# What are some legitimate questions conservatives should be asking about health reform? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 20, 2009, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060 "2009-08-20T12:22:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2009, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/41 "2009-08-22T00:59:45Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > How much will be saved purely from reducing/eliminating profit? Percentage-wise The USA currently spends 16-17% of GDP on healthcare. Germany 10.7% Excluding the UK, the rest of the EU spent 9.1% of its GDP on health in 1997 The UK has historically spent less (under 8%) but in the past decade that has increased to the EU average. Obviously all the European systems cover the entire populaton. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2009, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/42 "2009-08-22T01:55:25Z")
You can get out of future FICA taxes by becoming Amish. Try out how you look in a beard or snood first. You don’t wanna go making any permanent changes and end up looking like a dork. ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2009, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/43 "2009-08-22T01:56:41Z")
I am a fiscal conservative, and I am very wary of the health care reform. The one issue I do recognize as unsolved by a market system is what we do with the voluntarily uninsured who do get sick or injured. I am a cold hearted bastard so I don’t have a problem with providing a very basic and cost controlled level of care to those people, but I am not sure we have the national stomach for that. All those young healthy people do have a rational reason to not buy insurance. They know that they probably won’t get sick. If they do have a catasrophic illness the government or the hospital systems will pay for it and they will plead poverty. That isn’t exactly an efficient answer. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2009, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/44 "2009-08-22T01:57:07Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > You can get out of future FICA taxes by becoming Amish. > > Try out how you look in a beard or snood first. You don’t wanna go making any permanent changes and end up looking like a dork. I already look like a dork. But I didn’t know that about the Amish. That’s interesting. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/45 "2009-08-22T03:09:56Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > I already look like a dork. > > But I didn’t know that about the Amish. That’s interesting. My understanding from various conversations–some with Amish, some with Mennonites, some with English–is that you might have to forswear all forms of insurance if you become Amish. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/46 "2009-08-23T21:17:32Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > It isn’t a welfare program, remember? FDR was very explicit in his desire to position it as a ‘retirement’ scheme. I have no idea why you believe SS is limited to retirement only, from the Social Securities own [website:](http://www.ssa.gov/history/aja245.html) > [@Social Security Online](#): > > The contributions build up the fund from which benefits are paid. And the benefits for every worker and his family are based primarily on his earnings, so that a reasonable relation to past income is maintained when unemployment, sickness, old-age or death strikes. > > When the Social Security Act was passed in 1935, Congress adopted the insurance principle of financing certain benefit payments. When the program was amended in 1939 to extend its protection to the family–rather than just to the individual worker–the insurance principle was maintained. > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Social Security is a giant Ponzi scheme, that destroys value, Please educate me. > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > …and that is used to placate a special-interest voting bloc of the public. Conservatives oft used epithet for any group for which they disagree. For the love of god, if you call to have a pot hole fixed you’re a special-interest group. > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > And it’s non-negotiable. Sure it is, write your congressman. > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > That’s doing even more to achieve your vision of helping the poor. Why don’t you want to take me up on my offer? What logic would you use if/when you refuse that offer? It seems like a no-brainer to me. Perhaps because the national consciousness is more compassionate and reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/47 "2009-08-23T21:48:55Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > P0. I have no idea why you believe SS is limited to retirement only, from the Social Securities own [website:](http://www.ssa.gov/history/aja245.html) > > P1. Please educate me. > P2. Conservatives oft used epithet for any group for which they disagree. For the love of god, if you call to have a pot hole fixed you’re a special-interest group. > P3. Sure it is, write your congressman. > P4. Perhaps because the national consciousness is more compassionate and reasonable. P0. I said ‘vast majority’. Of course SS has been expanded to include welfare-like disability payments. Why? That’s not how it was sold to the public when it was started. P1. I have paid in $100,000 to date. I have no assets in my name that carry a value of $100,000 or more. Neither does anybody else who has paid in money to date. If everybody who paid in money to date stopped paying in money going forward, **and even if they didn’t lay claim to any future payments** , the system would collapse. Ergo, it’s a Ponzi scheme. P2. Who said I was a conservative? Oh. You did, apparently. Liberals call someone ‘conservative’ for any argument for which they disagree. For the love of god, if you call to have a pot hole fixed you’re a conservative. P3. How does my congressman (1 elected representative) have the power to give me my money back from SS? That’s the problem here. Don’t you realize that? When it’s my money, and my decision, I can change my course of action whenever I want. Within the next hour, if I want to. When a federal program has been enacted, I have 1/535th of a voice through my representative to get it back. State programs, and local programs, are on an increasing scale of accountability and ability-to-change. Don’t you see the massive asymmetry of control and accountability there? Special interest A gets President Obama, and Congresspeople B-Z to vote them a subsidy. Oh…let’s take GM’s bailout as an example. But I don’t want to do that. In fact, I think it’s unconstitutional and illegal. But your answer is…write your Congressman? P4. I’m not in favor of passing any laws that prevent you from being compassionate and reasonable. Or, are you claiming the Moral High Ground here? It gets awfully crowded up there, doesn’t it? With anti-abortionists, defense-of-marriage act loonies, and Sarah Palin. How do all of you find room up there on that pedestal to make yourselves comfortable, before you take the rest of our money to Go Do Good Things? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/48 "2009-08-23T22:22:18Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > … Ergo, it’s a Ponzi scheme… That’s not a “Ponzi scheme”. A Ponzi scheme offers quick and unrealistic returns on investment. In the original, Ponzi offered a return of 50% on investment with maturity 45 days from the date of purchase. And he paid them. That’s a crucial point, the money was returned to the early investors, with interest due. That’s the tale, here’s the hook, the brilliant insight that made Ponzi who he was: the investors immediately and, (IIRC), without exception re-invested the money! He offered them their money, and, being sensible and rational people seeing a proven benefit, they reinvested the money! But, of course! Who wouldn’t? He paid them, but, in a way, he didn’t. He gave it to them, they gave it back, and brought in their friends and family to share in the bonanza. Of course. Anyway, the crucial factor is repayment within a very short time frame. Social Security doesn’t work like that, of course. You’re welcome. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/49 "2009-08-23T23:49:33Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > P0. I said ‘vast majority’. Of course SS has been expanded to include welfare-like disability payments. Why? That’s not how it was sold to the public when it was started. Once again it appears you are misinformed, this is the [1935 Social Security Act](http://www.ssa.gov/history/35actinx.html) whose purpose was far more broad than you contend. I will not debate what you feel was told to the public at the time but it sure wasn’t ‘expanded’ unless you mean expanded 4 years later to the family members of those who’ve paid into it. > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > …Ergo, it’s a Ponzi scheme. You might be able to reach for a point if no one was collecting Social Security. I can’t wait for the cite. > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > P2. Who said I was a conservative? Oh. You did, apparently. Liberals call someone ‘conservative’ for any argument for which they disagree. For the love of god, if you call to have a pot hole fixed you’re a conservative. You started with a tu quoque retort then ended with nonsense…? > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > P3. How does my congressman (1 elected representative) have the power to give me my money back from SS? > > That’s the problem here. Don’t you realize that? When it’s my money, and my decision, …But your answer is…write your Congressman? If you moved to a cabin in Montana you wouldn’t have to answer to anybody. You could just cuddle your guns and wait for the evil FBI. > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > P4. I’m not in favor of passing any laws that prevent you from being compassionate and reasonable. Again you wish for a society that wont hesitate to send you out on the ice flows. Please find one, it appears everyone involved will be better off. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/50 "2009-08-24T00:11:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > That’s not a “Ponzi scheme”. A Ponzi scheme offers quick and unrealistic returns on investment. In the original, Ponzi offered a return of 50% on investment with maturity 45 days from the date of purchase. > > And he paid them. That’s a crucial point, the money was returned to the early investors, with interest due. That’s the tale, here’s the hook, the brilliant insight that made Ponzi who he was: the investors immediately and, (IIRC), without exception re-invested the money! He offered them their money, and, being sensible and rational people seeing a proven benefit, they reinvested the money! But, of course! Who wouldn’t? > > He paid them, but, in a way, he didn’t. He gave it to them, they gave it back, and brought in their friends and family to share in the bonanza. Of course. > > Anyway, the crucial factor is repayment within a very short time frame. Social Security doesn’t work like that, of course. > > You’re welcome. Thank you. We went through this little bit of semantics in another thread. A Ponzi scheme. A Pyramid scheme. A House of Cards. Whatever you want to call it. An entity is taking my money, and promising some return in the future. But there are no assets in place, anywhere, that I can claim. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/51 "2009-08-24T00:13:41Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Again you wish for a society that wont hesitate to send you out on the ice flows. Please find one, it appears everyone involved will be better off. Nice. I’ll repeat…I am in no way advocating any laws that prevent you from helping other people. In fact, given the loads of compassion you obviously have for others, you should start right now. Switch off your computer, donate it to a local school, and get out there to help feed the poor. I won’t try and stop you. See? Isn’t it great what you can accomplish in a free society? ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/52 "2009-08-24T00:19:22Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > You might be able to reach for a point if no one was collecting Social Security. I can’t wait for the cite. The fact that someone is collecting Social Security proves it isn’t a Ponzi scheme? What? That’s the WHOLE POINT of a Ponzi scheme…to make payouts to someone, somewhere, with someone else’s money. Of course there are people receiving payouts. That’s directly related to the cashflows of the program. The Balance Sheet of the program, on the other hand, has a liability side that continues to explode over time with the future obligations required to the people from whom you are taking money today. But those people have no real assets that they can claim, because they don’t exist. That’s a Ponzi scheme. Or a Pyramid Scheme. Or a House of Cards. Or whatever you want to call it. Medicare is in the same boat. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/53 "2009-08-24T02:19:56Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > The fact that someone is collecting Social Security proves it isn’t a Ponzi scheme? What? That’s the WHOLE POINT of a Ponzi scheme…to make payouts to someone, somewhere, with someone else’s money. > > Of course there are people receiving payouts. That’s directly related to the cashflows of the program. The Balance Sheet of the program, on the other hand, has a liability side that continues to explode over time with the future obligations required to the people from whom you are taking money today. > > But those people have no real assets that they can claim, because they don’t exist. > > That’s a Ponzi scheme. Or a Pyramid Scheme. Or a House of Cards. Or whatever you want to call it. > > Medicare is in the same boat. :rolleyes: > **[Is Social Security a Ponzi scheme?](http://web.archive.org/web/20050306163502re_/http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.html)** > [@](#): > > There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. So we could image that at any given time there might be, say, 40 million people receiving benefits at the back end of the pipeline; and as long as we had 40 million people paying taxes in the front end of the pipe, the program could be sustained forever. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary. (There does not have to be precisely the same number of workers and beneficiaries at a given time–there just needs to be a stable relationship between the two.) As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. > > In this context, it would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment–transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees–with the promise that when current workers retiree, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments. So you could say that Social Security is a transfer payment, but it is not a pyramid scheme. There is a huge difference between the two, and only a superficial similarity. > > If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. During periods when more new participants are entering the system than are receiving benefits there tends to be a surplus in funding (as in the early years of Social Security). During periods when beneficiaries are growing faster than new entrants (as will happen when the baby boomers retire), there tends to be a deficit. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes, or any other fraudulent form of financing, it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems. (Of coure one might want to argue that there are better ways to finance Social Security than its traditional pay-as-you-go approach. However one views this policy question, we are concerned here only to correct the mistaken idea that a pay-as-you-go system is the same thing as a Ponzi scheme.) ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/54 "2009-08-24T02:52:49Z")
**IdahoMauleMan** , I can’t help but notice you haven’t yet addressed the original intent of the Social Security Act. I would love a reply, if none is forthwith coming I’ll assume you’ve conceded the point. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/55 "2009-08-24T03:06:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > [http://web.archive.org/web/20041001-20051231re\_/http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.html](http://web.archive.org/web/20041001-20051231re_/http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.html) I don’t disagree with any of the basic facts in that report. I do disagree with the conclusion and the opinion of the author. I can’t tell what position he/she is taking, if any. A generational transfer-of-payments mechanism is a Ponzi scheme. Arguing otherwise, because there is some self-circular reference to what somebody else defines a Ponzi scheme, is meaningless. It not only misses the forest for the trees, it misses the whole frickin planet for the trees. A generational transfer-of-payments mechanism is BAD. It’s not some bland financial term, that can be used to hand-wave an argument about what is or is not a Ponzi scheme. You have confiscated wealth from someone, transferred it to someone else, and given them a promise to pay it back at some point in the future. But you have created no earning assets from which to pay back that promise, and you haven’t even stored the wealth in any hard form, such as in a commodity. The people from whom you have confiscated wealth have no claim on any assets. That is BAD. We’re arguing over trivialities here, like who defines what as a Ponzi scheme, according to which academic reference, and completely missing the big picture. Which doesn’t surprise me, unfortunately. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/56 "2009-08-24T03:07:47Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > **IdahoMauleMan** , I can’t help but notice you haven’t yet addressed the original intent of the Social Security Act. I would love a reply, if none is forthwith coming I’ll assume you’ve conceded the point. I haven’t conceded anything. I’m deciding whether to give up debating people who prefer to spend their time arguing over trivial definitional terms rather than focus on the real issue in front of them. And who apparently don’t understand the flow-stock concept of cash-assets, as well. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/57 "2009-08-24T03:13:12Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > I haven’t conceded anything. I’m deciding whether to give up debating people who prefer to spend their time arguing over trivial definitional terms rather than focus on the real issue in front of them. And who apparently don’t understand the flow-stock concept of cash-assets, as well. You said Social Security was originally intended for ONLY retired people, despite evidence to the contrary, you still maintain that is so. Either you cite a source supporting you position or you shut your mouth. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/58 "2009-08-24T03:16:56Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > We’re arguing over trivialities here, like who defines what as a Ponzi scheme, according to which academic reference, and completely missing the big picture. Which doesn’t surprise me, unfortunately. Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but not the facts. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. > [@](#): > > Ponzi vs. Social Security > > Social Security is and always has been either a “pay-as-you-go” system or one that was partially advance-funded. Its structure, logic, and mode of operation have nothing in common with Ponzi schemes or chain letters or pyramid schemes. > > The first modern social insurance program began in Germany in 1889 and has been in continuous operation for more than 100 years. The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi’s scheme lasted barely 200 days. (From the end of the article quoted before) ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/59 "2009-08-24T03:27:47Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > You said Social Security was originally intended for ONLY retired people, despite evidence to the contrary, you still maintain that is so. > > Either you cite a source supporting you position or you shut your mouth. Very Nice. Again. What was that I said about debating trivialities? Here’s what I said: \*\* The vast, vast vast majority of Social Security isn’t even means-tested. So it has nothing to do with avoiding death and starvation. It isn’t a welfare program, remember? FDR was very explicit in his desire to position it as a ‘retirement’ scheme. \*\* Then I went on to say that I was happy to support basic welfare as a safety net, for which I already pay taxes. Because you had opened up the argument by somehow implying that if I didn’t support SS, I somehow wasn’t helping out on the death and starvation front for my fellow citizens. Is the ‘…It isn’t a welfare program…’ language in my quote above what you’re arguing about now? Good grief. Forest. Trees. Again. You guys are awesome debaters. Not quite as good as \*\* Der Trihs \*\* mind you, but pretty good nonetheless. And you’re right. It is time to shut my mouth. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060/60 "2009-08-24T03:43:53Z")
> **[Without Reform, Health Insurance Premiums Could Double By 2020](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/without-reform-health-ins_n_266589)** > > Without Reform, Health Insurance Premiums Could Double By 2020 This organization indicates that if we do nothing, health care premiums will double by 2020. Does that make anyone think nothing should be done? How many companies would cut coverage by then? How many that pay for their own would wind up uncovered.? The republicans cited the same figures in 2000 and 2004 when they were running. Now they want to throw monkey wrenches into a plan we need and they know it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-legitimate-questions-conservatives-should-be-asking-about-health-reform/507060.md?page=4)