[speechlesstx]

You have finally got to the nub of the debate on health care in the US; paranoia about communism.

Geez I'm so glad you guys know so much about us. I really haven't seen any paranoia about communism lately. On the other hand, Elliot, tom and myself have followed what the left has said for years now and we are quite familiar with their stated goals. It's really easy to know what they want when they say so.

But just FYI, the Ap has a story that explains much of the feeling in America now, Obama is ever-present.

Put aside for a moment the question of whether government is actually intruding into people's lives more than before. The point is that many people feel like it is — in part because Obama doesn't stop talking about his goals. If President George W. Bush got slapped around for being inarticulate, is Obama obnoxiously articulate?

"Obama's omnipresence refracts as big government to some degree," says Eric Dezenhall, an image consultant who has worked with celebrities and business leaders. "For those who like him, it reinforces their support for him. But for others, every time he appears, he conjures up the whole whiff of overreaching government and causes resentment."

Maybe it's about time the guy shuts up for a while.

Let's face it the US doesn't spend many dollars for a kid in Africa to have health care because they believe that kid should pay its own way the same way they expect their own people to pay their own way.

That's bullsh*t, Clete.

[speechlesstx]

You realize that Canada and the US are so incredibly similar - that must mean that you are already socialist - welcome!

I posted one just for you NK, take a look.

[paraclete]

Geez I'm so glad you guys know so much about us. I really haven't seen any paranoia about communism lately. /ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_face_of_government"]Obama is ever-present[/URL].

Maybe it's about time the guy shuts up for a while. .

Now it would be nice if we could convince not only Obama but all politicians and the media along with them to shut up for a while, but then we would be infringing on some of those wonderful freedoms wouldn't we, the freedom to bullsh*t:D

That's bullsh*t, Clete.

No more so than the bullsh*t that the US actually cares about the rest of the world, that it is a caring and sharing nation. In a pig's eye. :D

[Synnen]

You have finally got to the nub of the debate on health care in the US; paranoia about communism.

The right in the US equates socialism as being communism and therefore un-american as if being un-american is necessarily a bad thing. These guys are more brainwashed than the Russian communists used to be.

Let's face it the US doesn't spend many dollars for a kid in Africa to have health care because they believe that kid should pay its own way the same way they expect their own people to pay their own way. The Darwinian anthem of survival of the fittest is sung in the US every day and being fit equates to having money. Even if all the money they spend on foreign aid were diverted to paying for health care in the US it would make no difference at all, because it is the system and the thinking behind the system that needs reform and it starts with the premise that the rights they so fervently espouse include a right to health care

Excuse me?

I'm absolutely not paranoid about communism.

While I'm absolutely against the Marxist idea of "pay according to your ability, receive according to your need", I've stated over and over that I don't mind paying for the things that actually DO improve our society as a whole. The fire department, the police department, the road crews, the education system, the MILLIONS of tax dollars that go in grants towards medical research, the National Parks system, and what have you.

What I *am* against is having to pay for someone else's bad choices. I've been adamantly against Welfare for years now, and I'm adamantly against paying for someone else's health care because they made choices that made it so that they cannot afford it on their own.

That's not anti-communism. That's anti-laziness, anti-idiocy, amd anti-selfishness.

Once again--show me an adult in this country that can't afford health insurance through no fault of their own.

The ONLY people you're going to be able to come up with are the ones who are currently "uninsurable" due to a pre-existing condition. So... let's get rid of THAT problem, and make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage or charge over x amount more for those with pre-existing conditions.

Problem solved!

[Synnen]

Now it would be nice if we could convince not only Obama but all politicians and the media along with them to shut up for a while, but then we would be infringing on some of those wonderfull freedoms wouldn't we, the freedom to bullsh*t:D




No more so than the bullsh*t that the US actually cares about the rest of the world, that it is a caring and sharing nation. In a pig's eye. :D

Yeah... and HOW much international aid came to the US when Katrina hit?

I'd say that the US *Government* doesn't care about the rest of the world--in fact, I'd say our government has exploited far too many countries in the last 30 years--but the US *people* give to the plight of other countries pretty consistently, really.

Let's put it this way:

Would YOU want the U.S. Government to be running YOUR health care system, based on your opinion of the US in general, and its government in particular? I'm not talking just UHC here--I'm asking you if you'd want OUR government to set up YOUR UHC.

[paraclete]

Yeah....and HOW much international aid came to the US when Katrina hit?

I'd say that the US *Government* doesn't care about the rest of the world--in fact, I'd say our government has exploited far too many countries in the last 30 years--but the US *people* give to the plight of other countries pretty consistantly, really.

Let's put it this way:

Would YOU want the U.S. Government to be running YOUR health care system, based on your opinion of the US in general, and its government in particular? I'm not talking just UHC here--I'm asking you if you'd want OUR government to set up YOUR UHC.

You didn't get aid for Katrina because you didn't ask for it

No, I would not like your government in control of anything, in my opinion they couldn't control sex in a brothel :D let alone develop partisan policies that really benefit everyone, but they are your government elected by the people for the people, etc, etc, etc or is it that they have forgotten the purpose they exist. The US has the government it deserves because they are prepared to put up with the load of bull* their politicians put out. So the point is you don't want them in control of health care so it is time to change the government or change the population.

There are basic fundamentals which should be part of any health care system
Choice of health care provider
Coverage for preexisting conditions
Coverage for those whose circumstances might disadvantage them
Adequate compensation for necessary procedures
Reasonable cost

That said such a scheme shouldn't cover elective procedures. You suggestion that wrong choices should exclude basic care is disengenerous and tainted by the Darwinian theorm since this requires a health provider or public servant to make judgments beyond their competancy

We have the health care system we have because our system provides for rigorous debate and a mechanism which rarely gives absolute power to any government, so what is proposed ultimately has to be considered reasonable and not tagged with meaningless local spending provisions. Deals are done but they are done within the perspective of the budget and ministerial responsibility

[speechlesstx]

No more so than the bullsh*t that the US actually cares about the rest of the world, that it is a caring and sharing nation. In a pig's eye. :D

I think Elliot pointed out that our people are more generous than any other nation, 143% more generous than Australians. Take those numbers and stick 'em in your pig's eye.

[ETWolverine]

I think Elliot pointed out that our people are more generous than any other nation, 143% more generous than Australians. Take those numbers and stick 'em in your pig's eye.

Yep.

We GREEDY AMERICANS who DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT ANYONE ELSE give privately to charity in the amount of 1.63% of GDP. (This doesn't include GOVERNMENT AID, only charitable giving by individuals.)

Whereas, the great charitable Brits give 0.73% of their GDP to charity,
Canadians give 0.72% of GDP to charity, and Australians give 0.69% of GDP to charity.

Would you like to see that in terms of actual dollars given?

The following are the GDPs of our 4 countries as per the CIA World Factbook.

USA - $14.26 Trillion (2008 estimate)
UK - $2.226 Trillion (2008 estimate)
Canada - $1.3 Trillion (2008 estimate)
Australia - $800.2 Billion (2008 estimate)

That means that the USA gives $232.44 Billion in private charitable givings.

Compared to $14.25 billion given privately by the UK, $9.36 billion given by Canada, and $5.52 billion given by Australia.

In percentage of GDP terms, we Americans give 2.23 times what Brits give, 2.26 times what Canadians give, and 2.36 times what Aussies give.

In actual dollars, we give 16.3 times what Brits give, 24.8 times what Canada gives and 42.1 times what Australia gives.

But we just don't care, we're greedy, and we don't help other people. All we care about is ourselves. YOU GUYS are the charitable, open-handed types.

>chuckle<

Elliot

[excon]

Yep.

We GREEDY AMERICANS who DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT ANYONE ELSE give privately to charity in the amount of 1.63% of GDP. (This doesn't include GOVERNMENT AID, only charitable giving by individuals. >chuckle<

Hello again, Elliot:

While you guys are busy congratulating yourself on how wonderful you are, people are DYING right here at home because they don't have access to heath care.

Deaths from No Health Insurance Under Clinton, Bush, Obama | Health Care Kali's Blog

Based on the methodology of the Institute of Medicine, here are estimated numbers of American deaths due to lack of health insurance under three presidents.

Clinton: (Two terms) 144,000 Americans
Bush: (two terms) 176,000 Americans
Obama: (Since Jan 20) 1,260 Americans

-----------------

>chuckle< (only because you're so wrong - not because so many have died)

excon

[tomder55]

There will be at least as many who die under these proposed plans. The funny thing is that in unguarded moments of candor ,the Dems. All but admit the Palin charge is true.

Here is former Labor Sec. Robert Reich ,currently a key advisor to the President .
YouTube - Robert Reich: What An Honest President Would Say About Health Reform

I'll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:

"Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that's true and what I'm going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people...you're going to have to pay more.

"Thank you. And by the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive... so we're going to let you die."

"Also I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid---we already have a lot of bargaining leverage---to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you."

[speechlesstx]

While you guys are busy congratulating yourself on how wonderful you are, people are DYING right here at home because they don't have access to heath care.

It's not self-congratulating to defend America's honor against false smears. Unlike the president I'd rather correct the record than apologize and grovel for acceptance.

Based on the methodology of the Institute of Medicine, here are estimated numbers of American deaths due to lack of health insurance under three presidents.

Again you're muddling things up, you said they're dying because "they don't have access to heath care." These muckrakers claim they're dying because the don't have health insurance. I say both are pretty darned difficult to prove. You might note also that according to their methodology somewhere around 37.5 million Americans died with health insurance during that time.

[speechlesstx]

Here is former Labor Sec. Robert Reich ,currently a key advisor to the President

Nice catch tom, I heard that speech yesterday. I loved how the crowd applauded him on each point.

[ETWolverine]

Ah we have dragged out the great depression as an excuse for doing nothing. Self Inflicted injury.

Huh? Where did you get that from anything I said.

If you will read my post, you will find that what I said was that DESPITE the Great Depression WE, not the UK, became a Superpower, while the UK languished.

Just like our current great financial crisis you (US) caused the great depression with your largess and over reliance on the "market". If you are an economist you should have learned the lessons, not sat on your pedistal and glowered down at the lesser mortals.

I did learn from the errors of the past. As I have posted on a number of prior occasions, it was GOVERNMENT Interference that caused the Great Depression to last for a decade more than it had to, and it is the same government intervention that caused the current financial fiasco. In fact, it was the same government attempts as social engineering that caused both of the crises. The beliefe that everyone should be taken care of by the government, regardless of the cost, is what caused both problems.

FDR did it because he mistakenly thought his New Deal would help get the country OUT of the Depression by giving people make-work jobs that didn't actually produce anything. The government paid for nothing to be produced... and the result was that nothing was produced. It was welfare, and it failed as welfare always has.

In the current crisis, it was government's insistence that everyone "deserves" to own a home and should be given the ability to buy one, whether they could afford it or not. Another welfare program that failed.

In the first case, the New Deal resulted in government spending that outstripped their ability to pay for that spending, a weakening of the currency, massive inflation, and higher unemployment.

In the case of the second, we saw the creation of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act, which created an environment in which banks were FORCED to lend 60% of their loans to sub-prime borrowers that we KNEW wouldn't be able to pay us back, but were told to rely on the government's guarantees from Fannie and Freddie to make us whole. Well, the loans went bad, and Fannie and Freddie failed to make us whole because they couldn't keep up with the costs of their bad policies. Result: the government ended up spending more in guarantees of bad mortgages than they could pay for, ended up spending even more to bail the banks out, and now we have a $3 Trillion budget deficit, a $12 trillion official national debt, and are borrowing money that our grandkids will be paying back, printing money at an enormous rate, and are creating the very same conditions that existed during the Great Depression. And for exactly the same reason... social engineering by the government.

So yes, some of us learned our lessons. But they don't work in the government.

In fact, I just attended a seminar given by the Office of the Controller of The Currency (OCC) two weeks ago. The topic was "SBA lending", making government-guaranteed loans to small businesses. The SBA (Small Business Administration, a government agency) was rolling out a new program called the "ARC (America's Recovery Capital) Loan Program" (and ain't that name just a total lie). The program is designed to lend money to businesses that are having trouble paying their current loans. The loans are to be 100% guaranteed (compared to 50%, 75% or 90% guaranteed under other SBA programs). The SBA Administrator said that he EXPECTS THAT MANY OF THE ARC LOANS WILL FAIL, but that we should make the loans anyway.

Let me repeat that... the government wants us to make loans that THEY KNOW BEFOREHAND are going to fail... but we should make the loans anyway and rely on the government guarantee to get us out of it when the loans go bad.

Isn't that the type of lending that got us into this problem in the first place?

Does the government not learn from its mistakes?

It is their mandate to lend to people who couldn't afford the loans that created this mess. Now they are doing it again?

But then that's what economists do rather than thinking up original solutions to the problems they create. You didn't invent capitalism but you certainly perverted it

There are no "original solutions". All the solutions have been tried before. We know historically which ones worked and which ones didn't. Obama chose the ones that didn't. So did the creators of Fannie Mae (FDR, big shock there), Freddie Mac (LBJ created it to provide "competition" to Fannie Mae, even though they were owned by the same people--- the US Government), and CRA (Jimmy Carter in 1979, with Clinton increasing the mandate significantly in 1999). These solutions FAILED and caused the financial crisis we are in today. We even got a warning about it from the S&L crisis in the 80s, but the government ignored the warning about underwriting standards that we learned from that crisis and instead INCREASED the amount of Sub-Prime lending we were required to perform. The result was the current recession.

And now the government is doing it again with this ARC Loan Program from the SBA.

We learned from the mistakes of the past. The GOVERNMENT has FAILED to learn from those mistakes.

So have all of you who push for MORE government intervention and social engineering in our economy.

You want to look at people who have failed to learn from the errors of the past, Paraclete? Look to yourself first.

Elliot

[phlanx]

So I see we are still with the communism dictate

So Wolverine, what do you suggest then, all I have ever read is why this isn't working or that isn't working

What would you think the perfect government would be?

[Synnen]

you didn't get aid for Katrina because you didn't ask for it

No, I would not like your government in control of anything, in my opinion they couldn't control sex in a brothel :D let alone develop partisan policies that really benefit everyone, but they are your government elected by the people for the people, etc, etc, etc or is it that they have forgotten the purpose they exist. The US has the government it deserves because they are prepared to put up with the load of bull* their politicians put out. So the point is you don't want them in control of health care so it is time to change the government or change the population.

There are basic fundamentals which should be part of any health care system
Choice of health care provider
coverage for preexisting conditions
coverage for those whose circumstances might disadvantage them
adequate compensation for necessary procedures
reasonable cost

that said such a scheme shouldn't cover elective procedures. You suggestion that wrong choices should exclude basic care is disengenerous and tainted by the Darwinian theorm since this requires a health provider or public servant to make judgments beyond their competancy

We have the health care system we have because our system provides for rigorous debate and a mechanism which rarely gives absolute power to any government, so what is proposed ultimately has to be considered reasonable and not tagged with meaningless local spending provisions. Deals are done but they are done within the perspective of the budget and ministerial responsibility

I don't remember anyone ASKING me to give to the 2004 Tsunami victims. But I was down at the Red Cross that day making a $200 donation to help over there--which was all I could afford at the time. We then did a blanket and clothing drive in our neighborhood over the next couple of weeks, and brought THAT to the Red Cross. When my (then) 8 year old nephew heard that "kids like him" had no place to sleep and nothing to eat, he ran a lemonade stand for an entire weekend (which is a long time for a little kid--remember what YOUR attention span was then?) using his allowance to buy the ingredients, and gave the $150 he made to the Red Cross to help out the victims. No one ASKED him to. He saw people in need and gave to them. He did the same thing nine months later for the Katrina victims, because he thought that no one should have to be without food or a place to call home. He's 13 now, and volunteers at the YMCA and with his church to help out the local homeless. I'd like to point out--he learned that from family. ALL of us do what we can to help those in need, though it's usually those in need locally that we help. When I was a child, I *was* the family in need, and I've never forgotten the kindness of strangers.

As far as elective procedures---who determines what's elective? I think that CHILDBIRTH is an elective procedure. You either chose to have the child or you didn't. That ALSO means that abortion is elective, fertility treatment is elective, and reconstructive surgery after a car accident or mastectomy is elective. All drugs given in the labor and delivery room would be elective--I mean, really, you can give birth with no painkillers! Women have been doing it for centuries! Ooooh... that brings up another point... Cialis, Viagra, and other ED medicine would be elective! Skin graft treatments and hair transferal after severe burns would be elective--because it's ONLY to look better, not required to live. Birth control is an elective (you choose whether to have sex), contact lenses are an elective (glasses work just fine!), hearing aids are an elective (there are millions of deaf people that do JUST FINE), smoking cessation products are an elective (you have the willpower! Just do it!)---the list goes on and on. ANYTHING that isn't *directly* linked to keeping you ALIVE is an elective.

And thanks for making my point about NO ONE wanting our government in charge of ANYTHING. I didn't make our government what it is--I can blame Excon's generation for that, and just maybe Elliot's too (though I'm not sure on ages here). I've been able to vote for 16 years, and I've voted for all 16 of them. I have to admit I didn't get involved in local elections until the last 3 years, but part of that was because we moved fairly regularly, and I wasn't able to always understand what was going on locally. So... I've voted, and I've tried to change what I see are the problems in the government, and sometimes I feel hopeless that change will ever happen in my lifetime. The corruption and the money go too deep. THAT, however, is why I want Congress to be held to the same decisions they make for me. If this new health care plan isn't good enough for Congress to cancel their "All-Expenses-Paid" version of health care, well... why should it be good enough for me? Either way---why are YOU arguing that I should let idiots control my health if YOU wouldn't do it?

[ETWolverine]

So I see we are still with the communism dictate

So Wolverine, what do you suggest then, all I have ever read is why this isnt working or that isnt working

What would you think the perfect government would be?

First of all, government CAN'T be perfect. It is made up of human beings and is therefore IMPERFECT by nature. But the Founding Fathers knew that and allowed for it when they created the Constitution.

But if you are asking me what I think the role of government should be, that's easy.

As I have posted in the past, government has only 3 duties.

1) Protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic,
2) Maintain a system for travel and communication,
3) Maintain, protect and preserve an economic environment that allows for the free transfer of goods and services and the accumulation of wealth by individuals and businesses.

What that means is that government should maintain the military and police forces and any other agencies necessary to keep the nation safe from its enemies.

It also means that the government has the responsibility to maintain roads, bridges and tunnels, as well as a postal system. It could also be argued that they should maintain the infrastructure for telephones and internet, though that is open for debate. And frankly, we would get better results if that infrastructure continues to be provided by private companies. But I'm (reluctantly) open to the idea of government being involved.

Finally, it means that the government has the responsibility to enforce contract law, enforce enti-trust law, and enforce international trade law, and enforce laws regarding the safety of the products being produced and sold in the USA.

Other than that, from a Constitutional standpoint, the role of the government is exactly nil, zippo, nada.

They do NOT have the authority to spend tax dollars to bail out companies that they believe are "too big to fail". They do not have the authority to take over companies. They do not have the authority to cap executive pay. They do not have the authority to force companies to manufacture their goods or produce their services in a particular way. They do not have the authority to take control of those methods of production or methods of distribution. They do not have the authority to regulate any business with the exception of making sure that what the business produces is safe. And they do not have the authority to produce goods and services of their own for the open market. No matter how well-intentioned or ill-intentioned their ideas may be, they do not have the Constitutional authority to do it.

Simply put, as Thomas Jefferson said, "The government that governs best governs least." THAT is what I believe government should be. That's also what the Founding Fathers meant for it to be.

As for my specific ideas on health care reform with the minimum amount of government intervention possible, please read this post, which was a prior response to you.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2029047

Elliot

[phlanx]

Mmm. Not a single thought on Foreign Policy and how the united states is seen and acts abroad

[ETWolverine]

mmm. not a single thought on Foreign Policy and how the united states is seen and acts abroad

Yep, absolutely true.

And also absolutely false.

You will notice that I mentioned manitenance of a military.

You will also notice that I mentioned both contract law (which includes treaties) and international trade law.

That covers both the carrot and the stick of international diplomacy and international relations. Which is used when is a matter for the elected officials to decide, but only within the bounds of Constitutional Law.

Elliot

[phlanx]

So influence shouldn't shape Foreign Policy?

[speechlesstx]

First of all, government CAN'T be perfect.

Don't tell that to Neal Gabler, he thinks our government is "better than the American people." I guess that would explain our low opinion of Congress, we just don't know how damned good government is.