"A proposal to cover millions more Americans with medical insurance predicated on spending less on medical care in the process perplexes enough."
=====================================================
This is only perplexing if you don't bother to think about it. Since a typical ER visit costs $383 while a visit to the doctor's office only costs $60, how could it not cost less to bring the uninsured into the system?

"Are you suggesting that prioritizing health care based on who can afford to pay is a more equitable system?"
-------
Where in the world you got that idea I can not even guess.
==============================================
How do you think limited resources are allocated in a free market economy?

While this may work fine for elective medical procedures, we're talking about basic medical care here. Why should anyone have to wait until their illness is serious enough to warrant an emergency room visit at taxpayer expense when it could be treated so much easier early on?

If you read my previous posts then you know you ain't seen nothin yet
====================================================
Are you suggesting that prioritizing health care based on who can afford to pay is a more equitable system?

Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit.
======================================================
And you think private insurance companies don't already use this formula? Try again.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.h tml

"Like Phyllis says read the fine print
The House version of the Health Care Bill is going to require (p 425-430) mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years, more often if the senior is sick or in a nursing home."
======================================================
It is not enough to just read, you have to comprehend as well. The paragraphs you reference define services which the insurance companies must offer. It does not mandate anything for the consumer.

"What the Bill ACTUALLY Says"
=====================================================
And where in there does it say these are mandatory?

"camanintx doesn't get it... competition, capitalism vs socialized medicine"
============================================
In other words, you believe that ones access to basic health care should be determined by ones net worth. How very capitalistic of you.

The fact that people like you and Schlafly have to resort to making up things about the bill in question just proves that you have no real argument against it.

"How long do you think Blue Cross would stay in biz if they take the money Grandma pays them and then tell her she is too old for her surgery to be "cost effective" so they will use her payments to give surgery to someone who could not afford to pay."
================================================
Your question makes no sense. Why would Blue Cross be paying for someone who can't afford insurance?

camanintx posts :""Section 1233 of the act only requires that insurance companies pay for advance care planning consultations once every five years (or more frequently if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual). Nothing in the act requires participants to get these consultations unless they want to."
-------------------------------------------
Now why would they require that?

Could it be that if your age/condition are not deemed cost effective enough for the bureaucrats in charge that you can wait perhaps two years or more for your tests, hip replacement,heart surgery etc
===========================================
Could it be that insurance companies find it easier to deny coverage...

"Seniors must submit to "advance care planning consultation" (aka end-of-life discussions) every five years"
-----------------------------------------------------
Section 1233 of the act only requires that insurance companies pay for advance care planning consultations once every five years (or more frequently if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual). Nothing in the act requires participants to get these consultations unless they want to.

Please try to restrict your criticisms to what the bill actually does instead of what it's opponents want you to think it does.