I am a big fan of factcheck and I cited them in several parts of this guide, I feel they go a great job of cutting through the cruft.

I also like Cato's approach to discussing politics even if I don't entirely agree with them on some issues. Typically, they try to raise the level of discourse which is something I appreciate.

If nothing else, I'm glad we were able to discuss this reasonably. I admit that this isn't a perfect guide, there is too much information for a single person to parse even given the amount of time I spent working through it. The issue is complicated further by all the misinformation that is floating around.

That being said, I hope more people like you will read this guide and point things like that out. It only serves to help people see that you can discuss a hot button issue like this without all the name calling and general insanity that I've seen in recent policy debates.

Thanks again!

My primary issues with your site

- This discourse is already far too emotional. You can't possibly
make it devoid of emotion. By taking a satirical approach –
especially a mean-spirited one – only throws gasoline on a fire.
- I think there is pretty universal acknowledgement that healthcare in
America needs to be reformed, the issue is the type of reforms. An
enumeration on the points of (general) agreement and disagreement
would be helpful. Especially if the areas of disagreement were (non-
emotionally) articulated taking into account the general
perspectives. This is NOT an easy task, but would likely be the most
beneficial (which is why I was hoping that someone had already done it).

Some sites that are helpful? A couple of suggestions: http://www.cato.org
(a libertarian perspective with a long history of having strong points
of agreement and disagreement on major political issues and
politicians from both sides of the aisle) and factcheck.org.

Cheers

Nonpartisan does not mean devoid of emotional content. Both sides of this debate have strong opinions that are colored in large part by politics.

Video 1 shows a group of people fighting for what they believe to be unnecessary or poorly structured reform. Some of the statements they make might be considered -highly- inflammatory if you happened to be on the other side. Video 6 shows a very similar thing except the makers of the video are on the other side and are using satire to make their point.

Videos 2 and 3 show what I consider very reasoned arguments from both sides of the debate.

Videos 4 and 5 (the videos on bringing guns to town hall meetings and Obama's take on the reform respectively) are highly interpretative. Video 4 is seen through the lens of someone who is pro reform talking to someone who is against it. Video 5 is seen through the lens of someone who is against reform commenting on someone who is (obviously) for it.

The point here is that section was designed to give a cross-section of public opinion in this debate after presenting the facts. Public opinion has been, for the most part, highly partisan. If you look at some of the videos out there you'll see that the ones I picked are no where near as one-sided as the vast majority of the material available. Not only that but they explore both sides of the issue.

Again, I don't know where you stand on healthcare reform and I'm not about to guess but I'd say look at the entire “guide” again as compared to the public debate on the issue. What I hope you see is that it is as close to a measured response as you can really hope to write about an issue this partisan.

If you have any videos, links or other materials that you think would “balance” it I'd love to see them.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Cheers,

I am a big fan of factcheck and I cited them in several parts of this guide, I feel they go a great job of cutting through the cruft.

I also like Cato's approach to discussing politics even if I don't entirely agree with them on some issues. Typically, they try to raise the level of discourse which is something I appreciate.

If nothing else, I'm glad we were able to discuss this reasonably. I admit that this isn't a perfect guide, there is too much information for a single person to parse even given the amount of time I spent working through it. The issue is complicated further by all the misinformation that is floating around.

That being said, I hope more people like you will read this guide and point things like that out. It only serves to help people see that you can discuss a hot button issue like this without all the name calling and general insanity that I've seen in recent policy debates.

Thanks again!

My primary issues with your site

- This discourse is already far too emotional. You can't possibly
make it devoid of emotion. By taking a satirical approach –
especially a mean-spirited one – only throws gasoline on a fire.
- I think there is pretty universal acknowledgement that healthcare in
America needs to be reformed, the issue is the type of reforms. An
enumeration on the points of (general) agreement and disagreement
would be helpful. Especially if the areas of disagreement were (non-
emotionally) articulated taking into account the general
perspectives. This is NOT an easy task, but would likely be the most
beneficial (which is why I was hoping that someone had already done it).

Some sites that are helpful? A couple of suggestions: http://www.cato.org
(a libertarian perspective with a long history of having strong points
of agreement and disagreement on major political issues and
politicians from both sides of the aisle) and factcheck.org.

Cheers

Nonpartisan does not mean devoid of emotional content. Both sides of this debate have strong opinions that are colored in large part by politics.

Video 1 shows a group of people fighting for what they believe to be unnecessary or poorly structured reform. Some of the statements they make might be considered -highly- inflammatory if you happened to be on the other side. Video 6 shows a very similar thing except the makers of the video are on the other side and are using satire to make their point.

Videos 2 and 3 show what I consider very reasoned arguments from both sides of the debate.

Videos 4 and 5 (the videos on bringing guns to town hall meetings and Obama's take on the reform respectively) are highly interpretative. Video 4 is seen through the lens of someone who is pro reform talking to someone who is against it. Video 5 is seen through the lens of someone who is against reform commenting on someone who is (obviously) for it.

The point here is that section was designed to give a cross-section of public opinion in this debate after presenting the facts. Public opinion has been, for the most part, highly partisan. If you look at some of the videos out there you'll see that the ones I picked are no where near as one-sided as the vast majority of the material available. Not only that but they explore both sides of the issue.

Again, I don't know where you stand on healthcare reform and I'm not about to guess but I'd say look at the entire “guide” again as compared to the public debate on the issue. What I hope you see is that it is as close to a measured response as you can really hope to write about an issue this partisan.

If you have any videos, links or other materials that you think would “balance” it I'd love to see them.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Cheers,

The answer is unquestionably “future generations.” Which is a convenient scapegoat that both parties rely on to keep near-term thinkers at bay. If you look at the most recent conflict in Iraq you will see a serious long-term economic boondoggle that was justified as a necessary expense for a variety of political reasons that aren't worth going over again here.

My argument “about” Health Care Reform as a principle is that it is necessary. Without any reform, Health Care costs will -still- require most (if not all) of the GDP to sustain in the next 15-20 years (by some estimates). Everyone paying attention knows that this is not a system that can continue. It would be political suicide for either side to admit that.

Where I think this particular plan offers a step in a positive direction is that it seeks to identify inefficiency in the current system and resolve it. I wouldn't put money on that working out as the cheerleaders would say it would, but it is a proactive government step towards change. The odds of the entire thing changing 500 times before it actually becomes law are so high I'd leave it at that for now.

My conclusion to all of this is that we are on a train heading towards a brick wall. Half of the country wants to stay on the train, the other half wants to switch to a track that will potentially head towards yet another brick wall. Most people neither know they are on a train nor see the wall that they are running into. Those who see both aren't talking about it because it would put the fear of god into the constituency.

This entire exercise is designed to put information out there and allow others to make decisions based on it. I tried to pick -reasonable- elements to describe both sides opinions on the matter.

Even this post focuses largely on near-term risks instead of combining near-term and long-term risks. For example, your conclusions about private insurance and rationing focus on whether this single legislative step accomplishes the risks being highlighted by those opposing government healthcare. However, the President has specifically stated his goal of single payer:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program…. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” via http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-...

On the topic of near-term vs. long-term, note the President's use of “we may not get there immediately.” That puts today's legislation in its appropriate context, as a step towards an ultimate goal.

Even without knowing the President's stated long-term goal, economics can help predict the long-term consequences of a “public option” that has the ability to sustain losses, supported by higher taxation or future generation deficits. A government competitor that isn't subject to profit/loss/market forces ultimately puts private insurers out of business, resulting in higher taxes and/or fewer choices for all. If that government competitor succeeds in putting all others out of business (via economics or politics), healthcare rationing of the sort Rahm Emmanuel's brother outlines is a very real risk.

Therefore, your summation that private insurers will not be driven of out business and government-driven rationing will not occur lacks a time frame for full analysis. Although today's language may not achieve those outcomes immediately, they are very real long-term risks of today's legislation for government healthcare.