to rule the action as unconstitutional/illegal... Not to mention that Fed healthcare as it stands is unconstitutional... Amendment 10 of the constitution states : The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States , are reserved to the States respectively , or to the people So explain to me how the US government has the power/right to do this ? It 's in the Constitution , Article 8 : The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes , duties , imposts and excises , to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States ; but all duties , imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States ; In short , Congress has been granted pretty broad power to govern the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope it's rushed through, because then it may give ammo for the Supreme Court to rule the action as unconstitutional/illegal...  Not to mention that Fed healthcare as it stands is unconstitutional...  Amendment 10 of the constitution states:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people
So explain to me how the US government has the power/right to do this?It's in the Constitution, Article 8: The Congress shall have power To  lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; In short, Congress has been granted pretty broad power to govern the US.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536218</id>
	<title>Re:Need a little more research on Article 10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a BS argument.  Try telling that to your child.  "You can't hit him!" to which the child responds "But I hit him all the time, and nobody has ever told me not to"...  Just because they have gotten away with it time and time again, doesn't mean that it's right...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a BS argument .
Try telling that to your child .
" You ca n't hit him !
" to which the child responds " But I hit him all the time , and nobody has ever told me not to " ... Just because they have gotten away with it time and time again , does n't mean that it 's right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a BS argument.
Try telling that to your child.
"You can't hit him!
" to which the child responds "But I hit him all the time, and nobody has ever told me not to"...  Just because they have gotten away with it time and time again, doesn't mean that it's right...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535754</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As in my situation, you are missing the middle ground, the one that is actually likely to bankrupt you or put you in the ground early.</p><p>The one where you get a (any) chronic disease, genetically programmed, the one where you must go on decade(s) of expensive medication, tests, or treatments that cost just under your catastrophic limits. The one where when you get older and may or may not have a career or employer that will take care of your costs. The one that will bankrupt you before you can take advantage of Medicare. The one where if you cannot make a payment just once you can never get health insurance again. Remember this as you age, and Good (literally) Luck on your health care plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As in my situation , you are missing the middle ground , the one that is actually likely to bankrupt you or put you in the ground early.The one where you get a ( any ) chronic disease , genetically programmed , the one where you must go on decade ( s ) of expensive medication , tests , or treatments that cost just under your catastrophic limits .
The one where when you get older and may or may not have a career or employer that will take care of your costs .
The one that will bankrupt you before you can take advantage of Medicare .
The one where if you can not make a payment just once you can never get health insurance again .
Remember this as you age , and Good ( literally ) Luck on your health care plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As in my situation, you are missing the middle ground, the one that is actually likely to bankrupt you or put you in the ground early.The one where you get a (any) chronic disease, genetically programmed, the one where you must go on decade(s) of expensive medication, tests, or treatments that cost just under your catastrophic limits.
The one where when you get older and may or may not have a career or employer that will take care of your costs.
The one that will bankrupt you before you can take advantage of Medicare.
The one where if you cannot make a payment just once you can never get health insurance again.
Remember this as you age, and Good (literally) Luck on your health care plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542042</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1269028740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By being inefficient, the status quo is FORCING me, at gunpoint if I attempted to steal health care a la John Q to pay more for health care than I would be paying if there existed if there were a single payer system as there is in other countries.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By being inefficient , the status quo is FORCING me , at gunpoint if I attempted to steal health care a la John Q to pay more for health care than I would be paying if there existed if there were a single payer system as there is in other countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By being inefficient, the status quo is FORCING me, at gunpoint if I attempted to steal health care a la John Q to pay more for health care than I would be paying if there existed if there were a single payer system as there is in other countries.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539632</id>
	<title>Crux of the matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269019560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The salient point is that an individual should have the right to choose whether to participate or not.  This includes whether his money and or other property is seized against his wishes.  It is one thing to be fined (punished) for doing wrong.  It is an entirely different matter to be punished for not doing anything wrong whatsoever.  This bill does exactly that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The salient point is that an individual should have the right to choose whether to participate or not .
This includes whether his money and or other property is seized against his wishes .
It is one thing to be fined ( punished ) for doing wrong .
It is an entirely different matter to be punished for not doing anything wrong whatsoever .
This bill does exactly that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The salient point is that an individual should have the right to choose whether to participate or not.
This includes whether his money and or other property is seized against his wishes.
It is one thing to be fined (punished) for doing wrong.
It is an entirely different matter to be punished for not doing anything wrong whatsoever.
This bill does exactly that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536188</id>
	<title>Re:Need a little more research on Article 10</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... a court challenge on strict 10th amendment grounds would cause an upheaval to the federal government.</p></div><p>And this is a bad thing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... a court challenge on strict 10th amendment grounds would cause an upheaval to the federal government.And this is a bad thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... a court challenge on strict 10th amendment grounds would cause an upheaval to the federal government.And this is a bad thing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535678</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhere in between.</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1269008820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bill has many problems, one it takes money from medicare in order to appear budget neutral, doctors will no longer get reimbursed very much for medicare because of the budget shortfall and will drop those patients. Two health benefits will not start for 4 years but the taxes will start right away again so it will appear budget neutral for 10 years.  Three forcing insurance companies to take people with preexisting conditions means there is no reason to have insurance except for a fine which is much cheaper then paying for insurance. People will wait until they get cancer and then get insurance, since people will not pay into insurance until they are sick insurance companies will have two options one lose money and go out of business or two raise their rates so high to cover their loses either way this is a huge problem and will lead to the demise of insurance companies.  Tort reform has other implications not only in lower premiums for doctors but many test procedures would not be needed because the doctor would not be worrying about covering their ass with unnecessary tests.  Also HSA accounts which let people put money into accounts to pay for health care tax free will be eliminated, if this bill was really about making health care more affordable a program that gives people a 30\%-40\% savings in health care costs would not be eliminated.  Luckely there are so many things in this bill that are unconstitutional (slaughter rule, forcing people to buy insurance, trumping states regulations,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) that this will not go into effect until the republicans can get this nightmare repealed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bill has many problems , one it takes money from medicare in order to appear budget neutral , doctors will no longer get reimbursed very much for medicare because of the budget shortfall and will drop those patients .
Two health benefits will not start for 4 years but the taxes will start right away again so it will appear budget neutral for 10 years .
Three forcing insurance companies to take people with preexisting conditions means there is no reason to have insurance except for a fine which is much cheaper then paying for insurance .
People will wait until they get cancer and then get insurance , since people will not pay into insurance until they are sick insurance companies will have two options one lose money and go out of business or two raise their rates so high to cover their loses either way this is a huge problem and will lead to the demise of insurance companies .
Tort reform has other implications not only in lower premiums for doctors but many test procedures would not be needed because the doctor would not be worrying about covering their ass with unnecessary tests .
Also HSA accounts which let people put money into accounts to pay for health care tax free will be eliminated , if this bill was really about making health care more affordable a program that gives people a 30 \ % -40 \ % savings in health care costs would not be eliminated .
Luckely there are so many things in this bill that are unconstitutional ( slaughter rule , forcing people to buy insurance , trumping states regulations , ... ) that this will not go into effect until the republicans can get this nightmare repealed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bill has many problems, one it takes money from medicare in order to appear budget neutral, doctors will no longer get reimbursed very much for medicare because of the budget shortfall and will drop those patients.
Two health benefits will not start for 4 years but the taxes will start right away again so it will appear budget neutral for 10 years.
Three forcing insurance companies to take people with preexisting conditions means there is no reason to have insurance except for a fine which is much cheaper then paying for insurance.
People will wait until they get cancer and then get insurance, since people will not pay into insurance until they are sick insurance companies will have two options one lose money and go out of business or two raise their rates so high to cover their loses either way this is a huge problem and will lead to the demise of insurance companies.
Tort reform has other implications not only in lower premiums for doctors but many test procedures would not be needed because the doctor would not be worrying about covering their ass with unnecessary tests.
Also HSA accounts which let people put money into accounts to pay for health care tax free will be eliminated, if this bill was really about making health care more affordable a program that gives people a 30\%-40\% savings in health care costs would not be eliminated.
Luckely there are so many things in this bill that are unconstitutional (slaughter rule, forcing people to buy insurance, trumping states regulations, ...) that this will not go into effect until the republicans can get this nightmare repealed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541472</id>
	<title>Re:do you trust obama and the dems ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269026340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at what the Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with three inalienable Rights:  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  None of these are services the government is supposed to provide; they are natural rights that governments should never be allowed to take away.</p><p>That being said, healthcare can be reasonably determined to fit in the category "Life".  This does not obligate the government to provide care, but gives it the obligation to not screw it up.</p><p>Politicians should learn from doctors, and take the Hippocratic oath when taking office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at what the Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with three inalienable Rights : Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness .
None of these are services the government is supposed to provide ; they are natural rights that governments should never be allowed to take away.That being said , healthcare can be reasonably determined to fit in the category " Life " .
This does not obligate the government to provide care , but gives it the obligation to not screw it up.Politicians should learn from doctors , and take the Hippocratic oath when taking office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at what the Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our Creator with three inalienable Rights:  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
None of these are services the government is supposed to provide; they are natural rights that governments should never be allowed to take away.That being said, healthcare can be reasonably determined to fit in the category "Life".
This does not obligate the government to provide care, but gives it the obligation to not screw it up.Politicians should learn from doctors, and take the Hippocratic oath when taking office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842</id>
	<title>dear libertarians and tea baggers:</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269009360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>universal healthcare is a form of investment in your society that pays dividends</p><p>if you don't pay for it overtly, you pay for the lack of universal healthcare in terms of easily preventable heart conditions complicating into more expensive conditions, breadwinners out of work because they can't treat their diabetes leading to their children to become street criminals, mumps and whooping cough outbreaks because vaccination is too complicated for the poor, people out sick more often because of inadequate healthcare, personal bankruptcies leading to losses at financial institutions due to sudden and expensive healthcare, etc.</p><p>in other words, you pay for healthcare, one way or another, no matter what your policy is</p><p>its just that universal healthcare is the CHEAPEST way to pay for it. but since the cost is overt and in your face, you reject it. but this simply means you don't understand the roundabout MORE EXPENSIVE and hidden ways you pay for it if you DON'T have universal healthcare</p><p>in other words, libertarian and tea bagger rejection of universal healthcare is based on a lack of ability to understand that life is complicated. what happens if you DON'T pay for healthcare as a society? people who get sick just disappear off the face of the earth? they are all paragons of personal financial virtue and never need aid? you yourself never need a helping hand? think about reality, then form an opinion</p><p>there are PLENTY of areas of life that should NEVER be public, and should always be private, for a number of reasons. capitalism, in fact, is the most useful engine for the creation of wealth ever invented by man. the point is, for SOME sectors of life, not all, making some thing run by the government actually is the CHEAPEST AND MOST EFFICIENT way for that sector to function</p><p>in other words, simplistic, fundamentalist adherence to the idea of free markets does NOT answer all questions in life, JUST AS TRUE as a simplistic, fundamentalist adherence to communist ideas does not work. but socialism, as understood by the rest of the first world, is simple the concept that SOME, not ALL, sectors of life require the government to run it for MAXIMUM FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY</p><p>a society with a capitalist engine, with socialist safety nets grafted on, is SUPERIOR and MORE EFFICIENT than a purely capitalist society. this really is the objective financially solid truth, not an opinion. lose your utopianism please: in life, simplistic absolutist philosophies, such as a fanatic devotion to individual reliance, DOES NOT WORK IN ALL FORMS. you are part of a society. as such, you contribute financially to it so that SOME functions in your life. by doing that some functions in your life are simply handled MORE CHEAPLY than if you handled them yourself. life is complicated, and requires a moderation between competing needs. understand this about the world, and drop your extremist ideologies</p><p>there is such a concept as the common good. there is such a concept as personal reliance. both are paragons of virtue that, in the real world, exist in tension in how they work. the idea is to find a BALANCE between the two ideals, not to simplemindedly adhere to one or the other polar extreme</p><p>teabaggers and libertarians: in SOME avenues of life, not all, the government is good, and works for you. you reject it at the price of your own impoverishment. that's the simple obvious truth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>universal healthcare is a form of investment in your society that pays dividendsif you do n't pay for it overtly , you pay for the lack of universal healthcare in terms of easily preventable heart conditions complicating into more expensive conditions , breadwinners out of work because they ca n't treat their diabetes leading to their children to become street criminals , mumps and whooping cough outbreaks because vaccination is too complicated for the poor , people out sick more often because of inadequate healthcare , personal bankruptcies leading to losses at financial institutions due to sudden and expensive healthcare , etc.in other words , you pay for healthcare , one way or another , no matter what your policy isits just that universal healthcare is the CHEAPEST way to pay for it .
but since the cost is overt and in your face , you reject it .
but this simply means you do n't understand the roundabout MORE EXPENSIVE and hidden ways you pay for it if you DO N'T have universal healthcarein other words , libertarian and tea bagger rejection of universal healthcare is based on a lack of ability to understand that life is complicated .
what happens if you DO N'T pay for healthcare as a society ?
people who get sick just disappear off the face of the earth ?
they are all paragons of personal financial virtue and never need aid ?
you yourself never need a helping hand ?
think about reality , then form an opinionthere are PLENTY of areas of life that should NEVER be public , and should always be private , for a number of reasons .
capitalism , in fact , is the most useful engine for the creation of wealth ever invented by man .
the point is , for SOME sectors of life , not all , making some thing run by the government actually is the CHEAPEST AND MOST EFFICIENT way for that sector to functionin other words , simplistic , fundamentalist adherence to the idea of free markets does NOT answer all questions in life , JUST AS TRUE as a simplistic , fundamentalist adherence to communist ideas does not work .
but socialism , as understood by the rest of the first world , is simple the concept that SOME , not ALL , sectors of life require the government to run it for MAXIMUM FINANCIAL EFFICIENCYa society with a capitalist engine , with socialist safety nets grafted on , is SUPERIOR and MORE EFFICIENT than a purely capitalist society .
this really is the objective financially solid truth , not an opinion .
lose your utopianism please : in life , simplistic absolutist philosophies , such as a fanatic devotion to individual reliance , DOES NOT WORK IN ALL FORMS .
you are part of a society .
as such , you contribute financially to it so that SOME functions in your life .
by doing that some functions in your life are simply handled MORE CHEAPLY than if you handled them yourself .
life is complicated , and requires a moderation between competing needs .
understand this about the world , and drop your extremist ideologiesthere is such a concept as the common good .
there is such a concept as personal reliance .
both are paragons of virtue that , in the real world , exist in tension in how they work .
the idea is to find a BALANCE between the two ideals , not to simplemindedly adhere to one or the other polar extremeteabaggers and libertarians : in SOME avenues of life , not all , the government is good , and works for you .
you reject it at the price of your own impoverishment .
that 's the simple obvious truth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>universal healthcare is a form of investment in your society that pays dividendsif you don't pay for it overtly, you pay for the lack of universal healthcare in terms of easily preventable heart conditions complicating into more expensive conditions, breadwinners out of work because they can't treat their diabetes leading to their children to become street criminals, mumps and whooping cough outbreaks because vaccination is too complicated for the poor, people out sick more often because of inadequate healthcare, personal bankruptcies leading to losses at financial institutions due to sudden and expensive healthcare, etc.in other words, you pay for healthcare, one way or another, no matter what your policy isits just that universal healthcare is the CHEAPEST way to pay for it.
but since the cost is overt and in your face, you reject it.
but this simply means you don't understand the roundabout MORE EXPENSIVE and hidden ways you pay for it if you DON'T have universal healthcarein other words, libertarian and tea bagger rejection of universal healthcare is based on a lack of ability to understand that life is complicated.
what happens if you DON'T pay for healthcare as a society?
people who get sick just disappear off the face of the earth?
they are all paragons of personal financial virtue and never need aid?
you yourself never need a helping hand?
think about reality, then form an opinionthere are PLENTY of areas of life that should NEVER be public, and should always be private, for a number of reasons.
capitalism, in fact, is the most useful engine for the creation of wealth ever invented by man.
the point is, for SOME sectors of life, not all, making some thing run by the government actually is the CHEAPEST AND MOST EFFICIENT way for that sector to functionin other words, simplistic, fundamentalist adherence to the idea of free markets does NOT answer all questions in life, JUST AS TRUE as a simplistic, fundamentalist adherence to communist ideas does not work.
but socialism, as understood by the rest of the first world, is simple the concept that SOME, not ALL, sectors of life require the government to run it for MAXIMUM FINANCIAL EFFICIENCYa society with a capitalist engine, with socialist safety nets grafted on, is SUPERIOR and MORE EFFICIENT than a purely capitalist society.
this really is the objective financially solid truth, not an opinion.
lose your utopianism please: in life, simplistic absolutist philosophies, such as a fanatic devotion to individual reliance, DOES NOT WORK IN ALL FORMS.
you are part of a society.
as such, you contribute financially to it so that SOME functions in your life.
by doing that some functions in your life are simply handled MORE CHEAPLY than if you handled them yourself.
life is complicated, and requires a moderation between competing needs.
understand this about the world, and drop your extremist ideologiesthere is such a concept as the common good.
there is such a concept as personal reliance.
both are paragons of virtue that, in the real world, exist in tension in how they work.
the idea is to find a BALANCE between the two ideals, not to simplemindedly adhere to one or the other polar extremeteabaggers and libertarians: in SOME avenues of life, not all, the government is good, and works for you.
you reject it at the price of your own impoverishment.
that's the simple obvious truth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542130</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong forum</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1269029100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The entitlement generation is a silly term, you're right.  There are actually 4-5 of them.  Anyone born after about 1950 is part of the entitlement generation.  Actually, considering the Social Security pyramid scheme, even some older people are being dragged into being honorary members of the entitlement generation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The entitlement generation is a silly term , you 're right .
There are actually 4-5 of them .
Anyone born after about 1950 is part of the entitlement generation .
Actually , considering the Social Security pyramid scheme , even some older people are being dragged into being honorary members of the entitlement generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entitlement generation is a silly term, you're right.
There are actually 4-5 of them.
Anyone born after about 1950 is part of the entitlement generation.
Actually, considering the Social Security pyramid scheme, even some older people are being dragged into being honorary members of the entitlement generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535712</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1269008940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck on getting them to pay the bills because most of them deny over half of the claims if not more.  Go Google your provider, I'll wait here.</p><p>I have heard nothing but bad things about catastrophic insurance from college students I know who used it to register for classes and you should pry read your policy right now to see if you can even litigate them if they deny you coverage, I doubt it.  Who is going to end up paying your health care costs if you get sick?  Oh yeah, that's right everyone but you.  You are no better than the welfare moms you bitch about.</p><p>Your paranoid delusions about this being some left-wing conspiracy to force you into some politically correct lifestyle would be funny if it was not so pitiful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck on getting them to pay the bills because most of them deny over half of the claims if not more .
Go Google your provider , I 'll wait here.I have heard nothing but bad things about catastrophic insurance from college students I know who used it to register for classes and you should pry read your policy right now to see if you can even litigate them if they deny you coverage , I doubt it .
Who is going to end up paying your health care costs if you get sick ?
Oh yeah , that 's right everyone but you .
You are no better than the welfare moms you bitch about.Your paranoid delusions about this being some left-wing conspiracy to force you into some politically correct lifestyle would be funny if it was not so pitiful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck on getting them to pay the bills because most of them deny over half of the claims if not more.
Go Google your provider, I'll wait here.I have heard nothing but bad things about catastrophic insurance from college students I know who used it to register for classes and you should pry read your policy right now to see if you can even litigate them if they deny you coverage, I doubt it.
Who is going to end up paying your health care costs if you get sick?
Oh yeah, that's right everyone but you.
You are no better than the welfare moms you bitch about.Your paranoid delusions about this being some left-wing conspiracy to force you into some politically correct lifestyle would be funny if it was not so pitiful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537470</id>
	<title>Re:Taking care of people is not wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>forcing you to buy health insurance when you don't want to do so</i></p><p>This would be fine if the emergency room wasn't forced by law to care for you when you need it. So please rally to change the law to allow ERs to turn away patients who they think can't pay......</p><p>They way it is now, hospitals have to pay for those like you who might choose not to buy insurance through a mix of raising prices and federal assistance.  So instead of making people buy insurance (we are all human and none of us wants to get sick) we are having the taxpayer and the those who have insurance pay for it.  That is the way it stands RIGHT NOW.</p><p>I understand that you right winders don't want to pick up the tab for poor minorities, or illegal immigrants.  But you don't seem to realize that you are right now.  The only way to change that is to make every human buy insurance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>forcing you to buy health insurance when you do n't want to do soThis would be fine if the emergency room was n't forced by law to care for you when you need it .
So please rally to change the law to allow ERs to turn away patients who they think ca n't pay......They way it is now , hospitals have to pay for those like you who might choose not to buy insurance through a mix of raising prices and federal assistance .
So instead of making people buy insurance ( we are all human and none of us wants to get sick ) we are having the taxpayer and the those who have insurance pay for it .
That is the way it stands RIGHT NOW.I understand that you right winders do n't want to pick up the tab for poor minorities , or illegal immigrants .
But you do n't seem to realize that you are right now .
The only way to change that is to make every human buy insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>forcing you to buy health insurance when you don't want to do soThis would be fine if the emergency room wasn't forced by law to care for you when you need it.
So please rally to change the law to allow ERs to turn away patients who they think can't pay......They way it is now, hospitals have to pay for those like you who might choose not to buy insurance through a mix of raising prices and federal assistance.
So instead of making people buy insurance (we are all human and none of us wants to get sick) we are having the taxpayer and the those who have insurance pay for it.
That is the way it stands RIGHT NOW.I understand that you right winders don't want to pick up the tab for poor minorities, or illegal immigrants.
But you don't seem to realize that you are right now.
The only way to change that is to make every human buy insurance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536392</id>
	<title>Re:do you trust obama and the dems ?</title>
	<author>Joe U</author>
	<datestamp>1269010920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another way to look at this is Obama's track record, say with the wall street bail out, where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.</p></div><p>You forgot the part where he did it before he was elected or sworn into office. (Bail out was Oct 2008, Obama became president late Jan 2009)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>how on earth could anyone trust this guy with a track record like that ??</p></div><p>Well, time travel is a very important power to have, as long as it's used wisely. I suggested that he go back and prevent the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, but apparently he can't or doesn't want to. There's an obvious conspiracy here, I suggest you form several websites and newsletters. Leaflets would be a good start.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another way to look at this is Obama 's track record , say with the wall street bail out , where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.You forgot the part where he did it before he was elected or sworn into office .
( Bail out was Oct 2008 , Obama became president late Jan 2009 ) how on earth could anyone trust this guy with a track record like that ?
? Well , time travel is a very important power to have , as long as it 's used wisely .
I suggested that he go back and prevent the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act , but apparently he ca n't or does n't want to .
There 's an obvious conspiracy here , I suggest you form several websites and newsletters .
Leaflets would be a good start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another way to look at this is Obama's track record, say with the wall street bail out, where he made sure bankers got their million dollar bonuses - with tax dollars that came from your pocket.You forgot the part where he did it before he was elected or sworn into office.
(Bail out was Oct 2008, Obama became president late Jan 2009)how on earth could anyone trust this guy with a track record like that ?
?Well, time travel is a very important power to have, as long as it's used wisely.
I suggested that he go back and prevent the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, but apparently he can't or doesn't want to.
There's an obvious conspiracy here, I suggest you form several websites and newsletters.
Leaflets would be a good start.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537420</id>
	<title>Re:Too many hands in the Cookie Jar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable"</p><p>REALLY?</p><p>Do you really think Healthcare is better in Countries with Socialized medicine?<br>Why is it that so many people come to the U.S. for treament?<br>It is because the "free-market" conditions we have had, have allowed the medical treatment in the U.S. to become the best in the world.<br>Changing our Healthcare System to one that mirrors Canada, Cuba or Britian is going to give you there style of medical care which is pretty piss poor.</p><p>FREE != The Best</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable " REALLY ? Do you really think Healthcare is better in Countries with Socialized medicine ? Why is it that so many people come to the U.S. for treament ? It is because the " free-market " conditions we have had , have allowed the medical treatment in the U.S. to become the best in the world.Changing our Healthcare System to one that mirrors Canada , Cuba or Britian is going to give you there style of medical care which is pretty piss poor.FREE ! = The Best</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable"REALLY?Do you really think Healthcare is better in Countries with Socialized medicine?Why is it that so many people come to the U.S. for treament?It is because the "free-market" conditions we have had, have allowed the medical treatment in the U.S. to become the best in the world.Changing our Healthcare System to one that mirrors Canada, Cuba or Britian is going to give you there style of medical care which is pretty piss poor.FREE != The Best</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538958</id>
	<title>Re:Every other European democracy has this.</title>
	<author>Funk\_dat69</author>
	<datestamp>1269017460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many European countries would be more analogous to US States, than to the entire US.</p><p>The larger and more heterogeneous a group of people are, the more difficult it is to find a neat little solution to a problem.</p><p>The US has States for this very reason! But the power of the States has been eroded with the growing power of the Federal Government. And it hasn't helped.</p><p>So please stop comparing the US to your nice little homogeneous mecca in Europe somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many European countries would be more analogous to US States , than to the entire US.The larger and more heterogeneous a group of people are , the more difficult it is to find a neat little solution to a problem.The US has States for this very reason !
But the power of the States has been eroded with the growing power of the Federal Government .
And it has n't helped.So please stop comparing the US to your nice little homogeneous mecca in Europe somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many European countries would be more analogous to US States, than to the entire US.The larger and more heterogeneous a group of people are, the more difficult it is to find a neat little solution to a problem.The US has States for this very reason!
But the power of the States has been eroded with the growing power of the Federal Government.
And it hasn't helped.So please stop comparing the US to your nice little homogeneous mecca in Europe somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31546760</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhere in between.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The only thing it's missing is tort reform, and the fact is that tort reform is a red herring. It accounts for 1-2\% of healthcare expenditures, and that sounds about right. There should be a process for handling legitimate malpractice claims, and it's never going to be free.</p></div><p>I think this statement is a little bit disingenuous.  It's not the lawsuits that add so much to the cost.  It's the unneeded tests and procedures that doctors feel the need to do, in order to try to protect themselves from those suits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing it 's missing is tort reform , and the fact is that tort reform is a red herring .
It accounts for 1-2 \ % of healthcare expenditures , and that sounds about right .
There should be a process for handling legitimate malpractice claims , and it 's never going to be free.I think this statement is a little bit disingenuous .
It 's not the lawsuits that add so much to the cost .
It 's the unneeded tests and procedures that doctors feel the need to do , in order to try to protect themselves from those suits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The only thing it's missing is tort reform, and the fact is that tort reform is a red herring.
It accounts for 1-2\% of healthcare expenditures, and that sounds about right.
There should be a process for handling legitimate malpractice claims, and it's never going to be free.I think this statement is a little bit disingenuous.
It's not the lawsuits that add so much to the cost.
It's the unneeded tests and procedures that doctors feel the need to do, in order to try to protect themselves from those suits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540790</id>
	<title>Answered with a simple question</title>
	<author>wmtrexler</author>
	<datestamp>1269023640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the Bill is the answer then why hasn't it passed long before now, when the Democrats had super majority in both House and Senate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Bill is the answer then why has n't it passed long before now , when the Democrats had super majority in both House and Senate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Bill is the answer then why hasn't it passed long before now, when the Democrats had super majority in both House and Senate?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536012</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269009840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Part of the efficiency problem is that due to your liability culture you throw too many tests and treatments at things.</p></div><p>I'm an Australian, medicare has been around longer than I can remember so I don't have any other experience to compare it to. My sister-in-law died of cancer a bit over a year ago. She had been going to the doctor about headaches for about 2 years, then suddenly had to go to hospital one day and a couple of months later was dead.</p><p>I don't have an axe to grind over health care systems, but a culture of "too many tests" would no doubt have saved her life. I know my brother-in-law would happily have paid for a 15\% profit margin to have his wife alive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the efficiency problem is that due to your liability culture you throw too many tests and treatments at things.I 'm an Australian , medicare has been around longer than I can remember so I do n't have any other experience to compare it to .
My sister-in-law died of cancer a bit over a year ago .
She had been going to the doctor about headaches for about 2 years , then suddenly had to go to hospital one day and a couple of months later was dead.I do n't have an axe to grind over health care systems , but a culture of " too many tests " would no doubt have saved her life .
I know my brother-in-law would happily have paid for a 15 \ % profit margin to have his wife alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the efficiency problem is that due to your liability culture you throw too many tests and treatments at things.I'm an Australian, medicare has been around longer than I can remember so I don't have any other experience to compare it to.
My sister-in-law died of cancer a bit over a year ago.
She had been going to the doctor about headaches for about 2 years, then suddenly had to go to hospital one day and a couple of months later was dead.I don't have an axe to grind over health care systems, but a culture of "too many tests" would no doubt have saved her life.
I know my brother-in-law would happily have paid for a 15\% profit margin to have his wife alive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542034</id>
	<title>Government inefficiency vs. Corporate malfeasance</title>
	<author>Aargau</author>
	<datestamp>1269028740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you believe corporations have a better track record regarding your interests? They don't.

Money is power (re gaming using Markov processes to examine probability of success). Why wouldn't you want an advocate for your rights?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you believe corporations have a better track record regarding your interests ?
They do n't .
Money is power ( re gaming using Markov processes to examine probability of success ) .
Why would n't you want an advocate for your rights ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you believe corporations have a better track record regarding your interests?
They don't.
Money is power (re gaming using Markov processes to examine probability of success).
Why wouldn't you want an advocate for your rights?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535352</id>
	<title>Pray you do not get a chronic condition</title>
	<author>catherder\_finleyd</author>
	<datestamp>1269007860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you get a chronic condition (MS, Diabetes, etc.), you will regret your catastrophic insurance choice. Your routine, non-covered expenses will go through the roof. It will get worse if the condition is such that you have problems working full-time, or you lose your job, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you get a chronic condition ( MS , Diabetes , etc .
) , you will regret your catastrophic insurance choice .
Your routine , non-covered expenses will go through the roof .
It will get worse if the condition is such that you have problems working full-time , or you lose your job , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you get a chronic condition (MS, Diabetes, etc.
), you will regret your catastrophic insurance choice.
Your routine, non-covered expenses will go through the roof.
It will get worse if the condition is such that you have problems working full-time, or you lose your job, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536406</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269010920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government doesn't lose money. It never loses money. The government's money is MY money. If something gets expensive, the government either stops spending my money on some other program or, more likely, it cranks up my success-penalty-fees, or taxes.</p><p>When something is expensive for "the government", that's you and me. That's not "the man" who's like "Aw shit, I can't buy that new TV now."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government does n't lose money .
It never loses money .
The government 's money is MY money .
If something gets expensive , the government either stops spending my money on some other program or , more likely , it cranks up my success-penalty-fees , or taxes.When something is expensive for " the government " , that 's you and me .
That 's not " the man " who 's like " Aw shit , I ca n't buy that new TV now .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government doesn't lose money.
It never loses money.
The government's money is MY money.
If something gets expensive, the government either stops spending my money on some other program or, more likely, it cranks up my success-penalty-fees, or taxes.When something is expensive for "the government", that's you and me.
That's not "the man" who's like "Aw shit, I can't buy that new TV now.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543158</id>
	<title>Don't hold your breath...</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1268990640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't hold your breath...<br>And don't get sick...<br>Even if it passes...<br>Even if you are covered...<br>Even if your illness is covered...<br>Even if your treatment is covered...<br>It won't kick in for four years.<br>Still holding your breath?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't hold your breath...And do n't get sick...Even if it passes...Even if you are covered...Even if your illness is covered...Even if your treatment is covered...It wo n't kick in for four years.Still holding your breath ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't hold your breath...And don't get sick...Even if it passes...Even if you are covered...Even if your illness is covered...Even if your treatment is covered...It won't kick in for four years.Still holding your breath?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545008</id>
	<title>Medical treatment = communism!</title>
	<author>psinet</author>
	<datestamp>1268998680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Americans were already aware - providing publicly subsidized medical treatment of any kind automatically turns the patient into a communist nazi drug-zombie hell bent on feasting upon small, patriotic, human brains.</p><p>In my country, I can see any doctor, any time, including specialists, psychologists etc, for free. Totally free. Bulk billing means you never give them anything besides ID. Finally, all prescriptions cost me $5.30. For anything. Even for nicotine replacement therapy drugs.</p><p>And do you know the worst thing? Per capita, our economy is absolutely destroying the US's on almost every measure.</p><p>You guys need to invade Texas. Impliment "regime change" - knowwhatimean? Ey? Wink wink<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Americans were already aware - providing publicly subsidized medical treatment of any kind automatically turns the patient into a communist nazi drug-zombie hell bent on feasting upon small , patriotic , human brains.In my country , I can see any doctor , any time , including specialists , psychologists etc , for free .
Totally free .
Bulk billing means you never give them anything besides ID .
Finally , all prescriptions cost me $ 5.30 .
For anything .
Even for nicotine replacement therapy drugs.And do you know the worst thing ?
Per capita , our economy is absolutely destroying the US 's on almost every measure.You guys need to invade Texas .
Impliment " regime change " - knowwhatimean ?
Ey ? Wink wink ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Americans were already aware - providing publicly subsidized medical treatment of any kind automatically turns the patient into a communist nazi drug-zombie hell bent on feasting upon small, patriotic, human brains.In my country, I can see any doctor, any time, including specialists, psychologists etc, for free.
Totally free.
Bulk billing means you never give them anything besides ID.
Finally, all prescriptions cost me $5.30.
For anything.
Even for nicotine replacement therapy drugs.And do you know the worst thing?
Per capita, our economy is absolutely destroying the US's on almost every measure.You guys need to invade Texas.
Impliment "regime change" - knowwhatimean?
Ey? Wink wink ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538128</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1269015180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The election where this was in question was LAST YEAR. It was, you know, the biggest topic of the entire election season? People sent THIS CONGRESS to DC to do HCR. It's time for them to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The election where this was in question was LAST YEAR .
It was , you know , the biggest topic of the entire election season ?
People sent THIS CONGRESS to DC to do HCR .
It 's time for them to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The election where this was in question was LAST YEAR.
It was, you know, the biggest topic of the entire election season?
People sent THIS CONGRESS to DC to do HCR.
It's time for them to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539544</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269019320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Price per day for lawyers fighting against claim = A<br>Number of days you can live without treatment = B<br>Number of days you can live with treatment = C<br>Cost of treatment per day = D</p><p>if A*B &gt; C*D guess how well your insurance is going to work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Price per day for lawyers fighting against claim = ANumber of days you can live without treatment = BNumber of days you can live with treatment = CCost of treatment per day = Dif A * B &gt; C * D guess how well your insurance is going to work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Price per day for lawyers fighting against claim = ANumber of days you can live without treatment = BNumber of days you can live with treatment = CCost of treatment per day = Dif A*B &gt; C*D guess how well your insurance is going to work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535934</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1269009660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I will also be concerned what else "they" might force down my throat. </i></p><p>So, how does it feel being a republican mouthpiece?  Is it fun parroting lines straight from Fox News?  OTOH, at least you don't have to think for yourself...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will also be concerned what else " they " might force down my throat .
So , how does it feel being a republican mouthpiece ?
Is it fun parroting lines straight from Fox News ?
OTOH , at least you do n't have to think for yourself.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will also be concerned what else "they" might force down my throat.
So, how does it feel being a republican mouthpiece?
Is it fun parroting lines straight from Fox News?
OTOH, at least you don't have to think for yourself...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536870</id>
	<title>Re:Health care: break the MD cartel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269012240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>moving from USA to Europe I have to say the European system is not better.<br>I really think the american health system was very good; maybe I was lucky to live in a good place and to work in OK places.</p><p>In Europe the offer/demand ratio for healthcare is too small; with realitively long waiting and little time for patients<br>What irks me the most is that even if I have money I can not get treatment.<br>Moreover, here the health insurance costs me (tax+deductible+own contribution+company contribution) more than what I paid in the US.  But most people do not realize how much they are paying since it is deducted from your paycheck as a generic "tax"</p><p>Small things like having a wart removed take weeks, if not months and due to the lack of offer of services more complicated stuff is even worse.<br>One of my colleagues had his gallbladder removed; but had to wait 8-12 weeks for a doctor to be available.  No life threatening in principle but stil is a long wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>moving from USA to Europe I have to say the European system is not better.I really think the american health system was very good ; maybe I was lucky to live in a good place and to work in OK places.In Europe the offer/demand ratio for healthcare is too small ; with realitively long waiting and little time for patientsWhat irks me the most is that even if I have money I can not get treatment.Moreover , here the health insurance costs me ( tax + deductible + own contribution + company contribution ) more than what I paid in the US .
But most people do not realize how much they are paying since it is deducted from your paycheck as a generic " tax " Small things like having a wart removed take weeks , if not months and due to the lack of offer of services more complicated stuff is even worse.One of my colleagues had his gallbladder removed ; but had to wait 8-12 weeks for a doctor to be available .
No life threatening in principle but stil is a long wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>moving from USA to Europe I have to say the European system is not better.I really think the american health system was very good; maybe I was lucky to live in a good place and to work in OK places.In Europe the offer/demand ratio for healthcare is too small; with realitively long waiting and little time for patientsWhat irks me the most is that even if I have money I can not get treatment.Moreover, here the health insurance costs me (tax+deductible+own contribution+company contribution) more than what I paid in the US.
But most people do not realize how much they are paying since it is deducted from your paycheck as a generic "tax"Small things like having a wart removed take weeks, if not months and due to the lack of offer of services more complicated stuff is even worse.One of my colleagues had his gallbladder removed; but had to wait 8-12 weeks for a doctor to be available.
No life threatening in principle but stil is a long wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535294</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269007740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better yet, explain to me how Obama is qualified to run MY healthcare, what with the STELLAR job he is doing with Freddie / Fannie, The United States Postal Service, and AMTRAK.  Not to mention the utter readability of the United States Tax Code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet , explain to me how Obama is qualified to run MY healthcare , what with the STELLAR job he is doing with Freddie / Fannie , The United States Postal Service , and AMTRAK .
Not to mention the utter readability of the United States Tax Code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet, explain to me how Obama is qualified to run MY healthcare, what with the STELLAR job he is doing with Freddie / Fannie, The United States Postal Service, and AMTRAK.
Not to mention the utter readability of the United States Tax Code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538808</id>
	<title>My experience working in healthcare insurance...</title>
	<author>darkvizier</author>
	<datestamp>1269016980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From my experience, healthcare insurance companies are disgustingly inefficient from an IT standpoint.  I've worked at two, including one major national provider and one that is the main provider for state employees where I live.  Both of them were using outdated technologies and hiring entire departments of people to manually push claims through the system, since their software was consistently unreliable.  Quality software in this industry would cut out a huge amount of overhead.  It would also force a lot of lazy people to find new jobs, so there is a big political force in these companies opposing this sort of change.  I think the best hope for this market is competition.  The industry needs some startup companies who are doing things smarter, faster and better, and are taking huge swaths of customers away from them.  That's the only thing that will actually motivate them to change.  I'm looking for a bill that actually finds a way to encourage and help new companies get started in the industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From my experience , healthcare insurance companies are disgustingly inefficient from an IT standpoint .
I 've worked at two , including one major national provider and one that is the main provider for state employees where I live .
Both of them were using outdated technologies and hiring entire departments of people to manually push claims through the system , since their software was consistently unreliable .
Quality software in this industry would cut out a huge amount of overhead .
It would also force a lot of lazy people to find new jobs , so there is a big political force in these companies opposing this sort of change .
I think the best hope for this market is competition .
The industry needs some startup companies who are doing things smarter , faster and better , and are taking huge swaths of customers away from them .
That 's the only thing that will actually motivate them to change .
I 'm looking for a bill that actually finds a way to encourage and help new companies get started in the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my experience, healthcare insurance companies are disgustingly inefficient from an IT standpoint.
I've worked at two, including one major national provider and one that is the main provider for state employees where I live.
Both of them were using outdated technologies and hiring entire departments of people to manually push claims through the system, since their software was consistently unreliable.
Quality software in this industry would cut out a huge amount of overhead.
It would also force a lot of lazy people to find new jobs, so there is a big political force in these companies opposing this sort of change.
I think the best hope for this market is competition.
The industry needs some startup companies who are doing things smarter, faster and better, and are taking huge swaths of customers away from them.
That's the only thing that will actually motivate them to change.
I'm looking for a bill that actually finds a way to encourage and help new companies get started in the industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536334</id>
	<title>Not Enough Babies</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1269010800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, I don't think anything that shields consumers from prices will bring down costs.</p><p>But even if this bill is conceptually sound, it will still fail and bankrupt the nation. Why?</p><p>We don't have enough young people. Around 1940, we had about 44 people for every 1 retired person. Now the ratio is 3.3 to 1.</p><p>You can't have a welfare state and a low birth rate long-term. It will bankrupt us all. The only conceivable way around that scenario is strong economic growth, but the high taxes needed to pay for the welfare state will snuff that out.</p><p>It's not my place to tell people how many children to have, nor is it the government's place. Ironically, liberals tend to have less kids, the same kids their welfare state relies on.</p><p>We're basically a few years behind Greece.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I do n't think anything that shields consumers from prices will bring down costs.But even if this bill is conceptually sound , it will still fail and bankrupt the nation .
Why ? We do n't have enough young people .
Around 1940 , we had about 44 people for every 1 retired person .
Now the ratio is 3.3 to 1.You ca n't have a welfare state and a low birth rate long-term .
It will bankrupt us all .
The only conceivable way around that scenario is strong economic growth , but the high taxes needed to pay for the welfare state will snuff that out.It 's not my place to tell people how many children to have , nor is it the government 's place .
Ironically , liberals tend to have less kids , the same kids their welfare state relies on.We 're basically a few years behind Greece .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I don't think anything that shields consumers from prices will bring down costs.But even if this bill is conceptually sound, it will still fail and bankrupt the nation.
Why?We don't have enough young people.
Around 1940, we had about 44 people for every 1 retired person.
Now the ratio is 3.3 to 1.You can't have a welfare state and a low birth rate long-term.
It will bankrupt us all.
The only conceivable way around that scenario is strong economic growth, but the high taxes needed to pay for the welfare state will snuff that out.It's not my place to tell people how many children to have, nor is it the government's place.
Ironically, liberals tend to have less kids, the same kids their welfare state relies on.We're basically a few years behind Greece.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537412</id>
	<title>Look at the exemptions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269013440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider this: The so-called "bribes" to certain members of Congress to get them to vote for the bill.</p><p>1. Lousiana Purchase: $100 million to $300 million in extra Medicaid funding for Lousiana -- while nationally, Medicaid is being cut.</p><p>2. Gator-aid (now defunct) Would have preserved Medicaid Advantage as-is in Florida, while cutting it nationwide.</p><p>3. Corn Husker kick back: (now defunct) Would have allocated extra Medicaid money to Nebraska, while cutting it nationwide.</p><p>The common thread in these, and others, is that in order to get a congressman to vote for the bill, his state had to be EXEMPTED from parts of it. What does that tell you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider this : The so-called " bribes " to certain members of Congress to get them to vote for the bill.1 .
Lousiana Purchase : $ 100 million to $ 300 million in extra Medicaid funding for Lousiana -- while nationally , Medicaid is being cut.2 .
Gator-aid ( now defunct ) Would have preserved Medicaid Advantage as-is in Florida , while cutting it nationwide.3 .
Corn Husker kick back : ( now defunct ) Would have allocated extra Medicaid money to Nebraska , while cutting it nationwide.The common thread in these , and others , is that in order to get a congressman to vote for the bill , his state had to be EXEMPTED from parts of it .
What does that tell you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider this: The so-called "bribes" to certain members of Congress to get them to vote for the bill.1.
Lousiana Purchase: $100 million to $300 million in extra Medicaid funding for Lousiana -- while nationally, Medicaid is being cut.2.
Gator-aid (now defunct) Would have preserved Medicaid Advantage as-is in Florida, while cutting it nationwide.3.
Corn Husker kick back: (now defunct) Would have allocated extra Medicaid money to Nebraska, while cutting it nationwide.The common thread in these, and others, is that in order to get a congressman to vote for the bill, his state had to be EXEMPTED from parts of it.
What does that tell you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540346</id>
	<title>I will go for this when....</title>
	<author>kgroombr</author>
	<datestamp>1269021960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just give me one Government program that has worked as planned.  If you can do this do, then I might buy off on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just give me one Government program that has worked as planned .
If you can do this do , then I might buy off on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just give me one Government program that has worked as planned.
If you can do this do, then I might buy off on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537506</id>
	<title>Re:Not perfect, but a start</title>
	<author>kaiser423</author>
	<datestamp>1269013740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God I wish that we could mod you more than +5.
<br> <br>
The bottom line is that we're paying a lot for healthcare and not receiving great outcomes.  The status quo is not acceptable.  The "Republican plan" that was waived around was a cover sheet with blank paper behind it.  We need to do something, and the current plan is the only one that has been fleshed out and worked through the process, votes whipped, etc.
<br> <br>
It's not great, but at least we're starting to get some momentum on reforming a system that needs lots and lots of reform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God I wish that we could mod you more than + 5 .
The bottom line is that we 're paying a lot for healthcare and not receiving great outcomes .
The status quo is not acceptable .
The " Republican plan " that was waived around was a cover sheet with blank paper behind it .
We need to do something , and the current plan is the only one that has been fleshed out and worked through the process , votes whipped , etc .
It 's not great , but at least we 're starting to get some momentum on reforming a system that needs lots and lots of reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God I wish that we could mod you more than +5.
The bottom line is that we're paying a lot for healthcare and not receiving great outcomes.
The status quo is not acceptable.
The "Republican plan" that was waived around was a cover sheet with blank paper behind it.
We need to do something, and the current plan is the only one that has been fleshed out and worked through the process, votes whipped, etc.
It's not great, but at least we're starting to get some momentum on reforming a system that needs lots and lots of reform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540456</id>
	<title>Re:I don't have health insurance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269022320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree, I've been in that scenario and had zero problems with my catastrophic insurance policy.  Actually, they were much easier to deal with than the usual HMO/PPO type of insurance company.  Of course, if you have no point of reference or no idea what you're talking about, the easiest solution is to "do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree , I 've been in that scenario and had zero problems with my catastrophic insurance policy .
Actually , they were much easier to deal with than the usual HMO/PPO type of insurance company .
Of course , if you have no point of reference or no idea what you 're talking about , the easiest solution is to " do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree, I've been in that scenario and had zero problems with my catastrophic insurance policy.
Actually, they were much easier to deal with than the usual HMO/PPO type of insurance company.
Of course, if you have no point of reference or no idea what you're talking about, the easiest solution is to "do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543478</id>
	<title>Free healthcare for all or none</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1268991780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I personally think healthcare is one of the few fundamental rights the government should provide. However if the government does not want to provide it then be equal. Take it away from the elderly and the poor or give it to everyone
<br> <br>
The US talks about equality but it's time to put up or shut up. Now give it to everyone or take it away from everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally think healthcare is one of the few fundamental rights the government should provide .
However if the government does not want to provide it then be equal .
Take it away from the elderly and the poor or give it to everyone The US talks about equality but it 's time to put up or shut up .
Now give it to everyone or take it away from everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally think healthcare is one of the few fundamental rights the government should provide.
However if the government does not want to provide it then be equal.
Take it away from the elderly and the poor or give it to everyone
 
The US talks about equality but it's time to put up or shut up.
Now give it to everyone or take it away from everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535620</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269008700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?  If there is, I'd missed it.  It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do, but it doesn't set up a public option (aka government-run health care).</p></div><p>The bill requires insurances to include specific items of coverage, decided by the government, which essentially means that the government is going to dictate what your insurance products are in the marketplace.  Further, the bill calls for setting up "insurance exchanges" which, while not providing for a public option per se, will wind up being a de facto one, since the insurances in those plans will be regulated on a Federal level as to what coverages they contain, what their price points are, and who is eligible for them.</p><p>So, yeah, the Feds are going to be running LOTS of stuff in this scheme.  And all the gubmint can ever do is increase costs.</p><p>Not to mention, for all of you folks who think you're going to magically going to get health insurance now when you didn't have it before, all that's going to happen is you're now going to be mandated to BUY health insurance -- from a Federally-regulated exchange market (for an example of how well those work, I direct you to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)  -- at your own cost, or face a fine.</p><p>So, ultimately, this comes down to "Uninsured?  Buy health insurance, at the price we tell you to, or we'll fine you."</p><p>Meanwhile, there is essentially no cost-limiting at all in these plans.  The CBO itself says that premiums are going to go up.</p><p>Brilliant plan there, Obama.  Pure genius.  Let's help the uninsured by FORCING THEM TO BUY SOMETHING THEY CAN'T AFFORD IN THE FIRST PLACE.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run ?
If there is , I 'd missed it .
It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do , but it does n't set up a public option ( aka government-run health care ) .The bill requires insurances to include specific items of coverage , decided by the government , which essentially means that the government is going to dictate what your insurance products are in the marketplace .
Further , the bill calls for setting up " insurance exchanges " which , while not providing for a public option per se , will wind up being a de facto one , since the insurances in those plans will be regulated on a Federal level as to what coverages they contain , what their price points are , and who is eligible for them.So , yeah , the Feds are going to be running LOTS of stuff in this scheme .
And all the gubmint can ever do is increase costs.Not to mention , for all of you folks who think you 're going to magically going to get health insurance now when you did n't have it before , all that 's going to happen is you 're now going to be mandated to BUY health insurance -- from a Federally-regulated exchange market ( for an example of how well those work , I direct you to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ) -- at your own cost , or face a fine.So , ultimately , this comes down to " Uninsured ?
Buy health insurance , at the price we tell you to , or we 'll fine you .
" Meanwhile , there is essentially no cost-limiting at all in these plans .
The CBO itself says that premiums are going to go up.Brilliant plan there , Obama .
Pure genius .
Let 's help the uninsured by FORCING THEM TO BUY SOMETHING THEY CA N'T AFFORD IN THE FIRST PLACE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?
If there is, I'd missed it.
It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do, but it doesn't set up a public option (aka government-run health care).The bill requires insurances to include specific items of coverage, decided by the government, which essentially means that the government is going to dictate what your insurance products are in the marketplace.
Further, the bill calls for setting up "insurance exchanges" which, while not providing for a public option per se, will wind up being a de facto one, since the insurances in those plans will be regulated on a Federal level as to what coverages they contain, what their price points are, and who is eligible for them.So, yeah, the Feds are going to be running LOTS of stuff in this scheme.
And all the gubmint can ever do is increase costs.Not to mention, for all of you folks who think you're going to magically going to get health insurance now when you didn't have it before, all that's going to happen is you're now going to be mandated to BUY health insurance -- from a Federally-regulated exchange market (for an example of how well those work, I direct you to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)  -- at your own cost, or face a fine.So, ultimately, this comes down to "Uninsured?
Buy health insurance, at the price we tell you to, or we'll fine you.
"Meanwhile, there is essentially no cost-limiting at all in these plans.
The CBO itself says that premiums are going to go up.Brilliant plan there, Obama.
Pure genius.
Let's help the uninsured by FORCING THEM TO BUY SOMETHING THEY CAN'T AFFORD IN THE FIRST PLACE.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536004</id>
	<title>Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it</title>
	<author>Watter</author>
	<datestamp>1269009840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently?</p></div><p>Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?  If there is, I'd missed it.  It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do, but it doesn't set up a public option (aka government-run health care).</p></div><p>"mandates a bunch of things that xxxx must do"

Ummm.... I'm not sure about you, but when one entity mandates what another can do, that's running it. All regulation of any kind is "running" the thing that is being regulated. Not fully, of course, but the original poster's position about nothing the govt runs functioning correctly or efficiently is completely appropriate.

Those entities that lend money aren't fully government run (well most of them; those that are fully govt run are an even better example), but govt mandates regarding loose monetary policy and regulation encouraging lending to unqualified consumers played a big role in the economic crisis we're still facing.

Bottom line: that vast majority of the time when the govt sticks it's fingers in something, it's not a good thing. There are some places where a fiscally inefficient govt is still warranted (national defense, possibly education), but those are the exception, not the rule.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently ? Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run ?
If there is , I 'd missed it .
It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do , but it does n't set up a public option ( aka government-run health care ) .
" mandates a bunch of things that xxxx must do " Ummm.... I 'm not sure about you , but when one entity mandates what another can do , that 's running it .
All regulation of any kind is " running " the thing that is being regulated .
Not fully , of course , but the original poster 's position about nothing the govt runs functioning correctly or efficiently is completely appropriate .
Those entities that lend money are n't fully government run ( well most of them ; those that are fully govt run are an even better example ) , but govt mandates regarding loose monetary policy and regulation encouraging lending to unqualified consumers played a big role in the economic crisis we 're still facing .
Bottom line : that vast majority of the time when the govt sticks it 's fingers in something , it 's not a good thing .
There are some places where a fiscally inefficient govt is still warranted ( national defense , possibly education ) , but those are the exception , not the rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently?Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run?
If there is, I'd missed it.
It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do, but it doesn't set up a public option (aka government-run health care).
"mandates a bunch of things that xxxx must do"

Ummm.... I'm not sure about you, but when one entity mandates what another can do, that's running it.
All regulation of any kind is "running" the thing that is being regulated.
Not fully, of course, but the original poster's position about nothing the govt runs functioning correctly or efficiently is completely appropriate.
Those entities that lend money aren't fully government run (well most of them; those that are fully govt run are an even better example), but govt mandates regarding loose monetary policy and regulation encouraging lending to unqualified consumers played a big role in the economic crisis we're still facing.
Bottom line: that vast majority of the time when the govt sticks it's fingers in something, it's not a good thing.
There are some places where a fiscally inefficient govt is still warranted (national defense, possibly education), but those are the exception, not the rule.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535148</id>
	<title>Put it on the shelf until November</title>
	<author>sunking2</author>
	<datestamp>1269007140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In less than 8 months time the entire House will be up for reelection. This is a critical issue and at this point everyone points to their own polls to pitch their case and prove the population wants what they want. Let the results of the House elections decide the issue once and for all who wants and who doesn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In less than 8 months time the entire House will be up for reelection .
This is a critical issue and at this point everyone points to their own polls to pitch their case and prove the population wants what they want .
Let the results of the House elections decide the issue once and for all who wants and who does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In less than 8 months time the entire House will be up for reelection.
This is a critical issue and at this point everyone points to their own polls to pitch their case and prove the population wants what they want.
Let the results of the House elections decide the issue once and for all who wants and who doesn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535344</id>
	<title>Need a little more research on Article 10</title>
	<author>elhondo</author>
	<datestamp>1269007860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I take what you're stating correctly, then Article 10 would also be able to shoot down Medicare, Fannie/Freddie, the NEA, the DOL.... NASA.

In other words, it sounds right, but ever since the Civil War, I don't think it's been enforced in the manner you describe.  There are specific exceptions in case law when dealing with commerce, and with health care spending in the top 5, it's a pretty easy out for the SC.

I think you need look no further than the DEA's position on medical marijuana laws to realize that the 10th isn't that powerful.

I'm not arguing that the 10th shouldn't be the law of the land, just that it plainly isn't, and a court challenge on strict 10th amendment grounds would cause an upheaval to the federal government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I take what you 're stating correctly , then Article 10 would also be able to shoot down Medicare , Fannie/Freddie , the NEA , the DOL.... NASA . In other words , it sounds right , but ever since the Civil War , I do n't think it 's been enforced in the manner you describe .
There are specific exceptions in case law when dealing with commerce , and with health care spending in the top 5 , it 's a pretty easy out for the SC .
I think you need look no further than the DEA 's position on medical marijuana laws to realize that the 10th is n't that powerful .
I 'm not arguing that the 10th should n't be the law of the land , just that it plainly is n't , and a court challenge on strict 10th amendment grounds would cause an upheaval to the federal government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I take what you're stating correctly, then Article 10 would also be able to shoot down Medicare, Fannie/Freddie, the NEA, the DOL.... NASA.

In other words, it sounds right, but ever since the Civil War, I don't think it's been enforced in the manner you describe.
There are specific exceptions in case law when dealing with commerce, and with health care spending in the top 5, it's a pretty easy out for the SC.
I think you need look no further than the DEA's position on medical marijuana laws to realize that the 10th isn't that powerful.
I'm not arguing that the 10th shouldn't be the law of the land, just that it plainly isn't, and a court challenge on strict 10th amendment grounds would cause an upheaval to the federal government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538082</id>
	<title>Re:Neither.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269015120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Republicans had years in which they could have pushed through health care reform</p><p>They did.<br>Or have you forgotten the new Prescription Medicine Reform where people can get "free" medicine?  Or the Tort Reform to help reduce expenses?</p></div><p>They didn't do enough.  If they had gone further, they would have been able to really shape the face of health moving forward instead of being the position they are now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Republicans had years in which they could have pushed through health care reformThey did.Or have you forgotten the new Prescription Medicine Reform where people can get " free " medicine ?
Or the Tort Reform to help reduce expenses ? They did n't do enough .
If they had gone further , they would have been able to really shape the face of health moving forward instead of being the position they are now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Republicans had years in which they could have pushed through health care reformThey did.Or have you forgotten the new Prescription Medicine Reform where people can get "free" medicine?
Or the Tort Reform to help reduce expenses?They didn't do enough.
If they had gone further, they would have been able to really shape the face of health moving forward instead of being the position they are now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536170</id>
	<title>Re:I hope it's rushed through</title>
	<author>Joe U</author>
	<datestamp>1269010260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wickard v. Filburn dealt with a poorly written law that should have set limits on sales, instead set limits on crop growth, with the intention of setting limits on sales.</p><p>If this was today, Filburn would run 2 companies, one would run a livestock farm with a wheat field and the other would grow wheat for market. Heck, he would most likely get a grant too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wickard v. Filburn dealt with a poorly written law that should have set limits on sales , instead set limits on crop growth , with the intention of setting limits on sales.If this was today , Filburn would run 2 companies , one would run a livestock farm with a wheat field and the other would grow wheat for market .
Heck , he would most likely get a grant too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wickard v. Filburn dealt with a poorly written law that should have set limits on sales, instead set limits on crop growth, with the intention of setting limits on sales.If this was today, Filburn would run 2 companies, one would run a livestock farm with a wheat field and the other would grow wheat for market.
Heck, he would most likely get a grant too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535614</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_243</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_209</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_201</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_176</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_267</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_265</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_219</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_211</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_203</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_181</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_269</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_227</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_238</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_213</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_276</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_248</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_179</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_232</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_165</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_256</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_254</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_200</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_173</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_184</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_264</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_273</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31548088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_194</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_237</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_241</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_251</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_170</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_189</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_197</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_183</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_229</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_221</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_270</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_230</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_191</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_208</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_240</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_258</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_216</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_202</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_268</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_226</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31547174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_210</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_275</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31549530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_168</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_245</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_220</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_239</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_178</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_231</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_255</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_247</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_253</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_205</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_172</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_257</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_261</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_215</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_278</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_199</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_234</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_167</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_272</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_244</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_175</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_242</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_186</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31548708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_218</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_266</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_250</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_196</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_180</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_228</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_260</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_190</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_207</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_185</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_223</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_217</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_193</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_225</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_236</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_169</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_246</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_204</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_177</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_188</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31546760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_212</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_277</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_198</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_222</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_233</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_279</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_164</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_271</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_249</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_235</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_174</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_259</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_263</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_187</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31544998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_274</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_195</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_163</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31547546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_206</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_252</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_171</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_182</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_214</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_262</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_192</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31548770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_224</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_19_1232200_166</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31544998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31547174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31548708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31547546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31548088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535932
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542436
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537310
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538414
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538012
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538738
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537470
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537226
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538010
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542314
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537240
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537404
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542918
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537396
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537734
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542042
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539524
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541800
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31558168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536592
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535356
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31549530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535492
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539214
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31546760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31545920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31548770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31539840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31542044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31540984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31543040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31536368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31537582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31538642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31535130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31546500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_19_1232200.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_19_1232200.31541284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
