The health care reform currently in congress should be passed

Thank you for bringing this opportunity for me to discuss an important issue with the debate of health care. I have chosen to discuss this, not as an opponent of health care reform, but as an opponent of emotional, unfounded and factually incorrect arguments for reform. By using emotional and factually incorrect argument for health care reform, the debate will lose track of what kind of reform is proposed. And that is exactly what has happened the the current debate of US health care reform. Nobody discusses what sort of reforms are proposed and if they are good or bad. You just discuss health care reform or not. That means that those who are for reform risk supporting reforms that are negative, and those who are against reform risk opposing reforms that are positive, since you no longer discuss the reforms themselves, just use emotionally based propaganda. So let's look at the arguments: 1. The current health care system is unsatisfactory. I agree. The current system in the US is unsatisfactory. But that does not automatically mean that any sort of reform is good. Reform can very well help to make the system even more unsatisfactory. We need to understand the issues, and reform gradually based on that understanding. The arguments must be that a change is good on it's own basis. You can't just change for changes sake, because then half of the changes will be bad. 2. The reform will create a better nation. Here we get told that health care reform will create a better nation. But the aim of health care reform should reasonably be to create better health care, so this claim is strange. Let us look at the subpoints. 2A. The reform will stabilize our economy. This is obviously false. Stability in economy does not come from the health care system, but from how the economy is run. It's also somewhat of a misunderstanding to have stability as a goal in the first place. What you want in an economy is not stability, but quick recovery from downturns. Centrally planned socialist systems are often stable, then have a stable, slow downturn where the economy slowly gets worse. An economy should be dynamic, not stable. And health care reform will not help create either. The argument here is that the state, to get the US out of recession must spend as much on health care as the GNP declined. That policy will not help to counteract a downturn, and it will just create a massive state debt of unheard of proportions, which in turn can only be fixed with higher taxes, which will slow the economy, and that then needs to be countered with more spending and so on for eternity. It's an idea that ignores all knowledge about economics, and can only result in economic disaster. 2B: The reform will provide us with better quality care. People who has no insurance go to the emergency because thats something they don't have to pay for. But if they get a national health insurance, that means they do get payed for other health care, and will use it. The argument claims this will make health care cheaper. But the effect of paying for all health care is that they will get much more health care than they would have gotten otherwise. So don't fool yourself. Public health insurance is not likely to make health care cheaper, on the contrary it will make health care more expensive. This is also the experience from Europe. Making health care cheaper must be done some other way. 3. American citizens want reform. Yes. But they want improvements, not just random reform. You haven't showed that the current proposal is an improvement. You just echo emotional arguments for any kind of reform, and you are supporting reform not because the reform is good, but because you like the person proposing the reform. So do I, but that attitude is not likely to give you good reforms. We need to look at the problems rationally, and fix them based not on emotions, but based on facts and experiences from other countries.