A) You don't know my ideological stance.

B) Our survival rates for major diseases are higher then every other country.

C) How can B be true as well as your statement?  Simple, lieing with statistics.  How is that 45,000 number calculated?  Do you know....

No?

Guess what.  I do.  Cause i don't take statistics at made up face value.

They took crude deathrates of people of working age with private health insruane regular people and made a ratio.

People without Private inurance were 40% more likely to die, hence 45,000 people.

Of course people without private insruance are also poorer and live unhealthier lifestyles, but nevermind actual statistics.  Nevermind that the poor die on a much higher rate even in countries like England when it comes to success rates of healthcare treatment. Nevermind that the poor are also more likely to be murdered or robbed because they live in unsafe neighberhoods.

So... no.  45,000 people do not die every year because they don't have healthcare.  If you stopped being so blind and instead looked up the actual study that came up with that number you would know that too.

The current system however will cost us a hell of a lot more money and could lead to broad more expensive healthcare for all, since now those with prexisting conditions have to be absorbed by the system.  In addition it could hurt the economy.  Hurting the poors pocket books, making more people die.

It could infact hurt technological spending in medical procedures, as the US spends more then every other country in the world COMBINED.   Meaning... more people die due to the stall of technology.

Why don't YOU value human life enough to actually fact check stuff before you blindly parot a stance.

Ok, let's go with your claim taht the statistics are inflated, you still didn't tell me how more people will die with more health insurance coverage, but stated that it'll make insurance more expensive.

1. Why would insurance rates go up with more compettion?

2. You are not forced to take government healthcare, keep your private healthcare and people who need the public option will go for that.

3. Your claim that insurance prices will go up (despite more competition) is an assumption that is being used by the private insurance companies and those in the right that represent a certain ideology. The AARP is supporting the congressional health care reform, so have th AMA, so you are saying the AARP wants more of its members to die and for health care costs to go up? makes no sense.

Also, you know more about health care than the American Medical Association?

You didn't actually read my post then, cause your bringing up a bunch of stuff that doesn't actually refer to what i said.  Additionally you should read the offical detailed AMA stance you can find and download on their webpage in about 5 minutes.  It's a lot different then you think it is.

The AARP supports this reform beacuse it includes a provision that increases medicaid and medicare benefits.  AARP members mostly being a part of medicaid and/or medicare anyway... making this entire revision meaningless to them.

As for why rates will go up... i'll start with one reason.  The simpliest, rather then resort to numerous reasons since that approach leads to them being ignored.

1) You can't discriminate against people with prexisting conditions.  Meaning you can't charge anyone with a prexisitng condition a different rate then a normal person.

A) This means the cost needs to be mitigated to everyone.  Meaning for average people, your healthcare insurance will go up.

B) May push smaller insraunce companies out of buisness who can't afford having too many people collect and could only afford to insure healthy people.  Making less competition and the bigger companies the only competition.  The bigger companies being the ones rated poorly for healthcare coverage by the AMA.

Them and the US government.

Fun fact.  According to the America Medial Assosiation's National Healthcare Report Card the US government was 1st in denials on average for coverge in 2007... and second in denials on average for 2008 compared to other major healthcare providers.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/heal-claims-process/national-health-insurer-report-card.shtml

If the AMA thought this legistlation was more of a threat than terrorism as you do, I think they would have not supported it. 

I do understand that costs would go up and that's clear to everybody, but on the other hand the current state of affairs is unfair to people with pre-existing conditions and people with no health coverage. If an insurance company is supposed to insure only the healthy what's the point of insurance? Only for accidents? If that is the case these companies should call themselves accident insurance companies or something of the sort, not healthcare providers.

People with prexisting conditions can get healthcare covrage.  It's just more expesnive.

That's how all insurance works.

If your more likely to be in a car accident, it's more expensive for you to get car insurance.

If it looks like your going to die sooner, it's more expensive for you to get life insurance.

If your house is in a more dangerous area it's more expensive for you to get house insurance.

Here is another question though.  Why should healthy people get insurance if you get charged the same for a prexisting condition?

Why, get healthinsurance now... when healthy, when I can wait until i actually need my health insurance to get it?

Additionally, that doesn't actually adress the issue on why healthcare insurance will cost more.  Your basically conceding the argument.

Why is the AMA supporting this?   Politics.  I mean, it's fun to note that they were against the very same plan up till aboute June of this year... and espiecally against ALL public healthcare options.

What they want is a public option that will insure everyone for near free so they can make more money since they often don't collect on uninsured people.  That an a uniform law for insurance forms.  Doctors spend like 15% of what they make in paperwork help.

I can say the same thing about why you are against healthcare reform, politics. You might be a right wing guy or a small government guy, either way your opposition can be mainly political too.

There was an initiative by Bachus to make health insuranc mandatory without the public option, is the AMA supporting that?

I don't think the life of somebody should be equated with car insurance and home insurance and such because many pre existing conditions are out of the control of the person, not like they were reckless and were born with a condition or got cancer before getting new insurance or something.

Also, health care companies use the smallest excuse to prevent coverage, did you know that achne was considered a pre existing condition that someone did not report to their health insurance provider and so they were dropped?

http://www.seiu.org/2009/08/womans-son-denied-coverage-because-of-acne.php

Oh.. and if your wondering why the AMA is supporting this bill when they were up against it until like July.

"But support of the American Medical Association, announced minutes later, came with a price: that the House also commit to passing a 10-year “fix” to roll back mandated cuts in payments to physicians who serve Medicare patients."

Can you say... bribe.