It's pretty simple: he and his architects are either unwillingly or unable to recognize that quality healthcare comes at a price.道理很简单：他和他的建筑师要么不情愿或不能够认识到，优质的医疗是要付出代价的。
Like any economic good or service quality healthcare must be produced; it can't be created out of thin air.像任何经济或服务质量好，必须出示医疗，它不能创建无中生有。
So despite the rhetoric, the vast sums of money involved and promises of affordable healthcare for all don't be fooled.因此，尽管言论，涉及巨额金钱，并为所有不被愚弄负担得起的医疗保健的承诺。
Government programs, subsidies, rules and taxes won't produce better medicines, smarter doctors or new surgical methods.政府计划，补贴，法规和税收不会产生更好的药物，更聪明的医生或新的手术方法。
As a matter of fact, the President and Congress seem intent on vilifying the very source of quality healthcare: doctors, drug companies and hospitals to name a few.作为事实上，总统和国会似乎对丑化医疗质量的意图非常来源：医生，制药公司和医院等等。
President Obama's approach to healthcare only appeals to two kinds of people:奥巴马总统对待医疗只呼吁两种人：
- Dishonest souls who believe it's just fine for others to bear the cost of maintaining their lifestyles.不诚实的灵魂谁相信它只是为他人罚款，承担维持其生活方式的费用。
- The plain foolish who still believe in the magical power of state authority to produce something out of nothing.谁愚蠢的平原还是在国家权威魔力相信生产从无到有。
Not part of either group you say?没有任何工作组的一部分，你说什么？
Lucky you!您很幸运！
You've been chosen to “sacrifice” for the benefit of your friends in groups 1 & 2.您已选择了“牺牲你的朋友在组1和2的利益”。
{ 5 comments… read them below or （5评论...阅读下面或他们 add one添加一个 } ）
1. 1。 Dishonest souls who believe it's just fine for others to bear the cost of maintaining their lifestyles. It always comes down to universal care being socialist, but I think it's a dumb argument. 不诚实的灵魂谁相信它只是为他人罚款 ， 承担维持其生活方式的成本。它总是归结到被普遍关心社会主义，但我认为这是个愚蠢的论点。 You don't complain about having to pay for the police, although you may live in an area with low crime rates and are basically paying for others.你不抱怨，他们不得不支付警察，虽然你可能生活在一个低犯罪率地区，基本上是为别人付出。 In the long term, you're helping the community as a whole and consequently yourself as well.从长远来看，你在帮助社会作为一个整体，因此自己也。
OK, if someone breaks their leg while parachuting – your point stands, we don't want to pay for that and such problems could be covered by some kind of additional insurance.行，如果有人打破自己的一条腿，跳伞-您的一点是，我们不想为此付出代价的，这些问题可以通过一些额外的保险种类范围。 But on the other hand – there is a huge amount of things we cannot affect.但另一方面-有一种东西是我们不能影响数额特别巨大。 You may live a decently healthy life and still get leukemia, be colorblind, break your leg on something slippery, have a bunch of strange genetic conditions, get cancer, etc.你可以过一种体面的生活和健康仍然可以获得白血病，是色盲，打破你的腿在湿滑的东西，有一个奇怪的一群遗传条件，得癌症等
That's where being chosen to sacrifice for the benefit of others comes it.这就是被选为牺牲他人的利益来了。 I'd do gladly if it means I will feel safe knowing everything is covered if something I cannot affect happens to me.我会很乐意这样做，如果这意味着我会感到安全所知道一切事情，如果我不能给我的影响发生。
For someone claiming to be a thinker you're awfully stupid, your post has no thinking or rationality in it, it's devoid of any and all factual merit and does not even attempt to discredit healthcare reform or socialized medicine in the slightest.对于有人自称是一个思想家，你要命愚蠢的，您的文章没有思想或在它的合理性，这是缺乏事实的任何和所有优点，甚至没有试图诋毁丝毫医疗改革或公费医疗。
You sir are a benchmark in human stupidity and arrogance.你先生是人类的愚蠢和傲慢的基准。
abc: if you are correct why have you provided no arguments but only rhetoric?美国广播公司：如果你是正确的，为什么你没有提供任何参数，只修辞？ “Socialized” anything eventually, as there is no inherent logic to the theory, devolves into name calling without anything to back it up. “社会化”任何最终，因为没有内在逻辑的理论，将转予无任何要求备份的名称。 You think you know better than me then fine.你以为你知道的比我好，然后罚款。 Go ahead and state your case.请继续和国家的情况。 I'll publish your comment.我将发表您的评论。 Who knows your arguments may even effect my thinking on the issue (though I highly doubt it).谁知道你的论点，甚至可能影响我对问题的想法（虽然我很怀疑它）。
Mato: true; I am not claiming government has no role in human life.马托格：真实，我不是说政府没有在人类生活中的作用。 to the contrary, in areas such as the common defense, the enforcement of laws, building roads etc the government is essential.相反，在诸如共同防务，法律的执行，道路建设等政府是必不可少的。 But there is a limit to government's effectiveness.但有一个政府的效力是有限的。 Don't be fooled by the rhetoric: there is no government program (or private one for that matter) that will cover you for “everything.” The sense of safety is false.不要被花言巧语所迷惑：有没有政府的程序（或私营的这个问题），将用于支付“一切你。”安全意识是错误的。 No one is even guaranteed their next meal much less medical treatment.甚至没有人保证他们的下一顿饭少得多治疗。 Why such a push for universal healthcare when there are, as we speak, thousands of children starving in America?为什么这样一个推动全民医疗当有，就在我们发言，在美国数千名儿童挨饿？ Why not universal food allotments?为什么不普遍的食物定量？
Why not universal money handouts?为什么不普遍的钱施舍？ When you start arguing using the 'what if' game or the 'why not' game you can make an argument against anything.当您启动主张用'如果'游戏或'为什么不'游戏中你可以对任何一个参数。 I could say we don't need a police force if we have a universal gun program, right?我可以说，我们不需要一个警察部队，如果我们有一个普遍的枪程序，对不对？ But then it would turn into the wild west…不过，那就变成狂野的西部...
AK your argument that healthcare is expensive is a valid one.支AK你的论点是，保健是昂贵的，是一个有效的。 There certainly is no magic wand to be waved by any government that instantly heals its entire population and I don't think any supporter of the health care reform is saying that there is.当然没有魔杖，由任何一个政府，即刻医治其全部人口，我不认为任何医疗改革的支持者说，是有挥手。 At least not any of the good ones.至少不是任何好的。 Here's some counter arguments for the very few you've proposed:下面是一些相对的论点是极少数您的建议：
1. 1。 Government funded programs can't produce innovation – Silly statement.政府资助的项目不能产生创新-愚蠢的发言。 Government funds some of the most innovative and amazing advancements of technology, by giving money to individuals and groups to conduct research and produce answers.政府资金的技术方面最具创新和惊人的一些进步，大洒金钱的个人和团体进行研究和编制的答案。 Every place you go you can find things being worked on with the use of hefty federal grants.你去每一个地方可以找到事情都是同联邦政府的巨额赠款的使用上。 And if you question whether a government can deliver new and amazing things…look at our Military.如果你的问题，政府是否可以提供新的和令人惊叹的事情...看看我们的军队。
2. 2。 You argue that things can't be made out of 'thin air' but then note the massive budget the government is throwing at this program.你认为，不能把事情做成的'无中生有'，但然后记下大量财政预算，政府是在这个程序投掷。 Contradiction.矛盾。 We all know the tab is extraordinary because health care is a complicated and expensive product to begin funding for the public.我们都知道的标签十分特别，因为医疗是一项复杂而昂贵的产品，开始为公共资金。 No one thinks this is being made out of nothing…its being made out of taxes.没有人认为这是正在从无到有...它而作出的税了。
3. 3。 The President and Congress are intent on villifying the health care system.总统和国会正在就villifying卫生保健系统的意图。 True and False.真和假。 This isn'ta targetted attack against individual components of the system but, rather, the system as a whole.这不是专门针对该系统的各个组成部分的攻击，而是整个系统。 It doesn't work because it has spiralled out of control.它不工作，因为它已飙升失控。 Drug companies working to produce more returns for their stock holders, Doctors constantly on the ropes with insurance companies due to legal overhead, an insurance system that has everyone cornered as it continues to become more restricted and expensive in an economy that is retracting.制药公司合作，生产不断与保险公司由于法律的开销，保险系统具有围困的绳索都为他们的股票持有人，医生更多的回报，因为它继续成为更受限制和香港的经济，回缩昂贵。 Health care has become expensive because it has been cyclically building on itself and I, as many, believe that new competition would force massive insurance conglomerates to begin competing for the bar rather than setting the bar.卫生保健已成为昂贵的，因为它已被周期性建设本身，而我，因为许多，相信新的竞争将迫使大保险集团，开始为酒吧竞争，而不是设置栏。
4. 4。 Your last argument has no factual basis and is more a matter of opinion.您的最后一个参数是没有事实根据和更多的是见仁见智。 But…for the sake of continuity I will say this.但是...为保持连贯性，我会说，这酒。 Demeaning any group for an opinion is a fallacy when trying to convince an audience of your point of view.贬低任何意见组是一个谬误当试图说服了自己的观点的观众。 “All people who think A are morons” does not discredit the actual idea A but instead rallies animosity of anyone listening to your argument. “所有的人觉得谁是低能儿”，不抹黑实际的想法阿，而是集会听你的论点任何敌意。 For once, I wish people would just take the high ground and discuss the issues rather than attack those who oppose them.这一次，我希望人们只想采取制高点，讨论问题，而不是攻击者谁反对。
As for your classifications, I think you've kept it a little too narrow.至于你的分类，我认为你保存它有点过于狭窄。 Here's some classifications to help fill out your list a little better:这里的一些分类，以帮助填写您的列表好一点：
A. Single Parents or Widows unable to provide healthcare for themselves or their family due to restrictive pricing.答：单亲家长或寡妇无法提供医疗保健为自己或家人因限制性定价。
B. Individuals with preexisting conditions who are forced to pay outrageous fees for an insurance policy.与谁被迫支付了保险费用，先前存在的条件令人发指二个人。
C. The unemployed. C的失业。
D. Those making minimum wage without benefits. D.那些制定最低工资，没有福利。
E. America's youthful generations now coming into a barren job market while still having to pay for massive student loans on their higher education.大肠杆菌美氏现在到一个荒芜的就业市场未来的同时，要付钱给他们高等教育的庞大的学生贷款年轻一代。
And yes…there are lazy or dishonest people out there that would rather freeload than support themselves.并在那里是...有偷懒或不诚实的人们，宁愿freeload不是支持自己。 But, in my humble opinion, I think that percentage is so miniscule compared to the ones listed above that it could be disregarded by most accounts.但是，在我的愚见，我认为是如此微不足道的比例相比，它上面可以无视大多数帐户中列出的那些。
There is a limit to the government's effectiveness, I agree.有一个政府的效力是有限的，我同意。 But I think the 'do nothing' answer has gone on long enough.但我认为，'做什么'的回答就足够长了。 Its time health care start to become more of a service of the people, rather than a business in which companies are rewarded handsomely for their profiteering.它的医疗护理开始更多地成为服务于人民，而不是在该公司获得了丰厚的投机生意。
etb342: your comments are detailed and I cannot do justice to them all right now but briefly. etb342：您的意见详细，我不能公平对待所有这些现在却简单。 First, yes I would agree that in some circumstances the government's reallocation of resources can lead to innovation.首先，是我会同意，在某些情况下，政府对资源的重新分配可能会导致创新。 All I was trying to point out is that someone has to produce something the government can tax so the government can then re-allocate the money.所有我想指出的是，有人就对政府可以税，政府可以重新分配资金。 In my opinion government is not a source of wealth creation.我认为政府不是一个创造财富的源泉。 An assumption you seem to hold based on some of your comments is that healthcare is somehow a “service” that everyone is entitled to (or should be; or certain types of people should be) and that people who want to make money from healthcare services are somehow immoral.一种假设你似乎双方就根据你的意见是，一些医疗是某种“服务”，人人有权（或应该，或人民应该某些类型的），而人谁想要做的医疗服务赚钱不知怎的，不道德的。 That is where you are very wrong.这就是你很错误的。 It's time healthcare became more of a service of the people rather than a business?这是一次医疗变得不是业务？一个人服务 The very fact that healthcare is a business is the source of all the wonderful benefits of healthcare services: if there was no reward for working hard in the healthcare field believe me, you would soon see a great reduction in medical advances.这一事实本身医疗是一个商业是所有的医疗服务美妙的利益来源：如果没有对工作在卫生保健领域辛勤的奖励，相信我，你会很快看到在医学进步大大减少。 You are basically positing, without any basis, that because good healthcare is a good thing and many people don't have it we need to “do things” to make sure they get it.你基本上并主张没有任何根据，因为良好的医疗是一件好事，很多人没有它，我们要“做事”，确保他们得到它。 It's not a big deal if we have to re-allocate wealth to do it: all we will be doing is stopping “greedy business folks” from making all that money.这不是一个大问题，如果我们要重新分配财富，这样做：我们会做的是停止“从赚这么多钱乡亲奸商”。 What you really mean is we will only be taking away money from people you are making a lot of that they don't deserve.你的意思是，我们只能从人拿走你赚了，他们不应该得到很多金钱。 People who hold your point of view seem to believe that somehow people who provide value (new medicines for example) and make a lot of money don't really deserve all that money but that people who need medicine and can't pay for it (the unemployed; the poor; etc) have a moral right to the value created by other people.人们谁拥有你的观点似乎认为，不知怎的，人谁提供的价值（例如新的药物）和作出了很多钱实在不值得那么多钱，但需要药品的人谁也不能付出代价（失业，贫困等），有其他人所创造的价值道义上的权利。 That is socialism if not communism.这是社会主义如果不是共产主义。 In any case, I think it's immoral.在任何情况下，我认为这是不道德的。 You quickly dismissed my point about universal food allotments.你很快否认我对全球的粮食分配点。 Why?为什么？ If people somehow “deserve” healthcare because well, they need it and somebody has to give it them, then why don't they deserve food as well?如果人们某种“值得”，因为良好的医疗，他们需要它，有人给它他们的话，为什么不值得的食物呢？ Good food as a matter of fact.好的，事实上食物。 Why not stop the greedy chefs from making all that money at fancy restaurants, confiscate their profits, and use the money to feed more people?为什么不阻止作出的高档餐厅，钱贪婪的厨师，没收他们的利润，并利用这笔钱，养活更多的人呢？ Yes some reform is necessary in the healthcare arena: we can reduce waste, de-regulate the insurance market, reform laws so mal-practice insurance isn't so expensive, and create incentives so doctors want to deliver better care at lower costs.是一些改革是必要的医疗保健领域的：我们可以减少浪费，去规范保险市场，改革法律，不当的做法保险并非如此昂贵，创造激励机制，使医生们想以更低的成本更好的照顾。 But I don't think socialized medicine is the solution: like someone said in the Wall Street Journal recently, guaranteeing health insurance to everyone at any time regardless of the circumstances is like selling someone fire insurance when their house is on fire.但我不认为公费医疗是解决方案：像有人说，在最近，华尔街日报，健康保险，以保障每个人在任何时候，无论在何种情况下出售人一样火灾保险是当他们的房子着火了。 Most people aren't going to buy the insurance until their house catches on fire.大多数人都不会买保险，直到他们的房子着火渔获量。 Those you do the right thing and buy fire insurance early on will pay higher premiums to cover the uncertainty created by those who will wait until their house is actually on fire to buy the insurance, pay a month's premium, turn around and immediately make a claim, and then get rid of the insurance as soon as their house is re-built and wait until it catches fire again.那些你做正确的事，买火险早将支付更高的保费，以涵盖那些在谁将等到他们的房子着火，实际上购买保险，支付一个月的保险费，转身，立即提出债权的不确定性，然后可以作为他们的房子尽快保险摆脱重新建造，并等待，直到它再次着火。 Every society has to decide what they want their government to provide and not provide.每个社会都必须决定他们希望他们的政府提供和不能提供的。 In America we started with a tradition that valued limited government and placed the onus on individuals and the private sector (churches, charities, neighbors etc) to provide for many other needs.在美国，我们开始与传统价值，并把有限的政府对个人和私营部门（教会，慈善机构的责任，邻居等）提供许多其他方面的需要。 The downside to this system is that weaker people can fall through the cracks.对这个系统的缺点是较弱的人可以漏掉。 The upside is that those who do well are rewarded for their achievements and not punished for them.好处是，那些谁做好奖励，他们的成就，而不是为他们接受惩罚。 The debate we are currently having is about way more than healthcare.我们的辩论，目前拥有约比医疗更加方式。 I think it's about how we as a people want to live our lives: do we want to keep a system of individualism where the cost of failure is indeed high but the reward for success is also great?我认为，我们如何作为一个人们愿意居住生活：我们要保持一种个人主义的制度，失败的代价确实很高，但成功的奖励，也是伟大的？ Or do we want to change who we are and turn to a system of living where the collective is valued over the individual?还是我们要改变我们是谁，把的生活制度，集体，是对个人价值？ Yes there is an advantage to this system as well: you will probably get some kind of healthcare just because you exist in America.是有一个本系统的优势，以及：您可能会得到一些医疗保健类，因为你在美国存在。 But remember, nothing comes without a price.但请记住，没有什么是要付出代价的。 And the price for moving towards a way of living where the collective is valued over the individual is the loss of what I think America is all about: the promise of rewards, under the rule of law, to anyone who shows up and delivers value no matter who they are or where they are from.和对生活的一种办法在集体的价格是对个人的价值是什么，我认为美国是所有损失约：奖励的承诺，在法治，人谁显示和提供价值没有无论他们是谁，或者它们是从。 It is a great legacy and should not be dismissed lightly in favor of, in this case, basically rationing healthcare so that more people have access to the exact same amount of a particular economic good without having to do anything to earn it.这是一个伟大的遗产，不应掉以轻心赞成的，在这种情况下，基本上是配给医疗，让更多人有机会获得相同数量的确切某一特定的经济好，而不必做任何事情来赚钱。 I believe that government has a role to play in our lives.我认为，政府可以发挥作用，在我们的生活。 It is in fact be a good idea to have government involved in healthcare (the FDA for instance) to some degree.这是一个好主意，有政府参与医疗保健（例如在FDA）的一定程度的事实。 What I disagree with strongly is the assumption or belief that people deserve things because they need them.我坚决不同意，是假设或信仰的人应该得到的东西，因为他们需要他们。 Government then becomes the means of violating the rights of individuals for 'the greater good” rather than ensuring that each person's inalienable rights are never violated without just cause.政府，就成为侵犯的'更大的利益，而不是确保每个人的不可剥夺的权利从来没有正当理由侵犯“个人权利的一种手段。