Ronald Reagan famously said "it's not that the Liberals don't know a lot of things, it that so much of what they know is wrong." I know this to be true. When I was a Liberal I thought I knew everything and, as it turns out, I was almost always wrong.
So many things that were just "true" because, well, that's what I'd been told and no one I ever met disagreed, have, in my enlightenment proved 180 degrees from reality.
The Vietnam War was not an "evil, illegal and immoral" war waged by evil and horrible Americans who saw money to be made in the "military-industrial boom" but an absolutely moral and just war fought to stop the spread of an evil empire that was already oppressing half of the people of Europe and spreading into another continent in Southeast Asia.
One of the "truisms" of America was that "money wins elections." This was simply a given not because I'd ever thought about it but because it's something repeated so often by those who denigrate America at every turn.
Yet, here we are and Mike Huckabee, who had no money, has been given a full and fair hearing. McCain, who was penniless not that long ago, is now the front-runner, Mitt Romney has all the money he needs, and yet he came in second to Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire and beneath both of them in South Carolina.
Meanwhile, on the leftist front, I don't think there are many people who believe that if the leftists pick Ms. Rodham-Clinton or Barack H. Obama, it's going to be because one or the other wasn't heard or seen enough.
Every time one of you complains about the system -- and there are things that can be made better about the system -- remember that this one slander (that in America money buys elections) has been proved wrong yet again.
468 comments:
1 – 200 of 468 Newer› Newest»Evan confesses to being a thoughtless idiot:
So many things that were just "true" because, well, that's what I'd been told and no one I ever met disagreed...
One of the "truisms" of America was that "money wins elections." This was simply a given not because I'd ever thought about it but because it's something repeated so often by those who denigrate America at every turn.
So, basically, you didn't think about what you believed in until a few years ago? You're like 47 years old, that's pretty sad. What did you do for the first 40 years of your life, be a mindless drone? Why?
Dora, I've already admitted that I was a Mindless Foot Soldier for the cult of indiscriminateness. I was a Liberal. I voted for Gore and Clinton and Dukakis because, when you leave the public schools and universities you have been so brainwashed into believing that "Democrats are good/Republicans are evil." Democrats like people/Republicans like war (good for business was the argument). Democrats like the environment/Republicans, uh, don't breathe air. There is no God, Joe McCarthy was an evil monster and the communists didn't exist, etc.
Just like you STILL do, Dora. I, too, was a narcissist who didn't think about tomorrow or yesterday just as John Lennon suggests for a leftist utopia.
Telling, of course, is that you didn't bother to spend one second saying "yes, Evan, that's a very good argument. I should take a second to say something good about America," even before I was able to go from the "compose" page to the blog to make sure it went up, there was your mindless response, personal attack, without a SECOND -- not one -- to consider another point-of-view.
That's because every point of view you have is fucking retarded. The fact that you've created all of your ridiculous straw men based on what you used to believe is just the cherry on top of this sundae of stupid.
Wow, what a thoughtful and rational response to my piece. Hate, name-calling and stupidity. At least I opened my eyes when I was forty.
Do either of you have ANYTHING thoughtful to say about the piece I wrote? Any counterpoint? Any inconsistencies in my argument?
ANYTHING other than mindless hate for Americans who don't hate America?
But Evan, I just don't understand where you got so brainwashed. I don't feel brain-washed, and having been born in the USSR, I think I know what brainwashing is.
Could you elaborate on this?
John McCain was clearly the better candidate in 2000 than George W. Bush, but he lost by virtue of the fact that Bush had a shitload more money, and operatives who were quite comfortable using that money for dirty tricks like the infamous "black baby" push poll.
How's that?
The fact that you've created all of your ridiculous straw men based on what you used to believe is just the cherry on top of this sundae of stupid.
Something very serious happened to this poor man a few years ago...he's apparently mistaken brain damage for enlightmentation. I was raised Republican -- by parents who had voted for FDR four times and decided that the pendulum had swung far enough for a while. They were what you might call rational Republicans and would have swung back to the left by now. So, does the fact that I became a liberal after having been GOP raised constitute proof that only liberalism is correct. This moron seems to think the opposite case is correct and bloviates about it like some wound up fucking cuckoo clock til it runs out his mouth like the product of an insidious, suppurating infection.
Every time one of you complains about the system -- and there are things that can be made better about the system -- remember that this one slander (that in America money buys elections) has been proved wrong yet again.
Well, of course nothing of the kind has been proven. But this time, for a change, the GOP has a hard time with money...because everyone has seen there recent performance...so roboman has decided that that's a virtue.
The GOP candidates are so pathetic this year that even Limbaugh doesn't drool over them. He loves poor people so much, though; maybe when he reads Sayet(koff) he'll come around.
Conservative talk radio pundit Rush Limbaugh has been finding it easier to identify candidates he dislikes in the Republican presidential primaries than anyone he might support.
Some analysts even believe that Mike Huckabee's disappointing third-place finish in the Michigan primary was a result of Limbaugh's constant claims that Huckabee is not a true conservative and that his nomination could destroy the Republican Party.
Now Limbaugh has gone a step further, telling his listeners that he's not too fond of McCain either and that "I can see possibly not supporting a Republican nominee" because "you don't have a genuine down-the-list conservative."
Limbaugh himself was not enthusiastic about any of the Republican candidates, even Romney, concluding that "it's going to come down to which guy do we dislike the least."
Simes...TRY to think...
1) It doesn't matter how much money the Republicans have in total..it matters BY COMPARISON to each other.
2) Don't you guys EVER learn. Leftists are ALWAYS out front at the beginning. Carter was beating Reagan, Dukakis had a similar lead, Kerry, too.
Then what happens is we go from the
"wouldn't it be fun if life were really so childish as all I have to do is wake up on Christmas (I mean X-mas) morning and Hillary had all those presents under the tree for me) to but, alas, this is the real world, I'm going to vote for the grown-up.
The other thing that happens is that we start having events that the leftists in the media can't edit to their liking. National Conventions where the Republican is actually heard, the debates the leftists can't edit, etc.
In the end, the leftists lose and then, like cry-babies, scream about how they were cheated (just as they're doing to each other right night. Voter suppression? Democrats? Noooooo.)
Jesus christ...it's the primaries...and they've all been seen on tv in the debates which equals a LOT of money.Noone ever said it was totally synchronous as to who had exactly the top dollar. Then you go into your silly stuff about adults...if you've still got your head up your ass on that one after the endless debacles of this regime, there's no debating you in the realm of reality. Dems always lose...more retarded nonsense...the pendulum has been on the GOP side for a while as it was on the Dem side earlier...it SWINGS...that's what penulums do. Clinton won twice. Gore won the popular vote and had the election stolen...even Kerry most likely won...in any case, the elections were razor close. If you want to talk about adults, first become one.
Amen, my friend. Amen.
I don't feel brain-washed, and having been born in the USSR, I think I know what brainwashing is.
How old were you when you left? How much exposure to the Soviet system did you have?
Simes...TRY to think...
Is that the Mission Impossible theme playing again?!
That's what's great about the primary process, Evan. We all know that the Democrats are trying to change it so that the Affirmative Action/ Soros backed candidate always win... but we just got to keep them from doing that with the states we still control. Besides, disenfranchising two populous states like Michigan and Florida isn't winning the DNC any voters. I hope they keep it up!
Limbaugh himself was not enthusiastic about any of the Republican candidates, even Romney, concluding that "it's going to come down to which guy do we dislike the least."
Ah...Leempbah...telling....weeeery tellink.
2) Don't you guys EVER learn.
People who think they already know something aren't looking to learn anything, Evan.
I don't know Evan. With money it can be pay me now, or pay me later.
$20M... for what? Almost sounds like one of Hill's "commodity" trades.
Burkle raised $1M for Hillary. Maybe Hillary can use "Ron Air" instead of Air Force One if elected?
Evan, could you elaborate as to your own brainwashing?
I didn't major in the humanities in college, I went to b-school, now I'm in law school -- hardly women's studies.
I was young when I left the USSR, but I remember it quite well -- the poverty, the anti-semitism, the repression.
And my parents, they're Democrats too, and they've lived the American dream, starting with nothing, becoming wealthier than probably anyone who posts on this board.
They know what soviet brainwashing is, they chose to leave because they could think for themselves and saw the absurdity and inhumanity of the system, and yet they're liberal Democrats.
What gives, Evan?
Seriously, though, Evan, that's what I'd been told and no one I ever met disagreed? Like, really? Where you living in a bubble? Are you not partly to blame for living in the bubble?
Telling, of course, is that you didn't bother to spend one second saying "yes, Evan, that's a very good argument. I should take a second to say something good about America,"
Now why would I say boring platitudes about how much i love merca? Doesn't it go without saying? Or do you need daily affirmations?
I was young when I left the USSR, but I remember it quite well -- the poverty, the anti-semitism, the repression.
Gosh Dora!
You are describing socialism
And my parents, they're Democrats too, and they've lived the American dream, starting with nothing, becoming wealthier than probably anyone who posts on this board.
-
And here you are describing Capitalism
They know what soviet brainwashing is, they chose to leave because they could think for themselves and saw the absurdity and inhumanity of the system, and yet they're liberal Democrats.
-
Again this is socialism,
Do you even know the definition of socialism?
Maybe you can enlighten us all
Yet, here we are and Mike Huckabee, who had no money, has been given a full and fair hearing. McCain, who was penniless not that long ago, is now the front-runner, Mitt Romney has all the money he needs, and yet he came in second to Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire and beneath both of them in South Carolina.
Call me cynical, but I still believe that you have to be part of an elite club to get a fair shake at running for president. Plenty of candidates that could have done well were not given enough time to debate - It seems like the guys with the cash and the early media favorites make it into the final roundup. After that point, I think it's anyones game - money can't ensure victory. (I partially agree with you)
...they chose to leave because they could think for themselves and saw the absurdity and inhumanity of the (soviet) system, and yet they're liberal Democrats.
There are plenty of immigrants that have joined both sides of the political fence from the eastern bloc. I find it amazing that anyone that saw the flaws of the soviet economic system from the inside could still be a socialist.
Nietzsche says there is hope for Sayet...his OCD inspired parrot talk is amenable, after all, to therapy:
In a study that may significantly advance the understanding of how cognitive-behavioral therapy affects the brain, researchers have shown that significant changes in activity in certain regions of the brain can be produced with as little as four weeks of daily therapy in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The discovery could have important clinical implications, according to principal investigator Sanjaya Saxena, M.D., Director of the Obsessive-Compulsive Disorders Program at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine, whose findings are published on line this week in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.
“The study is exciting because it tells us more about how cognitive-behavioral therapy works for OCD and shows that both robust clinical improvements and changes in brain activity occur after only four weeks of intensive treatment," said Saxena.
OCD is an anxiety disorder in which individuals have unreasonable fears or worries that they try to manage through ritualized compulsive behaviors to reduce the anxiety. For example, a patient may experience the urgent need to engage in certain rituals, such as hand washing or repeatedly checking that the oven is off or the front door is locked.
Past studies using functional brain imaging studies of patients with OCD have demonstrated that elevated activity along the frontal-subcortical circuits of the brain decreases in response to treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) medications or cognitive-behavioral therapy. However, clinical improvement of OCD symptoms was expected to require up to 12 weeks of behavioral therapy or medication treatment, the standard treatments for OCD. Only a handful of studies have looked at how therapy affects brain function, and all previous studies had examined changes over several months of treatment.
Saxena and colleagues at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA made two novel discoveries in their study of 10 OCD patients and 12 control subjects.
“First of all, we discovered significant changes in brain activity solely as the result of four weeks of intensive cognitive-behavioral therapy,” said Saxena. “Secondly, these changes were different than those seen in past studies after a standard 12-week therapeutic approach using SRI medications or weekly behavioral therapy.”
The researchers obtained positron emission tomography (PET) scans of the ten OCD patients both before and after they received four weeks of a therapy known as “exposure and response prevention,” which gradually desensitizes patients to things that provoke obsessional fears or worries.
“This is the primary kind of therapy used for OCD. It teaches patients to pay attention to their internal experiences and tolerate scary thoughts without having to act on them,” said Saxena. “They learn that nothing terrible happens if they refrain from their usual compulsive behaviors.”
The normal control subjects received no treatment and were scanned twice, several weeks apart, and metabolic changes in the brain were compared between the two groups. After four weeks of therapy and without any changes in medication, the OCD patients showed significant improvements in OCD symptoms, depression, anxiety and overall functioning.
The PET scans of OCD patients demonstrated significant decreases in glucose metabolism – a measure of brain cell activity – in the right and left thalamus after treatment. These are areas of the brain involved in OCD and where changes have been seen in numerous past studies after longer-term treatment.
However, the PET scans in this study also showed a significant increase in activity in an area of the brain called the right dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, a region involved in reappraisal and suppression of negative emotions. Increasing activity in this region corresponded to the OCD patients’ improvement in clinical symptoms after the four-week course of intensive therapy. Activity in this area had previously been found to increase after cognitive-behavioral therapy for major depression. Therefore, the researchers theorize that response to cognitive-behavioral therapy across a variety of disorders may require activation of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, according to Saxena.
###
the poverty, the anti-semitism, the repression.
Gosh Dora!
You are describing socialism
Um, I think that someone needs to define socialism before they start throwing the word around.
And, I wonder what you guys think of my relatively wealthy immigrant parents who are liberal Democrats. How on earht is this possible?
There are plenty of immigrants that have joined both sides of the political fence from the eastern bloc. I find it amazing that anyone that saw the flaws of the soviet economic system from the inside could still be a socialist.
I like how you equate "liberal Democrat" with "socialist" and use "socialist" a pejorative word.
My parents saw the flaws of the Soviet system, and they fled. And then they saw the flaws of the Texan system, and they fled that too. Now they are happily living in the blue blue northeast, liberal Democrats who plan to vote for Hillary.
Do you think my parents are stupid or "brainwashed"? I don't think anyone could make that argument, they saw the flaws of the soviet system even though they were born into it and grew up in it. Unmotivated, poor freeloaders? They've never been on welfare or any other kind of government assistance, they moved to the US, started at the bottom bagging groceries and moved up the career ladder to relative affluence. And yet they are liberal Democrats.
They certainly don't consider themselves socialists, they're very pro-capitalism. But they're also not heartless and they believe in human rights and civil liberties, and that's what makes them Democrats. It's pretty simple.
You're trying to explain this to idiots who think in absolutes. It's admirable, to be sure, but it's also futile.
These boneheads have no clue what socialism is...Stalin hijacked the great experiment in Russia and turned it into something else entirely. However, there are other places that are better examples. And,of course, they never acknowledge the mess that capitalism was in the west before it was greatly modified by large infusions of socialist policy. To say America is anything like a pure capitalist society is utterly naive and ignorant.
These boneheads have no clue what socialism is...
Yes
Stalin hijacked the great experiment in Russia and turned it into something else entirely.
No. Sorry, even before Stalin the whole mess already a totalitarian hellhole. The last Good man in Russia was Kerensky. But that's another discussion.
However, there are other places that are better examples. And,of course, they never acknowledge the mess that capitalism was in the west before it was greatly modified by large infusions of socialist policy. To say America is anything like a pure capitalist society is utterly naive and ignorant.
True. Pure capitalism looks like the 1890s and 1900s, with no protections for factory workers, no unions, no welfare, anti-discrimination laws, employment. You know, people fired for getting sick, sliced off fingers, spending their whole lives living in dormitories, working 18-hour days, etc.
Wingnuts love to whine about welfare queens and high taxes, but no one wants to answer the question, "ok, smartypants, what would you do?" One person did answer, and he said he would just let the poor find their own way, without government assistance, you know, to motivate them to stop being poor. But look how well taht worked 100 years ago in the US, and is working now in places like India. Especially after the New Deal, we're certainly not pure capitalists here in the US, and I'm glad for it.
HOT DAYAM!
mr. sayet - you are a troll magnet - honestly, please stop trying to confound them with the truth - they cannot handle it.
*8]
If by "truth" you mean "straw man arguments that a 4 year old could see through" then yes, he virtually shits truth.
They certainly don't consider themselves socialists, they're very pro-capitalism. But they're also not heartless and they believe in human rights and civil liberties, and that's what makes them Democrats. It's pretty simple.
So, where do you draw the line on centralized redistribution? Which existing socialist programs in the US have been successful and which are financially sound? Could these new inequalities in society be solved effectively outside of funneling control through the government?
Dora, It was supposed to be totalitarian...that's part of the theory...you go through the dictatorship phase which they thought necessary to change the society enough to set up a communist state. Russia was really too large and chaotic to do that without extreme measures. And it had a long history of repression. Some historians think Stalin was just another czar with a different title. I'm not saying I think what they did was acceptable but it isn't clear what would have happened later if someone other than Stalin had been at the head. Whatever the case, what emerged was nothing like a reasonable facsimile of a socialist state. It's what happens over and over when supposed communist reformers just use the "dictator of the proletariat" phase to remain dictators for life.
So, where do you draw the line on centralized redistribution? Which existing socialist programs in the US have been successful and which are financially sound? Could these new inequalities in society be solved effectively outside of funneling control through the government?
These are the THE questions, aren't they?
Where to draw the line on centralized redistribution? In my ideal world, once we get universal healthcare, the line would be just right. I don't want to see a European system in this country, for many reasons. But I certainly don't think that things like unemployment benefits and universal healthcare make the US the equivalent of Sweden, or the USSR, and I think the people who shriek otherwise also don't actually believe it.
Which existing socialist programs in the US have been successful and which are financially sound?
I think it depends on what you mean by success and financial soundness. The poverty rate has dropped, Americans are earning more real wages, more Americans than ever are graduating high school and college. Does that mark a success? I don't know. We need to define our terms.
Financially sound? Government programs aren't supposed to be "profitable," that's not their aim.
Could these new inequalities in society be solved effectively outside of funneling control through the government?
Well, first of all, i don't think any of these inequalities are new.
Second, i have yet to see anyone succeed at solving these inequalities without the government in any country.
Third, that alone doesn't mean it's impossible, but I personally think it is. I think it's naive beyond belief to think that if we removed the payroll taxes that pay for other people's programs (medicare, social security, etc), that people would give away all that money to charity. It's just not in human nature, is it? Communism doesn't work because we're hoarders and we're selfish and competitive, and I'm fine with that. But for some reason, when it comes to discussing charity, rightwingers forget all that and think that if there were no taxes, people would give away tons to charity. I wish I could see some tangible evidence of some place on earth or some time in history when this actually happened.
Dora, It was supposed to be totalitarian...that's part of the theory...you go through the dictatorship phase which they thought necessary to change the society enough to set up a communist state. Russia was really too large and chaotic to do that without extreme measures.
I disagree. Your point about a history of repression and the czars is well-taken, but i also think taht from the beginning, Lenin was just a megalomaniac who wanted power above all else, and he saw communism as the train to the apex of power in Russia. Whatever ideological commitment he had to communism was just commitment to it to see him to the top of power, he would have just as well chosen fascism or any other ideology if he thought it would be even more effective than communism.
And so the shitshow was an exceedingly cruel and repressive shitshow from the beginning, not some benevolent experiment that was hijacked by Stalin & co. Stalin & Co. made it much worse, of course, but still.
At least that's my opinion.
SS has been phenomenally successful. It has an incredibly low administrative cost. Medicare is utterly indispensible and should be extended to everyone. Most of the probs with these programs are politically based. Unionization made a decent middle class life possible and the movement needs to be reinvigorated. Consumer protection laws, as we should all know in light of recent developments, need to be continued and strengthened as do workplace safety rules etc. Stonger environmental safeguards are needed. The tax structure needs to be taken back to somewhere near its pre-Bush levels. Then there are all the business cycle modifying measures and such things as the Federal Reserve which takes much of the danger out of crashes and subsequent bank runs like once were common. These and many others are all measures which make capitalism a well harnessed and useful force rather than the monster it is when run unchecked. You have be one very naive ignoramus to think that human beings with huge wealth and power do not need oversight. The purpose of an economy is to provide a civilized method of managing the business of a society in a decent and creative way, not to merely produce the greatest amount of wealth, encourage greed and destroy everything around it for the short term gain of a few sociopaths...that is what capitalism does if not correctly controlled.
There is no doubt, Johnny, that it is far from a perfect system. Churchill once said that "democracy is the worst form of government ever devised...except for all the others."
If some of the guys with less of a shot had been kept on then we wouldn't get any kind of extended time with the front-runners. It's not a member of being in a club, but it is a matter of reality.
Meanwhile, Huckabee was a zero going in. In the time that was afforded him he made the most of it.
These days its even more democratic (lower case "d") in that there are tons of ways to both raise money and to promote your candidacy without great sums of money (i.e. the internet). Look at all the news channels, now twenty-four hours, and all that time they have to fill so candidates with less money get on TV now versus when there were only three networks, etc.
One thing I find about the left is that, instead of appreciating the good, they harp on the bad. But there's ALWAYS going to be less than perfection meaning that they can't appreciate what we have. Ever.
I agree that Lenin was probably as extreme as Stalin, but there was no way a revolution was going to occur without massive reordering. What I meant was that with other leadership it might have eventually gone in a much different direction. Stalin is the guy who did take over for the long haul, and under him, nothing good was ever going to happen. The point is that what we had in Russia was nothing like Marx' idea of communism. What these dimwits also studiously ignore is the situation behind Marx' outrage. The industrial revolution in the west was a monstrous hell prompted by the unchecked greed of capitalism without regulation or a counterweight in the form of an organized workforce and public. This is what government alone can provide as it is the only force equal to corporate might...and now even gov't is probably not equal to multi-national corporations which threaten to become the new government.
They may call themselves Liberal Democrats (although I don't know if that's true and there are more on the left than the right) but when the issues come up they almost invariably side with the Republicans.
While I don't have the stats about American citizens, it's the same point about those who lived under the yolk of communism who were the ones who sided with America and our allies against the Islamists and Saddam.
This is because, while the French live a sheltered life, protected by American might and suckling on the teet of the state, those who lived under communism know that evil DOES exist.
Yoke. Teat. You are, ostensibly, some sort of "writer", are you not?
One thing I find about the left is that, instead of appreciating the good, they harp on the bad. But there's ALWAYS going to be less than perfection meaning that they can't appreciate what we have. Ever.
More meaningless tripe. I (along with all the other liberals here) appreciate this country, but I also recognize its faults. If I spend more time talking about the bad than the good, it's because the former is a constructive use of one's time, and the latter is mindless jingoism. Repeating, over and over, that "this is the greatest country in the world" is not only unprovable, it's a waste of everyone's goddamn time. The President takes us into poorly-planned wars, discards good science for business expedience (read about the Klamath River fiasco some time) and takes powers into the Executive that have never belonged there. And you sit there with your hands over your eyes and your fingers in your ears, repeating your mantra over and over that it's liberals' fault, because we don't "discriminate" or some such nonsense. It would seem pretty clear that you, Evan, are the one who refuses to discriminate, between sound policy and bad policy, between standing by party and standing by country, between questioning the logic of your leaders and mindlessly following them. You should take your own advice about discriminating.
First, if I stood by party before country I'd still be a Democrat. The fact that I have changed my party is evidence that it's not just dogma.
I'm well aware of short-comings in the Republican party's policies. What I like is that Republicans DON'T just mindlessly go along with party. The President nominated Harriet Miers and it was the Republicans/conservatives who didn't just go along. Same with the President's (and the Democrats) immigration policy.
Follow a good Republican website with numerous writers, etc. and compare to, say, Huffington Post or any other that you care to recommend where it's in lockstep that the war is wrong and evil and we're losing even when we were winning and even as we are winning again.
No slander against this President isn't taken as gospel by the leftists and no tradition (such as ending political differences at our shores) is honored or respected.
No, it's not that I march in lockstep, it's that given the choice between the Republicans who can be wrong on policy and the Democrats who I believe are wrong on their entire vision of human nature and thus the policy that comes from that vision.
I don't believe that we should reward failure for the sake of "self-esteem." I don't think we should appease evil, I think we need to fight it.
Does that mean I agree with every POLICY implemented in order to reward the good and fight the evil? Of course not. And, when I believe the policy is wrong (or the person is bad) I speak up vocally against it.
To be quite honest, none of the Republican field of candidates have me thrilled about November. I think we're damned lucky the Democrats are challenging with their most unelectable candidates.
Still it seems like a hollow victory coming, coasting towards November after Dems figure out if they want to lose by a few states, or by a landslide.
Shouldn't the Republican nominee actually stand for something? You know, to make them stand out from the Democrat candidate?
For those of you that care, this is a great article about the problems with socialized healthcare along with statistics and media links.
Here he posts links to various articles about Britains NHS including:
One in eight patients waiting over a year for treatment, admits minister
- John Carvel, June 8, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited]
The drugs the NHS won't give you
- May 11, 2007 [Telegraph UK]
UK lagging behind on cancer drug access, study finds
- May 10, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited]
Specialist stroke care 'lottery'
- May 9, 2007 [BBC News]
Smokers and the obese banned from UK hospitals
- May 2, 2007 [Healthcare News]
Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for NHS
- Lyndsay Moss, February 13, 2007 [The Scotsman]
UK health service "harms 10 percent of patients"
- Kate Kelland, July 7, 2006 [Reuters]
5,000 elderly 'killed each year' by lack of care beds
- June 26, 2006 [Telegraph UK]
Pay for nurses and surgeons doubles NHS overspend
- Beezy Marsh, Patrick Hennessy and Nina Goswami, April 23, 2006 [Telegraph UK]
British Healthcare To Be Rationed
- April 7, 2006 [United Press International]
British body rejects EPO drugs for cancer patients
- March 17, 2006 [Reuters]
National Health Service - Grappling with Deficits
- March 9, 2006 [Economist.com]
Hundreds wait to register as another dentist quits the NHS
- Martin Williams, September 23, 2005 [The Herald (Scotland)]
Life-saving cancer drugs 'kept from NHS patients by red tape'
- Sam Lister, September 20, 2005 [The Times]
NHS slides into the red despite record increases in health care spending
- September 20, 2005 [Telegraph UK]
Alzheimer's sufferers hit by further delay in NHS approval for vital drugs
- Michael Day, September 18, 2005 [Telegraph UK]
We all pay a price for our 'free' NHS
- John Smith, August 19, 2005 [The Scotsman]
2,000 British doctors out of work
- August 14, 2005 [The Washington Times]
UK health 'unsustainable'
- August 14, 2005 [Finance24]
NHS faces rising bill for negligence claims
- Ben Hall, August 8, 2005 [Financial Times]
So, where do you draw the line on centralized redistribution?
Where to draw the line on centralized redistribution? In my ideal world, once we get universal healthcare, the line would be just right.
Why healthcare above other more critical necessities like food, clothing and shelter? I'm just trying to understand the logic there.
Which existing socialist programs in the US have been successful and which are financially sound?
I think it depends on what you mean by success and financial soundness. The poverty rate has dropped, Americans are earning more real wages, more Americans than ever are graduating high school and college. Does that mark a success? I don't know. We need to define our terms.
Financially sound? Government programs aren't supposed to be "profitable," that's not their aim.
Financially sound means financially stable. That was more of a rhetorical question, because we all know that Social Security is doomed in it's current state. Thomas Sowell said, "Social Security has been a pyramid scheme from the beginning. Those who paid in first received money from those who paid in second — and so on, generation after generation. This was great so long as the small generation when Social Security began was being supported by larger generations resulting from the baby boom.
But, like all pyramid schemes, the whole thing is in big trouble once the pyramid stops growing. When the baby boomers retire, that will be the moment of truth — or of more artful lies. Just like Enron."
Furthermore, the poverty rate has not dropped in at least three decades. Why federalize welfare? In my opinion, charity is best given by people that actually care about the poor- cutting checks and sending them out doesn't solve the real problem.
I DO disagree with you completely about the hearts of Americans and their ability to care for their own and others through charity. What I have seen is that local charities, soup kitchens, churches, etc, are the most effective at actually helping people get out of poverty and back into productive society.
I DO disagree with you completely about the hearts of Americans and their ability to care for their own and others through charity. What I have seen is that local charities, soup kitchens, churches, etc, are the most effective at actually helping people get out of poverty and back into productive society.
Let me follow that up with this. I believe that, when one part of the nation is hit hard for whatever reason, I would not be against temporary government help to stimulate those areas. I believe there is a balance between socialism and the free market, but I draw the line a lot closer to freedom.
Where to draw the line on centralized redistribution? In my ideal world, once we get universal healthcare, the line would be just right.
Why healthcare above other more critical necessities like food, clothing and shelter? I'm just trying to understand the logic there.
But we already have government aid for food (food stamps), clothing and shelter (welfare, section 8 housing).
But we already have government aid for food (food stamps), clothing and shelter (welfare, section 8 housing).
So are you advocating only to help the poorest people get healthcare? Because that's what welfare & section 8 housing is. I would argue that we already have that to some degree.
Furthermore, the poverty rate has not dropped in at least three decades.
Don't you wonder why that table starts at 1973? Go to the source table.
Why federalize welfare? In my opinion, charity is best given by people that actually care about the poor-
(1) Are you saying that most tax payers actually don't care about the poor? I care about the poor. Do you care abotu the poor?
(2) Why does the motivation of the person giving the money matter? it doens't matter to the poor person, money is money.
(3) Or are you suggesting some sort of charity for the poor that doesn't involve giving cash? How would you work it?
I DO disagree with you completely about the hearts of Americans and their ability to care for their own and others through charity. What I have seen is that local charities, soup kitchens, churches, etc, are the most effective at actually helping people get out of poverty and back into productive society.
I'd like to see some statistics on this.
The highest poverty rates in the US are in the south, which is also the states with the lowest taxes. It's not working like you say it should.
But we already have government aid for food (food stamps), clothing and shelter (welfare, section 8 housing).
So are you advocating only to help the poorest people get healthcare? Because that's what welfare & section 8 housing is. I would argue that we already have that to some degree.
Really? How so?
All the universal health care plans offered by ALL of the candidates are choice plans, the goal of which is to get insurance for those who don't already have it. If you already have insurance that you like, you can keep it. Under all of their plans, including Hillary's.
Plus, according to Mitt romney, and having lived in Massachusets, I agree with him, it's cheaper to provide insurance for everyone than to pay for higher emergency room bills that result when people don't have health insurance.
Having universal insurance would increase life expectancy and economic mobility, because surely more healthcare for the 50 million who are uninsured would help them live healthier, and people wouldn't hesitate to open new businesses because they would lose their health insurance, and wouldn't hesitate to change jobs for the same reason.
I believe there is a balance between socialism and the free market, but I draw the line a lot closer to freedom.
I would label the spectrum "socialism" on one end and "laissez-faire" on the other (not "capitalism, or "freedom").
Evan: They may call themselves Liberal Democrats (although I don't know if that's true and there are more on the left than the right) but when the issues come up they almost invariably side with the Republicans.
Please provide statistics on this.
Someone else: The point is that what we had in Russia was nothing like Marx' idea of communism.
True.
What these dimwits also studiously ignore is the situation behind Marx' outrage. The industrial revolution in the west was a monstrous hell prompted by the unchecked greed of capitalism without regulation or a counterweight in the form of an organized workforce and public. This is what government alone can provide as it is the only force equal to corporate might...and now even gov't is probably not equal to multi-national corporations which threaten to become the new government.
Also true for the most part.
If I spend more time talking about the bad than the good, it's because the former is a constructive use of one's time, and the latter is mindless jingoism. Repeating, over and over, that "this is the greatest country in the world" is not only unprovable, it's a waste of everyone's goddamn time.
EXACTLY! Why do you twits need daily oaths of affirmation to the US?
All the universal health care plans offered by ALL of the candidates are choice plans, the goal of which is to get insurance for those who don't already have it. If you already have insurance that you like, you can keep it. Under all of their plans, including Hillary's.
Excuse my ignorance, but is Hillary's plan "choice" like public schools are choice? In that you have to pay for it whether you choose to use it or not? I already know the answer to that question. Don't pretend that there is a choice. Let's be honest about this.
Excuse my ignorance, but is Hillary's plan "choice" like public schools are choice? In that you have to pay for it whether you choose to use it or not? I already know the answer to that question. Don't pretend that there is a choice. Let's be honest about this.
No, of course everyone has to pay for it. But everyone has to pay for a lot of things they don't use.
Or do you think that the public school system would work if only the people choosing to use it and the people choosing to pay that tax would pay those taxes?
This is what Hillary's website says about how she plans to pay for her plan. Obviously, it's campaign promises, but i imagine it's close to what it will be:
# Most Savings Come Through Lowering Spending Due to Quality and Modernization: Over half the savings come from the public savings generated from Senator Clinton’s broader agenda to modernize the heath systems and reduce wasteful health spending.
# A Net Tax Cut for American Taxpayers: The plan offers tens of millions of Americans a new tax credit to make premiums affordable-which more than offsets the increased revenues from the Plan’s provisions to limit the employer tax exclusion for health care and discontinue portions of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Thus, the plan provides a net tax cut for American taxpayers.
# Making the Employer Tax Exclusion for Health Care Fairer: The plan protects the current exclusion from taxes of employer-provided health premiums, but limits the exclusion for the high-end portion of very generous plans for those making over $250,000.
[HillaryClinton.com]
More straw men, Evan. You really are predictable.
Follow a good Republican website with numerous writers, etc. and compare to, say, Huffington Post or any other that you care to recommend where it's in lockstep that the war is wrong and evil and we're losing even when we were winning and even as we are winning again.
Not only unprovable, but patently ridiculous. Redstate? Free Republic? Not exactly bastions of critical thinking. HuffPo (or DailyKos) are exactly as open-minded as either of those are. And all four of them are more open-minded than you.
No slander against this President isn't taken as gospel by the leftists
Replace "this President" with "President (or Hillary) Clinton" and "leftists" with "rightists".
Democrats who I believe are wrong on their entire vision of human nature
I realize that, when you're trying to break into the ranks of far-right punditry and wingnut welfare, nuance and subtlety are the first things that go by the board, but perhaps you'll try to remember that the label "Democrats" encompasses a wide variety of people who think many different things about human nature, and that painting them with a broad brush may get you on Fox Noise and may get you photo-ops with Ann Coulter, but it also means no one will take you particularly seriously. Maybe that's what you want, I don't know, but you're getting to be an old man now and being an unserious, far-right pundit seems like the kind of thing best left to the young, who still have time to rebuild their reputation.
I don't believe that we should reward failure for the sake of "self-esteem." I don't think we should appease evil, I think we need to fight it.
Neither do I. Neither does anyone. If these are the best talking points you can come up with, it's no wonder your writing is confined to this slum.
The highest poverty rates in the US are in the south, which is also the states with the lowest taxes. It's not working like you say it should.
That is not a fair way to judge charity. Look at New Orleans. It is in the south and it is an example of what what socialism does to a community. The liberal programs instituted there increased crime, poverty, wasteful spending, corruption, and the entitlement mentality. Don't try to associate the South or specific states as a whole with "laissez-faire" economic policies. It's just not a valid argument.
Don't you wonder why that table starts at 1973? Go to the source table.
Why hasn't it dropped any further in the past three decades?
Follow a good Republican website with numerous writers, etc. and compare to, say, Huffington Post or any other that you care to recommend where it's in lockstep that the war is wrong and evil and we're losing even when we were winning and even as we are winning again.
Christopher Hitchens writes pro-war pieces on Slate.com all the time.
That is not a fair way to judge charity.
Why not? You say lower taxes, and people will contribute to charities, but show me just one example of that actually happening, and that actually working to improve conditions! I've already shown you a few of it NOT working.
Look at New Orleans. It is in the south and it is an example of what what socialism does to a community. The liberal programs instituted there increased crime, poverty, wasteful spending, corruption, and the entitlement mentality. Don't try to associate the South or specific states as a whole with "laissez-faire" economic policies. It's just not a valid argument.
I don't know enough about the specific example of New Orleans, but to say that i shouldn't look into states' poverty rates and tax rates and see if what you'r proposing will work? So, we shoudl just do what you're proposing because you say it will work, with no proof, and in fact, proof that it won't work?
Don't you wonder why that table starts at 1973? Go to the source table.
Why hasn't it dropped any further in the past three decades?
Because Republicans come into power. Look, it goes up every time a republican gets elected. Reached its highest point in 1993, after 12 years of Republican rule. Under clinton, it went down from 22% to 13-14%? Is that not an achievement? And then under Bush II, it does up again.
That is not a fair way to judge charity. Look at New Orleans. It is in the south and it is an example of what what socialism does to a community. The liberal programs instituted there increased crime, poverty, wasteful spending, corruption, and the entitlement mentality.
Do you have any statistics (or evidence of any kind) to back this assertion up?
Or do you think that the public school system would work if only the people choosing to use it and the people choosing to pay that tax would pay those taxes?
The public school system has dumbed down America, and that is a fact. Am I against any public funding for education? No. But I do believe parents should be able to choose the schools that their children go to. The schools that perform will attract funding and the others will disappear. The funding should follow the student. I also believe parents should be able to choose the style of education their kids go to. I believe home-schoolers should get a tax break or exemptions for school materials. Parents have the right to choose how their children are raised and educated.
Another alternative to school choice would be to dissolve public education. A government support program for the poor could be started so that people without means could be supplemented by the government so their kids could be educated in good schools.
I'm sure there are lots of other great ideas out there, but the current system is not working.
No, of course everyone has to pay for it. But everyone has to pay for a lot of things they don't use.
Wouldn't a more logical system only be available for the poor? The price tag would sure be a lot smaller. I still think there are some problems with even that, but I would be able to swallow it a lot easier.
The public school system has dumbed down America, and that is a fact.
Well, that's not true. Public schools are funded in large part by regional tax revenue. I went to public school in a town where property taxes were high and more than half of the town's tax revenue went to the school. At the school, we had classes in archaeology and latin and calculus and philosophy. We had field hockey and a photography lab.
The townspeople decided collectively that they would pay superhigh taxes, and spend all those taxes on schools.
If you keep cutting taxes, as rightwingers want to do, you won't be able to afford stuff you want. IT's very simple, actually.
Am I against any public funding for education? No. But I do believe parents should be able to choose the schools that their children go to.
They already can. By moving to a town that has good schools. Isn't that the Republican ideal, very local government, with people gathering together in groups and deciding, in this town, we value education so we're going to spend our money on it? And others gather in towns and decide, in this town, we value low taxes, so we're not going to spend a lot of money on schools. What's wrong with this system?
The schools that perform will attract funding and the others will disappear.
So what about the children who live near schools that disappear?
I also believe parents should be able to choose the style of education their kids go to. I believe home-schoolers should get a tax break or exemptions for school materials. Parents have the right to choose how their children are raised and educated.
Yes, they do, but does the government have to subsidize every right you have? Surely you don't think the government should pay for you printing up leaflets to exercise your right to free speech, or that the government should have to pay for your abortion to exercise your right to have one? In fact, the Supreme Court has held that even though primary education is a right, that doesn't automatically mean that a state has to make sure everyone is educated.
Another alternative to school choice would be to dissolve public education. A government support program for the poor could be started so that people without means could be supplemented by the government so their kids could be educated in good schools.
This would be an infrastructural disaster. At least for a couple of years while people frantically start various private schools, most children would have no school to go to. That doesn't seem right.
In Europe, the government happily subsidizes various public schools in addition to running a top-notch public school system in most countries, but is that what you want here? Woudl you be happy with your tax dollars going to a Muslim school? How about an atheist school? Would there be some government regulation on what the schools had to teach the children, or would it just be a laissex-faire approach, with creationism and all sorts of other craziness allowed?
I'm sure there are lots of other great ideas out there, but the current system is not working.
Because in a lot of places, it's woefully underfunded. IMHO.
Wouldn't a more logical system only be available for the poor? The price tag would sure be a lot smaller. I still think there are some problems with even that, but I would be able to swallow it a lot easier.
What about the non-poor who don't have insurance? I mean, if you're barely above the poverty line, you're not considered poor, but you still can't afford to spend a lot on health insurance.
I mean, honestly, i find it amazing that you guys oppose this, because it would probably make your lives a lot easier.
Do you have any statistics (or evidence of any kind) to back this assertion up?
New Orleans: The Wages of Socialism
Leaving New Orleans
This would be an infrastructural disaster. At least for a couple of years while people frantically start various private schools, most children would have no school to go to. That doesn't seem right.
Here is the problem with expanding the federal government. Once a new program is installed, regardless of it's success, it is almost impossible to dismantle. It's just like the Fair Tax/Flat Tax advocates. It will never make it because there are too many people depending on those systems for their income. Government workers are to some extent, on the dole just like welfare recipients. Lets just say we socialized medicine and it was a disaster. Do you really think we could ever abolish it? You say that you would draw the line after universal healthcare, but I believe the line keeps moving. They typically grow until they collapse. If we allow states and cities to do these programs, at least people can move from state to state and keep the system in balance.
Well, neither of these articles really discusses the causes and history of NEw Orleans in any concrete way. They are both biased editorials, long on generalizations, short on facts.
The first article is clearly rightwing, the second is leftwing, but even taken together, they don't help figure out what CAUSED the situation New Orleans was in before Katrina.
The first article's bits that point to causes (but provides no citations):
America’s booming economy -- but they rarely take the initiative to even apply for work. When they do, they usually don’t have an understanding of what it takes to get and keep employment. Without realizing it, their cycle of dependency gives them one excuse after another to feel trapped, "owed," and oppressed -- while living on the dole.
So, it says that welfare recipients don't have initiative, don't know what it's like to work, and have a sense of entitlement. But it doesn't discuss where these things come from.
In this world someone who works 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and supports a family is called a "fool." Those who sell drugs, rape, rob, and kill are seen as "getting over." That is "getting over" -- on "the man" who is "holding us all down." This mentality is the product of the welfare state. New Orleans is one of a few cities where welfare has been taken to its full logic.
In New Orleans this culture of entitlement extends far beyond this "underclass." New Orleans police are the lowest paid in America, as part of their job they are expected to contract out to private parties for security services. This naturally leads to all type of corruption which in turn contributes to the public not trusting or respecting the police. When Katrina hit, about 1,000 of New Orleans 1,500 police officers deserted their posts. This single fact, more than any other, has led to the breakdown in law and order, which slowed rescue and relief efforts for two critical days on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1.
Huh, so maybe they should be paid more, not less, to eliminate the corruption that comes from subcontracting?
The culture of entitlement and dependency also extends to the political establishment of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana. This leads to the mayor pointing his finger at lack of support by state and federal government while his own police dissolve underneath him. Millions of dollars have been sent to New Orleans for decades, but they were siphoned off to various corrupt activities rather than being used to reinforce levies or build up emergency services. This is a state that has never left behind the depression-era populism of Huey Long. Corruption is legion. Most office holders just haven’t been caught yet -- others have been caught but got re-elected anyway.
Okay, big problems, how to solve them?
For those who do stay to rebuild, welfare reform and school choice must move to the top of Louisiana’s political agenda.
But won't these people need jobs? How to attract jobs? No answer.
A platoon of federal investigators should reinforce efforts to indict, arrest, and convict politicians and appointed officials for corruption. The city police department must be reformed from top to bottom starting with the termination of those who deserted and following with pay scales commensurate with that of other police departments. The "projects" must be demolished, as they have been in Chicago, Baltimore and many other American cities.
Where are these people going to live, then? How will they afford regular housing if there are no good jobs to be had? Where are these jobs going to come from? No answer.
Regulations and taxes that strangle small business development must be repealed.
Are New orleans regulations stricter tha other cities? No one has made this claim.
The private sector should lead the way in physical reconstruction.
But didn't subcontracting work to the private sector in the police lead to corruption?
Nothing warps human nature like the belief in "being owed" combined by the feeling, left by paltry welfare payments, that the debt "owed" is never paid. Thousands of welfare recipients are used to having everything given to them -- albeit in insufficient quantity to be satisfying. Thousands have no concept of working for wages, much less building a business. These same thousands rightfully look at the police and politicians as corrupt. In this twisted existence, the idea of initiative and work does not exist.
No initiative? New Orleans was very poor and destitute -- unless you think people like being very poor and destitute and living in a corrupt city, I think there was plenty of initiative.
From their distorted view of the world, looting in the midst of disaster and shooting at rescue helicopters makes perfect sense.
I'm not sure how that logically follows.
The solution, of course, is to attract good jobs for people. How to attract good jobs that pay well so that people have good lives? The key is education, and that requires serious government spending. Why do you think the biotech sectors are in Boston and SF? Could it have something to do with the amount of college graduates in those areas, the presence of MIT, Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, etc.?
Now the second article:
It is a city of extended families and social networks filling the gaps left by city, state and federal governments that have abdicated their responsibility for the public welfare.
It is also a city of exploitation and segregation and fear.
Ok, so the governments abidcated their responsibility to public welfare (well-being) and the place is racist.
The city has a 40 percent illiteracy rate, and over 50 percent of black ninth-graders will not graduate in four years. Louisiana education spending comes to an average of $4,724 per child, and teacher salaries in the state rank 48th in the country. The equivalent of more than two classrooms of young people drop out of Louisiana schools every day and about 50,000 students are absent from school on any given day.
A-ha! Maybe this has something to do with there not being any good jobs, the populus is uneducated -- why would any office employer want to be in a city that has such a poorly educated populus?
Far too many young black men from New Orleans end up in Angola Prison, a former slave plantation where inmates still do manual farm labor, and over 90 percent of inmates eventually die in the prison. It is a city abandoned by industry, with most remaining employment in low-paying, transient, insecure jobs in the service economy.
More evidence of this.
It's my core belief that good life begins with good jobs, and good jobs begin with good education. Education is the foundation of a good society, IMHO.
Here is the problem with expanding the federal government. Once a new program is installed, regardless of it's success, it is almost impossible to dismantle.
What about all those temporary new deal institutions, like the NRA? What about welfare reform?
It's just like the Fair Tax/Flat Tax advocates. It will never make it because there are too many people depending on those systems for their income.
It's kind of true. If you abolish the IRS and institute the fair tax/flat tax, where are all those accountants and IRS employees going to go? It's not an argument for not doing it, but it's not an economic impact that you can just ignore.
Government workers are to some extent, on the dole just like welfare recipients.
But they are doing jobs. It's not the same.
Lets just say we socialized medicine and it was a disaster.
Can you explain what you mean by "socialized medicine"? Is what Mitt Romney did in MAssachusetts "socialized medicine"?
Do you really think we could ever abolish it? You say that you would draw the line after universal healthcare, but I believe the line keeps moving.
I don't know. We did reform welfare, right? The Reconstruction after the Civil War was ended after a few years. I mean, you're basically arguing, as a principle, that the government can't change. We abolished slavery, even though it was in the constitution. We abolished prohibition.
They typically grow until they collapse.
One historical example, please.
If we allow states and cities to do these programs, at least people can move from state to state and keep the system in balance.
So you want there to be healthcare choice in allowing people to move from state to state, but you don't like that system right now with respect to education? I don't get it.
And of course, the parade of horribles from socialized medicine:
One in eight patients waiting over a year for treatment, admits minister
- John Carvel, June 8, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited]
Unlike those who are uninsured in the US, who just don't get treatment at all.
The drugs the NHS won't give you
- May 11, 2007 [Telegraph UK]
Unlike those who are uninsured, who don't get any drugs at all.
UK lagging behind on cancer drug access, study finds
- May 10, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited]
Unlike those who are uninsured, who don't get any drugs at all.
Specialist stroke care 'lottery'
- May 9, 2007 [BBC News]
Unlike those who are uninsured, who don't get any care at all.
Smokers and the obese banned from UK hospitals
- May 2, 2007 [Healthcare News]
And then there are just outright lies. The actual story is that doctors may be able to choose in the future to not give certain treatments to smokers, drinkers and the obese "if their lifestyle makes it ineffective"
Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for NHS
- Lyndsay Moss, February 13, 2007 [The Scotsman]
Isn't that HMOs do here in the US?
Do you have any statistics (or evidence of any kind) to back this assertion up?
New Orleans: The Wages of Socialism
Leaving New Orleans
Dora thoroughly debunked these, so no need to rehash. It's safe to assume that you're the same person, under a different name, who has a creepy man-crush on Bobby Jindal.
Unlike those who are uninsured in the US, who just don't get treatment at all.
Unlike those who are uninsured, who don't get any drugs at all.
Unlike those who are uninsured, who don't get any care at all.
And then there are just outright lies.
Aren't those enough?
Somebody has been watching too many Michael Moore Mockumentaries.
what CAUSED the situation New Orleans was in before Katrina.
The same thing that has led to millions of Palestinians being stranded on the Dole in the Middle East... bleeding heart liberalism and Democratic patronage politics.
2ignorant4primetime said...
Somebody has been watching too many Michael Moore Mockumentaries.
I'm sorry, are you denying that there are nearly 50 million people in this country with no health insurance, who therefore get very little medical care? Or are you denying that HMOs sometimes deny patients various treatments, and then the patients die? Or both?
And for the record, i have not actually seen Michael Moore's latest beacuse I really didn't like his portrayal of pre-war Iraq in Farenheit 9/11. I thought the first part of the movie about Bush & bin Laden was good, but not the part about the war.
But won't these people need jobs? How to attract jobs? No answer.
It isn't the jobs responsibility to come find the welfare queen... it's the welfare queen's responsibility to go find the job.
what CAUSED the situation New Orleans was in before Katrina.
The same thing that has led to millions of Palestinians being stranded on the Dole in the Middle East... bleeding heart liberalism and Democratic patronage politics.
omg, are you kidding? Are you suggesting that there are just all these jobs to be had in the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinians are instead sitting "on the dole"?
Because if there are jobs, then wouldn't you be sitting on the dole too?
who therefore get very little medical care?
Walk into any ER in the country. You will get immediate medical care regardless of your ability to pay.
cartb4horses said...
But won't these people need jobs? How to attract jobs? No answer.
It isn't the jobs responsibility to come find the welfare queen... it's the welfare queen's responsibility to go find the job.
So you're saying that the government has no interest in incentivizing companies to come to their city/county/state/country to provide jobs for their citizens? Cuz, um, this may be news to you, but many states/cities/countries do this.
denileismorethanariver said...
who therefore get very little medical care?
Walk into any ER in the country. You will get immediate medical care regardless of your ability to pay.
True, but, um, it's called an "emergency" room for a reason, it's for emergencies. It's not for regular checkups and pap smears and the like.
You're not really making this argument, are you"
Are you suggesting that there are just all these jobs to be had in the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinians are instead sitting "on the dole"?
No, I'm saying that there are millions of Palestinians sitting in the West Bank and Gaza where there are no jobs because there IS a dole. Why leave then?
So you're saying that the government has no interest in incentivizing companies to come to their city/county/state/country to provide jobs for their citizens? Cuz, um, this may be news to you, but many states/cities/countries do this. Duh.
But if there are no jobs and no companies coming, the government should not subsidize it's citizens to stay put. They should encourage them to leave.
It's not for regular checkups and pap smears and the like. You mean the kind of regular things you get if you're on public assistance? Or the stuff every kids in the nation gets whose families earn under a certain income? Grow up.
You're just ignorant of what's available. Try finding out on your own for a change... I shouldn''t have to spoon feed you this stuff.
LOL!
who therefore get very little medical care?
Walk into any ER in the country. You will get immediate medical care regardless of your ability to pay.
Wow. Just when you think they can't get any dumber.
New Orleans was a welfare "Katrina trap" created by stupid government policies.
No, I'm saying that there are millions of Palestinians sitting in the West Bank and Gaza where there are no jobs because there IS a dole. Why leave then?
I dunno, why don't you ask all those people streaming across the Gaza border into Egypt today?
The "dole" in Palestine is pretty lame, it's not much of an incentive. The GDP/capita in Israel is $28,000, the GDP/capita in the west bank & gaza is $1,100.
Weird, huh?
Plus, where would they go? No country in the Middle East wants them. The ethics and morals of that are a different question, though, and even if it is deeply immoral of Egypt and Jordan and Lebanon of not taking in these refugees, that doesn't change the fact that they have nowhere to go, and they have no leverage to make anyone take them.
They're in Egypt now. The smart ones won't go back.
But if there are no jobs and no companies coming, the government should not subsidize it's citizens to stay put. They should encourage them to leave.
That's an interesting idea. I wonder why no one has ever tried it.
It's not for regular checkups and pap smears and the like. You mean the kind of regular things you get if you're on public assistance?
Not everyone on public assistance gets that, it depends on the state.
More importantly, what if you're NOT on public assistance and don't have health insurance? Then what?
Or the stuff every kids in the nation gets whose families earn under a certain income? Grow up.
At least we have that. But even then, some children don't have health insurance, if their parents didn't get them any and if they're not below that income level. It's not the kids' fault, is it?
Oh, and PS, who was so against expanding SCHIP? And then who quietly signed it, and we didn't hear a peep from you guys?
notmyproblem said...
They're in Egypt now. The smart ones won't go back.
Egypt has only let them in temporarily, not as full immigrants who will become citizens.
I don't know why someone detracted on their situation, however, ebcause their situation is quite different from that of jobless Americans.
Which all goes to prove...had the UN just let them starve in '48... Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan WOULD have let them settle. Arabs starving doesn't sit well with the practictioners of Islam.
Oh, and not to change the subject, but it should be pointed out that Evan's prediction that the "big winner" was Rudy Giuliani (twice!) has turned out to be about as prescient as the predictions about how many WMD stockpiles we'd find in Iraq.
Egypt has only let them in temporarily, not as full immigrants who will become citizens.
If there's no dole or means of support to go back to, the Egyptians aren't going to cut off their only food supplies.
More importantly, what if you're NOT on public assistance and don't have health insurance? Then what?
Stop drinking up your salary on Friday night and go BUY some health coverage. You CAN afford it.
I would just encourage people to read the article I posted earlier. It has an editorial piece written by a libertarian, true, but it also has lots of statistics and related facts and articles.
Another good source for pros and cons is at balancedpolitics.com. I think any reasonable person would at least acknowledge the cons and well as the pros, of which there are many. It's not a clear cut superior solution as Dora and the rest of the liberal evangelists here preach.
Oh, and PS, who was so against expanding SCHIP? And then who quietly signed it, and we didn't hear a peep from you guys?
The program stayed the same. Why should the government subsidize kids who already HAVE health insurance to go onto "public" health insurance?
btw - The democrats are trying to resurrect expanded-SCHIP under the new "stimulus" package.
stonecoldheartless said...
Which all goes to prove...had the UN just let them starve in '48... Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan WOULD have let them settle. Arabs starving doesn't sit well with the practictioners of Islam.
In 1948, the West Bank was part of Jordan. The Gaza Strip was part of the British Mandate for Palestine, and from 1949 to 1967, was occupied by Egypt.
Plus, you know that when you let refugees starve, some country takes them in. Like in Somalia and the Sudan and stuff... oh, wait...
somepeopleneverlearn said...
More importantly, what if you're NOT on public assistance and don't have health insurance? Then what?
Stop drinking up your salary on Friday night and go BUY some health coverage. You CAN afford it.
That's a total joke. If you really believe that, you have no idea what you're talking about.
The program stayed the same. Why should the government subsidize kids who already HAVE health insurance to go onto "public" health insurance?
btw - The democrats are trying to resurrect expanded-SCHIP under the new "stimulus" package.
The Washington Times must be confused, then:
President Bush yesterday signed legislation that extends a popular children's health insurance program after twice vetoing attempts to expand it.
Politically, the move was a victory for Mr. Bush, although Democrats say it will come back to hurt Republicans at the polls.
The extension of the State Children's Health Insurance Program is expected to provide states with enough money to cover those enrolled through March 2009. Mr. Bush and some Republican lawmakers say the program will still serve those who it should: children from families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071230/NATION/289804918/1002
Huh, "families who earn too much to have their children qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance."
Would those be the same families that should "stop drinking up your salary on Friday night and go BUY some health coverage... you CAN afford it"?
That's a total joke. If you really believe that, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Sure, stay in your nice comfortable Katrina trap and complain.
Or move to California's Central Valley and start picking strawberries at the "new" minimum wage ($20/hr) that comes from kicking 12 million illegals out.
Firefighter: Giuliani 'ran like a coward on 9/11'
Families of firefighters killed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center rallied in Orlando Tuesday in anticipation of the state's upcoming Republican primary. Unfortunately for Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, the firefighters are not in his corner.
"We want America to know that [the Giuliani campaign] is lying to America and to the American pubic," said Jim Riches, a deputy chief in the New York Fire Department, "telling all of Florida that the New York City Fire Department backs him, when that's another lie."
Firefighters and their families vowed to dog the former New York mayor at all of his Florida campaign stops because the state figures prominently in Giuliani's big-state primary strategy. The protesters think that Giuliani was aware that firefighters who responded to the World Trade Center attack were carrying defective radios and did not hear the order to evacuate.
"He didn't prepare us before, during, or after," says Riches.
"Yeah, the decision he made was, which direction he was going to run," says Riches. "And he ran north, and that's all he did."
littlejohnny said...
I would just encourage people to read the article I posted earlier. It has an editorial piece written by a libertarian, true, but it also has lots of statistics and related facts and articles.
So, the article says that universal healthcare "2) Destroys physician incentives to provide competitive care"
Is this person arguing that physicians right now are providing competitive healthcare? And yet the costs are so high? Those incentives don't seem to be working very well right now.
1) Destroys patient incentives to find the best possible prices for the best possible services/products available.
Do people currently shop around? Most people who have health insurance pay the same no matter where they go, as long as it's "in-network" and those that don't have health insurance just don't get healthcare until they have to go to the emergency room, which is usually not a time to "shop around."
All the other reasons are unsubstantiated.
And the whole argument about drug companies not having a reason to make drugs falls flat when you look at all the drug companies in Europe who are thriving even though they have universal state-run healthcare.
You can read can't you... The extension of the State Children's Health Insurance Program
The operative word is "estension" NOT expansion. Expansion is what Bush vetoed 2x.
That's a total joke. If you really believe that, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Sure, stay in your nice comfortable Katrina trap and complain.
Or move to California's Central Valley and start picking strawberries at the "new" minimum wage ($20/hr) that comes from kicking 12 million illegals out.
So, if it's a Katrina trap, then why is Bush acknowledging the existence of families who are too rich for medicaid but still can't afford health insurance? Is bush also a brainwashed liberal?
also, are you calling me a "dike" and actually misspelling? :)
idon'tknowwhati'mtalkinabout? said...
You can read can't you... The extension of the State Children's Health Insurance Program
The operative word is "estension" NOT expansion. Expansion is what Bush vetoed 2x.
True enough. My bad.
All the other reasons are unsubstantiated.
Just like all your counter-rationalizations...
I'm still waiting for a definition of "socialized medicine."
So, if it's a Katrina trap, then why is Bush acknowledging the existence of families who are too rich for medicaid but still can't afford health insurance?
The poverty and entitlement lines get redrawn everyday in Washington DC. That doesn't mean that thos $1 above or below them are "in trouble" or "okay". That's "politics".
I'm still waiting for a definition of "socialized medicine."
Stop sitting on your hands and throw one out then... see if it sticks. You need spoon feeding?
I say we outlaw all health insurance. Cash only.
Then maybe the patients WOULD shop around.
Know why a college education costs as much as it does? Anyone think it wouldn't cost thousands less if the government didn't subsidize the costs?
...and a patient wouldn't get charged $100 for a bandaid.
Here are the Cons to socialized medicine from balancedpolitics.org. You don't have to agree with them, but many of us do.
1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
12. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
How about the organization that runs the military?
Plus, under most candidates' plans, the government doesn't run the healthcare. Read the plans, both those on the right and on the left, the healthcare industry still exists, it's just more regulated.
2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
But we already pay for people's healthcare by paying, with our tax dollars, for unpaid emergency room bills for people who don't get preventive healthcare. The reduction in those costs would be significant.
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
so why don't we have a private police force, firefighers, EMTs, for only those who can pay for them?
Plus, that is not always true. Read about the Tragedy of the Commons.
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
Why's that?
5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
Are they likely to curb their costs now? Is it good for them to curb their costs? Should people say, well, I need this drug, but I can't pay for it?
6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance,
This is an isolated phenomenon.
and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
Yes, but it's not illegal to then charge someone thousands of dollars for the care they get, forcing them to mortgage their home, etc.
7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
The government already mandates procedures and care standards. Why would there be extra mandates? The question is who pays, not making care different.
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
But they already do if they have health insurance, through higher premiums. And through paying for those aforementioned unpaid emergency room bills. Imagine if obese people and others with chronic conditions had health insurance and could manage those conditions, or even eliminate them, instead of negletcitng them and ending up in the emergency room.
9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
did this happen in Mass.?
10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
This is already happening because of increased costs of being a doctor.
11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
12. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
Is healthcare not a right?
I think these points argue against a system that no one is proposing, where doctors become government employees and the government takes over hospitals, etc.
NO ONE who is running is proposing this kind of system.
The poverty and entitlement lines get redrawn everyday in Washington DC. That doesn't mean that thos $1 above or below them are "in trouble" or "okay". That's "politics".
so you're saying that everyone who is not poor can afford health insurance? if so, why don't they have it?
How bout this "con". The health care system will expand from 15% of GDP currently to 80% of GDP as old people check into hospitals instead of retirement homes and expect to be kept alive forever.
so you're saying that everyone who is not poor can afford health insurance? if so, why don't they have it?
They don't feel sick at the moment???
Who knows. Ask them. I'm sure the reasons are as diverse as the people being asked.
You're letting these brainwashed little parrots off much too easily as usual...the US health care system is much worse than they say, and the best U care European systems are much better. Here's just one example: LAST...DEAD last. And this is just one area:
New study: US ranks LAST among other industrialized nations on preventable deaths
101,000 fewer Americans would die annually if the US improved its preventable death rate
January 8, 2008, Bethesda, MD—The United States places last among 19 countries when it comes to deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, according to new research supported by The Commonwealth Fund and published in the January/February issue of Health Affairs. While other nations dramatically improved these rates between 1997–98 and 2002–03, the U.S. improved only slightly.
If the U.S. had performed as well as the top three countries out of the 19 industrialized countries in the study there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths in the U.S. per year by the end of the study period. The top performers were France, Japan, and Australia.
In “Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis,” Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine compare trends in deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care. Specifically, they looked at deaths “amenable to health care before age 75 between 1997–98 and 2002–03.”
Nolte and McKee found that while other countries made strides and saw these types of deaths decline by an average of 16%, the U.S. experienced only a 4% decline. “It is notable that all countries have improved substantially except the U.S.,” said Nolte, lead author of the study. The authors also note that “it is difficult to disregard the observation that the slow decline in U.S. amenable mortality has coincided with an increase in the uninsured population, an issue that is now receiving renewed attention in several states and among presidential candidates from both parties.”
“It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance,” said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen. “By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the U.S. lagging in health outcomes. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference.”
In 1997–98 the U.S. ranked 15th out of 19 countries on the “mortality amenable to health care” measure. However, by 2002–03 the U.S. fell to last place, with 109 deaths amenable to health care for every 100,000 people. In contrast, mortality rates per 100,000 people in the leading countries were: France (64), Japan (71), and Australia (71). The other countries included in the study were Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Study authors state that the measure of deaths amenable to health care is a valuable indicator of health system performance because it is sensitive to improved care, including public health initiatives. It considers a range of conditions from which it is reasonable to expect death to be averted even after the condition develops. This includes causes such as appendicitis and hypertension, where the medical nature of the intervention is apparent; it also includes illnesses that can be detected early with effective screenings such as cervical or colon cancer, and tuberculosis which, while acquisition is largely driven by socio-economic conditions, is not fatal when treated in a timely manner.
“Cross-national studies conducted by The Commonwealth Fund indicate that our failure to cover all Americans results in financial barriers that are much more likely to prevent many U.S. adults from getting the care they need, compared with adults in other countries,” said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. “While no one country provides a perfect model of care, there are many lessons to be learned from the strategies at work abroad.”
How about the organization that runs the military?
Can you spell fruad, waste, abuse and $100,000 toilet seats?
Health care in the USA is GREAT unless your one of the stupid 16%
Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. The U.S. spends more on health care, both as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) and on a per-capita basis, than any other nation in the world. Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15% of GDP, the world's highest.[1] The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.6 percent of GDP by 2016.[2]
The U.S. is one of the world's few industrialized nations that does not guarantee access to health care.[3] In the United States, around 84% of citizens have some form of health insurance; either through their employer (60%), purchased individually (9%), or provided by government programs (27%; there is some overlap in these figures).[4] Certain publicly-funded health care programs help to provide for the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation. Per capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[5] When public and private spending are added together, the U.S. spends more per capita than any other nation.[6] Americans without health insurance coverage at some time during 2006 totalled about 16% of the population, or 47 million people.[4] Health insurance is expensive, and medical bills are overwhelmingly the most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the United States
universalcareisnationaleconomicsuicide said...
How bout this "con". The health care system will expand from 15% of GDP currently to 80% of GDP as old people check into hospitals instead of retirement homes and expect to be kept alive forever.
LOL -- if that were true, why isn't that happening anywhere where there is universal healthcare?
patheticexample said...
How about the organization that runs the military?
Can you spell fruad, waste, abuse and $100,000 toilet seats?
So maybe you support privatizing the military?
Americans without health insurance coverage at some time during 2006 totalled about 16% of the population, or 47 million people.[4] Health insurance is expensive, and medical bills are overwhelmingly the most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the United States
"Stupid" 16%? Why do you think they are stupid?
And being the highest spender in this case is no badge of honor -- it might be that our system is just very inefficient and overcharges people.
Note...the 16% of Americans w/o insurance are not always the same people. They are people who are moving up and down the economic ladders and are typically suffering from a "temporary" health care risk exposure. Like dora... too old for daddy's policy... not on BigLaw's policy
The administrative costs of SS are extremely low...it is extemely efficient and a model bureaucratic agency...and it is in NO danger of going broke, unless GOP politicians play with the money in order to make that happen. These are silly scare tactics proferred by the right in order to get their private accounts plans more support.
Is healthcare not a right?
No, Absolutely not. This is the entitlement mentality that will end up destroying our nation. If anything, we need to work on deregulating the healthcare system. Most of your valid arguments are true because of the already heavy regulations doctors and drug companies face.
Simes, I know those statistics. I'm not even going to try to argue whether america has "the best healthcare int he world" with these guys, becuase I don't think any amount of evidence will convince them on that point.
I'm trying to argue a different point.
Here's something else to think about: universal healthcare would definitely improve life expectancy in the US, i don't think anyone disputes that. That would make our economy better, because that means that someone who would have died at 45 previously would now die at 47, yielding 2 extra years of work, with tiny marginal costs. Training a new worker from birth is very expensive when compared with the marginal cost of extending the life of an existing worker for another few years.
our system is just very inefficient and overcharges people.
Largely because the poor CANNOT BE TURNED AWAY... and so "other patients", those with insurance, end up paying for those who don't.
Life isn't risk free. Accept the fact that you may die tomorrow. And if your number comes up...
As for the costs of U care, it is actually much lower than a messed up hodge podge like we have now...but the simple minded can see the cost on their tax bill. They cannot see the enormous hidden costs of the current system, so their tiny abacus brains are unable to see that there are such costs.
Note...the 16% of Americans w/o insurance are not always the same people. They are people who are moving up and down the economic ladders and are typically suffering from a "temporary" health care risk exposure. Like dora... too old for daddy's policy... not on BigLaw's policy
I have health insurance, actually, through my law school.
You're so jealous of me, FJ. It's kind of sad.
You got any proof of what you assert, otherwise?
The administrative costs of SS are extremely low...it is extemely efficient and a model bureaucratic agency.
*giggles* You've GOT to be kidding!
Is healthcare not a right?
No, Absolutely not.
Ok, just out of curiosity, what things, if any, are rights?
our system is just very inefficient and overcharges people.
Largely because the poor CANNOT BE TURNED AWAY... and so "other patients", those with insurance, end up paying for those who don't.
Well, not the poor, you mean the uninsured.
So what do you propose, turning the uninsured away, then?
I'm trying to argue a different point.
What is that point? Because the quality and cost seem to be what they're talking about. Are you talking to each other about different things?
Would you take Oregon's word?
Igno says *giggles* You've GOT to be kidding!
No, I'm not kidding...it may be a surprise to your thouroughly scrubbed little brain, but that is a simple veribiable FACT.
simes said...
I'm trying to argue a different point.
What is that point? Because the quality and cost seem to be what they're talking about. Are you talking to each other about different things?
I'm arguing that, let's say we have the best healthcare in the world -- universal healthcare, as proposed by all the candidates, would not make the quality go down, but would make the costs go down, and all of the arguments against are unsubstantiated, because we can look to the experiences of other countries and Massachusetts, to see what happens when you universalize healthcare, and it has hardly been a disaster.
A caveat, to my argument, of course, is that we have the best healthcare in the world for people who have good health insurance, not for those with horrible health insurance, or no health insurance at all, which is 47 million people.
Would you take Oregon's word?
Which page are you pointing to?
FYI the admin costs of SS are currently around 1%. They would be MUCH higher with a pvt acct system.
Ok, just out of curiosity, what things, if any, are rights?
Ever read the bill of rights? Come now!
So what do you propose, turning the uninsured away, then?
Nope. Ban health insurance. Cash on Delivery only. Give the untaxed money to the employee's and make them put it into a combined retirement/health savings account amounting to 25% of annual salary... untouchable for anything else.
FYI the admin costs of SS are currently around 1%. They would be MUCH higher with a pvt acct system.
That's funny. The administrative tax on my ROTH IRA is much lower than that!
Which page are you pointing to? All of them?
littlejohnny said...
Ok, just out of curiosity, what things, if any, are rights?
Ever read the bill of rights? Come now!
Ok, but the bill of rights is definitely missing a few rights:
- right to life
- right to travel within the us
- right to marry
are those not rights?
So what do you propose, turning the uninsured away, then?
Nope. Ban health insurance. Cash on Delivery only. Give the untaxed money to the employee's and make them put it into a combined retirement/health savings account amounting to 25% of annual salary... untouchable for anything else.
What would you do with a person who doesn't have one of those accounts, or who spent all the money? Turn them away? Put them in debt forever?
i mean, do you know how much it costs to have cancer? most americans wouldn't be able to save up enough money in their lives to deal with one cancer.
non sequitur says That's funny. The administrative tax on my ROTH IRA is much lower than that!
Rilly? Idoubt it, but do you think a nationwide program for over 300 million people might be a little different from your own account? There are endless studies that show that personal accounts that would be suppsed to cover everyone would be much higher than SS. When you have to start taking into account hundreds of different situations and kinds of people, things change a little from cherry picked pvt accounts.
Which page are you pointing to? All of them?
So, like, this part?
The most recent Oregon Population Survey (OPS) shows a slightly lower uninsured rate for Oregonians (15.6%) in 2006. One in six Oregonians were without health insurance coverage—this represents about 576,000 individuals of all ages, about 116,000 of whom are children under the age of 19. In addition to the currently uninsured, another 299,000 Oregonians have experienced a health insurance coverage gap at some time during the previous 12 months.
No. The one that says "Who are the uninsured" (not numbered).
You'll never convince these simpletons on cost alone. If they can't see it on a tax bill in simple numbers that they can read, they're far too stupid to imagine all the lost productivity and the increases from delaying care that aren't there in front of them. And the human costs are of course irrelevant to these little sociopaths.
Could you be bothered to paste in a specific quote or two to which you are referring?
Geez
What would you do with a person who doesn't have one of those accounts, or who spent all the money? Turn them away? Put them in debt forever?
They could appeal to charity. And putting them in debt forever beats the alternative.
i mean, do you know how much it costs to have cancer? most americans wouldn't be able to save up enough money in their lives to deal with one cancer.
Do I? I'm personally very familiar with cancer expenses, and fortunately had socked away money in IRAs to pay off unreimbursed expenses related to radiation, surgery and related chemotherapies
And the human costs are of course irrelevant to these little sociopaths.
It sure seems that way. When confronted with the question, "well, would you just turn away the poor?" they refuse to answer. At least they can sense something wrong with doing that, but it is the logical conclusion of their arguments.
It's two pages of data dora. I'm not going to paste it in here. Besides... there are pretty graphs just in case you're interested in actually learning something for a change.
The right to life is at least in the declaration of independace.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We do have a flexible system that would allow us to add, alter or further clearify our rights. The bill of rights does not define "rights" to other peoples property - to redistribute wealth. Look at it! It defines freedoms, not entitlements.
They're also too programmed to understand that a single payer system is much more efficient, both in administation by the payee and in bookkeeping costs to the doctors than a system with dozens or hundreds of conflicting programs and insurers.
What would you do with a person who doesn't have one of those accounts, or who spent all the money? Turn them away? Put them in debt forever?
They could appeal to charity. And putting them in debt forever beats the alternative.
And if the charities don't come through, then what? And putting them in debt forever is better than which alternative?
i mean, do you know how much it costs to have cancer? most americans wouldn't be able to save up enough money in their lives to deal with one cancer.
Do I? I'm personally very familiar with cancer expenses, and fortunately had socked away money in IRAs to pay off unreimbursed expenses related to radiation, surgery and related chemotherapies
I'm very sorry to hear that. But since you have this familiarity, could you tell us how much you spent, and how much was covered by your insurance?
It's two pages of data dora. I'm not going to paste it in here. Besides... there are pretty graphs just in case you're interested in actually learning something for a change.
Ok, well, I'll take that as "I'm an idiot, sorry to bother you with my idiocies."
They could appeal to charity. And putting them in debt forever beats the alternative.
Like I say...SOCIOPATHS. They think civilization is a money making activity. Sorry assed little loons shouldn't have any input into social policy. Put the stupid drones behind a desk somewher and tell them to shut the fuck up and just concentrate on the little figures in front of their severely limited brains.
they refuse to answer No I didn't. Besides. Read Marvin Olasky's "The Tragedy of American Compassion". You can learn about how Americans used to take care of their own long before there ever was an SSA Medicare/Medicaid. He was a homeless advocate and Gingrich advisor.
The right to life is at least in the declaration of independace.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We do have a flexible system that would allow us to add, alter or further clearify our rights. The bill of rights does not define "rights" to other peoples property - to redistribute wealth. Look at it! It defines freedoms, not entitlements.
Well, the Dec. of Independence is not the constitution, and what it says is not enforceable in the courts. If the right to life is so important, why isn't it in the constitution? Or is it not a right?
And what about the right to travel and the right to marry? Are you saying those aren't rights?
It (the bill of rights) defines freedoms, not entitlements.
Very true. I don't know why I never noticed that before.
You idiots have never faced cancer, have you? Didn't think so.
You have NO CLUE.
The question was:
"So what do you propose, turning the uninsured away, then?"
And your answer was:
"Nope. Ban health insurance. Cash on Delivery only. Give the untaxed money to the employee's and make them put it into a combined retirement/health savings account amounting to 25% of annual salary... untouchable for anything else."
But it's not an answer, because the people who are uninsured are people WHO CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE!!! They are, pretty much by definition, people who do not have any money to put away into any savings account, because they can't even afford health insurance.
It was a clever way to avoid the question, but it was not an answer.
So then I asked, "What would you do with a person who doesn't have one of those accounts, or who spent all the money? Turn them away? Put them in debt forever?"
And you answered:
"They could appeal to charity. And putting them in debt forever beats the alternative."
I guess that is an answer. If they can't find a charity to pay for their care, we put them in debt forever with insurmountable medical bills. Basically, not my problem, fuck 'em!
Nice!
All these books about the evils of compassion have ONE purpose...to make sociopaths think it's alright to be that way. Americans used to take care of their own, you ignorant little simpleton...do you mean the gramps could stay on and live with the kin and it cost half a buck to have the doc come out and take your pulse? SEE, we live in a much different society today where those things aren't possible. So we would like to TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN with methods amenable to today's realities...like with health care for all, for instance. DUH...isnt that taking care of your own? So, why don't you help or get the fuck out of the way?
Mike said...
It (the bill of rights) defines freedoms, not entitlements.
Very true. I don't know why I never noticed that before.
Welcome Constitutional Law 101, the difference between positive and negative rights.
Geez.
Homeboy says, healthcare is not a right. I say, okay, what are rights? he says, the bill of rights, and I say, well that doesn't have the right to life. he says, but that's in the dec. of independence.
Rights exist outside of the bill of rights, both positive and negative, QED.
I'm very sorry to hear that. But since you have this familiarity, could you tell us how much you spent, and how much was covered by your insurance?
My out of pocket ran about $45K. Other expenses ran it up to about $250K. Radiation. Two surgeries. Two rounds of chemothereapy. The last chemo round was "optional" on my part. Given the side-effects, I wouldn't exercise the option in my "next" life.
And had I had no insurance, I would have put it on my credit card and used my homeowners equity. It puts many unhealthy people into bankruptcy. But again, it beats the alternative.
And what about the right to travel and the right to marry? Are you saying those aren't rights?
I would say those are rights, as in freedoms. Entitlements and rights (freedoms), are completely different. Can you acknowledge the difference at least? The right to do something is completely different from the right to receive something from the government.
My out of pocket ran about $45K. Other expenses ran it up to about $250K.
Thank you for being honest.
So you wrote:
crazyideas said...
So what do you propose, turning the uninsured away, then?
Nope. Ban health insurance. Cash on Delivery only. Give the untaxed money to the employee's and make them put it into a combined retirement/health savings account amounting to 25% of annual salary... untouchable for anything else.
I think considering the cost of one cancer, it's legitimate to ask:
1) What would you do with a person who doesn't have one of those accounts, or who spent all the money? Turn them away? Put them in debt forever?
2) Most americans wouldn't be able to save up enough money in their lives to deal with one cancer. Isn't this a problem for your plan?
No?
And what about the right to travel and the right to marry? Are you saying those aren't rights?
I would say those are rights, as in freedoms. Entitlements and rights (freedoms), are completely different. Can you acknowledge the difference at least? The right to do something is completely different from the right to receive something from the government.
Absolutely I'll acknowledge it. The point i'm trying to drive home at this moment is that there are rights that are outside of the Bill of Rights.
Baby steps.
All these books about the evils of compassion have ONE purpose...to make sociopaths think it's alright to be that way.
No, it serves to put to the LIE the idea that only Governments and politicans have any compassion. People are very compassionate. Doctors and nurses "volunteer" their services. Ordinary people provide whatever help they can. ALL without having to be coerced.
That's the way it was in the old days. Except they refused to subsidize the drug addicts and alchoholics... rather than subsidize their chemical dependencies, they made them WORK for their vices.
No, it serves to put to the LIE the idea that only Governments and politicans have any compassion. People are very compassionate. Doctors and nurses "volunteer" their services.
What, doctors and nurses don't get paid? What?
Ordinary people provide whatever help they can. ALL without having to be coerced.
Huh. So that's why we have universal healthcare, right, because people help each other out and pay for each other's medical expenses? Oh wait...
That's the way it was in the old days. Except they refused to subsidize the drug addicts and alchoholics... rather than subsidize their chemical dependencies, they made them WORK for their vices.
Ah, the old days... barf. Really. Barf now.
) What would you do with a person who doesn't have one of those accounts, or who spent all the money? Turn them away? Put them in debt forever?
Charity. Let them go into debt. And after that, let them die.
2) Most americans wouldn't be able to save up enough money in their lives to deal with one cancer. Isn't this a problem for your plan?
No, because that simply isn't true. America can currently afford to spend 15% of GDP on medical treatment...and I'd have them putting 25% of GDP into interest bearing and compounding securities... and would eliminate the Social Security tax ~16% in the process.
Gee, are they talking about "entitlements" and "redistribution" again. These guys are so simple they think that the current system is not hugely rigged in favor of certain types of people. They think GW would not be swamping bars for a living if he hadn't had a rich daddy. They think CEOs who fuck up their jobs are actually worth three thousand times as much as any of their workers who are actually doing something useful. If the system was straight in the first place and people were actually paid what they were worth, we wouldn't need social programs for them, but they aren't, my li'l wingbats. Not even close. So because of the fucked up system, we have to address these probs with a little redistribution ...la de daaaaaaaah..in most cases, it's only giving people back a tenth of what they've had stolen in the first place by the RIGGED distribution.
Absolutely I'll acknowledge it. The point i'm trying to drive home at this moment is that there are rights that are outside of the Bill of Rights.
Baby steps.
My point is, and I will stick to it until death, that an entitlement is not a right. A right is a freedom. An entitlement is not a freedom. We have freedom to healthcare already, just as we have freedom to go to a fancy restaurant, travel, marry, etc. There is no law preventing us from purchasing healthcare. It becomes an entitlement when you start asking for someone else to pay for a service or product. Those are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS! We do not have the right to force other people buy shit for us.
What, doctors and nurses don't get paid? Doctors w/o borders... The American Red Cross... etc. etc. etc.
Hell, America supplies at least half the health care in Africa for nothing today. Missionaries in South America provide emergency medical care and transportation to hospitals... volunteers do great things... if you let them.
My point is, and I will stick to it until death, that an entitlement is not a right. A right is a freedom. An entitlement is not a freedom.
You're just mixing up terminology. This is known as negative rights (the freedom to do something) and positive rights (the right to something).
We have freedom to healthcare already, just as we have freedom to go to a fancy restaurant, travel, marry, etc. There is no law preventing us from purchasing healthcare. It becomes an entitlement when you start asking for someone else to pay for a service or product. Those are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS! We do not have the right to force other people buy shit for us.
Ok, here's a question for you. Do you have a right to have the police come to your house if you call 911? How about if you're poor, and you don't pay taxes for that police? Should other people's taxes pay for the police to come to your house? How about firefighters to come to your house to save it?
Do you have a right to force other people, taxpayers, to pay for your firefighter and police protections?
1) What would you do with a person who doesn't have one of those accounts, or who spent all the money? Turn them away? Put them in debt forever?
Charity. Let them go into debt. And after that, let them die.
Wow, just wow.
Ok, I give up.
Gee, life in America must have really sucked before FDR invented Social Security Medicare/Medicaid.
Government health care is a very very very recent invention. Yes, people once helped themselves without the aid of their sainted mommies in government.
crazyguy said...
What, doctors and nurses don't get paid? Doctors w/o borders... The American Red Cross... etc. etc. etc.
Hell, America supplies at least half the health care in Africa for nothing today. Missionaries in South America provide emergency medical care and transportation to hospitals... volunteers do great things... if you let them.
Yes, but not all people volunteer, and not all doctors do either.
I'm really not sure what this has to do with our discussion. If volunteers could cover the gaps in healthcare in our country for free out of the goodness of their volunteering hearts, why haven't they already done so?
cluelessinliberalland said...
Gee, life in America must have really sucked before FDR invented Social Security Medicare/Medicaid.
Um, YEAH! It kinda did! Look at the life expectancy: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
Government health care is a very very very recent invention. Yes, people once helped themselves without the aid of their sainted mommies in government.
Yes and the life expectancy was 40 years old for a regular guy in the 19th century in industrialized countries.
No, it serves to put to the LIE the idea that only Governments and politicans have any compassion. People are very compassionate.
There is no lie that only governments have compassion...where do you get that silly crap? The thing is that the need for these social programs does not even come up in the first place if the so called private sector is addressing them adequately. It does not address the prob of health and it did not even come close to addressing the problem of what to do with retired people...hence we got SS. If you're so naive that you think all these people would be taken care of by private charity, then you're a starry eyed little elf living in a wonderful, little never never land. As usual it is the liberal who has the hard headed realist idea of human nature and the goofy righty who imagines santa will take care of all those poor people. Santa wont do it, so we adults have to. Grow up and give up your silly wide eyed Disney vision.
Yes, dora, people die. People die every second of every hour of every day. And no amount of money spent on universal healthcare will ever change that.
I guess in the UK they don't "ration" health care, do they? And where do the UK's wealthy people go when they can't get what's "rationed"? They come the the USA... and pay... go into debt... go bankrupt... and either die or go home. Cause you see, if they stayed in the UK, their only option would be "death".
dora and simes want to live in a country where EVERYONE, no matter how rich or how poor have only one option if the procedure is too expensive. Death.
And then the doctors get to choose who lives and who dies... who's cancer is too far advanced... and which patients will have no say.
Too dumb to know the difference bleats Government health care is a very very very recent invention. Yes, people once helped themselves without the aid of their sainted mommies in government.
Well, life often did suck then -- very badly -- see we libs see the problems and like to do something about it...that's why he wear clothes today and have moved out of caves in Africa. It's why we even haved things like medicine in the first place...and you don't want everyone to have it because you think it's just been around forever for no reason...dumb little apes like you would still be clubbing rodents to live on if it weren't for the liberal mind.
Do you have a right to force other people, taxpayers, to pay for your firefighter and police protections?
Are those paid by the federal government? National Security and defense is a completely different subject, but local services and law enforcement should not be funded by the federal government. If people in a specific state or community want to fund all kinds of crazy expensive services, then fine - but don't define them as basic human rights, because they are not.
Yes, dora, people die. People die every second of every hour of every day. And no amount of money spent on universal healthcare will ever change that.
I never argued the opposite. I don't really see what your point is. Simes is right, it is a stupid fantasy to think that some charity is going to take care of everyone's medical expenses. It's goingt o have to be one rich charity, too.
And why isn't charity taking care of all the uninsured in America currently, then? You won't answer, I know.
I guess in the UK they don't "ration" health care, do they? And where do the UK's wealthy people go when they can't get what's "rationed"? They come the the USA... and pay... go into debt... go bankrupt... and either die or go home. Cause you see, if they stayed in the UK, their only option would be "death".
Funny you bring up going to other countries to get healthcare. Surely you've heard of Americans going to Asia to get surgeries for a fraction of the price that they would pay here? why on earth would they do that? Or going to Canada to get prescription drugs? Again, what on earth is this?!
Do you have a right to force other people, taxpayers, to pay for your firefighter and police protections?
Are those paid by the federal government? National Security and defense is a completely different subject, but local services and law enforcement should not be funded by the federal government. If people in a specific state or community want to fund all kinds of crazy expensive services, then fine - but don't define them as basic human rights, because they are not.
I don't see how the federal/state distinction enters into this, but what you're saying is that the police can say to you on the phone "oh, well, we see here that you don't live in this town, so we won't be coming in response to your 911 call." Or, "well, we just don't like you, we're not coming."
That's okay with you? It's not a right to have the police come in response to your 911 call? Or is it only a right if you pay for that police dept? What if you're in another town than the one you pay taxes for?
...and government bureaucrats will decide which procedures become "standard", which "experimental" and whether the ineffective (but inexpensive) cancer treatment of 1968 that results in 50% deaths stays, or the much more expensive 95% effective treatment becomes the standard. After all... they're on a limitted budget... and someone will have to choose who lives and who dies. And the citizens will argue whether "minorities" are being discriminated against and should get the more expensive treatments.
Yes, let's let "politics" and "politicians" decide these questions, instead of deciding them for ourselves.
glad2beanamerican said...
dora and simes want to live in a country where EVERYONE, no matter how rich or how poor have only one option if the procedure is too expensive. Death.
Who's proposing this?
And then the doctors get to choose who lives and who dies... who's cancer is too far advanced... and which patients will have no say.
That's what private insurers do. U care would not do that unless it was designed to do that. Take the "holy" profit motive out of it and you get a system whose bottom line is decent care rather than more for the CEO.
nohealthcare4u said...
...and government bureaucrats will decide which procedures become "standard", which "experimental" and whether the ineffective (but inexpensive) cancer treatment of 1968 that results in 50% deaths stays, or the much more expensive 95% effective treatment becomes the standard. After all... they're on a limitted budget... and someone will have to choose who lives and who dies. And the citizens will argue whether "minorities" are being discriminated against and should get the more expensive treatments.
Yes, let's let "politics" and "politicians" decide these questions, instead of deciding them for ourselves.
And right now, insurance companies are deciding these very questions. What's your point?
Take the "holy" profit motive out of it and you get a system whose bottom line is decent care rather than more for the CEO.
Precisement...we can design the system as we want it. And we have several fabulously successful models around the world to look at. Why do these little "let them freeze on the street" monkeys want to continue with in many ways the worst system in the advanced world?
And why isn't charity taking care of all the uninsured in America currently, then? You won't answer, I know.
Huh. Because ALL of America's people are being served. And charities take care of many, many uninsured people. The Shriner's hospitals, Catholic charities, etc. etc. etc.
No one in America is dying in the streets due to a lack of health care.
Take the "holy" profit motive out of it and you get a system... that stinks.
You really don't know what it means to "profit", do you? I don't ever buy anything without the expectation of profitting thereby. But I know you only spend money on rip-offs. If you ever went to college simes, someone owes you a rebate. Becuase you didn't "profit" from it at all.
Who's proposing this?
Apparently we are. See, we would wilfully design a system that would cut people off if their deal was expensive...you know, like you read about PRIVATE insurers doing.
Straw men all over the place...is it Halloween?
That's what private insurers do.
That's why you take EVERYONE ELSE out of the loop, and give people tax free individual healthcare/ retirement savings accounts. Heck if mom doesn't use all of hers, she'll probably even lend you some of hers if you run out! And when she dies... bang, $150K drops into YOUR account. People would become "self-insured".
And why isn't charity taking care of all the uninsured in America currently, then? You won't answer, I know.
Huh. Because ALL of America's people are being served. And charities take care of many, many uninsured people. The Shriner's hospitals, Catholic charities, etc. etc. etc.
No one in America is dying in the streets due to a lack of health care.
Well, people do die because HMOs refuse to pay for their procedures.
And medical bills are the number 1 reason for personal bankruptcy.
Guess those charities aren't doing that well.
Disney twit says No one in America is dying in the streets due to a lack of health care.
Of course they are and many more are dying at home or in the hospital too early. Silly little fairy tales for dinks aren't going to do it...didn't you read the FACT that America LEADS the first world in unnecessay deaths? Of course, you just ignored that fact, reason and evidence.
whatasadlittleman said...
Take the "holy" profit motive out of it and you get a system... that stinks.
You really don't know what it means to "profit", do you? I don't ever buy anything without the expectation of profitting thereby. But I know you only spend money on rip-offs. If you ever went to college simes, someone owes you a rebate. Becuase you didn't "profit" from it at all.
I know one person who didn't go to college for sure.
That's okay with you? It's not a right to have the police come in response to your 911 call? Or is it only a right if you pay for that police dept? What if you're in another town than the one you pay taxes for?
Police protection is not a freedom. It is a service provided by local and state governments. It is not the role of the federal government to fund those services. Besides, law enforcement is a necessity in any government that has laws. You can't compare that to health care.
If a State wanted to do as Mass has done and socialize healthcare, fine. But that doesn't make healthcare a right. It is a centralized service that the citizens of Mass have agreed to pay for. If it's a good service, other states may adopt it. If not, people and businesses will leave and the laws will change. Once you do something at the national level, it is practically irreversible.
You really don't know what it means to "profit", do you? I don't ever buy anything without the expectation of profitting thereby. But I know you only spend money on rip-offs. If you ever went to college simes, someone owes you a rebate. Becuase you didn't "profit" from it at all.
What does this drivel mean?...nothing ...a total non sequitur...another concept you didn't learn.
crazyeddie said...
That's what private insurers do.
That's why you take EVERYONE ELSE out of the loop, and give people tax free individual healthcare/ retirement savings accounts. Heck if mom doesn't use all of hers, she'll probably even lend you some of hers if you run out! And when she dies... bang, $150K drops into YOUR account. People would become "self-insured".
And what if mom doens't have any? What if you don't have any? Too bad?
When people go into tremendous debt and go into bankruptcy, do you think there is no harm to society? That person can now never buy a home, and will have problems for the rest of their lives.
But what about those bills they couldnt' pay? Those companies they owed for goods and services? They're not paid, you know. They just write that stuff off, for the most part. Hospitals and doctors make less money that way, and to compensate for that, what do they do? You guessed it, raise fees for everyone!
Post a Comment