You Must Be A Liberal If...

[Bern80]

Won't happen...unless you are not including those who just aren't going.

Incorrect. As I pointed out before, anyone who is decently busy won't always have time the next day.

I did some more thinking about the supply side of this and I'm back to thinking that if price goes down supply/access will decrease. Think about this. We agreed that time was the commodity people were consuming, right? But to get real specific what people are consuing is free time, or the amount of time he has available in which to see people. This is most definately true if your assumption is correct that currenlty most doctor's time is not maxed out. Use a week for example. Monday morning at 8 am the doctor has 40 available hours in which to see and treat people. So let's use your assumption and say when the week is over the doctor still had 10 hours in which he could have seen someone. In other words his 40 available hours were not maxed out.

Now we have also agreed that affordablilty increases consumption. And what people are consuming is free time so if more free time is being consumed then there should be less of it.

This does not mean those who do not "need" to be treated immediatelly wait until their diseases are life threatening...rather just that they may not get treatment tomorrow.

Right now we don't really know how long they would wait. I think at least some analysis would be in order to determine if waits for things like cancer treatment will be longer or shorter under socialized medicine. Time is not a luxury most people with cancer have.

No, they won't go to the front of the line because they are poor. That was your assumption, not mine. That came from you asking how they were more deserving than the middle class.

What your assumption was, was that things would be better for the poor under socialized system. That may or not be tue under a need based system. Again just because you're poor doesn't mean you're ill.

Umm sure it does. They will need healthcare at the same, if not a higher rate than the rest of society...and when they don't get it they will continue to need it, while the rest of society gets treated.

I don't know. I think that you're makeing the assumption that since they're poor they must be sick.

Except that not going will never get treatd, while waiting does.

Just not neccessarily in time.

I have never found that it does. I've also found that the most popular of any service, especially a one time service, is generally the shittiest. The "best" major test prep companies are Kaplan and Princeton Review. Kaplan is the most well known and tons of people take them. They are incredibly shitty, and their methods are just fucking terrible. Their teachers are incompetent as well...its really quite sad.

Yes but for things like life threatening cancer people generally go for the best , whether they've had the experience of being treated or not. The best quality hospitls are known for that and not because people have had a bunch of repeatadly good experiences at them. People go to the Mayo clinic for example, because they have the best and brightest.

Exactly what do you think is happening in Britain? And no, if our government provides health insurance they might be inefficient, but they probably won't be refusing all sorts of claims for profit.

turning bedsheets instead of washing them, deprioritizing smokers, to name a couple.

 

[Larkinn]

I did some more thinking about the supply side of this and I'm back to thinking that if price goes down supply/access will decrease. Think about this. We agreed that time was the commodity people were consuming, right? But to get real specific what people are consuing is free time, or the amount of time he has available in which to see people. This is most definately true if your assumption is correct that currenlty most doctor's time is not maxed out. Use a week for example. Monday morning at 8 am the doctor has 40 available hours in which to see and treat people. So let's use your assumption and say when the week is over the doctor still had 10 hours in which he could have seen someone. In other words his 40 available hours were not maxed out.

As I said before, I was seeing supply to mean not how much currently exists, but much can be produced. Supply will stay the same.

Now we have also agreed that affordablilty increases consumption. And what people are consuming is free time so if more free time is being consumed then there should be less of it.

Yes.

Right now we don't really know how long they would wait. I think at least some analysis would be in order to determine if waits for things like cancer treatment will be longer or shorter under socialized medicine. Time is not a luxury most people with cancer have.

And hence those with cancer would get treated quickly. At least in theory. My argument was never that socialized medicine is necessarily better, merely that there is no reason to think that it won't work, and we have a moral responsibility to seriously consider it. Neither you nor I have the intelligence nor the experience nor the knowledge to consider it on the level that it needs to be considered.

What your assumption was, was that things would be better for the poor under socialized system. That may or not be tue under a need based system. Again just because you're poor doesn't mean you're ill.

The poor is a group of people. Of that group I can definitely assure you that at least some are ill, or would benefit from a doctors visit.

I don't know. I think that you're makeing the assumption that since they're poor they must be sick.

I'm not.

Just not neccessarily in time.

Of course. No system is perfect and every system will kill people.

Yes but for things like life threatening cancer people generally go for the best , whether they've had the experience of being treated or not. The best quality hospitls are known for that and not because people have had a bunch of repeatadly good experiences at them. People go to the Mayo clinic for example, because they have the best and brightest.

My point is that you don't KNOW what the best is. Know what Sloan Ketering is? They have an "excellent reputation" which is in part because they advertise all the time in the tri-metro area. But its actually quite a crappy hospital.

turning bedsheets instead of washing them, deprioritizing smokers, to name a couple.

Please provide a link to the bedsheets claim. The deprioritizing smokers was a recommendation by one person in one small regional area in Britain which was reported mostly by the Daily News with no corroborating sources.

 

[Bern80]

As I said before, I was seeing supply to mean not how much currently exists, but much can be produced. Supply will stay the same.

Yes in that there will always 24 hours in a day I suppose. But what difference does that makes to the people who want to be treated? All they care about in terms of supply is how soon they can be seen. Because a greater number of people will be consuming the same amount of available time, supply will go down.

And hence those with cancer would get treated quickly. At least in theory. My argument was never that socialized medicine is necessarily better, merely that there is no reason to think that it won't work, and we have a moral responsibility to seriously consider it. Neither you nor I have the intelligence nor the experience nor the knowledge to consider it on the level that it needs to be considered.

If you don't have the knowledge, intelligence or experience why are you advocating it in the first place? Your goal has always been affordable healthcare for all. There are dozens upon dozens of solutions for that. Many of which can work without government involvement. Do you really want the government determining for you how sick you are and thus whether you deserve to be treated or not?

You talk about moral responsiblilty. Yet your solution only serves a very small percentage of the people that would benefit from that solution. Because in truth the vast majority of people do get treatment when they need it. In a need based system 40 million uninsured aren't miraculously going to require healthcare. The care will go to who needs it. Now out of that 40 million I believe you quoted something like 18,000 people who's death were directly attributable to not haveing insurance. So presumabley those 18,000 would have received the care they needed before they died under socialized medicine. That's .006% of the population that truly benefitted from socialized medicine. Is a degradation in the health and healthcare of 300,982,000 people for the sake of 18,000 really moral?

Of course. No system is perfect and every system will kill people.

and i think socialized medicine certainly has the potential to kill more. For a number of reasons.

1) First and foremost the horribly slow beauracracy that is our government.

2) Doctors aren't going to be able to meet demand as quickly. Remember new demand isn't going to come from just the previoulsy uninsured. It will also come from the 260 million who's healthcare is now completely free.

3) And maybe we need to debate this a little more, you're going to get increased demand from some less than savory people. if it's strictly a need based system then someone who smoked all theirlife may need a transplant just as much as someone who contracted cancer through not fault of their own. Is it really moral to give the smoker a luing instead of the other person?

My point is that you don't KNOW what the best is. Know what Sloan Ketering is? They have an "excellent reputation" which is in part because they advertise all the time in the tri-metro area. But its actually quite a crappy hospital.

From my personal experience, yes I do know. I know the mayo clinic is superior to the U of M because I've experienced both. I also don't beleive advertising dupes people into thinking one hospital is better than another. I don't know where you live, but I'm not exactley seeing ads for hospitals on every commercial break.

 

[Larkinn]

If you don't have the knowledge, intelligence or experience why are you advocating it in the first place? Your goal has always been affordable healthcare for all. There are dozens upon dozens of solutions for that. Many of which can work without government involvement. Do you really want the government determining for you how sick you are and thus whether you deserve to be treated or not?

Really? Please tell me of a healthcare system that can work without government involvement for a family of four making under 16,000 a year. And my point has been to show that its possible, and should be considered.

You talk about moral responsiblilty. Yet your solution only serves a very small percentage of the people that would benefit from that solution. Because in truth the vast majority of people do get treatment when they need it.

Vast majority? I disagree.

In a need based system 40 million uninsured aren't miraculously going to require healthcare. The care will go to who needs it. Now out of that 40 million I believe you quoted something like 18,000 people who's death were directly attributable to not haveing insurance. So presumabley those 18,000 would have received the care they needed before they died under socialized medicine. That's .006% of the population that truly benefitted from socialized medicine. Is a degradation in the health and healthcare of 300,982,000 people for the sake of 18,000 really moral?

The levels of benefit are not equal. This comparison does not work on so many levels.

and i think socialized medicine certainly has the potential to kill more. For a number of reasons.

1) First and foremost the horribly slow beauracracy that is our government.

I trust inefficiency over greed any day.

2) Doctors aren't going to be able to meet demand as quickly. Remember new demand isn't going to come from just the previoulsy uninsured. It will also come from the 260 million who's healthcare is now completely free.

Demand is NOT the thing that matters, how many people live/die because of the system is.

3) And maybe we need to debate this a little more, you're going to get increased demand from some less than savory people. if it's strictly a need based system then someone who smoked all theirlife may need a transplant just as much as someone who contracted cancer through not fault of their own. Is it really moral to give the smoker a luing instead of the other person?

No, we don't need to debate it. We don't judge who gets saved based on whether they are a good person or not.

From my personal experience, yes I do know. I know the mayo clinic is superior to the U of M because I've experienced both. I also don't beleive advertising dupes people into thinking one hospital is better than another. I don't know where you live, but I'm not exactley seeing ads for hospitals on every commercial break.

Thats because hospitals arent purely for profit nowadays. Take government completely out of the health industry, and they will be. Look at industries which do have massive amounts of ads, and look at the standards there and what they've managed to get away with.

 

[Bern80]

Really? Please tell me of a healthcare system that can work without government involvement for a family of four making under 16,000 a year. And my point has been to show that its possible, and should be considered.

Ours. The current level of government involvement is part of the problem.

Vast majority? I disagree.

85% compared to 15% I would say constitutes a vast majority. You can disagree all you want. Do you have any evidence that it isn't true?

I trust inefficiency over greed any day.

You trust teh results of inefficiencey ove greed? Why are people greedy? Because they want money. How do people get money? By selling a superior product or service. You are working on the flawed assumption, based on what I don't know, that government is a savior and without it all businesses will do what they can to screw people. That simply isn't true.

Demand is NOT the thing that matters, how many people live/die because of the system is.

Of course demand matters. People who are dieing demand healthcare.

No, we don't need to debate it. We don't judge who gets saved based on whether they are a good person or not.

But that runs counter to your morality argument. To give a life long smoker (who in this day and age knows full well what they're setting themselves up for) a lung over someone who contracted a rare lung cancer through no fault of their own is not moral.

Thats because hospitals arent purely for profit nowadays. Take government completely out of the health industry, and they will be. Look at industries which do have massive amounts of ads, and look at the standards there and what they've managed to get away with.

I think you misunderstand what drives profits for most companies. it isn't swindling at ever turn as many people as they can to make a buck. Most companies that are profitable are so because they are good at what they do, not because they're crooked.

 

[Larkinn]

Ours. The current level of government involvement is part of the problem.

A family of four making that much cannot afford healthcare without government assistance.

85% compared to 15% I would say constitutes a vast majority. You can disagree all you want. Do you have any evidence that it isn't true?

I disagree that it is a vast majority.

You trust teh results of inefficiencey ove greed? Why are people greedy? Because they want money. How do people get money? By selling a superior product or service.

Lmao...people get money by selling a superior product or service? People get money by selling something that other people want...for a variety of reasons. A superior service is rarely the reason something actually gets bought. It can be the impression of a superior service, but that is rarely actually the case.

You are working on the flawed assumption, based on what I don't know, that government is a savior and without it all businesses will do what they can to screw people. That simply isn't true.

Not all of them, but enough that I'd like some protection against. Look at businesses in the third world and how wonderfully altruistic they all act. Poisoning residents, strip mining land, dumping raw sewage in residential areas.

Of course demand matters. People who are dieing demand healthcare.

Poor ones who are dying demand it as well. Or do those not matter as much?

But that runs counter to your morality argument. To give a life long smoker (who in this day and age knows full well what they're setting themselves up for) a lung over someone who contracted a rare lung cancer through no fault of their own is not moral.

Dude...I know this may come as a shock to you...but morals between different people are often different. You think its moral to save lives based on personal life decisions, I don't.

I think you misunderstand what drives profits for most companies. it isn't swindling at ever turn as many people as they can to make a buck. Most companies that are profitable are so because they are good at what they do, not because they're crooked.

Crooked is a meaningless term. Companies are profitable because they are good at making money, not necessarily because they are good at making whatever they make. McDonalds make shit hamburgers, but yet they are all over. Kaplan is full of shit teachers, but yet they are all over.

 

[Bern80]

I disagree that it is a vast majority.

You said that before. Now you need to prove it.

Lmao...people get money by selling a superior product or service? People get money by selling something that other people want...for a variety of reasons. A superior service is rarely the reason something actually gets bought. It can be the impression of a superior service, but that is rarely actually the case.

And of course quality has absolutely nothing to do with why people want something. You are working on the basic assumption again, they people don't by things based on quality, but rather that their somehow being duped. That is a pretty major, baseless assumption.

Overall you seem to have a truly pessismistic view of why businesses operate the way they operate. You use examples like Enron and Kaplan as if they are the rule rather than the exception.

Not all of them, but enough that I'd like some protection against. Look at businesses in the third world and how wonderfully altruistic they all act. Poisoning residents, strip mining land, dumping raw sewage in residential areas.

We aren't the third world. They do what they do because their consumers don't have the power that ours have.

Poor ones who are dying demand it as well. Or do those not matter as much?

Of course they matter. I want everyone to have access to healthcare as much as you do. I simply beleive socizlized medicine is going to make things worse for them. In a socialized situation need comes first. That being the case there is still as much likely hood that the poor will not get access to healthcare.

That and I don't beleive it's moral to make 85% percent of our population worse off to make something less than 15% better off.

Dude...I know this may come as a shock to you...but morals between different people are often different. You think its moral to save lives based on personal life decisions, I don't.

All things being equal than how would you decide. Would you be able to look that family in the eye and say I'm sorry your wife is gonna die because we decdied to give the lung to a person that basically caused their own problem?

What does different morals between diferent people have to do with anything. You think either of those people that need a lung give rats ass what the others morals are?

Crooked is a meaningless term. Companies are profitable because they are good at making money, not necessarily because they are good at making whatever they make. McDonalds make shit hamburgers, but yet they are all over. Kaplan is full of shit teachers, but yet they are all over.

Why are companies good at makeing money? Up to this point you seem to be arguing that it has more to do with advertising and dupeing people than it does the quality of their product or service.

 

[Larkinn]

You said that before. Now you need to prove it.

Sure. I don't think that 85% is a vast majority. I disagree with your definition of the word vast...and my evidence is that its my opinion and hence I am right about my own opinion.

And of course quality has absolutely nothing to do with why people want something. You are working on the basic assumption again, they people don't by things based on quality, but rather that their somehow being duped. That is a pretty major, baseless assumption.

Go look at any major business in this country. Which are the ones that got big...the ones that have quality, or the ones that are cheap? Why do you think we have so many Chinese goods in this country...because the Chinese are exceptionally good at making high quality goods?

Overall you seem to have a truly pessismistic view of why businesses operate the way they operate. You use examples like Enron and Kaplan as if they are the rule rather than the exception.

No, I have a realistic view. Businesses operate to make money. That is why they exist and that is their first goal. Kaplan isn't just terrible...it has the best reputation out there. Thats what I really find staggering about the entire thing. Its created a good reputation out of nothing but advertising.

We aren't the third world. They do what they do because their consumers don't have the power that ours have.

Incorrect. They do what they do because there is no government regulation.

Of course they matter. I want everyone to have access to healthcare as much as you do. I simply beleive socizlized medicine is going to make things worse for them. In a socialized situation need comes first. That being the case there is still as much likely hood that the poor will not get access to healthcare.

I know, its terrible that need would come first before income, yes?

That and I don't beleive it's moral to make 85% percent of our population worse off to make something less than 15% better off.

So I take it you were in favor of keeping the slaves? It made most of the population worse off and improved the lot of a small portion of the population. Nice to see where your morals lie.

All things being equal than how would you decide. Would you be able to look that family in the eye and say I'm sorry your wife is gonna die because we decdied to give the lung to a person that basically caused their own problem?

You decide randomly. And no, I wouldnt be able to look either family in the eye and tell them that for whatever reason their loved one would die. But I would have equal difficulty.

What does different morals between diferent people have to do with anything. You think either of those people that need a lung give rats ass what the others morals are?

I think they care very much about what the morals are of the people who decide who gets the lung and who does not.

Why are companies good at makeing money? Up to this point you seem to be arguing that it has more to do with advertising and dupeing people than it does the quality of their product or service.

Why are they good at making money? A variety of reasons. One can be the quality of their products or service, but as I said before, except in the cases where customers revisit them constantly (and even in many of those cases), I don't think there is much of a correlation between reputation and actual quality of service.

 

[Annie]

You said that before. Now you need to prove it.



And of course quality has absolutely nothing to do with why people want something. You are working on the basic assumption again, they people don't by things based on quality, but rather that their somehow being duped. That is a pretty major, baseless assumption.

Overall you seem to have a truly pessismistic view of why businesses operate the way they operate. You use examples like Enron and Kaplan as if they are the rule rather than the exception.



We aren't the third world. They do what they do because their consumers don't have the power that ours have.



Of course they matter. I want everyone to have access to healthcare as much as you do. I simply beleive socizlized medicine is going to make things worse for them. In a socialized situation need comes first. That being the case there is still as much likely hood that the poor will not get access to healthcare.

That and I don't beleive it's moral to make 85% percent of our population worse off to make something less than 15% better off.



All things being equal than how would you decide. Would you be able to look that family in the eye and say I'm sorry your wife is gonna die because we decdied to give the lung to a person that basically caused their own problem?

What does different morals between diferent people have to do with anything. You think either of those people that need a lung give rats ass what the others morals are?



Why are companies good at makeing money? Up to this point you seem to be arguing that it has more to do with advertising and dupeing people than it does the quality of their product or service.

LOL! Larking getting ass kicked in two different threads. No doubt it's because of his 'superior' debating skills.

 

[Larkinn]

LOL! Larking getting ass kicked in two different threads. No doubt it's because of his 'superior' debating skills.

God...you've already vomitted your drunken ramblings on one thread, leave my other threads alone.

 

[Annie]

God...you've already vomitted your drunken ramblings on one thread, leave my other threads alone.

I'm close to reporting your lame ass whines. Copying other posters on attacks is not the way to go. You have nothing †o hang here.

 

[Larkinn]

I'm close to reporting your lame ass whines. Copying other posters on attacks is not the way to go. You have nothing †o hang here.

Feel free to report me. Gunny will laugh at you. By the way, if you are going to whine and bitch about me attacking you, it would behoove you not to attack me as well.

 

[Annie]

Feel free to report me. Gunny will laugh at you. By the way, if you are going to whine and bitch about me attacking you, it would behoove you not to attack me as well.

You may or may not be correct about Gunny laughing. However I doubt it would be about me. I've not mentioned any of your problems other than your ability to back up what you claim. You on the other hand, wish to go for personal attacks.

Gunny?

 

[Larkinn]

You may or may not be correct about Gunny laughing. However I doubt it would be about me. I've not mentioned any of your problems other than your ability to back up what you claim. You on the other hand, wish to go for personal attacks.

Gunny?

Said by Kathianne:

You are a shill.

Right now, you are one of the sheep of the left

Sir, you are a loser and poseur of the first order.

Pwned as the stupid liar that you are. Now please leave this thread to those who actually have something to contribute to this conversation.

 

[Annie]

Said by Kathianne:







Pwned as the stupid liar that you are. Now please leave this thread to those who actually have something to contribute to this conversation.

Sorry junior, those were not 'problems' just reality.

 

[Larkinn]

Sorry junior, those were not 'problems' just reality.

Nice dodge. You lied and got caught. Now we can all watch you squirm.

 

[Annie]

Nice dodge. You lied and got caught. Now we can all watch you squirm.

I'll wait for other comments. You sir, are a lame responder, but I doubt you can help that. Expert on UN,

 

[Bern80]

Sure. I don't think that 85% is a vast majority. I disagree with your definition of the word vast...and my evidence is that its my opinion and hence I am right about my own opinion.

Then what is a vast majority?

Incorrect. They do what they do because there is no government regulation.

Or a government that is as equally corrupt as they are and willing to look the other way.

I know, its terrible that need would come first before income, yes?

No. But it runs counter to your stated goal. that poor people get access to health care. Under socialized medicien there is no garuntee that will happen. I also don't want our government telling me what I need and when I need it.

Try to set up as system that makes everybody equally worse off isn't much of a solution.

So I take it you were in favor of keeping the slaves? It made most of the population worse off and improved the lot of a small portion of the population. Nice to see where your morals lie.

You tried to use this argument before. Not haveing slaves didn't make people worse off. It made their lives less convenient maybe, but not worse. Makeing the statement that because I believe in x requires that I believe in y is silly. I'm not makeing the argument that we need to sacrafice a minority for the sake of the majority either.

I'm saying the government involvment in health care will not improve our healthcare system for the uninsured. We only know one thing for certain that it will accomplish and that is they will be able to afford it.

It doesn't garuntee prompt access

It doesn't garuntee the required resources will be there to treat you.

It doesn't garuntee even if you really need care that you will receive it.

I think they care very much about what the morals are of the people who decide who gets the lung and who does not.

If you propose the decision be made randomly then morals have nothing to do with it.

Why are they good at making money? A variety of reasons. One can be the quality of their products or service, but as I said before, except in the cases where customers revisit them constantly (and even in many of those cases), I don't think there is much of a correlation between reputation and actual quality of service.

I woudl disagree on that one. It's my opinion therefor it's right.

 

[Larkinn]

Then what is a vast majority?

I would say something like 95%+. But its irrelevant really.

Or a government that is as equally corrupt as they are and willing to look the other way.

Government you at least has SOME control over.

No. But it runs counter to your stated goal. that poor people get access to health care. Under socialized medicien there is no garuntee that will happen. I also don't want our government telling me what I need and when I need it.

It does run counter to my goal. It does not fulfill it completely, but it definitely does not run counter to it.

Try to set up as system that makes everybody equally worse off isn't much of a solution.

15% of the population is much better off.

You tried to use this argument before. Not haveing slaves didn't make people worse off. It made their lives less convenient maybe, but not worse.

Sure it did. Those that are poor are worse off than those that are rich.

Makeing the statement that because I believe in x requires that I believe in y is silly. I'm not makeing the argument that we need to sacrafice a minority for the sake of the majority either.

Yes, you are making that argument. You are arguing that its ok to let 18,000 people a year DIE because to save them would make healthcare worse for the majority. You are exactly saying that you should sacrafice the minority, the 18k, for the majority.

I'm saying the government involvment in health care will not improve our healthcare system for the uninsured. We only know one thing for certain that it will accomplish and that is they will be able to afford it.

Yes, it will improve healthcare for the uninsured. It is very difficult to have healthcare so bad that not having it is worse than having it.

It doesn't garuntee prompt access

Of course not. Nothing does.

It doesn't garuntee the required resources will be there to treat you.

See above.

It doesn't garuntee even if you really need care that you will receive it.

See above.

If you propose the decision be made randomly then morals have nothing to do with it.

Yes it does. It is a moral decision to say that it should be made randomly.

I woudl disagree on that one. It's my opinion therefor it's right.

Fabulous reading comprehension skills you have.

 

[Bern80]

I would say something like 95%+. But its irrelevant really.

It's very relevant. For how few people do you sacrafice the good of the whole?

Government you at least has SOME control over.

Tell it to the citizens of countries living under a dictatorship.

It does not run counter to my goal. It does not fulfill it completely, but it definitely does not run counter to it.

If it doesn't fulfill your goal, what's the point?

15% of the population is much better off.

Under any system of healthcare administration there will alway be people who won't have access. There will always be some percentage that is worse off then everybody else.

Sure it did. Those that are poor are worse off than those that are rich.

If you define success monetarily I suppose, yes. Not all people do. I beleive you have even claimed to be one of those people.

Yes, you are making that argument. You are arguing that its ok to let 18,000 people a year DIE because to save them would make healthcare worse for the majority. You are exactly saying that you should sacrafice the minority, the 18k, for the majority.

No I'm not. I'm saying your system is a poor solution to the problem of healthcare access for all. Again I want everyone to have healthcare as much as the next person. At the same time I don't beleive it is right to make 85% of the population worse off for the sake of only possibly helping less than 15% You are sacraficing 85% of the population on the chance that it might save 18,000 people. And you want to argue that that's moral?

An ideal solution is one that maintains or improves upon the acces for all such that anyone who needs it can receive prompt attention. The only way that can happen is that supply of free time must increase. The only way for that to happen is for the supply of doctors to increase (which we are already short of). If you really want socialized medicine that is the first obstacle to tackle. Personally I don't beleive government run health care is going to be able to provide more doctors.

You won't allow for any other solution based purely on unproven assumptions. the first best option in my opinion is for government to deregulate the industry. is it any wonder why healthcare is so expensive when malpractice insureance is $100,000
a year. Or why insureance premiums are so expensive when it costs so much money to show government compliance? Not haveing that would allow physicians and insurance companies to reduce prices. Those they don't because they are trying gouge people or whatever will be called on it by the consumers in which case they will either have to follow suit and lower prices or go out of business.

Yes, it will improve healthcare for the uninsured. It is very difficult to have healthcare so bad that not having it is worse than having it.

Again there is no improvement in heatlhcare for them if they don't receive it when they need it, and by your own admittance there is no garuntee that they will.

Fabulous reading comprehension skills you have.

Note to self: Larkin is the only person who is allowed to claim his opinion is right.