Hello again, tom:

We're saying the same thing.. You make it sound like it's not the insurance companies fault, and I say they're loving every minute of it...

Hello again, Steve:

I do.

excon

You're missing my point, Ex.

No, everyone SHOULDN'T be able to call home to talk to their mommy. Everyone SHOULD be able to call 911, and they can. Hook up a phone to a phone jack in any house, and most of the time, it's connected enough to call 911. That's it. You want to talk to your mommy, do it on your own dime. Hell, for $0.35, you can talk to your momma from a pay phone anywhere, for 4 whole minutes!

Look, I'm actually doing some studying up on economics in general right now (and let me tell you, the last 30 years of world econ scares the hell out of me). The state SHOULD have some commodities that they offer to EVERYONE--and they do. They have emergency services, they have road construction, they have the post office, there are zoos, there are public schools, what have you.

But by making healthcare socialist, you're ALSO offering up the idea that water, soap, heat, clothing and food should be socialist---after all, those are things that EVERYONE should have.

That's bull.

Yes, people should have access to water and heat and clothing and food--but what they can AFFORD should be what they get. How else are you going to make everyone ELSE pay their bills? I mean seriously--why SHOULD I pay my electric bill? The government says I should have it, at a price that ANYONE can afford! Why SHOULD I pay my water bill? EVERYONE should be able to have water! Why SHOULD I pay my medical bill--even though I was a lifelong smoker until I got cancer and THEN quit--the GOVERNMENT should pay for that too!

Screw that.

People make choices. Sometimes the choice is to smoke or not. Sometimes it is whether to do drugs. Sometimes it's whether to shut off the TV and get out and exercise. Sometimes the choice is to parent a child they can't afford on their own instead of choosing adoption.

People should LIVE with the results of their choices. If you can't afford to pay your mortgage, you sure as HELL shouldn't have cable TV, a cell phone, and high speed internet. If you can't afford to pay for insurance, then you should make some healthy LIFESTYLE choices--don't smoke, exercise, eat healthy: in other words, minimize your chances of needing medical care in the first place.

I frankly do not feel sorry for many of these people who do not have insurance. I'm sure they've made choices at some point or another that led them to the point they're at. The percentage of people who TRULY had nothing to do with the point they're at for medical bills (an accident, HIV/AIDS from a blood transfusion, they were pushed off a bridge by a maniac, whatever) is relatively small.

But again--let's try fixing the system we HAVE, instead of throwing a whole new system out there.

The thing is--it's the WHOLE system. It's welfare state of mind that this country has. It's the sense of entitlement people have for things that are NOT essential (how many Katrina victims in uninsurable houses had TVs? They couldn't afford to get out of town, but they had a TV and cable in their below-the-water-line house!). It's the attitude that so many people have that it's someone else's problem and that they can't fix it anyway. It's the "it's not my fault I lost my house, it's the fault of the bank that gave me the loan to begin with!" attitude.

But---there are ways OUT of poverty. It just means you have to make sacrifices on your way out, it all--and most people aren't willing to do so. So yes--I see this as the middle class once again paying for the poor to sit on their asses, watch Oprah on their cable TV, get a check every month, and have too many kids.

The "I'm all right jack" mentality works well while you are in full health and have a good job. But I have observed that the costs of health care in your economy are much higher than they are elsewhere and you cannot say that the standard is that much greater after all we all enjoy the advances in medicine. So it seems your politicians are seeking to redress the part of the equation that is getting out of hand, and those who are making the money are screaming the loudest. I recall when it happened here 30 years ago, it was to be the end of life as we know it with all the attendant arguments; Lack of choice, lower standard of care, committing suicide, bankrupting the system, the end of the health insurance industry. In fact the only thing that happened was that the new system created the opportunity for some medical enterpreneurs to exploit the system and the costs were contained and regulated. The drug companies hate it, the would be millionaire doctors hate it, but the turn around in hospitals is quicker and everyone can afford it

Hello clete:

YOU LIE!

excon

You think I'm "making the money?" I AM the average Joe.

Good for you, Clete. I still don't trust OUR government to completely overhaul the system.

Why would I lie, I just tell it like I see it. Did I say the system didn't have problems, No. But they don't arise from universal health care initiatives but from government bungling by trying to continually cut costs of service delivery. When a government runs out of money they will try to cut costs. The reality is that like everything else, those who have the most to loose pay the most and not the other way round. You cannot expect the poor to pay when they don't have the money, as is suggested by some lunatics here, but a nation full of sick people benefits no one. When you remove disadvantage you create the environment for growth

Hello again, clete:

I thought, being an Aussie and all, that you might misunderstand my comment. You did. Americans knew what I was saying. I was just repeating what our congressman Joe Wilson said to our president, Barack Obama during his speech to a joint session of congress.

I don't think you lie.

excon

Ok, you got me with that one, I was aware of the incident.

We are perhaps more civilised in our parliament, a politician who said that would be forced to withdraw or be ejected, out on his nellie so to speak. You can say the honorable gentleman is mistaken but any suggestion he is deliberately misleading the parliament without substantiation isn't allowed

Hello again, clete:

As it should be here... But our right wing southern party forgot its southern manners.

excon

Actually, if you will read my posts, you will see that I have outlined several areas where there are problems with our system.

But NOT ONE OF THEM requires nationalization to fix the problems.

In fact, as you have repeatedly ignored, I have also proposed 11 items to fix the system without having to resort to nationalization.

So your post is a strawman... I never made such an argument.

What I said was that

1) the problems in our system do not constitute a "crisis" or even a widespread problem. The number of people who need help under our current system is actually very small,

2) nationalization will do nothing to solve those problems and in fact will INCREASE them to the point where they DO become a crisis, wherein accessibility and quality of care will both go down while cost goes up by as much as 500%, and

3) there are other ways to solve the problems we DO have that do not require the government to run health care.

All of these things are provable and have been amply documented.

Stop putting up strawman arguments and deal with facts.

Elliot

You inadvertently hit on the answer to your own question...

The key word is "properly". There is nothing that is "properly" going to take care of the average joe in Obamacare. They are, in fact, going to be taken care of very IMPROPERLY.

There is nothing in any of the current crop of health care bills that actually IMPROVES health care. The bills limit accessibility for old folks and people of "limited utility". They create economic DISINCENTIVES for doctors and other care and service providers, which will cause them to exit the practice of medicine and create a shortage of caregivers, just like in every other socialized medicine country in the world. And the US government has a history of paying MORE for health care than the private sector does, which means that costs are going to go up.

So if the goal and the outcome is NOT to improve health care, but rather to socialize it for its own sake, then the only conclusion is that the REAL goal is a takeover of up to 20% of the economy as a power grab.

In other words, the bills themselves prove my statement that improving health care is NOT the real goal of these bills.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

Yup, it's a commie plot... Can't argue with stuff like that. Just got to shake your head...

excon

Nope. It's not a "commie" plot. It's an OBAMA plot.

No different from the "plot" to become "emperor" that you claimed Bush was trying to do with the USA Patriot Act.

Difference is, Obama actually has taken over private companies... something Bush NEVER came close to doing.

Elliot

This is a good point---not that GWB wasn't an idiot on puppet strings, but that he never took over private businesses, and Obama HAS.

Maybe I wouldn't have such a sour taste in my mouth for the whole thing had it not been for bailouts of companies that used the bailout money for bonuses and trips to spas and such.

But it DOES come down to the fact that no one has shown me yet WHY UHC would be BETTER---just that it would be better for different people than it's good for now.

Sounds like Chicago-style economics to me.

Hello again, Synn:

It's NOT a good point. GW Bush inherited a robust economy, but when push came to shove, HE started the bailouts. HE doled out the first $700 BILLION! There's not ONE right winger out there who thinks the dufus had a real conservative bone in his body... Unless it's to make the bizarre comparison to Obama as the Wolverine just did...

But, the truth is our domestic car industry was going out of business. It was either let that happen or take them over... Had the LIBERAL spending DUFUS faced the same crisis, HE would have done the same thing...

Was it the RIGHT thing to have done?? THAT question has not yet been answered.

In terms of THIS DISCUSSION, however, I would only change TWO words in your assessment above, Synn... It's not going to be better for different people. It's going to be the SAME for MORE people.

excon

Synnen,

Not just "a" private business, but quite a few of them. They have already taken over...

GM
Chrysler
AIG
CitiGroup
Bank of America
JP Morgan
Wells Fargo
Goldman Sachs
Morgan Stanley
PNC Financial
US Bancorp
Capital One
Regions Financial
AMEX
Bank of NY Mellon
State Street Corp
Discover Financial

And this is just through TARP and the auto bailouts. Cap & Trade would have taken over GE, Exxon-Mobile, Shell, and a bunch of other energy and electrical products producers. And the Health Care reform bills would allow the takeover of every hospital, doctors office, and medical provider, as well as pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies.

That is some scary stuff...

Elliot

And with that statement alone, you just proved to have a very poor memory.

Bush inherrited a recession from Clinton. And he had a major terrorist attack in his 9th month in office... and got saddled with a recession that was all the worse because of the attack.

To fix it he cut taxes twice. It worked.

Bush didn't inherit a "robust economy".

Elliot

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. It is in fact one rung on Obama's redistribution of wealth/economic/social justice ladder.

Obama in 2001:

Hello again,

So, can we agree that the opposition to Obamacare, is REALLY opposition to Obama in general?

It would HELP if we could distinguish what your arguments are REALLY in opposition to... Elliot has finally come out. He thinks it's all a plot. Steve just jumped on board. Tom has ALWAYS been there... In fact, ALL of you have always been there...

So, tell me this... IF Obama didn't take over GM, would his health care plan be cool with you?? Since you've muddeled it all up into one indistinguishable ball, and probably don't even know yourself, I'm just going to declare that you would.

excon

I'm still trying to figure out where any of these bills does the first thing to improve health care instead of rearranging health insurance