[Bond]

I would move to end this discussion, as I see it going no where positive. But, at the risk of sounding rude and/or a cop out, I will reply to your last post. I took care to reply to every single one of your sentences, as you criticized me for not doing in the past.

Originally Posted by TheGame

I provided a reliable link to you that shows where the numbers came from(a link to a completly neutral online encyclopedia), and quoted the part that shows the source of the numbers. Which is more then you did to support those graphs. If you feel the source of the numbers are unreliable, and weren't suitible for this arguement (or suitable to be posted on wiki), then its your choice to persue that.

Your position on this matter is not logical. You introduced evidence. I then questioned you as to the methodology of the evidence you presented. The burden is on you, in a logical argument, to explain that methodology. You can refuse to do so, which is fine, but I am just letting you know that is where the burden rests.

Secondly, I am not so sure if I would classify Wikipedia as a "reliable link." Perhaps it is, but this is debatable. I would also note a strong criticism of the methodology used within your very quotation of Wikipedia. See the bold sentence:

Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[5][6] The WHO study has been criticized in a study published in Health Affairs for its methodology and lack of correlation with user satisfaction ratings.[7]

With that said, mind posting a link for everyone to see that shows those same graphs in that same context?

The CPI composite information is provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics archives, found here: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_dr.htm

The time composite of savings rates was compiled from the "Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States, Historical Data [1975-200]" as I already noted in my original post.

The charts were compiled by a professor that I worked with last year. He holds a PhD from Wharton, and teaches at the #2 Risk Management & Insurance school in the country. I consider him a reliable source.

I think the base problem with your arguement is that you fail to acknowledge the fact that a public healcare option is different from medicare and medicaid.

My showcase of medicare and medicaid is to use historical evidence that will infer how a public option would function. While I agree that medicare, medicaid, and a public option are different beasts, they are beasts that have the same mother. The inherent problems of medicare and medicaid as far as reimbursements (reference my hospital example in my second post) will remain, as well as other inherent issues of government intervention in the private sector.

Since the point of the public healthcare option is to help with the prices for people who CAN (or... shall I say 'should be able to') afford medical insurance and people who do have jobs, along with the elderly and people in poverty.

This is the same logic that the government used to create the very HMOs and PPOs that are now blamed for driving up the prices of health care.

This is a universal system, not something aimed directly at people who can't help themselves to an extent.

Okay.

And you fail to acknowledge that fact that healthcare is not something that should be ran completly by the private sector, and that its a human need instead of a luxury.

That is your opinion, which I respect, but you should be aware that there are adversarial opinions.

You completly ignored my comparision to public schooling. (The last thing you quoted in your second post was the closest you came to acknowledging it, and you completly missed the point making a reply out of context)

I did not consider your "public school analogy" to be germane to the discussion of a "Public option for health care." I did not want to divert our discussion to the education system. I acknowledge your comparison.

Do you honestly think the healthcare field is something that the government shouldn't have a foot in whatsoever?

I answered this question previously:

Generally speaking, I would advocate a return to less government intervention, when more payments for health care were made out-of-pocket. This would proportionatly decrease the cost that the individual pays for health care, as government intervention in industries inherently raises prices.