[iamgrowler]

I don't disagree, but you don't have to be so poopy about it.

Who's being "poopy"?

I'm dead serious.

Health care for all children, regardless of the parent or guardians gross income, should be free.

Period.

[Dark_crow]

Who's being "poopy"?

I'm dead serious.

Health care for all children, irregardless of the parent or guardians gross income, should be free.

Period.

Yes and all children should all be read fairy tails, pampered and tucked into a clean warm bed every night by loving parents. But What!! Enter the villain of real life… of parents who don’t care and those who would fill the Doctors office with sniveling little monsters who could have been treated at home.:)

[excon]

Doctors office with sniveling little monsters who could have been treated at home.:)

Hello again, DC:

Yeah, taking care of poor people ain't going to be neat and tidy. It's better, doncha think, that these people go to their doctor, rather than going to the emergency room - which is where they all go now.

What?? You don't think they're NOT getting treated, do you?

excon

[ETWolverine]

Of course they are getting treated, excon.

So why are you worried about WHERE they are being treated? Who cares whether it is at an ER, a private medical practice, a charitable free clinic, or a government-run facility? What's the difference? And why does it have to be a GOVERNMENT issue? If kids are being treated, as you clearly agree based on your last post, then what's the problem? And why do you, a libertarian, want to make it the government's problem?

That was the pint of one of my earlier posts in another string. The number of people in the USA without health insurance may be rather high compared to other countries. But the number of people without health CARE is virtually nil. And that includes children without health care.

The safety net is in place. Don't mess with it.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

Hello again, DC:

Yeah, taking care of poor people ain't gonna be neat and tidy. It's better, doncha think, that these people go to their doctor, rather than going to the emergency room - which is where they all go now.

What??? You don't think they're NOT getting treated, do you?

excon

The truth is I haven’t researched it but you’re possibly right. :)

[excon]

So why are you worried about WHERE they are being treated?

Hello again, El:

For two reasons. 1) Emergency rooms are failing at it, and failing financially because of it (leaving MY local emergency room unavailable to treat MY emergency). And, 2) the treatment given by one's own family physician is MUCH better (and CHEAPER given that we're paying for it).

That's probably five reasons, but whose counting?

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

For two reasons. 1) Emergency rooms are failing at it, and failing financially because of it (leaving MY local emergency room unavailable to treat MY emergency). And, 2) the treatment given by one's own family physician is MUCH better (and CHEAPER given that we're paying for it).

That's probably five reasons, but whose counting?

excon

And so your solution is to get the government involved?

What part of US history leads you to believe that anything the US government touches will become cheaper, faster, more effective, more efficient and higher quality?

If your issue is that ERs are overcrowded, how will getting the government involved improve that problem? If your issue is the cost of care, how will getting the government involved help that problem? If your issue is quality of care, how will the government being involved improve quality?

As I have said before, if you want a good look at what government-provided healthcare will look like, look at the VA medical system. Then tell me if that is what you are looking for for our children.

Elliot

[excon]

if you want a good look at what government-provided healthcare will look like, look at the VA medical system. Then tell me if that is what you are looking for for our children.

Hello again, El:

Or, we could look at medicare. That works pretty damn good. And there are more old farts than there are injured soldiers.

By the way, I agree about the VA. And, you still support the dufus who's in charge of it. Mmh, mmmh, mmmh.

excon

[Dark_crow]

And so your solution is to get the government involved?

What part of US history leads you to believe that anything the US government touches will become cheaper, faster, more effective, more efficient and higher quality?

If your issue is that ERs are overcrowded, how will getting the government involved improve that problem? If your issue is the cost of care, how will getting the government involved help that problem? If your issue is quality of care, how will the government being involved improve quality?

As I have said before, if you want a good look at what government-provided healthcare will look like, look at the VA medical system. Then tell me if that is what you are looking for for our children.

Elliot

The assumption that if the federal government runs a program it’s doomed to mediocrity from the start is interesting…particularly given it runs the country.

[tomder55]

I'm trying to come up with an efficiently run Federal program ;but I'm coming up blank .

[Dark_crow]

I'm trying to come up with an efficiently run Federal program ;but I'm coming up blank .

It seems to me efficiently means something different to different people; is the focus people or money?

The people served took a big hit when the federal government got out of the mental health business, but it did serve the federal tax payer better.

[excon]

I'm trying to come up with an efficiently run Federal program ;but I'm coming up blank .

Hello again, tom and El:

I don't disagree. However, even a badly run government program that gives our nations children health care, is better than our children going without.

If you want an unfettered health care system, then stop fettering your damn selves.

You want to know what I'm talking about here, don't you? I can see the blank look in your conservative, but blind eyes.

Your drug war, the bedrock of the right wing, KEEPS poor people poor. Mandatory sentencing KEEPS poor people poor. Your immigration laws KEEP poor people poor. Your laws preventing felons from voting, KEEPS poor people poor. Your laws that allow rip off payday lenders to proliferate in the poor communities, and laws allowing credit card companies to change rules in the middle of the game, KEEPS poor people poor.

These are things amongst many others, that would END under libertarian policy. If they did, we wouldn't need no damn gubment health care.

But, you're not going to end those things are you? I could go on, and of course, I will.

So, if YOU stop fettering at the top, I'll stop fettering at the bottom.

excon

[tomder55]

As I recall ;it was Federal money going to the States to administer ,and not the Federal Government actually managing the hospitals... Yeah I remember those days when Geraldo Rivera was a young pup scaling the fences of Willowbrook Hospital to expose the nightmare our tax money brought. I think there has always been poor coordination between Fed.State and local governments in the mental health services.

[Dark_crow]

As I recall ;it was Federal money going to the States to administer ,and not the Federal Government actually managing the hospitals ....Yeah I remember those days when Geraldo Rivera was a young pup scaling the fences of Willowbrook Hospital to expose the nightmare our tax money brought. I think there has always been poor coordination between Fed.State and local governments in the mental health services.

Again, some people are only concerned with money. I worked at Camarillo State Hospital at the time…now the patients roam the streets getting robbed of their Social Security checks which is money robbed from Social Security Retirement recipients.:)

[ETWolverine]

The assumption that if the federal government runs a program it’s doomed to mediocrity from the start is interesting…particularly given it runs the country.

No it doesn't. The country is run by the PEOPLE... despite government interference, not because of it.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello again:

You want more, cause I got more.

Your laws that allow your buddies in the insurance industry to grab a chunk of our health care dollars - where they have no business anymore, KEEPS health care costs unbelievably HIGH. Your laws that opened the cash window to your friends in the pharmaceutical industry with your Medicare drug benefit, KEEPS health care costs sky HIGH. Your laws that prevent us from negotiating prices with the drug industry KEEPS health care costs extremely HIGH.

ALL of these things would END under a libertarian administration. And it they did, then the kids, ALL OF 'EM, could afford to see any doctor they wanted.

I could go on, and you can believe I will.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Excon,

Regarding Medicare... do you really consider that an efficiently run system? Do you really think it is a system that does the job of covering the people it is supposed to cover? If so, then why are there so many people on Medicare that have to choose between food and drugs? How come so many people are importing knockoff pharmaceuticals on the cheap? How come the government is trying so hard to keep Americans from getting their drugs from Canada? If this system works "pretty damn well", why are so many old people without the drugs they need? Answer, it doesn't work. It is failing miserably. But if all those old folks who paid taxes into the Medicare system had been allowed to keep and invest that money for themselves, they'd be able to afford their meds, and have a much better retirement lifestyle to boot.

As for the war on drugs, I've already told you that I agree that the war on drugs isn't working. (Essentially for the same reasons the war on terrorism had so much difficulty... we're not taking the fight to the enemy. We're trying to play by nice-guy rules and only stop the trafficking without going after the source. We're more worried about maintaining Colombia as a friend --- winning the hearts and minds of the Colombian government--- than we are about actually fighting the cartels, destroying the cacao plantations and eliminating the source of the drugs and the leadership of the drug cartels.) So I'm not going to argue that point.

I'm wondering which legislation it is that you believe keeps poor people poor? How, exactly, does keeping people who are in jail from voting keep poor people poor? What is the mechanism for that? How does that keep other poor people from moving ahead in life?

How does keeping ILLEGAL immigrants from having the rights of legal immigrants and citizens keep poor people poor? If illegals aren't getting jobs illegally, then LEGAL immigrants ARE getting those jobs, which gives them greater opportunity. How does that keep poor people poor?

How does mandatory sentencing keep poor people poor? Doesn't mandatory sentencing apply to rich people too? And how does it affect poor people who have not omitted any crime? How are poor people being kept poor?

And just out of curiosity, who are the ones who put the current lending laws on the books? I certainly agree with you about predatory lenders and their usurous interest rates, but who's legislation was it that allowed that to occur? I don't know. But I do know that both Dems and Reps have been trying to change those laws for a while now (Schumer is actually leading the charge on this issue, and it is the only area where I agree with him) to stop predatory lending practices and put limits on interest rates that credit card companies and mortgage lenders can charge. On the other hand, what ever happened to caveat emptor? What ever happened to the personal responsibility of the borrower to know what he's getting into before he signs the papers? If PEOPLE were more responsible for their finances, predatory lenders wouldn't be able to get away with the crap they get away with.

So again, I'm not sure why you say that "our laws" or "conservatives laws" are keeping people poor. I'm not sure of the mechanism by which that is true, nor am I sure of the factual basis of the statement itself. Can you explain it?

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

No it doesn't. The country is run by the PEOPLE... despite government interferance, not because of it.

Elliot

Isn’t everything run by people…so what does that change about ‘The assumption that if the federal government runs a program it’s doomed to mediocrity from the start is interesting…particularly given it runs the country.’:)

[Dark_crow]

Excon,

Regarding Medicare... do you really consider that an efficiently run system? Do you really think it is a system that does the job of covering the people it is supposed to cover? If so, then why are there so many people on Medicare that have to choose between food and drugs? How come so many people are importing knockoff pharmaceuticals on the cheap? How come the government is trying so hard to keep Americans from getting their drugs from Canada? If this system works "pretty damn well", why are so many old people without the drugs they need? Answer, it doesn't work. It is failing miserably. But if all those old folks who paid taxes into the Medicare system had been allowed to keep and invest that money for themselves, they'd be able to afford their meds, and have a much better retirement lifestyle to boot.


Elliot

There would not be a problem if social security and Medicare was limited to retirees; the problem is politicos started robbing the funds for services to other groups..

[jillianleab]

Does anyone actually think if we have universal healthcare (with the option of private insurance, that is), that the federal government will actually run it; not contract it out? Doctors and nurses and admin staff who are govt employees? I doubt it. No one actually works for the federal government - it's all contractors! And believe me, contractors are quite inept.