Recentle, our president, decided to try and pass a Healthcare Plan. In this plan, everyone in the United would get free Healthcare. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well first of all, guess who still gets to have private insurance? That's right- everyone who works in the government (including Obama himself). Shouldn't the government have to comply with the rules they make? Also, in England they have socialized medicine. From what I know about socialized medicine, it's not a good thing. Will America become like that?
Also, in this healthcare plan, President Obama plans on giving healthcare to illegal immigrants, too. Shouldn't he be helping his country before paying for illegal immigrants to have healthcare? And lastly, who is going to pay for all of this? If the government is paying for healthcare, that means all our taxes go up! It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession? And, they will also decrease the money of the pharmacys. If pharmacies aren't getting enough money, then why are they going to want to continue in medical research.

Like P.J. O'Rourke famously said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

Any responses? If you disagree make sure you can back up what you say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedHead4991

Recentle, our president, decided to try and pass a Healthcare Plan. In this plan, everyone in the United would get free Healthcare. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well first of all, guess who still gets to have private insurance? Thats right- everyone who works in the government (including Obama himself). Shouldn't the government have to comply with the rules they make? Also, in England they have socialized medicine. From waht I know about socialized medicine, it's not a good thing. Will America become like that?
Also, in this healthcare plan, President Obama plans on giving healthcare to illegal immigrants, too. Shouldn't he be helping his country before paying for illegal immigrants to have healthcare? And lastly, who is going to pay for all of this? If the government is paying for healthcare, taht means all our taxes go up! It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession? And, they will also decrease the money of the pharmacys. If pharmacies aren't getting enough money, then why are they going to want to continue in medical research.

Like P.J. O'Rourke famously said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

Any responces? if you disagree make sure you can back up what you say

---

There has been a great deal of debate and fear mongering in various threads on this subject on this board.

To Help you out.

There are apparently millions of people in the US with out health coverage for various reasons. Part of this may be that the US has the most expensive health care costs in the world

There are a number of successful health care schemes in the world. No one says they are perfect but they deliver health care at a much lower cost than the US system imposes and they generally embrace the principle of universal health care.

Ultimately the taxpayer pays the cost, whether they pay it in lower wages and thus lower tax collections because health care coverage is provided as part of an employment package, or they pay it through the tax system. It is better that the system is open and transparent than that the true costs be hidden. You should also ask why some are allowed to not contribute and risk placing their costs on others

Don't shed any tears for the drug companies, they charge what the market will bear and ultimately their developments become generic or are superceded. Have you seen any drug companies fail even in the GFC?
Where I come from they are closely regulated and price controlled and yet it is profitable to do business in our market

The world will not end because the US government makes health coverage available to more people and some suffering may be averted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedHead4991

Recentle, our president, decided to try and pass a Healthcare Plan. In this plan, everyone in the United would get free Healthcare. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Any responces? if you disagree make sure you can back up what you say

---

I don't believe the president's healthcare plan is free; actually, the president doesn't have a plan; he's letting the worms in congress work that out. The plan is loaded with new taxes and so-called savings from fraud and revamping the current Medicare program to show that it is financially palatable. "(t)he bill's total cost, including Medicare changes, is expected to be higher and could push the price tag over $1 trillion, according to an initial CNN analysis." House Democrats unveil $894 billion health care bill - CNN.com This is just a ten year projection by the gov't, which has never figured out anything except how to look stupid.

Redhead To Help you out.

Quote:

---

there has been a great deal of debate and fear mongering in various threads on this subject on this board.

---

Let me translate this statement . Those who favor the reforms being proposed are "debating " and those of us who oppose the plans proposed are "fear mongering" .

Quote:

---

There are apparently millions of people in the US with out health coverage for various reasons.

---

The numbers vary greatly of course as to how many people are without coverage by choice or because of circumstances or just falling through the social safetynet . But this isn't about that really . If it were the remedy would be simple... add them to Medicare/Medicaid . What is really being proposed is the gutting and dismantling of our entire system so the government can run an industry that represents almost 20% of the US GDP.

Quote:

---

There are a number of successful health care schemes in the world. No one says they are perfect but they deliver health care at a much lower cost than the US system imposes and they generally embrace the principle of universal health care.

---

What is being said here is that what they really desire is a government run and controlled health care industry . When we "fear monger " it means that we have provided numerous examples where these systems do not provide quality services to the patient .

Quote:

---

Ultimately the taxpayer pays the cost,

---

BINGO!!

Quote:

---

Don't shed any tears for the drug companies

---

The proponents of this plan demogogue the issue by demonizing the Pharmaceutical and Health Insurance industries because they "profit " from providing quality health care products and services. They would demonize doctors too if they thought they could get away with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedHead4991

Also, in England they have socialized medicine.

---

I don't think any country has a perfect health care system, but here everybody has an option of having the standard care offered by the NHS, and they can supliment this by having private medical insurance

By having both systems available it providea healthcare to all of our sujects, while those that can afford it can have the private, but to say it is a socialised system, is a little too far for me

Just because a system allows something for all does not mean it is socialised! You can be conservative and still have empathy for your fellow man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedHead4991

Recentle, our president, decided to try and pass a Healthcare Plan. In this plan, everyone in the United would get free Healthcare. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

---

Hello Red:

It's a GOOD thing. What?? You don't like FREE fire protection, or FREE police protection? You don't like driving on our FREE roads? What's not to like about FREE? If you disappear in the forest, they'll come looking for you, for FREE. They clean the snow off your street, for FREE. Who doesn't like FREE?

excon

Free food ,free houses are good things too. Why doesn't the government give everyone free food and houses ? Maybe when I dump they can wipe my butt too !

Salvo

I rather like the way that parts of china operate

When you are well and fit, you pay the local doctor, when you are sick you don't have to pay him anything till you get better

Imagine a system where this is universal and you can stop paying insurance companies when you are sick - how quick do you think healthcare will be speeded up?

And tom, if you want all that you ask, just get committed to a mental house - free food, free roof, and they will wipe your botty for you as well

I don't ;but that's the way we're heading
http://www.kyvideoservices.com/Super...es/page4_2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Free food ,free houses are good things too. Why doesn't the government give everyone free food and houses ? Maybe when I dump they can wipe my butt too !

---

Hello again, tom:

Let's talk about some of those FREE things you don't like. Here's a story about Joe Middle-Class Republican. He's probably a lot like you.

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark) He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Red:

It's a GOOD thing. What??? You don't like FREE fire protection, or FREE police protection? You don't like driving on our FREE roads? What's not to like about FREE? If you disappear in the forest, they'll come looking for you, for FREE. They clean the snow off your street, for FREE. Who doesn't like FREE?

excon

---

How much did you pay in taxes in 2008? What percentage of your total income was that?

How satisfied are you with the maintenance of the roads where you live? How bad are the potholes?

How much do you like your local cops? Aren't you the guy who complains that all the cops are corrupt?

How good is the snow removal where you live?

How satisfied are you with your local DMV, post office, etc.

And how about all those wonderful government programs like the USA PATRIOT ACT, special rendition, government evesdropping on foreign communications, etc? You complain bloody hell about those... but they are free too. Who doesn't like free?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedHead4991

Recentle, our president, decided to try and pass a Healthcare Plan. In this plan, everyone in the United would get free Healthcare. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well first of all, guess who still gets to have private insurance? Thats right- everyone who works in the government (including Obama himself). Shouldn't the government have to comply with the rules they make? Also, in England they have socialized medicine. From waht I know about socialized medicine, it's not a good thing. Will America become like that?
Also, in this healthcare plan, President Obama plans on giving healthcare to illegal immigrants, too. Shouldn't he be helping his country before paying for illegal immigrants to have healthcare? And lastly, who is going to pay for all of this? If the government is paying for healthcare, taht means all our taxes go up! It means that doctors salaries decrease and then if you can't make money in being a doctor, then why go into that proffession? And, they will also decrease the money of the pharmacys. If pharmacies aren't getting enough money, then why are they going to want to continue in medical research.

Like P.J. O'Rourke famously said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

Any responces? if you disagree make sure you can back up what you say

---

Hello Red,

You are absolutely 100% correct in your assessment.

First of all, "free health care" isn't free... in fact, according to the CBO, nationalized health care will cost roughly 300-500% of what private health care does. Between administrative waste, payments of government pensions to retired employees of the government health care system, and the fact that the government pays an average of 35% more than private insurancve does for drugs, therapies, procedures and tests.

Second, for all the talk of health care being cheaper if the system is nationalized, you cannot expect to add 15-47 million more people to the system and have it cost less.

Third, as much as those on the left would like to dismiss the talk of "death panels", the fact is that all of the plans coming out of Congress have provisions for the government to decide what medical care you get based on your age, a determination of your remaining utility to society, and the cost of the care. Also, these plans have provisions for doctors or counselors to sit with older patients and try to convince them to sign DNRs, DNIs, living wills, and end-of-life instructions that would order doctors to withhold treatment from them. While the libs dismiss this as just "end-of-life planning", the fact is that we have seen in other countries what that ends up looking like, and we have heard the comments of our President about withholding care for seniors, and seen and heard the words of Ezekiel Emanual and others who have told us that they would withhold such care for seniors because it is too expensive. These are, in effect, "death panels" whether the libs want to own up to that fact or not.

Fourth, for all the talk about "choice and competition" through the creation of a "public option", the stated goal of Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Emmanuel, Schankowski, etc. is a single-payer system, and they have stated that they intend to use the "public option" to FORCE a single payer system over a period of several years. In fact, all the of the plans have provisions that state that if anything changes in your current plan (including a change in premium amounts), or if you are forced to leave your current plan for any reason, you cannot transfer to another private plan, and you MUST take the public option. Also, your small-business employer is going to be charged a tax that will force them to drop private insurance or go out of business, thus forcing you into the public option. Over a period of a few years, there will no longer be any private insurance, and we will have been forced into a single-payer system.

If the government really wanted to creat choice and competition in the medical insurance industry, they could do so by allowing interstate purchase of medical insurance and insurance portability. This one step would increase your choices from maybe 5 or 6 companies in your state to 1300 nationwide.

Simply put, Obamacare is a bill of goods. It's bad law, it's not designed to solve any of the problems it claims to solve, and it has a hidden agenda.

Elliot

Ex
I got a version of Joe middle class too.

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with bottled water because he knows that the municipal water system supplies water that occasionally has e coli and other natural organisms that will make him ill--after all his mother died from drinking water that was polluted by sewage after a heavy rain. Joe tried to sue, but was told that the city had sovereign immunity from such suits as a result of state law. If the water he pours from the bottle he bought at Safeway is polluted, he knows he can sue the manufacturer and collect big, so he feels pretty sure that it's clean.

Joe grinds his coffee beans carefully because they're very expensive as a result of the U.S. government-enforced international coffee cartel that exists to protect the jobs of coffee importers--heavy campaign contributers to Congress. He's also careful about how much sugar he puts in his coffee because it costs seven times the world price of sugar as a result of the U.S. government imposed import restrictions on sugar to protect the domestic sugar beet and sugar cane industry.

Some mornings he drinks a coke instead, although it hasn't tasted as good since the manufacturer substituted corn syrup for sugar as a sweetener, since sugar is so expensive.

With his first swallow of coffee Joe takes his daily medication for his liver cancer. His doctor assures him that it is the best medication available in the U.S., although more effective medicines are used in Europe. Joe has a life expectancy of only two more years, but it will be a decade or so until the FDA tests on those other medicines are complete and they are allowed to be sold in the U.S. Joe feels protected anyway; after all, he might lose his hair or suffer some dizziness from the new medicines.. The FDA will protect him from that eventuality. Besides, the medicines he takes are paid for by money that his employer would have otherwise paid him in his regular salary. Since he never sees that money, he doesn't realize that his medicine isn't really subsidized by his employer after all.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; it is fragranced with some sort of exotic flower and there are strange chemicals in it ; and he bought it, well, because he liked the picture of the kangaroo on the bottle. He luxuriates in his bourgeois moment in the shower, a luxury unavailable to even the most wealthy of only 200 years ago. He is able to have many of such seemingly simple luxuries because some greedy businessmen sought enormous profits in the only way they could: satisfying consumer demand.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because the accumulation of capital over centuries has now brought the discounted marginal value product of a schmuck like Joe to unimaginable heights. Joe doesn't know anything about economics because he doesn't have to. He is no smarter than his forbears, and he works less. Nonetheless, because he participates in a world-embracing division of labor where his specialized work on a growing capital base is greatly valued, he is richer.

Joe's employer pays these standards because if they don't, his employer's competitors will.

It's noon time, Joe doesn't need to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills - he uses online banking and direct deposit. He has no idea how these systems work, or what a banking clearinghouse is, but he is able to use these services at the lowest cost practicable because banks compete for his business. Notwithstanding the massive interventions to the business of banking, he is able to weather the government-induced business cycles and inflation by investing in mutual funds, annuities, stocks, bonds, REITs, real estate, and other investment vehicles.
Joe plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He arrives at his rural boyhood home. The house didn't have any good programming choices until DirecTV offered an array of programming and high-speed internet, too. His dad uses a VCR, which only became affordable to him after lots of rich people bought the early, expensive versions and the manufacturers improved the designs and cut costs. In fact, his dad has a cell phone, TiVo, refrigerator, microwave oven, and a CD player - all of which became affordable to him because they were first the toys of the super-rich, and the crackpot schemes financed by the wealthy entrepreneurs willing and able to risk their money in such endeavors.

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on a reverse mortgage - a recent market innovation.
and so on......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Let's talk about some of those FREE things you don't like. Here's a story about Joe Middle-Class Republican. He's probably a lot like you.

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for ...

excon

---

You living in Fairyland or Oz?

Redhead, this is 'my' America:
"Grow Your Own Tobacco At Home

Hi --

My name is Bob and I grow tobacco at home and refuse to pay the punishment taxes that make the price of tobacco so outrageous."
http://www.stonerforums.com/lounge/g...acco-home.html
Now, what are those liberals fighting for? Don't worry about excon cause he blows lots of smoke.

I wonder where and what everybody would be doing if there was no such thing as Government - probably fighting the next cave for nothing more than their food supply!

A government should dictate or provide the basic standard of everything, if people want to have a better system then they have the right to provide it

People can then work towards getting a better life, while the basic system provides him access to the market

Or is this just lost on people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

I wonder where and what everybody would be doing if there was no such thing as Government ...

---

There is no one advocating this.

So if everybody agrees that there should be a government, what in the giblets should it do?

I ask I am very confused by peoples comments on what a government is there for?

If people say to provide representation - for what? according to some they don't need any representation - as they choose 100% market over any political system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

So if everybody agrees that there should be a government, what in the giblets should it do?

I ask I am very confused by peoples comments on what a government is there for?

---

Hello again, p:

It can be summed up very nicely this way. If you're a rightwinger, you think the government is there to make war. If you're a lefty, you think the government is there to look out for the people.

excon

PS> The lefty's, of course, look to the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution for their inspiration. They're ALL about protecting the PEOPLE.

Salvo Ex,

So what you state with your very appreciated simple answer is this

Whether left or right it is the governments responsibility to raise revenue to assist in the building of an organisation

If that is true then so is this

It is the governments duty to tax its people

It is the governments duty to provide its people with protection

Now if as you say your are a righty, then that is it - nomore intervention, asistance, or influence of any kind

Then tell me my american friend, if the amount of money raised my taxes is dependent on the market, which is ultimatly dependent on what the dollar is worth

Who influences the worth of the dollar?

The Founders were clear about the role of government .

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” –James Madison, Federalist No. 51

That is why the founders made the powers of the national government few and enumerated in the constitution. The rest of the governing authority rests in state and local authority through the will of the people.

It was alos the founders who decided that the old way of doing things was not working about for them

So the decided to change things

Of course things can always be changed in the future, I just hope that when change does occur it is done by peaceful means and not war

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

So if everybody agrees that there should be a government, what in the giblets should it do?

---

Haven't I answered this enough times already.

Government is there to
1) maintain a physical infrastructure for the country... roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, and a mail service,
2) maintain a military and police force to protect the nation from enemies both foreign and domestic, and
3) create and maintain an economic environement that is conducive to the production of goods and services, the selling of those goods and services, and the accumulation of wealth.

Quote:

---

I ask I am very confused by peoples comments on what a government is there for?

---

Why? It's actually very simple.

Quote:

---

If people say to provide representation - for what? according to some they don't need any representation - as they choose 100% market over any political system

---

Exactly 100% true. We really don't need representation if the government is simply sticking to those three requirements only. However, they don't stick to those three mandates, and if the government is going to tax us... and they do... then we require representation with regard to how those taxes are spent.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Of course things can always be changed in the future,

---

They also made provisions for change.It is through the amendment process. It has happened 27 times in our brief history .

My biggest beef is that too often the process is bypassed. That is the most quick way to erode the firewalls built into our system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Salvo Ex,

So what you state with your very appreciated simple answer is this

Whether left or right it is the governments responsibility to raise revenue to assist in the building of an organisation

If that is true then so is this

It is the governments duty to tax its people

It is the governments duty to provide its people with protection

Now if as you say your are a righty, then that is it - nomore intervention, asistance, or influence of any kind

Then tell me my american freind, if the amount of money raised my taxes is dependant on the market, which is ultimatly dependant on what the dollar is worth

Who influences the worth of the dollar?

---

Actually, that's NOT what excon said. Excon was trying to give a pithy response that he knows is inaccurate. He said nothing about raising money. He talked about making war vs. looking out for people, and assumed that one was the purview of the right, and the other was the purview of the left.

In actuality, however, the right both PREVENTS wars when they can and FIGHTS them when needed. It also protects the rights of individuals. The left neither prevents wars nor fights them and their domestic policies eliminate the right of free choice of individuals and create an under-class of slaves that are beholden to the government for all their needs while growing the power of the government over-class.

See, I can do pithy responses too. ANd mine are more accurate.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

They also made provisions for change.It is through the amendment process. It has happened 27 times in our brief history .

My biggest beef is that too often the process is bypassed. That is the quickest way to erode the firewalls built into our system.

---

I think that your founders had the right idea for its time, the same as when rebels forced the King to sign the magna Carter, and Oliver Cromwell with his rebellion

Democracy in any form has taken along time to devolop in any country

I just find it interesting that people constantly refer backwards, as if to say, well if they didn't want it then we shouldn't have it now

In the magna carter is describes fairness and equality - this was a major step. After a few more steps, we arrive at your doorstep with equality for men

Again at this stage equality is a descriptive word

Moving forward, we still seem to have difficulty in providing equality for all men, especially in the US where it is the inequality that makes america what it is

I do not argue against captilism - I am all for it, but it is the hypocrisy that is pursued so vigoursly that I find so amusing

Nobody states that not all should go to school, as people agree all children should have a fair crack of the whip and it was that do with that that matters

However, in a system that by its very nature requires people to work low paid jobs, without which the economy would collapse, and yet they will not provide a basic health care system that will show that they are rewarded for doing the jobs that most of us do not want to do

The argument against this is simple though, Why Should I Pay for someone else's mistakes - well why should I pay for someone to not listen in school?

If the US doesn't want a healthcare system for all, because it would be unfair against those that have worked for their cover, then why not expel those children that are wasting everybodies time at school - you are paying for them to do that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Actually, that's NOT what excon said. Excon was trying to give a pithy response that he knows is inaccurate. He said nothing about raising money. He talked about making war vs. looking out for people, and assumed that one was the purview of the right, and the other was the purview of the left.

In actuality, however, the right both PREVENTS wars when they can and FIGHTS them when needed. It also protects the rights of individuals. The left neither prevents wars nor fights them and their domestic policies eliminate the right of free choice of individuals and create an under-class of slaves that are beholden to the government for all their needs while growing the power of the government over-class.

See, I can do pithy responses too. ANd mine are more accurate.

Elliot

---

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Sir Winston Churchill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Moving forward, we still seem to have difficulty in providing equality for all men, especially in the US where it is the inequality that makes america what it is

---

That's because you are defining "equality" as equal result. That is a false definition. The correct definition of "equality" is equal;ity of opportunity. And that EVERYONE in the USA has equally.

Quote:

---

Nobody states that not all should go to school, as people agree all children should have a fair crack of the whip and it was that do with that that matters

---

Actually, that is an ongoing debate. Should everyone go to school? Should the state pay for it? It's not as simple as you think it is... especially when the discussion includes higher education... post high school. Is education actually a "right"? Or is it a service that we have the right to purchase if we so desire? The difference is important.

Quote:

---

However, in a system that by its very nature requires people to work low paid jobs, without which the economy would collapse, and yet they will not provide a basic health care system that will show that they are rewarded for doing the jobs that most of us do not want to do

---

Can you name such a job? Fact of the matter is that if people work for the government in low-paid jobs, they have some of the best health care available in the USA. Not to mention having union protection. And if they work for PRIVATE COMPANIES in such jobs, chances are better than 80% that they have health care as well. There are actually very few people who AREN'T covered by some form of health care... less than 3% of Americans, actually (roughly 12 million). So your assumption that there are huge tracts of people in low-paying jobs, forced to work as virtual slaves without health care in this country is just plain wrong.

Quote:

---

The argument against this is simple though, Why Should I Pay for someone else's mistakes - well why should I pay for someone to not listen in school?

---

Exactly. Again, this is an ongoing debate. Don't assume that it is a done deal and that education is universally considered to be a "right".

Quote:

---

If the US doesn't want a healthcare system for all, because it would be unfair against those that have worked for their cover, then why not expel those children that are wasting everybodies time at school - you are paying for them to do that

---

Yep. I'm fine with that. Your point?

Elliot

Quote:

---

I think that your founders had the right idea for its time,

---

I think it's timeless.

Quote:

---

Nobody states that not all should go to school, as people agree all children should have a fair crack of the whip and it was that do with that that matters

---

Not a good example. Our public school system is a monumental failure precisely because of the centralization of it. Like I said (and what I believe the founders meant by leaving power as much as possible to local authority ) ,such things are better left to the level of government closest to the people . The more madates on education come from the central government the more children fall through the cracks.

Quote:

---

However, in a system that by its very nature requires people to work low paid jobs, without which the economy would collapse, and yet they will not provide a basic health care system that will show that they are rewarded for doing the jobs that most of us do not want to do

---

If the people become so slothful the society is lost anyway. But you got that wrong. You know why I pay electricians ,plumbers ,auto mechanics big bucks ? Because they provide a service I can't do. My lawncare and gardening I'm capable of doing myself.

Tom

Lowest paid jobs are those that work in fast food restaurants - Forbes 2007 and covers approx 15m americans

These jobs are always going to be needed, as I assume you like to take yourself, family, partner whatever out for at least a cup of coffee every now and again

These jobs are needed, nay, demanded by a capitalist economy, so who are you kidding when you state, Slothful Scoiety?

Even if you had every single child graduating from college with a recognised degree, somebody from this list would still have to be paid crap wages to bring you a cup of coffee

So why shouldn't these people, who lets face it work in some terrible conditions at time - imagine working for maccyds! get a fair crack at having a good healthcare system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

Sir Winston Churchill

---

Yes we should. The strategy PRE-9/11 was to hide our heads in the sand and ignore terrorism.

The result?

Aside from 9/11:

September 8 1974 - Abu Nidal organization sets off a bomb that destroys TWA flight 841, killing 88 passengers.

September 10 & 11, 1976 - highjack of TWA flight by Croatian "freedom fighters".

March 9, 1977 - capture of 3 buildings in Washington DC by African-Muslin Hanafi sect operatives, 100 hostages taken, Mayor Marion Barry shot in the chest and one bystander killed.

August 3, 1977 - FALN terrorists bomb the offices of Exxon-Mobile, killing one and injuring 8. The terrorists also falsely warn of bombs in the Empire State Building. Real bombs are found several days later in the AMEX building.

July 1979 - attempts to attack the US and Israeli embasies in Norway stopped by Norweigan police.

June 9 1979: FALN explodes a bomb outside of the Shubert Theatre in Chicago, injuring five people.

November 4, 1977 - start of Iran Hostage Crisis, which lasts 444 days.

March 15, 1980 - FALN terrorists raid the HQ of Jimmy Carter's campaign in Chicago and the HQ of George H. W. Bush 's campaign in NY. Total of 17 hostages taken in these two incidents.

June 3, 1980 - bomb destroys the Story Room of the Statue of Liberty, Croatian sepparatists suspected.

May 16 1981 - bombing of bathrooms in JFK Airport kills 1. Responsibility is claimed by Puerto Rican Resistance Army.

August 11, 1982 - bomb explodes of Pan Am Flight 830 from Tokyo to Honolulu killing 1, injuring 15.

December 31, 1982 - FALN explodes bombs outside 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, the FBI headquarters in DC and a courthouse in Brooklyn. 3 police officers injured.

April 18, 1983 - US Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 63, including 18 Americans.

October 23, 1983 - Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 241 Marines and wounds 81. 58 French troops are killed in a separate attack.

November 9, 1983 - Bomb explodes in US Senate. Armed Resistance Unit claims responsibility.

August 29-October 10, 1984 - The Rajneeshee cult spreads salmonella in salad bars at ten restaurants in The Dalles, Oregon to influence a local election. Health officials say that 751 people were sickened and more than 40 hospitalized

September 20, 1984 - US Embassy in Beirut is bombed. 20 killed.

October 7-10, 1985 - Hijacking of cruiseship Achille Lauro by PLF. Disabled passenger Leon Klinghoffer shot and thrown overboard.

April 5, 1986 - Libyan operatives bomb a German discothèque frequented by US Servicemen, 3 killed.

February 28, 1989 - firebombing of Riverdale Press newspaper offices in New York City.

November 5, 1990 - assassination of Israeli Knesset Member Meir Kahana in New York City by early elements of Al Qaeda.

January 25, 1993 - Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others.

February 26, 1993 - WTC Bombing kills 6 and injures over 1,000. Coalition of 5 different muslim terrorist groups responsible. Again, this is an early operation of the terrorist umbrella organization known as Al Qaeda.

March 1, 1994 - Brooklyn Bridge shooting by Muslim terrorist kills 1.

February 24, 1997 - Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

August 7 1998 - U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda.

October 19, 1998 - Earth Liberation Front causes $12 million worth of damage with firebombing of a ski resort in Vail, Colorado.

December 31 1999 - Earth Liberation Front causes over $1 million of damage in firebombing of Michigan State University's Agriculture Hall.

April 30, 2000 - The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) claimed responsibility for causing over $500,000 in damages to construction equipment in Elettsville, Indiana. Fourteen pieces of logging and construction equipment were destroyed by the perpetrators, who filled gas tanks with sand, cut fuel and hydraulic lines and set a tractor-trailer filled with wood chips on fire.

That's 29 attacks in 27 years... and I missed a few that weren't successful attacks. I also left off the domestic terrorist attacks.

After our response to 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Nothing.

So, I look at our strategy and I look at the result, and I see success.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

You living in Fairyland or Oz?

---

Now that's hitting below the belt but I have you know that in oz we don't have to boil the water to make it safe. Look Ex would love it here, he could have the choice between two political parties who have leftist tendencies, one that claims to represent the workers and the other that claims to represent the battlers. Before our last election the party that claimed to represent the workers had a "me too" attitude to policy excepting to changes in Labor laws. What do both these groups do about health care, interestingly they maintain a system where basic health care is "paid for", and I emphasise 'paid for' by the government. The system allows you to pay any amount you want to to a doctor to look after you but the government will rebate a set fee, so choice is absolute. In this fairyland there is no reason for any person not to consult a doctor or receive treatment in a hospital because they cannot afford care.

I think that is what Obama is trying to achieve. The vested interests oppose such an objective and the politicians can't quite get their minds around how to achieve it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Founders were clear about the role of government .

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” –James Madison, Federalist No. 51

That is why the founders made the powers of the national government few and enumerated in the constitution. The rest of the governing authority rests in state and local authority through the will of the people.

---

Concepts that worked well when travel was difficult and communications almost non existent. What you have is a present fettered by the thinking of men who lived in a different age, an age of kings, colonialism and war between states

Quote:

---

Lowest paid jobs are those that work in fast food restaurants

---

If I count the times I was employed in high school ;college and post college starting ,I was that employee for a good 15-20 years. Name the job and I did it . There was almost nothing I wouldn't do. Hey ;if the government had paid for all my necessities then perhaps I'd've lost a good deal of the incentive to improve my condition... no ?

I am all in favor of a hard case safety net. I draw the line when my years of hard work means that someone else is ENTITLED to live off my labor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Concepts that worked well when travel was difficult and communications almost non existent. What you have is a present fettered by the thinking of men who lived in a different age, an age of kings, colonialism and war between states

---

I fail to see how technological improvement changes the principals behind our Founding.

I fail to see how the advent of cars, cell phones and computers makes what the Founders said about the dangers of government power and the methods of preventing its abuse. If anything, technology has allowed for GREATER government control over our everyday lives, our businesses and our liberties. If anything the warnings of the Founders are more relevant today than they ever were before, not less.

You are willing to give your government that control. We are not. Technological changes don't enter into it. I daresay that you would be just as permissive of your government managing your life if you were living in the early 1800s as you are today. And we conservatives would be just as strongly against it as we are today.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Yes we should. The strategy PRE-9/11 was to hide our heads in the sand and ignore terrorism.

The result?

Aside from 9/11:

September 8 1974 - Abu Nidal organization sets off a bomb that destroys TWA flight 841, killing 88 passengers.

September 10 & 11, 1976 - highjack of TWA flight by Croatian "freedom fighters".

March 9, 1977 - capture of 3 buildings in Washington DC by African-Muslin Hanafi sect operatives, 100 hostages taken, Mayor Marion Barry shot in the chest and one bystander killed.

August 3, 1977 - FALN terrorists bomb the offices of Exxon-Mobile, killing one and injuring 8. The terrorists also falsely warn of bombs in the Empire State Building. Real bombs are found several days later in the AMEX building.

July 1979 - attempts to attack the US and Israeli embasies in Norway stopped by Norweigan police.

June 9 1979: FALN explodes a bomb outside of the Shubert Theatre in Chicago, injuring five people.

November 4, 1977 - start of Iran Hostage Crisis, which lasts 444 days.

March 15, 1980 - FALN terrorists raid the HQ of Jimmy Carter's campaign in Chicago and the HQ of George H. W. Bush 's campaign in NY. Total of 17 hostages taken in these two incidents.

June 3, 1980 - bomb destroys the Story Room of the Statue of Liberty, Croatian sepparatists suspected.

May 16 1981 - bombing of bathrooms in JFK Airport kills 1. Responsibility is claimed by Puerto Rican Resistance Army.

August 11, 1982 - bomb explodes of Pan Am Flight 830 from Tokyo to Honolulu killing 1, injuring 15.

December 31, 1982 - FALN explodes bombs outside 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, the FBI headquarters in DC and a courthouse in Brooklyn. 3 police officers injured.

April 18, 1983 - US Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 63, including 18 Americans.

October 23, 1983 - Marine Barracks Bombing in Beirut, Lebanon kills 241 Marines and wounds 81. 58 French troops are killed in a separate attack.

November 9, 1983 - Bomb explodes in US Senate. Armed Resistance Unit claims responsibility.

August 29-October 10, 1984 - The Rajneeshee cult spreads salmonella in salad bars at ten restaurants in The Dalles, Oregon to influence a local election. Health officials say that 751 people were sickened and more than 40 hospitalized

September 20, 1984 - US Embassy in Beirut is bombed. 20 killed.

October 7-10, 1985 - Hijacking of cruiseship Achille Lauro by PLF. Disabled passenger Leon Klinghoffer shot and thrown overboard.

April 5, 1986 - Libyan operatives bomb a German discotheque frequented by US Servicemen, 3 killed.

February 28, 1989 - firebombing of Riverdale Press newspaper offices in New York City.

November 5, 1990 - assasination of Israeli Knesset Member Meir Kahana in New York City by early elements of Al Qaeda.

January 25, 1993 - Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fires an AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, killing two and injuring three others.

February 26, 1993 - WTC Bombing kills 6 and injures over 1,000. Coalition of 5 different muslim terrorist groups responsible. Again, this is an early operation of the terrorist umbrella organization known as Al Qaeda.

March 1, 1994 - Brooklyn Bridge shooting by Muslim terrorist kills 1.

February 24, 1997 - Ali Abu Kamal opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".

August 7 1998 - U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000, by al-Qaeda.

October 19, 1998 - Earth Liberation Front causes $12 million worth of damage with firebombing of a ski resort in Vail, Colorado.

December 31 1999 - Earth Liberation Front causes over $1 million of damage in firebombing of Michigan State University's Agriculture Hall.

April 30, 2000 - The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) claimed responsibility for causing over $500,000 in damages to construction equipment in Elettsville, Indiana. Fourteen pieces of logging and construction equipment were destroyed by the perpetrators, who filled gas tanks with sand, cut fuel and hydraulic lines and set a tractor-trailer filled with wood chips on fire.

That's 29 attacks in 27 years... and I missed a few that weren't successful attacks. I also left off the domestic terrorist attacks.

After our response to 9/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Nothing.

So, I look at our strategy and I look at the result, and I see success.

Elliot

---

To all who lost their lives from terrorism, rest and respect

Elliot

As I witnessed the IRA bombing of Hyde Park in 1982, I am somewhat familiar with the effects that terrorism has. I was on the other side of the park with my Dad, horror films have never been the same since

I think here though you are trying to persuade an argument that was based on the number of people who died in a single attack

If it wasn't for 9-11 there would be no war in Iraq etc

However, having lived with terrorism what seems all my life, do not think that the chances of you being bombed again have gone

The reason why it is particular effective is any idiot can do it, with very little assistance, but then you know that from your israeli experience

What you have to do is learn from each other of why there is so much hatred between the two sides

This involves talking, and I guarantee at some point talking will happen in Afgahanistan, and all its regions, because we cannot let this go and needs to be finished and not left to stir up again in 5 years

But this moves the subject away from the question

And we both know where we stand on this issue, I'm right your wrong :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If I count the times I was employed in high school ;college and post college starting out ,I was that employee for a good 15-20 years. Name the job and I did it . There was almost nothing I wouldn't do. Hey ;if the government had paid for all my necessities then perhaps I'd've lost a good deal of the incentive to improve my condition ...no ?

I am all in favor of a hard case safety net. I draw the line when my years of hard work means that someone else is ENTITLED to live off my labor.

---

I don't disagree that these jobs are there for students and the like, but at the same time, not every one of the 15m people employed in these jobs are students

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I fail to see how technological improvement changes the principals behind our Founding.

I fail to see how the advent of cars, cell phones and computers makes what the Founders said about the dangers of government power and the methods of preventing its abuse. If anything, technology has allowed for GREATER government control over our everyday lives, our businesses and our liberties. If anything the warnings of the Founders are more relevant today than they ever were before, not less.

You are willing to give your government that control. We are not. Technological changes don't enter into it. I daresay that you would be just as permissive of your government managing your life if you were living in the early 1800s as you are today. And we conservatives would be just as strongly against it as we are today.

Elliot

---

I am not sure if the princicples have changed but I do believe that one or two technologies have meant greater cultural influence over each other

He we have several people from different countries arguing the difference of yesturdays news, and yet this happening all over the world

Cultural influence has been accelerated at a phenomonal pace, no longer do governments control foreign policy in its entirity, it is now in the hands of the people and growing

Just as I have found out that not all americans live up to their stereotypes, but I hope I have represented England in a timely tradition G'vnor

The point is this, no person can look to the future with certainty, but we can try to plan for it, and the one goal we are all after, I want to make sure I am cared for if something's happen

Whether it is through work of your own, or given to you, I just can't see what is wrong with giving every human being the chance to be given medical assistance, and seen as this is something that every human being will need, it is a goal we all share in our lives

It is a shame that for a simple reformation of the healthcare system you object to helping your fellow man in a very easy gesture of goodwill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I think that is what Obama is trying to achieve. The vested interests oppose such an objective and the politicians can't quite get their minds around how to achieve it

---

Obama is a fascist or socialist, whichever you want to call him; he is, 'all government, all the time'.

Beginning around 1965, persons aged 65 and up, almost universally, have Medicare. It is going bust. Is that difficult to understand? Too many 'customers' chasing too few 'providers'; the result of which is higher prices.

Because hospitals and doctors are taking an economic loss vis a vis Medicare, they charge younger 'customers' more. This is an unintended economic consequence, which leads to higher prices from providers and insurers.

I don't care how large your heart is; how do you propose to pay for it? If you want taxpayers to pay for healthcare, what about shelter and food? Transportation? Daycare? Clothes? Pet care? Burial? Utilities?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

I don't care how large your heart is; how do you propose to pay for it?

---

Hello again, George:

I wonder why you don't ask the same question when it comes to your wars.

excon