# What sort of health care reform do conservatives actually support? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 14, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454 "2009-08-14T21:56:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/81 "2009-08-16T21:05:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But you don’t reply to the non-empty ones. Even after I and other posters in a thread ask you to answer. [Here it is again—Post 216.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=526513&page=5) You were posting in that thread with your (checks forum) usual level of contribution, then ran away. I even gently brought your attention to it in another thread. But you refuse to answer. Odd that, especially in a forum entitled Great Debates that you had already exhibited interest in. I never read that particular post. And it’s nothing but the standard right wing Horatio Alger nonsense about people getting rich by working hard and doing a better job. And it IS nonsense; the people who work hard and do good jobs are the people that the rich make their money FROM; not the rich themselves. Primarily, you get rich by having rich ancestors. And if not that, by sucking up to those who are already rich and aiding in their exploitation of the people who actually do the work. People who work hard are lucky if they stay middle class. People who create new innovations are lucky if they get a small bonus while their bosses rake in the millions or billions. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/82 "2009-08-16T21:21:24Z")
First of all: are we talking health care or health insurance reform? There is a difference. The biggest problem with health care costs is the assumption that it will be paid for by insurance and thus costs are inflated by the doctors. In the early 90’s, I had to pay $150 for a doctor to tell me that my toe that was oozing pus was infected. No treatment, no prescription, no nothing. I’m sure the doctor and hospital (both billed me) had that $150 based on what insurance would pay. So the cost of health care is based on doctors and not insurance. I argue that the high cost of insurance is based on that. Any reform must address the greed of doctors and hospitals vs the need of insurance to make a profit. You can’t force an insurance company to accept someone with a preexisting condition (I’ll buy your insurance when I get the cancer) and if you count on someone offering low-cost, low-benefit insurance for basic primary care, the doctors won’t accept it (I won’t accept $50 for an office visit). I would offer a government-based primary care insurance that doctors can participate in to get student-loan forgiveness. For an added cost, specialist insurance can be added (think of the American public as a giant potential “group”) but this coverage can be denied to an individual for consumer lifestyle choices like extreme obesity or smoking. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/83 "2009-08-16T22:02:10Z")
A movement towards nurse-practitioners will help with some of that. I know what you mean, my kid had recurring ear-infections, I knew he needed the pink goo (Ampicillin), the pink goo always worked, and we always knew when it was needed. Why do we need to take up a highly-trained physician’s time with the bloody obvious? ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/84 "2009-08-16T22:15:05Z")
One idea of mine is to set up–over and above everything else–is to set up a number of large government-run facilities–like on ex-military bases–where people with chronic conditions–I’ll come right out and say it–are warehoused. Sure, being government-run means they’d be a disaster–like veterans hospitals–but that’s reflected in the fact that you don’t really want to go there, so you won’t cancel your existing insurance. It would be for people with nowhere else to go. That would dovetail with my other idea, which is to set up a number of “magnet” high schools whose curricula leaned toward training students for jobs in health care. Some students would be groomed to go on to medical school, while the others would be steered toward jobs as nurses, orderlies, etc. They could be a main source for staffing the sinister government-run warehouse hospitals I’m proposing, as well as flesh out the labor pool of health care professionals, which ought to bring down salaries ad thus prices. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/85 "2009-08-16T22:28:20Z")
Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR): “I will never vote for a bill to kill old people, period.” We are much reassured. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/86 "2009-08-16T22:36:18Z")
Mike Ross clearly lacks imagination. What if the old people are hosts for alien neuro-virus invaders trying to take over the world? What then, huh? ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/87 "2009-08-16T23:04:12Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > 1. Tort reform. A huge portion of the cost of health care is directly (and some indirectly) related to the cost of lawsuits. Not only will the cost of malpractice insurance drop, but so will the huge, unnecessary batteries of tests currently being prescribed by doctors to cover their asses. [False:](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11424975#post11424975) > [@](#): > > “Health Spending In The United States And The Rest Of The Industrialized World” > Anderson et al. > Health Affairs, 24, no. 4 (2005): 903-914 > > Are claim payments higher in the United States? Surprisingly, U.S. malpractice payments (including both cases that resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff and cases resulting in a settlement) were lower, on average, than those in Canada and the United Kingdom. In 2001 the average payment in the United States was $265,103, which was higher than in Australia but 14 percent below Canada and 36 percent below the United Kingdom.22 While U.S. media and public attention have focused on multimillion-dollar awards at the upper end of the range, the average was actually smaller than in Canada and the United Kingdom in 2001. > … > Possibly the most important and best summary measure of the magnitude of malpractice awards is total payments divided by total population. On this measure, the United States is only slightly higher than the other three countries: $16 per capita in 2001, compared with $12 in the United Kingdom, $10 in Australia, and $4 in Canada. In all four countries, however, malpractice payments represent less than 0.5 percent of health spending. > > These figures do not include the legal costs of defending malpractice claims. Legal costs are estimated to average $27,000 per claim in the United States, which adds approximately $1.4 billion in costs to the $4.4 billion paid in settlements and judgments.23 The costs of underwriting insurance against malpractice claims are estimated at an additional 12 percent, or $700 million.24 The cost of defending U.S. malpractice claims, including awards, legal costs, and underwriting costs, was an estimated $6.5 billion in 2001—0.46 percent of total health spending. > … > The total cost including awards, legal costs, and underwriting costs was $237 million (PPP) in 2001—0.27 percent of total Canadian health spending. Note, also, that countries with UHC have decreased their expenditures on lawsuits, primarily for two reasons: 1. With UHC, claims for medical treatment costs are moot. 2. If doctors are considered government employees, they can’t be sued over this. Other countries allow lawsuits, but have quasi-govermental insurance agencies that reduce the cost malpractice coverage per doctor through economies of scale (which, coincidentally, is the same reason that larger pools results in decreased costs per person for health insurance). ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2009, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/88 "2009-08-16T23:11:08Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Mike Ross clearly lacks imagination. > > What if the old people are hosts for alien neuro-virus invaders trying to take over the world? What then, huh? Could we still harvest some of their organs? And would the infected ones still have that old person smell? ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/89 "2009-08-17T00:13:48Z")
First, I have to nod in **brickbacon** ’s direction…I do hope both **mazinger\_z** and **Sam Stone** will respond to his post (#79). > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 1. Create a universal insurance program, for catastrophic costs only…The way you implement this is to cover all medical bills over a certain amount - in other words, univeral insurance, but with annual deductibles. While acknowledging that I’m not addressing most of your proposal, I’d focus on this “universal catastrophic insurance program” as a (political) non-starter. How would it be funded? Also, what are some details of its operation (particularly the decision-making)? Based on post #33, I think you’d expect the government to fund it, with the stipulation that there’s some amount of individual-borne cost, on a sliding scale proportional to individual wealth. It strikes me that the “socialist” charge has _much_ more validity for the above than what’s currently being proposed in Congress.\* Furthermore, I think there’s a cost dilemma that needs resolution (related to the decision-making I mentioned; i.e., “death panel” if care is rationed vs. deficit-increasing if not). But perhaps I don’t understand it properly, so I’ll await a response… \*IMHO, a bad argument; my point is only that one should expect at least the same level of political contentiousness. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/90 "2009-08-17T00:23:28Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I never read that particular post. And it’s nothing but the standard right wing Horatio Alger nonsense about people getting rich by working hard and doing a better job. And it IS nonsense; the people who work hard and do good jobs are the people that the rich make their money FROM; not the rich themselves. Primarily, you get rich by having rich ancestors. And if not that, by sucking up to those who are already rich and aiding in their exploitation of the people who actually do the work. People who work hard are lucky if they stay middle class. People who create new innovations are lucky if they get a small bonus while their bosses rake in the millions or billions. I don’t believe you. You were even directed to it. But, since you were so interested in that thread, please post your response to it there, as I don’t want to hijack this thread. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/91 "2009-08-17T00:36:11Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Conservative (at least for SDMB purposes) here: > > Combine all Federal programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare) into one program that is the program of last resort. Allow anyone to buy in, with a sliding scale based on income (poor = free, up to rich = flat monthly rate based on actuarial data). This program provides the floor for our citizens. Tricare isn’t the same as Medicare or Medicaid. It’s intended for active duty military, reservists, retirees, and their families. Tricare is much closer to the VA in terms of how care is delivered; rather than contracting with private physicians, most care is delivered by providers who are employed by the federal government or who are members of the active military or reserve. It generally does well with preventative care and management of chronic problems, but unless you live close to a military hospital, you still have to rely on the civilian system for urgent care, or really, for any acute care if the clinic can’t deal with your problem. In fact, I’ve had to take the sprog to the ER for strep throat during office hours because the clinic was closed. Tricare paid those claims at 100%, but what would be a relatively inexpensive office visit turned out to run about $1000 between hospital fees, lab fees and physician fees. ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/92 "2009-08-17T02:26:36Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > First, I have to nod in **brickbacon** ’s direction…I do hope both **mazinger\_z** and **Sam Stone** will respond to his post (#79). > > While acknowledging that I’m not addressing most of your proposal, I’d focus on this “universal catastrophic insurance program” as a (political) non-starter. How would it be funded? Also, what are some details of its operation (particularly the decision-making)? > > Based on post #33, I think you’d expect the government to fund it, with the stipulation that there’s some amount of individual-borne cost, on a sliding scale proportional to individual wealth. > > It strikes me that the “socialist” charge has _much_ more validity for the above than what’s currently being proposed in Congress.\* Furthermore, I think there’s a cost dilemma that needs resolution (related to the decision-making I mentioned; i.e., “death panel” if care is rationed vs. deficit-increasing if not). > > But perhaps I don’t understand it properly, so I’ll await a response… > > \*IMHO, a bad argument; my point is only that one should expect at least the same level of political contentiousness. I would totally support a catastrophic government plan, funded by tax dollars and premiums paid on the sliding scale. There wouldn’t be any decision-making by the government - it’s only function would be to cover medical bills over a particular amount. But it would have to be optional. I’m not sure how I feel about forcing people to carry insurance (actually, I think it sucks, but I can see the practicality of it), but I would expect that non-public insurance would also be available. I would imagine that the premiums paid to the insurance companies on gap-coverage plans would level out the premiums charged for the catastrophic policies. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/93 "2009-08-17T02:50:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t believe you. You were even directed to it. But, since you were so interested in that thread, please post your response to it there, as I don’t want to hijack this thread. Of course you want to hijack this thread; that’s why you are bringing up something so irrelevant to it. And I’m not “so interested in that thread”; YOU brought it up. I lost interest and stopped reading it some time ago, which is why I didn’t read your post. And I note that again you avoided actually addressing what I said, unsurprisingly. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/94 "2009-08-17T02:55:18Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Why isn’t anyone responding to mazinger\_z’s points? He’s actually describing the type of system most market-oriented economists are talking about. > > (on Preview: I see **Fear Itself** responded, but only to take a cheap shot at a single point while completely ignoring the other part of the post about providing entitlements for the poor) > > I posted almost the exact same solution in another thread, and killed the thread. It seems that it’s a lot easier to attack the weakest ideas for reform than the strongest… > > So let’s try again. > > 1. End the tax incentives for employer based healthcare. This is not something that should be encouraged. > > 2. Create Health Savings Accounts, which are fully tax deductible. So those with employer-based programs, the employers can give you employer contributions to your HSA, and you still get the same tax deduction. But now your HSA is portable, and people without employer based health care can contribute to their own HSAs and get the same tax deduction. No more distortions favoring those who get health care through employers. > > 3. Create a universal insurance program, for catastrophic costs only. The idea is that no one should go bankrupt or lose their house or be permanently impoverished because of expensive chronic medical problems or because of accidents or sudden serious illness. The way you implement this is to cover all medical bills over a certain amount - in other words, univeral insurance, but with annual deductibles. > > 4. Set up a progressive scale for the deductible based on household income or wealth. What you’re trying to achieve is common utility across all income levels (i.e. the cost of health care should hurt about the same for someone who earns $20,000 per year as someone who earns $2 million per year). This might mean the deductible before catastrophic care kicks in might be $1000 for low income people, and $500,000 for people who earn millions per year. > > 5. Some form of tax credit for health care costs for the truly needy. > > \ > > What’s not to like? Add in 1. Deregulation of the health insurance market, with permission to sell across state lines in the USA and 2. Tort reform and I think we have a winner. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/95 "2009-08-17T03:05:45Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > There wouldn’t be any decision-making by the government - it’s only function would be to cover medical bills over a particular amount. I’d think there would _have_ to be some decision-making by the entity picking up the tab. That is: at a minimum, some specification as to what procedures are legitimate, in addition to an idea of how much they should cost. Without such, you’d essentially be setting up a race to the minimum “catastrophe” price (pushed at least in part by insurers and doctors themselves). Suddenly, (playing with the meaning of “catastrophe”) every individual has the potential to be “too big to fail”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/96 "2009-08-17T05:59:40Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course you want to hijack this thread; that’s why you are bringing up something so irrelevant to it. And I’m not “so interested in that thread”; YOU brought it up. I lost interest and stopped reading it some time ago, which is why I didn’t read your post. No, I don’t want to hijack it, which is why I didn’t repost any of that content here. You posted your same cartoonish nonsense there as you did here. and I called you on it again. You ran away from the other thread. Perhaps the following will help you see the ridiculousness of your own behavior: > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And I note that again you avoided actually addressing what I said, unsurprisingly. Well, you certainly got me there, I guess. So, let me quote the entirety of your contribution to this thread. Let’s keep in mind the title of the OP is “What sort of health care reform do conservatives actually support?” Here are all your “contributions” to this issue of our times: [QUOTE=Der Trihs] Greed, and malice. Given a choice, they’ll choose the option that hurts people even if doing so hurts themselves. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Der Trihs] No, in a cartoon the good guys win. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > The problem is I see no reason to think that conservatives have any desire to improve anyone’s lot in life. They’ve always been the ones trying to make people’s lives worse. [QUOTE=Der Trihs] Exactly. Thus the term “cutting off your nose to spite your face”; some people are so hate driven they are willing to hurt themselves as long as The Enemy suffers as well. And conservatism is rife with people. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Der Trihs] Yes, they ARE indicative of the majority of conservatives. They are the conservative norm, not the fringe. And while there are naturally crazies on the Left, they are neither as numerous, as prominent and not even close to being as powerful as those on the Right. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Der Trihs] Last I heard, the polls say most Republicans are birthers. And there’s other possibilities; such as the possibility that you are deceiving yourself about what your fellow conservatives are like. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Der Trihs] No; you are simply imagining things. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Der Trihs] It’s not and never has been, any more that a “People’s Republic” is about the people. Conservatives have always been more interested in oppressing and exploiting and destroying and killing and warping society in their image than in conserving anything. [/QUOTE] Perhaps you’d be so kind as to call my attention to which of these weighty gems regarding the type of health care reform conservatives support you’d like feedback on. I’m having a hard time seeing anything of any substance or value. All I see is, as I presciently anticipated and shared, is more of your pat cartoonish rants about how evil conservatives are. Any of these could have been posted by you in any thread in which conservative beliefs are being discussed. But, maybe I’m mistaken. Please, by all means, point to which of those weight gems you’re so proud of or would actually like feedback on. In the meantime, I’ll ask you for cites for any three of them you’d like to back up with anything other than mouth. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/97 "2009-08-17T06:08:36Z")
I have a question. I came across [this cartoon](http://www.theweek.com/cartoons/index/98931/The_47_million_uninsured)in my internet travels. I’ve also heard some of these numbers thrown atound from some pundits, Huckabee, I think it was. My question is twofold: 1. are the numbers accurate? 2. if they are, does it imply that a much more targeted, less sweeping approach might be called for? That’s my take. Assuming the numbers are correct, of course. Make sense? Additionally, when Obama, or whoever, says that we need this sweeping reform because there are 47 million uninsureds, is he counting the number of illegal immigrants? If so, why? Hasn’t he said that the reform he envisions will NOT provide insurance to illegals? It seems like he’s just trying to beef up the number to paint a more dire picture. Am I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/98 "2009-08-17T09:47:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Perhaps you’d be so kind as to call my attention to which of these weighty gems regarding the type of health care reform conservatives support you’d like feedback on. They don’t support any reform at all, which was rather obviously my point. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/99 "2009-08-17T12:21:11Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > They don’t support any reform at all, which was rather obviously my point. Could you please provide a cite that shows that most conservatives in the US do not want any reforms to the US health care system? Failing that, could you please go away? We are trying to have an actual conversation here. And **magellon01** , Obamacare leaves about half the uninsured still without coverage, the last I heard. But I am not sure if he means the illegal aliens, or some other group. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454/100 "2009-08-17T14:56:47Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > They don’t support any reform at all, which was rather obviously my point. Wow, you used all those words in all those posts spewing nonsense just to say that. Okay. Since we’re now on track for a substantive debate, can you provide a cites for your following claims: - most Republicans are birthers - most conservatives don’t want any health care reform at all Thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-sort-of-health-care-reform-do-conservatives-actually-support/506454.md?page=6)