wow

this liberal network makes just one little foray into real journalism this week and they are now part of that famous RWC

that'l teach um

I HATE IT WHEN CLICK AND CLACK TALK ABOUT HOW AWFUL SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS IS. Lousy Commies.

/me wonders how NPR is a liberal network when they report on and include all sides in every debate or discussions.

Btw. Do enjoy This American Life and This I Believe.

The average cost of a health-insurance policy for a family of four doubled between 2000 and 2007, host Ira Glass said, and it is projected to double again in the next seven years. Health-care costs are spiraling out of control, eating into the wages of those who have insurance and making it harder for the uninsured to buy it.

A much glossed over fact. Health Care costs are skyrocketing. If WE don't try and fix it... it will continue to skyrocket. If you try and fix it... it will continue to skyrocket.

So shouldn't we try and fix it anyway?

There are several countries that have made it work..why can't we?

The reason I see that we won't actually fix anything is that one Political Party is afraid the other might be successful at something so both will make sure the other fails.

And so.... we all will lose.

Welcome to the American Monkey House.

Funny Donner, the reason I lost faith in an actual solutions is that the government is run by the stooges of the insurance companies, banks, pharma, ect. They practically write our bills for us now and our elected officials just look the other way and cash the checks.

All we do is throw the fox in the hen house, then complain when the chickens are gone.

an = any

"NPR is part of a vast right wing conspiracy"

Duh? They're not called National Petroleum Radio for nothing.

foray into real journalism this week and they are now part of that famous RWC

We know FOX will never be considered part of the socialist conspiracy, then.

4. Obamacare won't fix it. The NPR team did not come right out and say it, but its reporting points to this conclusion. Alex Blumberg put it this way:

Markets are usually really good at controlling costs. When they work best, products come into existence like cell phones or stockings, they start expensive and then they get cheaper and better. But markets don't guarantee that everyone can afford the things they need. Government can be good at that, ensuring universal access. But when you're paying for everybody, it's hard to control costs.

For [economic historian] Melissa Thomasson, she says that either extreme a competitive market system where consumers know what price they're paying and what they're getting, which would drive the cost of health care down, or a government-run system which would cover everyone would be better than the accidental mixture that we have today: a really expensive system that doesn't cover us all.

Obamacare would pour even more cement over this broken system. It's not a single-payer system that would cover everyone and control costs through price controls and rationing. Nor is it a market-oriented reform that would empower consumers by equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance and reducing the role of government in the market. Instead, it makes health insurance mandatory for everyone. It bends the cost curve up by subsidizing insurance without putting any real cost-control measures in place. And it creates a public option that would weaken the power of insurance companies to bargain with hospitals for better rates.