It's pretty simple: he and his architects are either unwillingly or unable to recognize that quality healthcare comes at a price.道理很簡單：他和他的建築師要么不情願或不能夠認識到，優質的醫療是要付出代價的。
Like any economic good or service quality healthcare must be produced; it can't be created out of thin air.像任何經濟或服務質量好，必須出示醫療，它不能創建無中生有。
So despite the rhetoric, the vast sums of money involved and promises of affordable healthcare for all don't be fooled.因此，儘管言辭，巨額資金參與和承諾負擔得起的醫療保健的所有不被愚弄。
Government programs, subsidies, rules and taxes won't produce better medicines, smarter doctors or new surgical methods.政府計劃，補貼，法規和稅收不會產生更好的藥物，更聰明的醫生或新的手術方法。
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.作為一個問題，實際上，總統和國會似乎熱衷於醜化源頭優質保健：醫生，製藥公司和醫院等等。
President Obama's approach to healthcare only appeals to two kinds of people:奧巴馬總統對待醫療只呼籲兩種人：
- Dishonest souls who believe it's just fine for others to bear the cost of maintaining their lifestyles.不誠實的靈魂誰相信它只是罰款別人要承擔的費用維持他們的生活方式。
- The plain foolish who still believe in the magical power of state authority to produce something out of nothing.誰愚蠢的平原仍然相信神奇的國家權力機關產生無中生有。
Not part of either group you say?不屬於任何一組你說的？
Lucky you!您很幸運！
You've been chosen to “sacrifice” for the benefit of your friends in groups 1 & 2.您已選擇了“犧牲”，以造福您的朋友在組1和2。
{ 5 comments… read them below or （5評論...閱讀下面或 add one添加一個 } ）
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. 不誠實的靈魂誰相信它只是罰款別人要承擔的費用維持他們的生活方式。它總是歸結到被普遍關心社會主義，但我認為這是個愚蠢的論點。 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，他們不得不支付警察，雖然你可能生活在一個區域內的犯罪率很低，基本上是為別人付出。 In the long term, you're helping the community as a whole and consequently yourself as well.從長遠來看，你在幫助社會作為一個整體，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條腿，跳傘-您的一點是，我們不想為此付出代價的，這些問題可能會受到某種種附加保險。 But on the other hand – there is a huge amount of things we cannot affect.但另一方面-有大量的事情，我們不能影響。 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.你可以過一種體面的生活和健康仍然可以獲得白血病，是色盲，打破你的腿在濕滑的東西，有一堆奇怪的遺傳條件，得癌症等
That's where being chosen to sacrifice for the benefit of others comes it.這就是被選為犧牲別人的利益來了。 I'd do gladly if it means I will feel safe knowing everything is covered if something I cannot affect happens to me.我會很樂意這樣做，如果這意味著我會感到安全所知道一切事情，如果我不能給我的影響發生。
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.有人自稱是一個思想家你要命愚蠢的，您的文章沒有理性思考，或在它，它是缺乏事實的任何和所有優點，甚至不企圖抹黑醫療改革或公費醫療絲毫。
You sir are a benchmark in human stupidity and arrogance.你先生是一個基準人類愚蠢和傲慢。
abc: if you are correct why have you provided no arguments but only rhetoric?美國廣播公司：如果你是正確的，為什麼你沒有提供任何參數，只修辭？ “Socialized” anything eventually, as there is no inherent logic to the theory, devolves into name calling without anything to back it up. “社會化”任何最終，因為沒有內在邏輯的理論，轉予，要求把名字沒有任何備份。 You think you know better than me then fine.你以為你比我更清楚當時的罰款。 Go ahead and state your case.請繼續和國家的情況。 I'll publish your comment.我將發表您的評論。 Who knows your arguments may even effect my thinking on the issue (though I highly doubt it).誰知道你的論點，甚至可能影響我的思想在這個問題上（雖然我很懷疑它）。
Mato: true; I am not claiming government has no role in human life.馬托格：真實，我不是說政府沒有在人類生活中的作用。 to the contrary, in areas such as the common defense, the enforcement of laws, building roads etc the government is essential.相反，在諸如共同防務，執行法律，修建公路等政府是必不可少的。 But there is a limit to government's effectiveness.但有一個限制政府的效能。 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.不要被花言巧語所迷惑：有沒有政府的程序（或私營的這個問題），以彌補你“一切。”安全的感覺是錯誤的。 No one is even guaranteed their next meal much less medical treatment.甚至沒有人保證他們的下一頓飯少得多治療。 Why such a push for universal healthcare when there are, as we speak, thousands of children starving in America?為什麼這樣一個推動全民醫療當有，就在我們發言，數以千計的兒童在美國挨餓？ Why not universal food allotments?為什麼不普遍的食物定量？
Why not universal money handouts?為什麼不普遍的錢施捨？ When you start arguing using the 'what if' game or the 'why not' game you can make an argument against anything.當您啟動主張用'如果'遊戲或'為什麼不'遊戲中你可以對任何一個參數。 I could say we don't need a police force if we have a universal gun program, right?我可以說，我們不需要一個警察部隊，如果我們有一個普遍的槍程序，對不對？ But then it would turn into the wild west…不過，那就變成狂野的西部...
AK your argument that healthcare is expensive is a valid one.支AK你的論點是，保健是昂貴的，是一個有效的。 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.肯定有沒有魔術棒，被揮舞任何一個政府，即刻醫治其全部人口，我不認為任何支持者的醫療改革是說有。 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:下面是一些反論點是極少數您的建議：
1. 1。 Government funded programs can't produce innovation – Silly statement.政府資助的項目不能產生創新-愚蠢的發言。 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.政府資金的一些最創新和技術進步驚人，大灑金錢的個人和團體進行研究和編制的答案。 Every place you go you can find things being worked on with the use of hefty federal grants.你去每一個地方你能找到的東西正在制定關於與使用巨額的聯邦撥款。 And if you question whether a government can deliver new and amazing things…look at our Military.如果你的問題，政府是否可以提供新的和令人驚嘆的事情...看看我們的軍隊。
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.你認為，不能把事情做成的'無中生有'，但然後記下大量預算的政府投擲這一計劃。 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.我們都知道的標籤十分特別，因為醫療是一項複雜而昂貴的產品，開始為市民提供資金。 No one thinks this is being made out of nothing…its being made out of taxes.沒有人認為這是正在從無到有...它正在取得稅收。
3. 3。 The President and Congress are intent on villifying the health care system.總統和國會都熱衷於villifying衛生保健系統。 True and False.真和假。 This isn'ta targetted attack against individual components of the system but, rather, the system as a whole.這不是針對個別目標攻擊系統的組成部分，而是在整個系統。 It doesn't work because it has spiralled out of control.它不工作，因為它已飆升失控。 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.製藥公司合作，生產更多的回報率是他們的股票持有人，醫生不斷的繩索與保險公司由於法律的開銷，保險系統具有大家一隅，因為它繼續變得更為有限，昂貴的經濟，回縮。 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.衛生保健已成為昂貴的，因為它已被週期性建設本身，而我，因為許多，相信新的競爭將迫使大保險集團，開始在酒吧競爭，而不是設置欄。
4. 4。 Your last argument has no factual basis and is more a matter of opinion.您的最後一個參數是沒有事實根據和更多的是見仁見智了。 But…for the sake of continuity I will say this.但是，為了...的連續性，我會這樣說。 Demeaning any group for an opinion is a fallacy when trying to convince an audience of your point of view.貶低任何團體的意見是錯誤的時候，試圖說服觀眾對你的角度來看。 “All people who think A are morons” does not discredit the actual idea A but instead rallies animosity of anyone listening to your argument. “所有的人覺得誰是低能兒”，不抹黑實際的想法阿，而是敵意，任何人集會，聽你的論點。 For once, I wish people would just take the high ground and discuss the issues rather than attack those who oppose them.這一次，我希望人們只想採取制高點，討論問題，而不是攻擊者誰反對。
As for your classifications, I think you've kept it a little too narrow.至於你的分類，我認為你保存它有點過於狹窄。 Here's some classifications to help fill out your list a little better:這裡的一些分類，以幫助填寫您的列表好一點：
A. Single Parents or Widows unable to provide healthcare for themselves or their family due to restrictive pricing.答：單親家長或寡婦無法提供醫療保健為自己或家人因限制性定價。
B. Individuals with preexisting conditions who are forced to pay outrageous fees for an insurance policy.二個人的預先存在的條件，誰被迫支付無恥費用保險。
C. The unemployed. C的失業。
D. Those making minimum wage without benefits. D.那些制定最低工資，沒有福利。
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.大腸桿菌美氏年輕的一代現在即將進入一個荒蕪的就業市場，同時還擁有大量支付學生貸款的高等教育。
And yes…there are lazy or dishonest people out there that would rather freeload than support themselves.是的...有偷懶或不誠實的人在那裡說寧願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，在我的愚見，我認為是如此微不足道的比例相比，上面列出的那些，它可以不顧多數帳戶。
There is a limit to the government's effectiveness, I agree.有一個限制了政府的效能，我同意。 But I think the 'do nothing' answer has gone on long enough.但我認為，'做什麼'的答案就已經夠長了。 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.它的醫療護理開始變得更多的是服務人民，而不是企業中，公司獲得了豐厚的暴利。
etb342: your comments are detailed and I cannot do justice to them all right now but briefly. etb342：您的意見詳細，我不能公平對待所有這些現在卻簡單。 First, yes I would agree that in some circumstances the government's reallocation of resources can lead to innovation.首先，是我會同意，在某些情況下，政府的重新分配資源的可導致創新。 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，有人就對政府可以稅，政府可以重新分配資金。 In my opinion government is not a source of wealth creation.我認為政府不是一個創造財富的來源。 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.一種假設你似乎基於一些持有您的意見是，醫療保健，是某種“服務”，人人有權（或應該，或某些類型的人應該是），而人誰想要賺錢的醫療服務不知怎的，不道德的。 That is where you are very wrong.這就是你很錯誤的。 It's time healthcare became more of a service of the people rather than a business?這時候變得更加的醫療服務人民，而不是業務？ 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.這一事實本身是醫療業務是來源的所有美妙的醫療服務的好處：如果沒有獎勵辛勤工作在醫療保健領域，相信我，你會很快看到一個偉大的減少醫療的進步。 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.你基本上並主張，沒有任何根據，因為良好的醫療是一件好事，很多人沒有它，我們要“做事”，確保他們得到它。 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.這不是一個大問題，如果我們要重新分配財富，這樣做：我們會做的是停止“貪婪業務伙計”從賺這麼多錢。 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，我們將只拿走錢的人你要提出了很多，他們不值得。 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.人們誰擁有你的角度來看似乎相信，不知怎的，人誰提供的價值（例如新的藥品），並作出了很多錢實在不值得那麼多錢，但需要藥品的人誰也不能付出代價（失業，貧困等），有道德上的權利的價值創造的其他人。 That is socialism if not communism.這是社會主義如果不是共產主義。 In any case, I think it's immoral.在任何情況下，我認為這是不道德的。 You quickly dismissed my point about universal food allotments.你很快否認我的觀點對全球的糧食分配。 Why?為什麼？ 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?如果人們某種“值得”，因為良好的醫療，他們需要它，有人給它他們的話，為什麼不值得的食物呢？ Good food as a matter of fact.作為一個良好的食品問題的事實。 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?為什麼不停止貪婪的廚師從賺這麼多錢的高檔餐廳，沒收他們的利潤，並利用這筆錢，養活更多的人呢？ 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醫療保健領域的：我們可以減少浪費，去規範保險市場，改革法律，不當的做法保險並非如此昂貴，創造激勵機制，使醫生要提供更好的服務成本更低。 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.但我不認為公費醫療是解決方案：像有人說，在最近，華爾街日報，健康保險，以保障每個人在任何時候，無論在何種情況下就像出售火災保險人當他們的房子著火。 Most people aren't going to buy the insurance until their house catches on fire.大多數人都不會買保險，直到他們的房子漁獲著火。 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.那些你做正確的事，買火險早將支付更高的保險費的不確定性所產生的那些誰將等到他們的房子實際上是火買保險，每月支付的保險費，轉身，立即提出申索，然後擺脫保險一旦他們的房子是重新建立和等到著火了。 Every society has to decide what they want their government to provide and not provide.每個社會都必須決定他們希望他們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.在美國，我們開始的一個傳統，價值有限政府和責任置於個人和私營部門（教會，慈善團體，鄰居等）提供許多其他方面的需要。 The downside to this system is that weaker people can fall through the cracks.缺點這個系統是屬於弱的人可以透過裂縫。 The upside is that those who do well are rewarded for their achievements and not punished for them.好處是，那些誰做好獎勵，他們的成就，而不是懲罰他們。 The debate we are currently having is about way more than healthcare.我們的辯論，目前大約有超過醫療保健方法。 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?我認為，我們如何作為一個人們願意居住生活：我們要保持系統在成本個人主義的失敗確實是高，但回報也很大的成功？ Or do we want to change who we are and turn to a system of living where the collective is valued over the individual?還是我們要改變我們是誰和轉向系統的生活在集體價值對個人？ Yes there is an advantage to this system as well: you will probably get some kind of healthcare just because you exist in America.是有一個優勢，這個制度，也：你可能會得到某種形式的醫療，因為你在美國存在。 But remember, nothing comes without a price.但請記住，沒有一樣是沒有代價。 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.而價格走向的一種方式生活在集體價值對個人的損失是什麼，我認為美國是所有關於：承諾的獎勵，根據香港的法治，對任何人誰顯示和提供價值沒有無論他們是誰，或者它們是從。 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.這是一個偉大的遺產，不應掉以輕心贊成的，在這種情況下，基本上是配給醫療，讓更多人有機會獲得相同數量的確切某一特定的經濟好，而不必做任何事情來賺錢。 I believe that government has a role to play in our lives.我認為，政府可以發揮作用，在我們的生活。 It is in fact be a good idea to have government involved in healthcare (the FDA for instance) to some degree.它其實是一個好主意，有政府參與醫療（例如美國食品藥物管理局）在一定程度上。 What I disagree with strongly is the assumption or belief that people deserve things because they need them.我堅決不同意，是假設或信仰的人應該得到的東西，因為他們需要他們。 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.政府的手段就成為侵犯個人權利為'更大的利益“，而不是保證每個人的不可剝奪的權利從來沒有正當理由侵犯。