2007 (223)
2008 (139)
2009 (90)
2017 (1)
2018 (3)
最新Associated Press-GfK 民調顯示, 52% 受調查的老百姓說他們不同意奧巴馬的醫保改革方案。
連左派媒體所做的民調都顯示，美國老百姓不要奧巴馬的醫療改革，為什麽奧巴馬還是要一意孤行？
道理很簡單：這是他的改革，他要改，就得該。怎麽改，目前還可以商量，但政府這隻豬手是一定要插進來攪和攪和的。
這不是視民意而不顧，冒天下之大不違嗎？
對於左派極端分子和社會主義分子來說，什麽是民意？隻有他們才知道什麽是民意，老百姓說的不算！說NO的都是一小撮階級敵人，生活在水火之中的廣大無產階級是絕對擁護和支持他們的。
奧巴馬,普露西,裏得,很多民主黨人和主流媒體就是這樣認為的。
別忘了，想獨裁集權的沒有人說自己當政是為了個人利益的。他們都是拿為廣大"饑寒交迫的勞苦大眾"說事。結果怎麽樣？為他們賣命的老百姓除了一小部分雞犬升天以外，不還是該幹什麽幹什麽？！
當政客們拿老百姓說事的時候，老百姓要明白，你就是一棋子兒。
奧巴馬的醫療改革方案必須通過。YES WE CAN是他的口號，到目前為止，他的大政府大赤字大開銷要把美國變成社會主義的計劃還沒遇到什麽太大的阻礙。但這一坎，他必須過。過了，可以繼續推行他的下一部社會主義深化改革的方案。過不了，他將寸步難行。
所以，醫保改革是奧巴馬的炸藥包，是他要攻破美國資本主義體係的最重要的堡壘。有人說這是他的滑鐵盧，一點兒都不誇張。奧巴馬必須贏得此戰，沒有回頭路。
可是美國人民醒悟了，很多支持過他的民主黨人開始劃清界限，開始反對政府進入屬於私人經濟領域。共和黨基本上全部說NO WAY。在8月份民主黨國會議員們主持的TOWN HALL會議上，美國人民向他們的發出了怒吼：LEAVE US ALONE。
但這不會停止奧巴馬的腳步。 這個醫保的改革現在是他的改革，是OBAMACARE。今晚，他召集國會兩院聯席會議，他要想全國人民表示他必勝的決心。
是誰跟美國人民OUT OF TOUCH？
現在美國是姓社還是姓資這個問題上，是民主黨，是奧巴馬。
不了解美國的憲法和獨立宣言的人，無法理解美國人民對個人自由神聖般地捍衛。全世界沒有一個國家像美國這樣，在憲法裏把保護人民自由的權力和選擇作為開國綱領。全世界也沒有任何一個國家的老百姓享有像美國人民這樣自由和民主。
在醫保改革這個涉及到美國人民生死大權由誰作主這個大是大非問題上，奧巴馬低估了人民對他要推行的大政府計劃的抵觸情緒。他還認為自己是正確的，是為老百姓說話的。他忘記了一點：民心不可違。
作為世界資本主義最強國的美國的總統，而不是古巴卡斯特羅和朝鮮的金正日，奧巴馬要聽老百姓的話，而不是老百姓要聽他的話。
NO IS NO，ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !!!
道德？謊話連篇的政客也配給我們談什麽道德問題？！簡直是對老百姓智力的侮辱！
"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
請奧巴馬支持者好好讀讀斯坦福教授sowell這篇“聽騙子說什麽”檄文，不要再自欺欺人，掩耳盜鈴!!!
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.
至於醫療行業和保險業集團，也都在今年捐了8百多萬和近6百萬，其中64%和59%也都給了民主黨。
拿人錢財，與人消災。指望民主黨對付律師，醫生和保險業？做夢。
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.
濫用紅處方，國家最後隻能像吸毒上癮的人那樣不可救藥。看看加拿大，西歐那些國家哪個有生氣？另外荷蘭在health care上的花銷是GDP的9.8%，而不是6%。http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/8/38980162.pdf
醫保問題，現在重點是個成本問題。明明可以通過增加醫生數目解決，明明可以限製惡性訴訟解決，明明可以通過減少政府限製解決。
現在奧巴馬與極左分子卻一定要讓政府全麵接手，但卻沒有絲毫觸及如何減低成本的具體措施。
如果不限降低成本，然後讓花錢不眨眼的政府來接手，對美國的打擊是不言而喻的。
民主黨人打著道德旗號,提倡幫助有困難的人固然聽起來不錯... 但是, 民主黨人顯然與各位期望看到的道德操守相差甚遠....比如美國律師行業基本上是民主黨人, 律師是最有野心,最有理智的流氓。在保險費中, 用於支付律師的費用非常非常多, 所有這些費用最終買單的都是我們這些小民! 很明顯， 民主黨一邊倒地支持美國律師行業, 從來沒有立法確立醫療事故賠償基本原則, 不敢動唯利是圖的律師一根毛.. 讓民主黨人解釋"道德操守", 這不是很諷刺嗎？
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.
奧巴馬昨天晚上說的比唱的還好聽，問題是，他所提倡的方案目前不存在。國會裏同過的幾個提案裏沒有一個是奧巴馬所說的。在這個前提下，奧巴馬居然說佩林和林保在說慌，他說他的方案裏被別人歪曲。請問，國會目前通過的幾個提案哪部分被歪曲了？
共和黨議員說奧巴馬說謊。
look, 民主黨國會真霸道，不愧是左派當道:
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.
一切打著道德旗號的政府項目最後的結果都是被濫用，成為耗空人民財富的政治工具。
美國這個國家與其他發達國家相比最大的不同就是對政府的不信任，這也是美國成為世界最強國的根本。
告訴大家一個事實，美國的稅收係統是"自願性質"的。什麽意思呢？如果你願意多交稅，完全可以把自己的所有收入作為稅收交給國庫，IRS絕對會分毫不差的收走。
同時另一個事實是，美國是世界上慈善事業最發達的國家。08年美國人的人均慈善捐款是英國人的4倍。
美國人並非沒有愛心，沒有道德。美國人隻是懼怕政府力量的不可逆的破壞性。
想象一下，有哪個華盛頓政客現在敢，哪怕是提議，取消那些毒瘤一樣的政府福利計劃，兩房，medicaid, medicare, social security.
不可能，因為每個政客為了當選，都不可能得罪選票。
而這些計劃，哪一個沒有道德上良好的"初衷"? 但它們的結果卻是削弱了美國，貧瘠了美國子孫後代的土壤。如果是這樣，百年後，甚至幾十年後，現在這些叫囂"道德"的人，是否還能捫心無愧。
也許可以，隻要像愛德華 肯尼迪一樣，偷偷給教皇一封懺悔信。
這是關於整個美國社會的道德標準問題 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,
你創辦一個企業，或投資一個企業，或幹脆就是管理一個企業，最初要關心的就是憑什麽這個企業能成事？最終都落實到為什麽能占有市場份額？
在絕對自由經濟的條件下，WINNER TAKES ALL，所以壟斷是最可能的結局。自由市場的成立原則是鼓勵競爭，但結局隻能是壟斷，這是關於自由市場的悖論。
那麽憑什麽你創立一家小公司能有前途？投資者都會問這個問題。答案不外是兩個方麵，一是產品特殊，大公司比不了，所以能占有市場份額（一段時間內，但保證ROI就足夠了），二是法律政策傾斜，比如對新型公司政府有優惠，或保證大公司不能壟斷。典型的例子就是美國的電話行業。
對保險業來說，其產品有其他行業不具備的特殊性，就是簡單單一很難有能吸引市場的獨特性。賣的就是保險，保費與保險範圍的比率是唯一的特征。
保險業是用多數人的保金來付少數人的費用，參保的人越多，保險公司的風險就越小，費用就可以越低。在沒有獨特的產品的狀態下，小型保險公司理論上就無法與大公司競爭，因為你的風險決定了你的保費與保險範圍的比例無法與大公司相比。這是個雪球效應，越大就會更大，最終實現壟斷。而壟斷後的價格就是另一回事了。
這就是為什麽任何國家裏保險業從來都是HIGHLY REGULATED的行業，不開放自由競爭，因為隻有政府幹預才能保證壟斷無法發生，不同的公司人為地被劃分市場。美國360幾家醫療保險公司隻有6家允許在加州經營。而6家還是實力相當的檔次。
醫療保險還有一個更特殊的特點，就是沒人願意生病。這與有些行業為了冒險而投保不同，比如雷曼兄弟公司為了降低投資風險而投保AIG。
一個地方遭了天災，你可以說那是你倒黴，與我無關。還是集中資源救濟？如果是後者，那就是政府幹預利用社會資源為少數受災人服務的概念，是社會主義的概念。
醫保也是類似。這就是為什麽所有發達國家都是全民醫療（隻有美國除外），因為這首先是個道德問題，就是社會是否有義務幫助有困難的人。具體到一個國家，就是政府是否有義務幫助有困難的人的概念。
另外從費用角度講，保險業是參保的人的範圍越大費用越低，那有什麽比政府管理的範圍更大？這就是為什麽其他發達國家的醫療費用比美國的省錢的原因，這是由保險業的特征決定的。
其實奧巴馬的PUBLIC OPTION最終的結果就是政府單一的醫保計劃。因為盡管是作為參與競爭的概念提出的，但私營保險業根本無法與之競爭，因為範圍不可能比政府的大。政府的不用考慮盈利，沒有為了競爭而設立的CLAIM文件係統（現在占私營公司的40%費用，與醫療無關），最大的投保範圍，結果就是最省錢的醫保。
當然作為政客，奧巴馬政府從來不會這麽說清楚，但保險業自己很清楚結局是什麽，是完蛋或是pickup something that government left，但市場份額就很有限了，所以拚死反對。
當然你要是情願要資本主義的草而不要社會主義的苗，那也是個自由選擇。西歐國家選擇社會主義是從降低整個社會生存成本的角度考慮的，從具體個體來說，很可能沒有資本主義的個體效率高，但你能100%的肯定你就一定是那個自由競爭條件下的WINNER麽？
奧巴馬昨天的講話其實已經很清楚了，最後一段說的就是這是關於整個美國社會的道德標準問題，和在道德問題上美國應該選擇成為什麽樣的國家的問題。
當然如果你覺得美國這個國家就應該是個以弱肉強食的道德觀念為主導的國家，人們生病碰巧沒有足夠的錢看病屬於活該誰讓你不是強者死了大家都清靜的話，以上的話算我沒說。
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?
奧巴馬一意孤行要改變美國的醫療就是因為美國現有醫療製度已經到了破產的地步了，那些保險公司壟斷唯利是圖，但還有有幾千萬美國人沒有醫保，一生病就要破產 -- 和中國有的揮，而和其他有醫保的國家，英國，法國，加拿大 -- 大部分歐洲發達國家沒得比。。。你當然是不會明白這個道理的。。。你也可以象在這篇文章這樣強詞奪理。。。共產黨和共和黨是不關注普通民眾，所謂隻要黨性沒有人性的。。。
為什麽現在的醫保大部分由雇主包辦？而車保大部分有自己來？
因為政府插了一杠子，政府給雇主以稅收補貼。也許這個初衷是好的，但是這個政策正好促成了雇主作為一個中間人的存在。任何中間人都要拿手續費的。
許多政府項目的初衷都是好的，但最後都造成了惡果，像兩房危機，medicare, medicaid, social security.
改革是要的，但請政府走開。
個人，公司賺錢為了生存。政府賺錢為了什麽？政府要的是選票。
公司沒錢了會破產，會消失。政府呢？隻要這個國家在，不論它的赤字由多大，政府都會繼續存在。不論多大的赤字，它都可以靠稅收，通脹和舉債來消除。而舉債，事實上也是變相的通脹。從而剝奪人民的財富。
等到人民一無所有，也就隻有靠政府施舍。難道大家想靠施舍過日子？
無需猜測對方的動機，隻要他的行動對我有益。政府賺錢，奧巴馬受新移民支持，都不是壞事，是嗎？相反，全家的醫療保障全掌握在可以憑一時喜好而解雇你的老板手裏，談何自由選擇！生病的時候恰恰可能是被解雇的是時候。
回複totf的評論:
奧巴馬與其支持者除了喊口號還是喊口號。
奧巴馬的目的是把health care這個大餅裝進政府的口袋，可以坐享20%的手續費，以及由現在非法移民轉變的將來選票。
至於其支持者，實在不明白除了動人的口號，他們還要什麽？去政府謀職？也許是為了符合我中華的官本位思想。
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!
回複noso的評論:
回複漢代蜜瓜的評論:
簡單回答你的問題：
假如你有個急件必須明天送到收件人手中，你是交給美國郵局（政府）放心，還是交給UPS或FEDEX（私營）放心？郵局便宜，UPS和FEDEX貴，您選那一個？
醫保也是這個道理，沒錢你可以看MEDICAID診所，生命攸關的病老百寧願找最好的私人醫生看，多花些錢也認了。
奧巴馬和他的追隨者連這個道理都不懂嗎？ 怎麽會不懂？！奧巴馬為什麽還要一意孤行？因為這是他要的改革，他要的，不是老百姓要的，明白？
有本事先把社會主義性質的有政府統一管理的SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE先給廢了，看一幫共和黨紅脖子老幫菜們不把你廢了。
美國醫療費用占GDP16%，在23個NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE調查過的發達國家中最高，排第二的不到10%，最好的荷蘭6%，但荷蘭醫生與病人的比率是美國的兩倍。
憑什麽社會主義的草比資本主義的苗壯？
保險業是產品很獨特的行業，任何國家都不開放保險業自由競爭，尤其是發達國家，即便美國也不許，全美300多家與醫療有關的保險公司，政府隻允許6家在加州經營。就是私營保險公司必須限製，為什麽？搞清楚保險業的產品是什麽就知道了。
醫療保險社會化是趨勢，尤其是富裕國家，美國是世界上發達國家唯一沒有的，也是60歲以後的人的生活質量在23個發達國家是最差的，人的平均壽命在23個發達國家裏排第23位。這是NEWS HOUR的醫療專題對NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE的采訪的內容。
憑什麽享受社會主義的MEDICARE的65歲以上的老幫菜們在工作時平均人均總共貢獻的6萬多的MEDICARE費用，卻享受17萬多的MEDICARE費用，年輕一點的就不能享受同樣的社會主義福利？
原因是政府降低福利開銷就會得罪選票。所以政府的項目都隻會越來越大，而且不計成本。最終造成的赤字可就不是現在計算的1個或者2個trillion, 而是上百個。
羊毛出自羊身上，解決這麽大的赤字，除了加稅，還要通脹。最後所有的財產都轉移到政府那裏去了。政府接管醫保是不是無本萬利啊？
所有的政府項目都像癌一樣，隻會越來越大。除了不得不由政府管的對外國際事務，政府項目是越少越好。
奧巴馬的目的是把health care這個大餅裝進政府的口袋，可以坐享20%的手續費，以及由現在非法移民轉變的將來選票。
至於其支持者，實在不明白除了動人的口號，他們還要什麽？去政府謀職？也許是為了符合我中華的官本位思想。
Thanks.
事實是有保險的一直在給沒保險的買單. 沒保險的看了病就跑，保險公司最後隻能漲有保險的保費。
簡單回答你的問題：
假如你有個急件必須明天送到收件人手中，你是交給美國郵局（政府）放心，還是交給UPS或FEDEX（私營）放心？郵局便宜，UPS和FEDEX貴，您選那一個？
醫保也是這個道理，沒錢你可以看MEDICAID診所，生命攸關的病老百寧願找最好的私人醫生看，多花些錢也認了。
奧巴馬和他的追隨者連這個道理都不懂嗎？ 怎麽會不懂？！奧巴馬為什麽還要一意孤行？因為這是他要的改革，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~~~
好觀點，you nailed it! 謝謝。
好觀點，謝謝。
整個醫保就是社會主義了？那社會主義也太簡單了吧！
博主你家是開保險公司滴？
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.
醫保不改革是不行的，就是不知道怎麽改才是好的
身邊有個朋友，生了一對雙胞胎，早產，在醫院裏住了一個月，費用10多萬，保險cover大部分，但還要自付2萬。每個月自費的和公司付的保險加起來要600了。他自己年收入4萬，不算低收入，但也不夠花，信用卡啊，房貸啊，債務加起來越滾越多，象這樣的家庭很多，還美其名曰中產階級
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.
舉個例子吧：在人人醫保的框架裏，如果某人的病需要3百萬美元醫治，政府給不給治療？如果給了他，那麽其他的人，任何人都可以申請300萬的醫療費了？現實裏有過這樣的事情麽？最終還不是一切由政府說了算？由當官的決定給誰治病，不給誰治病？
這點道理很多人都想不清楚，被大政府大口號蒙騙的，隻有小學生和被左派媒體洗腦的那一些群體。
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!
也許白宮需要製造議題把老百姓的注意力從金融危機引開？
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, 中產階級一有大病，即使有醫保， 也會破產。更不用說萬一失業，如何支付昂貴的個人醫保。
都特有錢，還是不怕死？或者以為自己永遠健康？很窮的人已經有社會醫保。中產階級一有大病，即使有醫保， 也會破產。更不用說萬一失業，如何支付昂貴的個人醫保。
感覺美國人寧願個人掙紮，輸贏自理，也不願別人插手，更怕別人沾了便宜。
回複人丹的評論:
很不理解美國人為什麽不支持社會醫保？富人不支持可以理解，窮人為什麽也不支持呢？
社會主義大鍋飯就是人人沒法吃飽飯。
即使樓下那個“英子”沒在大陸生活過，她家人至少還在大陸享受全民醫保的優惠吧？
那個飄俠真是說話一副大陸官員強調。這家夥腦袋徹底被洗殘了，標準不會獨立思考的奴才思維。
打著漂亮口號的，往往就是幹惡事的，這是普通人的基本常識。
除靠政府吃飯的人，都應該反對政府操作的醫保。
支持奧巴馬!!!!!!!
反對醫改的都是些利益集團。。。