universal healthcare

[Jester]

All sources are biased. I have a good mix from all sides in there. What I was aiming for is a good over view of each topic, rather than which side of the issue was taken. For example, Doc Fix... It was broken before this health care bill, but then I would ask why break Medicare further without fixing something really broken in it. It is dishonest to not include it now, and then pass an emergency $138 billion fix in the near future once doctors start rejecting Medicare patients due to being underpaid for services. They know it's broken now, and Sen. Reid pulled it from the bill to bring the cost under a trillion. Anyway, my point is that each bullet there is an entire discussion thread of pros and cons.

The Doc Fix has already been passed by the house, has it not? Would it not be "dishonest" to imply that they are being dishonest by not including it, when they in fact are? Would it perhaps also be dishonesty by ommission not to mention that it is the Republicans, and not the Democrats, who oppose it?

You already used it as a reason why the bill doesn't actually cost quite as little as the CBO scoring says it does. You can't simultaneously say the Dems are dishonest for not passing it until some future emergency, especially when that would not be true.

Further discussion of the Doc Fix and its relation to health care, via Jonathan Chait.

-Jester