The problem isn't that people who oppose net neutrality believe different things, it's that the people that support net neutrality believe different things. To some it means opposing ISPs blocking content or charging extra for users to access content. To others it means having no ports blocked on a basic net connection without having to pay more. To others it means everyone getting the same connection speed without tiered systems. To others it probably means getting a free unicorn from the government. I support freedom of content, but at the same time I support ISPs having tiered pricing systems. Does that mean I support or oppose net neutrality?

Don't agree with you on the merit of the health care bill, but you make some good points.

Yeah, the Republicans would never fund ER visits. Politicians never fund things that don't benefit their re-election which is why bridges are falling apart and the only thing that elected officials will say is "We need more money." while new road construction will always have a handful of political leaders for ground breaking. I can believe that a lot of the extra health care cost is from doctors covering their butts, but without tort reform they will continue to do so. We could regulate what tests doctors could do or drugs they can prescribe, which is what the government option seems to promote, but some people really need those tests or drugs. As for illegal aliens and ER visits, it is a problem which nobody wants to face. If someone is not in this country legally then their is no way to send them a bill, and we also have no way of stopping people from coming over the border just to get treatment in an ER. I know you may think I'm heartless, but why should we be both the doctor and the policeman of the world? I'm not saying stop treating illegal immigrants, just saying that we should stop letting them in, and deport ones that are already here unless they are actively trying to be productive and become legal. I don't think it's too much to ask for. Thanks for the great discussion!

There is no government subsidy of ER visits. The unfunded ones get paid for by the funded, hence the cost. When you see your doctor you get billed pretty reasonably, I think the 10x cost difference you stated is pretty close.

My problem is with the assumption that government health care will both cover more people and bring costs down, it can't unless the actual expenses of health care decrease. An actual doctor visit is pretty inexpensive, your co-pay in fact is a sizable ammount of the expense. Such as a $10 co-pay on a $50 visit. When you start seeing specialists or need treatment that's where it gets expensive. My son broke his arm and the cost of setting the bone and putting it in a cast was $2000. Now why is it so expensive. We pay for a building plus utilities, then for an hour of the Doctors time, for the other staff, then for the use of the tools and supplies used, but that's not the expense. We then pay for the malpractice insurance of the doctors, and then the cost of litigation for anyone who supplied anything for the procedure. In the end something that should cost a few hundred dollars costs a couple thousand. Now we want to start giving this same broken coverage to everyone?! Drugs are cheap to make, research is expensive, but the real cost is the threat of a class action lawsuit 20 years down the road. Drug companies don't want to go bankrupt, so the charge high prices both to limit the demand and to make up for any subsequent lawsuits. If you take this out of the equation then you have much cheaper drugs.

But nobody wants to tackle the costs. Everyone wants to be the hero that gives free health care away and anyone opposed wants kids to die. As it's been brought up before, both sides have pushed different health care reforms to this end, but nobody wants to make it so that individuals can afford to pay for treatments themselves, or so that insurance can be cheaper by making medicine cheaper. Instead they all want to magically make the money appear to pay for a system that is unsustainable.

What I'm asking for is actual health care reform that both brings down cost and also provides cost transparency. I have no problem with hospitals providing ER coverage to the uninsured, but since the federal government mandated it they should pay for it! Yes that means you and I paying for it, but it also means that it's part of the budget that we can see instead of a hidden part of the cost. Get the trial lawyers under control. If a drug company or a doctor is negligent or otherwise malicious then they should be charged with crimes not litigated so that the cost is dropped on us. And on another note, if there are two treatments, one costs $1000 and the other $10,000 I should get to chose which I have and have some cost upon me even if I'm insured, because most doctors are going to go with the better of two treatments even if it's only 5% better because they are fearful of litigation if something goes wrong.

Sorry for the rant, but the way this issue gets tossed around like a tennis ball without addressing the fundamentals really burns me.

If you really want Net Neutrality, then argue it as a freedom of speech issue with the tea-party/republicans. Don't make it about getting unlimited internet from any ISP by buying the basic plan. Let the market regulate price, but let the government ensure freedom of content. Also make the case for more freedom for new providers so there can actually be competition. Net Neutrality gets a bad name when it's posed as socializing ISPs not when it show to be about freedom of speech.

Well I for one want a bill to kill everyone who disagrees with me. You can put any amendments you want to the bill but just don't change the basic premise. Sounds Bi-partisan doesn't it?

Yup. That's why I'm not sending them any money. But when you can give me a better option to vote for then I'll change how I vote.

If there was no money there either way then the cost is the same. FDIC insurance is to pay out deposits that the banks can't cover. TARP was to pay for the bad investments that hold the deposits the banks can't cover. The difference is that with TARP the banks that caused the mess are still around. Sure there would have been more chaos, but at least at the end of the day the losers would have lost. We just paid off the gambling debts of a lot of banks, what makes you think they won't gamble again?

Agreed. Both sides spin issues however they can to get support. Anyone who trusts a politicians mouth while ignoring their record is a fool.

Agreed as well, everyone has a different opinion which is why we are a republic of individual states. If you want your government to be a certain way then move to the state most like it and push for your change. The problem is when the politicians try to move the whole nation in a direction without understanding the differing opinions/needs within the nation.

Freedom is subjective, but the trick is to maintain a level of freedom for everyone without bullying anyone.

"Maintaining Principles" hinges on what the principles are, and although you may believe your side is morally right I may disagree. We are both maintaining our principles by voting with our own morality.

Reaching across the isle means either slapping the crap out of the other side (across the isle) or bribing the other side into agreement. I disagree with it in both cases. If you believe in something stand by it. Disagreement and discussion is important for everyone's rights to be maintained.

Again agreed. The problem is what about the things we have paid for and never received. Social Security is a prime example, for years it was the government's piggy bank. Now they want more money for this and that, but they don't even pretend to know where it's going or how it's used. Just a little example:

Schools need more money, they currently get $2 in funding. The politicians push for a tax to fund the schools, the tax collects $3. How much money do the schools now get?

$3

How's that you ask: The $2 that was going to the schools before now gets spent on other things. They didn't lie, the tax goes to the schools, but don't you feel like you just got taxed an extra $2 for nothing? I don't trust the government with any more money because they haven't been trustworthy with what they have.

People still believe trickle down, because in concept it works. In reality, if you only apply tax cuts to your buddies then they are the only ones that have growth at the expense of their enemies. Without people starting businesses and changing the status quo we have no growth, but squashing them by giving tax breaks to their bigger competitors only leads to stagnation and more corruption.

Well you've obviously been drinking some kool aid too if you think one side is going to force grandma out on the street, or refuse to pay for heart meds, or force little Timmy to die. Social security is a ponzi scheme, and putting more money in it will not change that. I don't think either side is going to kill social security, but I hope somebody will someday find a way to wind it down gracefully. Refusing to pay for heart meds so that a company's investors can make more money? Do you realize that the company that makes those heart meds has investors too? It should be an issue, because medicines and treatments do cost money. The pundits can talk about death panels all day long, but the truth is that you get them with government health care or insurance companies. At the end of the day you do have to figure out how much a life is worth because the money isn't limitless, and giving one person treatment will deny another. As for a guy in Texas not willing to help his fellow man out, I'm more than willing to help out my fellow man, but I'm not willing to give more money to the government to do it. When they can start accounting for every cent and stop playing accounting games then we can talk. Until then I look at the federal government the same way I look at Enron or Pharmor.

Fellowship is a great way to look at a small community, but for a nation it sucks. Many people already believe that government money is free and taking it has no effect. Unless you can see the cost of your own actions you are not morally bound to them. I haven't taken government money even when I have had the opportunity because I know that I would be depriving someone else, and I also haven't been desperate enough to truly need it. I'd rather stand on my own two feet as long as possible than take from someone else, but sadly I think I'm the minority.

They should have let the failing banks fail. TARP was a get out of jail free card for the worst offenders on Wall Street. Yes loans would have dried up for a while until they reached sanity again, but what would be the difference today other than banks being afraid to make stupid loans in the future?

Forcing people to buy health insurance is a win/lose proposition. Some will buy it, others will pay the fine. If the issue is that some people truly can't afford health insurance then the problem is not with the insurance companies but with the cost of treatment. I'm all for lowering health care costs, but this reform doesn't do that. Nobody wants to lower health care costs because a huge burden of cost is litigation and lawyers run the government. Another huge cost is treating patients without health insurance which the government forced on hospitals but never funded. Fix these two things and health care comes back down to reasonable levels. I'd much rather the government fund ER visits by those that don't have insurance, then at least we would be able to see in writing the impact that has on the system.

Have you looked at congress lately?

Everyone doesn't have health care. Lots of people choose not to have health care. Yeah it's expensive, yeah you have to give up other things to get it, but if you don't have it and can afford it that's not my fault! If you really want to make a difference then focus on what makes health care expensive, not covering everyone with the same expensive health care.

Also:

Really?! Is that all you can say to someone who doesn't agree? Might as well tell me that I want little kids to die and want to take away grandma's medicare or maybe I kick puppies too. Ignoring the truth may be less painful but it does make you look like a moron.

I vote for the Republicans not because I believe in them, but because I believe in the Democrats less. How do you fix this? I don't know. GW Bush was not my first choice and he certainly did a lot of things I disagree with, but compared to the alternatives both times he was the only choice. The one thing I do know for sure is that I am not supporting any candidates campaign unless I believe in them, not that it matters much they have enough corporate backing to ignore me and those like me.

And of course they didn't under Clinton or Obama? Please make a comparison, or at least make your case for this statement. It seems to me you are just lumping together a group of names that are unpopular in an attempt to make an emotional case instead of making an actual point which is fine for a campaign add but not for a debate.