Lord -

The problem is that I'm not paying for choice. I'm paying for bureaucracy. For example, I had to get a very specific plan because I live in Ohio. Rather than get a plan that fits my lifestyle, or coverage goals, I got into a plan that was simply 'there' because the rules of health care regulation demand that is what I get.

I want to be able to have the same choices I have for auto insurance. Until the government fixes that (and they aren't under this bill), then I will continue to get health care that I don't want at a price I don't like.

Understandable.
I get covered for everything. Sure getting some of the better or newer treatments might be a postcode lottery but that isn't the norm and not as widespread as thought. I can't believe in somewhere as developed as America people want to the right to chose what level of health cover they get like they can with car insurance.

For what you pay I'm reminded of this joke
The Queen was visiting one of London’s top hospitals and she specified she wanted to see absolutely everything. During her tour of the floors she passed a room where a male patient was masturbating.

"Oh my", said the Queen, "that’s disgraceful, what is the meaning of this?"

The Doctor leading the tour explains; "I am sorry Your Majesty, but this man has a very serious medical condition and is only following doctors" orders. His body produces too much semen and his testicles keep overfilling. Until we can find out exactly what is causing this problem he has been instructed to do that at least 5 times a day or there is a very real danger that his testicles will explode, and he would die instantly."

"Oh, I am so sorry", said the Queen.

On the next floor they passed a room where a nubile young nurse was giving patient a blo*w jo*b.

"Oh my", said the Queen,"What’s happening in there?"

The Doctor replied, "Same problem, but he’s with BUPA"

@Kasz. That's one of the major problems with your government system, as your parties are relatively weak (have little control over their members) you have to basically bribe the individual lawmakers with deals for their individual electorates.

You need to have more powerful whips =P

Rath said: @Kasz. That's one of the major problems with your government system, as your parties are relatively weak (have little control over their members) you have to basically bribe the individual lawmakers with deals for their individual electorates. You need to have more powerful whips =P

I disagree.  I think that them having less control over their members means that if you get rid of bribes your only going to pass good legislation because people aren't going to go by blind group think.

Kasz216 said: Rath said: @Kasz. That's one of the major problems with your government system, as your parties are relatively weak (have little control over their members) you have to basically bribe the individual lawmakers with deals for their individual electorates. You need to have more powerful whips =P I disagree.  I think that them having less control over their members means that if you get rid of bribes your only going to pass good legislation because people aren't going to go by blind group think.

Yes but all major legislation is going to be hideously bloated by individual interests. Pork barrel I think you guys call it over there?

Rath said: Kasz216 said: Rath said: @Kasz. That's one of the major problems with your government system, as your parties are relatively weak (have little control over their members) you have to basically bribe the individual lawmakers with deals for their individual electorates. You need to have more powerful whips =P I disagree.  I think that them having less control over their members means that if you get rid of bribes your only going to pass good legislation because people aren't going to go by blind group think. Yes but all major legislation is going to be hideously bloated by individual interests. Pork barrel I think you guys call it over there?

Yeah, that's what the REAL weaknesses is.  Currently there is no process that prevents favoritive giving and the other party never calls out the first because they do the same.  Really need an independent minded person sitting in on the sessions of congress reporting the daily pork giveaways.

Perhaps national party elections alongside electorate representatives would give a better system. Have half of the representatives elected along party lines and the other half elected by their constituencies.

Rath said: Perhaps national party elections alongside electorate representatives would give a better system. Have half of the representatives elected along party lines and the other half elected by their constituencies.

In the hopes that the national congressmen would be more against state specific things. It could work... but I think only if we moved to government funded elections. It would be bothersome and slightly restricting to prevent private groups from buying add time... but I think it'd be worth it... and the FCC isnt doing anything anyway. Limit the top 3-4 candidates in any position so much government money they can spend on advertising... then allow other candidates to spend up to that much money. Really getting special interest money out of washington is the biggest issue. It's not just corporate money either. For example the teachers union is a very powerful lobbyiest and actually a big reason why our schools suck... because they fight merit based pay at every chance.