2007 (223)
2008 (139)
2009 (90)
2017 (1)
2018 (3)
最新Associated Press-GfK 民调显示, 52% 受调查的老百姓说他们不同意奥巴马的医保改革方案。
连左派媒体所做的民调都显示，美国老百姓不要奥巴马的医疗改革，为什么奥巴马还是要一意孤行？
道理很简单：这是他的改革，他要改，就得该。怎么改，目前还可以商量，但政府这只猪手是一定要插进来搅和搅和的。
这不是视民意而不顾，冒天下之大不违吗？
对于左派极端分子和社会主义分子来说，什么是民意？只有他们才知道什么是民意，老百姓说的不算！说NO的都是一小撮阶级敌人，生活在水火之中的广大无产阶级是绝对拥护和支持他们的。
奥巴马,普露西,里得,很多民主党人和主流媒体就是这样认为的。
别忘了，想独裁集权的没有人说自己当政是为了个人利益的。他们都是拿为广大"饥寒交迫的劳苦大众"说事。结果怎么样？为他们卖命的老百姓除了一小部分鸡犬升天以外，不还是该干什么干什么？！
当政客们拿老百姓说事的时候，老百姓要明白，你就是一棋子儿。
奥巴马的医疗改革方案必须通过。YES WE CAN是他的口号，到目前为止，他的大政府大赤字大开销要把美国变成社会主义的计划还没遇到什么太大的阻碍。但这一坎，他必须过。过了，可以继续推行他的下一部社会主义深化改革的方案。过不了，他将寸步难行。
所以，医保改革是奥巴马的炸药包，是他要攻破美国资本主义体系的最重要的堡垒。有人说这是他的滑铁卢，一点儿都不夸张。奥巴马必须赢得此战，没有回头路。
可是美国人民醒悟了，很多支持过他的民主党人开始划清界限，开始反对政府进入属于私人经济领域。共和党基本上全部说NO WAY。在8月份民主党国会议员们主持的TOWN HALL会议上，美国人民向他们的发出了怒吼：LEAVE US ALONE。
但这不会停止奥巴马的脚步。 这个医保的改革现在是他的改革，是OBAMACARE。今晚，他召集国会两院联席会议，他要想全国人民表示他必胜的决心。
是谁跟美国人民OUT OF TOUCH？
现在美国是姓社还是姓资这个问题上，是民主党，是奥巴马。
不了解美国的宪法和独立宣言的人，无法理解美国人民对个人自由神圣般地捍卫。全世界没有一个国家像美国这样，在宪法里把保护人民自由的权力和选择作为开国纲领。全世界也没有任何一个国家的老百姓享有像美国人民这样自由和民主。
在医保改革这个涉及到美国人民生死大权由谁作主这个大是大非问题上，奥巴马低估了人民对他要推行的大政府计划的抵触情绪。他还认为自己是正确的，是为老百姓说话的。他忘记了一点：民心不可违。
作为世界资本主义最强国的美国的总统，而不是古巴卡斯特罗和朝鲜的金正日，奥巴马要听老百姓的话，而不是老百姓要听他的话。
NO IS NO，ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!!
道德？谎话连篇的政客也配给我们谈什么道德问题？！简直是对老百姓智力的侮辱！
"To tell us, with a straight face, that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpa and an insult to anyone's intelligence. To do so after an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office has already showed this to be impossible reveals the depths of moral bankruptcy behind the glittering words."
..... Thomas Sowell
请奥巴马支持者好好读读斯坦福教授sowell这篇“听骗子说什么”檄文，不要再自欺欺人，掩耳盗铃!!!
Listening to a Liar
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.
No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.
One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess-- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!
Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years-- more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election?
If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election?
If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?
If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it.
Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.
Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.
Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days-- after which it sat on the President's desk for three days, while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.
What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money-- and the power that goes with it-- into the hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about.
The worst thing that could happen, from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy, would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the President's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when "it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before."
There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before-- and to do them before the public realizes what is happening.
The proliferation of White House "czars" in charge of everything from financial issues to media issues is more of the same circumvention of the public and of the Constitution. Czars don't have to be confirmed by the Senate, the way Cabinet members must be, even though czars may wield more power, so you may never know what these people are like, until it is too late.
What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing-- and how he has been doing it.
至于医疗行业和保险业集团，也都在今年捐了8百多万和近6百万，其中64%和59%也都给了民主党。
拿人钱财，与人消灾。指望民主党对付律师，医生和保险业？做梦。
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php
Right on! 5speed.
Tort reform is essential in reforming our current system, yet Obama has nothing to say about it, why? Lawyer group is on his side.
滥用红处方，国家最后只能像吸毒上瘾的人那样不可救药。看看加拿大，西欧那些国家哪个有生气？另外荷兰在health care上的花销是GDP的9.8%，而不是6%。http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/8/38980162.pdf
医保问题，现在重点是个成本问题。明明可以通过增加医生数目解决，明明可以限制恶性诉讼解决，明明可以通过减少政府限制解决。
现在奥巴马与极左分子却一定要让政府全面接手，但却没有丝毫触及如何减低成本的具体措施。
如果不限降低成本，然后让花钱不眨眼的政府来接手，对美国的打击是不言而喻的。
民主党人打着道德旗号,提倡帮助有困难的人固然听起来不错... 但是, 民主党人显然与各位期望看到的道德操守相差甚远....比如美国律师行业基本上是民主党人, 律师是最有野心,最有理智的流氓。在保险费中, 用于支付律师的费用非常非常多, 所有这些费用最终买单的都是我们这些小民! 很明显， 民主党一边倒地支持美国律师行业, 从来没有立法确立医疗事故赔偿基本原则, 不敢动唯利是图的律师一根毛.. 让民主党人解释"道德操守", 这不是很讽刺吗？
Great analysis, you should post it in your own blog or post it as an individual artical, very educational.
Real knowledge is true power.
Thank you!
America is America, America is not Europe. Get over it, I don't give a damn what Europe does, that's their own business. Over two hundred years ago our founding fathers escaped the oppression of their government and came to this land, they shedded their blood for independence, freedom and liberty. Today radical Obama and his cronies want to take this away from us in the name of "morality and helping the poor". It won't work. Call me redneck, you take away my freedom, you take my life.
奥巴马昨天晚上说的比唱的还好听，问题是，他所提倡的方案目前不存在。国会里同过的几个提案里没有一个是奥巴马所说的。在这个前提下，奥巴马居然说佩林和林保在说慌，他说他的方案里被别人歪曲。请问，国会目前通过的几个提案哪部分被歪曲了？
共和党议员说奥巴马说谎。
look, 民主党国会真霸道，不愧是左派当道:
On the House floor where President Obama spoke just a half-day earlier, two words shouted by a Republican congressman reverberated louder than the finer points of health care debate.
House Democrats seized on House rules Thursday to demand South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson offer a high-profile apology to President Obama for shouting, "You lie," during the president's health care address.
Wilson called the White House shortly after Obama's speech to say he was out of line. The White House said early Thursday that the president accepted the apology.
But that did not put the issue to rest, and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, also of South Carolina, asked Wilson to apologize on the House floor in front of his colleagues. The final vote of the day was held open by Democrats to give him an opportunity to do so, but he refused.
Democrats have threatened to censure Wilson absent such an apology. With a leadership meeting set for Thursday afternoon, it is possible they will discuss it and introduce such a measure next week even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had said that was not being talked about.
一切打着道德旗号的政府项目最后的结果都是被滥用，成为耗空人民财富的政治工具。
美国这个国家与其他发达国家相比最大的不同就是对政府的不信任，这也是美国成为世界最强国的根本。
告诉大家一个事实，美国的税收系统是"自愿性质"的。什么意思呢？如果你愿意多交税，完全可以把自己的所有收入作为税收交给国库，IRS绝对会分毫不差的收走。
同时另一个事实是，美国是世界上慈善事业最发达的国家。08年美国人的人均慈善捐款是英国人的4倍。
美国人并非没有爱心，没有道德。美国人只是惧怕政府力量的不可逆的破坏性。
想象一下，有哪个华盛顿政客现在敢，哪怕是提议，取消那些毒瘤一样的政府福利计划，两房，medicaid, medicare, social security.
不可能，因为每个政客为了当选，都不可能得罪选票。
而这些计划，哪一个没有道德上良好的"初衷"? 但它们的结果却是削弱了美国，贫瘠了美国子孙后代的土壤。如果是这样，百年后，甚至几十年后，现在这些叫嚣"道德"的人，是否还能扪心无愧。
也许可以，只要像爱德华 肯尼迪一样，偷偷给教皇一封忏悔信。
这是关于整个美国社会的道德标准问题 indeed.
What is the point of fast economical growth if the society does not take care of the sick, the weak, the old and the young,
你创办一个企业，或投资一个企业，或干脆就是管理一个企业，最初要关心的就是凭什么这个企业能成事？最终都落实到为什么能占有市场份额？
在绝对自由经济的条件下，WINNER TAKES ALL，所以垄断是最可能的结局。自由市场的成立原则是鼓励竞争，但结局只能是垄断，这是关于自由市场的悖论。
那么凭什么你创立一家小公司能有前途？投资者都会问这个问题。答案不外是两个方面，一是产品特殊，大公司比不了，所以能占有市场份额（一段时间内，但保证ROI就足够了），二是法律政策倾斜，比如对新型公司政府有优惠，或保证大公司不能垄断。典型的例子就是美国的电话行业。
对保险业来说，其产品有其他行业不具备的特殊性，就是简单单一很难有能吸引市场的独特性。卖的就是保险，保费与保险范围的比率是唯一的特征。
保险业是用多数人的保金来付少数人的费用，参保的人越多，保险公司的风险就越小，费用就可以越低。在没有独特的产品的状态下，小型保险公司理论上就无法与大公司竞争，因为你的风险决定了你的保费与保险范围的比例无法与大公司相比。这是个雪球效应，越大就会更大，最终实现垄断。而垄断后的价格就是另一回事了。
这就是为什么任何国家里保险业从来都是HIGHLY REGULATED的行业，不开放自由竞争，因为只有政府干预才能保证垄断无法发生，不同的公司人为地被划分市场。美国360几家医疗保险公司只有6家允许在加州经营。而6家还是实力相当的档次。
医疗保险还有一个更特殊的特点，就是没人愿意生病。这与有些行业为了冒险而投保不同，比如雷曼兄弟公司为了降低投资风险而投保AIG。
一个地方遭了天灾，你可以说那是你倒霉，与我无关。还是集中资源救济？如果是后者，那就是政府干预利用社会资源为少数受灾人服务的概念，是社会主义的概念。
医保也是类似。这就是为什么所有发达国家都是全民医疗（只有美国除外），因为这首先是个道德问题，就是社会是否有义务帮助有困难的人。具体到一个国家，就是政府是否有义务帮助有困难的人的概念。
另外从费用角度讲，保险业是参保的人的范围越大费用越低，那有什么比政府管理的范围更大？这就是为什么其他发达国家的医疗费用比美国的省钱的原因，这是由保险业的特征决定的。
其实奥巴马的PUBLIC OPTION最终的结果就是政府单一的医保计划。因为尽管是作为参与竞争的概念提出的，但私营保险业根本无法与之竞争，因为范围不可能比政府的大。政府的不用考虑盈利，没有为了竞争而设立的CLAIM文件系统（现在占私营公司的40%费用，与医疗无关），最大的投保范围，结果就是最省钱的医保。
当然作为政客，奥巴马政府从来不会这么说清楚，但保险业自己很清楚结局是什么，是完蛋或是pickup something that government left，但市场份额就很有限了，所以拼死反对。
当然你要是情愿要资本主义的草而不要社会主义的苗，那也是个自由选择。西欧国家选择社会主义是从降低整个社会生存成本的角度考虑的，从具体个体来说，很可能没有资本主义的个体效率高，但你能100%的肯定你就一定是那个自由竞争条件下的WINNER麽？
奥巴马昨天的讲话其实已经很清楚了，最后一段说的就是这是关于整个美国社会的道德标准问题，和在道德问题上美国应该选择成为什么样的国家的问题。
当然如果你觉得美国这个国家就应该是个以弱肉强食的道德观念为主导的国家，人们生病碰巧没有足够的钱看病属于活该谁让你不是强者死了大家都清静的话，以上的话算我没说。
Are you kidding, Do you know what you are saying, you really mean what you said??
90% of my family members are moderate liberals, some of them voted for Obama last year, but all of them now are opposing his plan. Why? they are not republicans. They are just ordinary americans. You need to do your homework before opening your big mouth.
Insurance companies are all devils, how about drug corparations who make just as much money as insurance companies, how about lawyers who always find a way to sue you to death. Why don't Obama mention those groups, because they are in bed with him. They are cutting the deals with him behind the scene. Don't evey fool yourself. Obama is just another partyism politician, business as usual, even worse. Are those changes you want to believe in?
奥巴马一意孤行要改变美国的医疗就是因为美国现有医疗制度已经到了破产的地步了，那些保险公司垄断唯利是图，但还有有几千万美国人没有医保，一生病就要破产 -- 和中国有的挥，而和其他有医保的国家，英国，法国，加拿大 -- 大部分欧洲发达国家没得比。。。你当然是不会明白这个道理的。。。你也可以象在这篇文章这样强词夺理。。。共产党和共和党是不关注普通民众，所谓只要党性没有人性的。。。
为什么现在的医保大部分由雇主包办？而车保大部分有自己来？
因为政府插了一杠子，政府给雇主以税收补贴。也许这个初衷是好的，但是这个政策正好促成了雇主作为一个中间人的存在。任何中间人都要拿手续费的。
许多政府项目的初衷都是好的，但最后都造成了恶果，像两房危机，medicare, medicaid, social security.
改革是要的，但请政府走开。
个人，公司赚钱为了生存。政府赚钱为了什么？政府要的是选票。
公司没钱了会破产，会消失。政府呢？只要这个国家在，不论它的赤字由多大，政府都会继续存在。不论多大的赤字，它都可以靠税收，通胀和举债来消除。而举债，事实上也是变相的通胀。从而剥夺人民的财富。
等到人民一无所有，也就只有靠政府施舍。难道大家想靠施舍过日子？
无需猜测对方的动机，只要他的行动对我有益。政府赚钱，奥巴马受新移民支持，都不是坏事，是吗？相反，全家的医疗保障全掌握在可以凭一时喜好而解雇你的老板手里，谈何自由选择！生病的时候恰恰可能是被解雇的是时候。
回复totf的评论:
奥巴马与其支持者除了喊口号还是喊口号。
奥巴马的目的是把health care这个大饼装进政府的口袋，可以坐享20%的手续费，以及由现在非法移民转变的将来选票。
至于其支持者，实在不明白除了动人的口号，他们还要什么？去政府谋职？也许是为了符合我中华的官本位思想。
Nonsense.
The point is not whether we need healthcare reform or not, the point is how we are going to reform. As a senator, Obama voted against every single healthcare bill proposed by GOP. Obama wants what only Obama like. Obamacare is more politics than healthcare reform, people know it. He can not just sneak it through. This is people's country, not Obama's country. Your obama fan better be aware of this!
回复noso的评论:
回复汉代蜜瓜的评论:
简单回答你的问题：
假如你有个急件必须明天送到收件人手中，你是交给美国邮局（政府）放心，还是交给UPS或FEDEX（私营）放心？邮局便宜，UPS和FEDEX贵，您选那一个？
医保也是这个道理，没钱你可以看MEDICAID诊所，生命攸关的病老百宁愿找最好的私人医生看，多花些钱也认了。
奥巴马和他的追随者连这个道理都不懂吗？ 怎么会不懂？！奥巴马为什么还要一意孤行？因为这是他要的改革，他要的，不是老百姓要的，明白？
有本事先把社会主义性质的有政府统一管理的SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE先给废了，看一帮共和党红脖子老帮菜们不把你废了。
美国医疗费用占GDP16%，在23个NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE调查过的发达国家中最高，排第二的不到10%，最好的荷兰6%，但荷兰医生与病人的比率是美国的两倍。
凭什么社会主义的草比资本主义的苗壮？
保险业是产品很独特的行业，任何国家都不开放保险业自由竞争，尤其是发达国家，即便美国也不许，全美300多家与医疗有关的保险公司，政府只允许6家在加州经营。就是私营保险公司必须限制，为什么？搞清楚保险业的产品是什么就知道了。
医疗保险社会化是趋势，尤其是富裕国家，美国是世界上发达国家唯一没有的，也是60岁以后的人的生活质量在23个发达国家是最差的，人的平均寿命在23个发达国家里排第23位。这是NEWS HOUR的医疗专题对NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE的采访的内容。
凭什么享受社会主义的MEDICARE的65岁以上的老帮菜们在工作时平均人均总共贡献的6万多的MEDICARE费用，却享受17万多的MEDICARE费用，年轻一点的就不能享受同样的社会主义福利？
原因是政府降低福利开销就会得罪选票。所以政府的项目都只会越来越大，而且不计成本。最终造成的赤字可就不是现在计算的1个或者2个trillion, 而是上百个。
羊毛出自羊身上，解决这么大的赤字，除了加税，还要通胀。最后所有的财产都转移到政府那里去了。政府接管医保是不是无本万利啊？
所有的政府项目都像癌一样，只会越来越大。除了不得不由政府管的对外国际事务，政府项目是越少越好。
奥巴马的目的是把health care这个大饼装进政府的口袋，可以坐享20%的手续费，以及由现在非法移民转变的将来选票。
至于其支持者，实在不明白除了动人的口号，他们还要什么？去政府谋职？也许是为了符合我中华的官本位思想。
Thanks.
事实是有保险的一直在给没保险的买单. 没保险的看了病就跑，保险公司最后只能涨有保险的保费。
简单回答你的问题：
假如你有个急件必须明天送到收件人手中，你是交给美国邮局（政府）放心，还是交给UPS或FEDEX（私营）放心？邮局便宜，UPS和FEDEX贵，您选那一个？
医保也是这个道理，没钱你可以看MEDICAID诊所，生命攸关的病老百宁愿找最好的私人医生看，多花些钱也认了。
奥巴马和他的追随者连这个道理都不懂吗？ 怎么会不懂？！奥巴马为什么还要一意孤行？因为这是他要的改革，他要的，不是老百姓要的，明白？
good point, thanks.
interesting.
exactly!!! Thanks.
I am proud to be an independent conservative. You can be a socialist if you want to. This is a free country.
hahaha~~~
好观点，you nailed it! 谢谢。
好观点，谢谢。
整个医保就是社会主义了？那社会主义也太简单了吧！
博主你家是开保险公司滴？
Good evening. I'm Dr. Charles Boustany, and I'm proud to serve the people of Louisiana's 7th congressional district. I'm also a heart surgeon, with more than 20 years of experience during which I saw firsthand the need for lowering health cost.
Republicans are pleased that President Obama came to the Capitol tonight. We agree much needs to be done to lower the cost of health care for all Americans.
On that goal, Republicans are ready, and we've been ready to work with the president for common-sense reforms that our nation can afford.
"Afford" is an important word. Our country's facing many challenges. The cost of health care is rising. Federal spending is soaring. We're piling huge debt on our children. And families and small businesses are struggling through a jobless recovery with more than 2.4 million private sector jobs lost since February.
It's clear, the American people want health care reform.
But they want their elected leaders to get it right.
Most Americans wanted to hear the president tell Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of the Congress that it's time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality.
That's what I've heard over the past several months, in talking to thousands of my constituents.
Replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care is not the answer. In fact, it will make health care much more expensive.
That's not just my personal diagnosis as a doctor or a Republican. It's the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the neutral scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills.
I read the bill Democrats passed through committee in July. It creates 53 new government bureaucracies, adds hundreds of billions to our national debt and raises taxes on job creators by $600 billion.
And it cuts Medicare by $500 billion, while doing virtually nothing to make the program better for our seniors.
The president had a chance, tonight, to take the government-run health care off the table. Unfortunately, he didn't do it.
We can do better with a targeted approach that tackles the biggest problems. Here are four areas -- four important areas where we can agree, right now.
One, all individuals should have access to coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions.
Two, individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do.
Three, we can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor.
And four, insurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention.
That's something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they'd made simply -- simply made healthier choices earlier in life.
We do have ideas the president has agreed with. We're grateful the president mentioned medical liability reform and we hope he's serious. We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care.
Real reform must do this.
Let's also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance. Unfortunately, the president disagrees.
You can read more about all of these reforms at healthcare.gop.gov. These are common sense reforms that we can achieve right now without destroying jobs, exploding the deficit, rationing care, or taking away the freedoms American families cherish.
This Congress can pass meaningful reform soon to reduce some of the fear and anxiety families are feeling in these very difficult times. Working together in a bipartisan way, we can truly lower the cost of health care, while improving quality for the American people.
I'm Dr. Charles Boustany. Thank you for listening.
医保不改革是不行的，就是不知道怎么改才是好的
身边有个朋友，生了一对双胞胎，早产，在医院里住了一个月，费用10多万，保险cover大部分，但还要自付2万。每个月自费的和公司付的保险加起来要600了。他自己年收入4万，不算低收入，但也不够花，信用卡啊，房贷啊，债务加起来越滚越多，象这样的家庭很多，还美其名曰中产阶级
I don't care how he wants to overhaul our healthcare system, I am all for it as long as Washington politicians are on the same policy with me, otherwise, no, hell no. If Obamacare is so good, why don't politicians jump into it, simple and plain. Think about it, kool-aid drinkers.
举个例子吧：在人人医保的框架里，如果某人的病需要3百万美元医治，政府给不给治疗？如果给了他，那么其他的人，任何人都可以申请300万的医疗费了？现实里有过这样的事情么？最终还不是一切由政府说了算？由当官的决定给谁治病，不给谁治病？
这点道理很多人都想不清楚，被大政府大口号蒙骗的，只有小学生和被左派媒体洗脑的那一些群体。
The simple fact is that the US spends the most on health care in the world and gets the worst care among all the industrial countries. Why do you think this should be left unchanged? If there is any place where CHANGE is needed, health care is the one!
也许白宫需要制造议题把老百姓的注意力从金融危机引开？
This problem primarily attributes to the AMA (American Medical Association), an institution which effectively enforces a chronic supply shortage in addition to unnecessary demand. The educational system is strangled by the withholding nature of the AMA, which requires every dr practices in US to have residency in US (even for well experienced froeign Drs). On the other hand, the AMA restricted number of residency slots available. This environment prevents equilibrium from occurring, or the AMA effectively enforces a chronic supply shortage to the increasing demand. By eliminating competition, Drs can maintain high salary.
AMA’s monopoly on the production of Drs has to be removed. Let the free market decide the price. Capitalism is best at determining fair value when you don't have unions controlling supply of labor or politicians picking winners or greedy monopolies eliminating competition. In the free market environment, the Drs have to provide good service at reasonable price to stay in the market in which the consumer will benefit.
Without free market in the production of Dr, the country will be dragged deep to the sea. Any reform without changing current monopoly in production of Drs will not work.
Don't you know under the current medical system, cancer patients can never buy medical insurance as a individual. Is it ridicules? No wonder 2/3 of bankruptcy families related to medical bills.
You're right, 中产阶级一有大病，即使有医保， 也会破产。更不用说万一失业，如何支付昂贵的个人医保。
都特有钱，还是不怕死？或者以为自己永远健康？很穷的人已经有社会医保。中产阶级一有大病，即使有医保， 也会破产。更不用说万一失业，如何支付昂贵的个人医保。
感觉美国人宁愿个人挣扎，输赢自理，也不愿别人插手，更怕别人沾了便宜。
回复人丹的评论:
很不理解美国人为什么不支持社会医保？富人不支持可以理解，穷人为什么也不支持呢？
社会主义大锅饭就是人人没法吃饱饭。
即使楼下那个“英子”没在大陆生活过，她家人至少还在大陆享受全民医保的优惠吧？
那个飘侠真是说话一副大陆官员强调。这家伙脑袋彻底被洗残了，标准不会独立思考的奴才思维。
打着漂亮口号的，往往就是干恶事的，这是普通人的基本常识。
除靠政府吃饭的人，都应该反对政府操作的医保。
支持奥巴马!!!!!!!
反对医改的都是些利益集团。。。