He chose a white guy

[TheScout]

I wouldn't advocate corporate bailouts either. Think about if we didn't have pork barrel projects, corporate welfare, social security, of medicare, the federal government would probably have enough revenue to balance the budget without the income tax. That would be nice, wouldn't it? No income tax. Not replaced with anything.

 

Citizens would have tons of spare money. Americans, being the most generous people in the world would be able to give more money to private charity which would be more efficient at fixing the ills of society. Nobody advocates people dying on the streets. We just advocate a better more traditional way of fixing such problems.

 

You ask why socialized health care is bad? Look at the systems in Canada and Europe. The quality of US health care is not there. Some countries with national health systems make it illegal to go to a private doctor or go overseas for treatment. Those countries that allow citizens to go overseas often have the rich go to the United States to get treatment.

[GernBlansten]

Why stop there?

Every road should be a toll road, with proceeds going to the company that owns them to maintain them.

 

Every fire company should bill the recipient of their services for fire fighting. Garden hoses are cheap. You can't pay, better bring the marshmallows.

 

We don't even need police. With a well armed population, there will will be no crime.

 

Military? Why? With well organized militias, we can defend ourselves from all enemies foriegn and domestic. With all that extra cash each citizen will have, they can own their own WMD.

 

Education? Home schooling could be mandatory, eliminating huge costs.

 

Medicare? Why would we want to keep our elderly citizens healthy? They are a drag on the common good. Let them die.

 

Social Security? see above. Eliminate their health care, they won't be around to need SS.

 

What other socialized programs could we eliminate?

 

There was a time when this utopia was reality. They called it the dark ages.

[TheScout]

Frankly, the federal government is going broke. It runs up massive debts every year. It pays its bills by selling bonds to Asians (mostly) and printing more fiat paper money. The Resulting inflation is a hidden tax on every American which hits the poor the most.

 

Eventually the world will catch on and stop accept our paper dollars that are not backed by anything but a promise to say.

 

The federal government must either cut back dramatically on all levels. Social programs together with the military make up most of the budget. Or increase taxes to ridiculous Scandanavian proporitions. Either that or we will simply go bankrupt.

 

It is sad to believe so many have such little faith in the American population that suffering will be immense without government handouts.

[packsaddle]

Actually, at my age, I would be interested in watching such an experiment in Darwinian forces played out on the socio-economic stage. I already DO advocate going totally private for education. I'm OK with doing the same thing with most of the other things, including highways, healthcare, social security, etc.

The 'every man for himself' ethic is going to produce some very interesting differences in the services we now take for granted (sort of). But at least some of us will have more of the most important thing in our lives...money.

It'll be just too bad that poor people were unlucky enough not to be born rich.

[GernBlansten]

Yes, the borrow and spend plan we have been using for the past 30 years is gonna catch up to us.

 

But lets look at another American institution, health insurance. It really is just voluntary, privatized socialism. The whole purpose of insurance is to spread the risk across a large pool so those who never need it, pay for those who do. To manage this risk, insurance companies ration care either through co-pays or pre-authorizations for procedures. Companies set payment levels for each procedure that professionals provide. If the professional doesn't agree, they simply don't take that insurance. The bigger the insurance company, the bigger the pool, the lower the premiums, the more weight they carry when negotiating with healthcare providers.

 

With government socialized health care, every American is entered into the pool. Risk is spread across 300,000,000 people so there are more people to pay for those who need it. There are differences, there is no CEO who gets $124M per year (Bill McGuire). Rationing is determined by government committee instead of boardroom profit seekers. Reimbursements to providers will be set at a national level. Because everyone is covered, preventive care will be better utilized thus reducing the need of expensive, catastrophic care. Think of the uninsured Walmart greeter who has diabetes and foot infection. Will he dip into his own pocket to get it treated or wait until it becomes so infected, amputation is the only treatment.

[BulldogBlitz]

"Think of the uninsured Walmart greeter who has diabetes and foot infection. Will he dip into his own pocket to get it treated or wait until it becomes so infected, amputation is the only treatment. "

 

i can tell you where he isn't going:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1122691,CST-NWS-hosp23.article

 

the hospital where michelle obama is administrator turns away poor and uninsured. there isn't a law against them providing health care today to those they say have fallen in the cracks (and who they now pander to for votes). they don't live the way they preach. they won't. what they will do is spend your (and my) tax dollars on bureaucracy.

[TheScout]

Yeah but that takes away from freedom doesn't it?

 

I guess I am old school and think that the purpose of government is to provide its citizens with the maximum possible liberty.

 

Forcing somebody to have insurance isn't consistent with that.

[GernBlansten]

Doesn't the same apply for any other traditional federal service or natural monopoly?

[OldGreyEagle]

I think we get carried away by what terms mean to us, and I guess that will always be. In "The Social Contract" by Jean-Jacques Rousseau he contended to be safe people had to subjugate their own will for the good of the community. There may be a very nice house in the center of town, however, if the law of the land was there was no law, or property rights, then whoever had the most might would occupy the house. Until some one with more might came along and so on. Of course, after a few "proprty exchanges" the very nice house might not be so nice so the object of desire may switch to another nice house heretofore unnoticed on the outskirts of town.

 

Its great to say we live in the land of freedom, but nothing is free and we as a people accept that. Land must be bought, construction paid for and knowledge attained. And a little knowledge that is in demand is more valuable that copius amounts of knowledge that is not as many University Professors can attest.

 

What rights we give up to the community/society are those that we prize less than the payback. I think it was Ben Franklin who said

"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither." Yet he was the one who "invented" subscription Fire Depts. People traded in a part of their freedom, in the form of money for the assurance people would come if their house caught fire. Franklin also started the first Public Library so are we to assume that deep down ol uncle Ben was a socialist?

 

 

[GernBlansten]

The US is not a socialist state, at least not in the classic definition of one. However, we do employ many socialist programs, many of which are not labeled socialized but nonetheless are. Socialism in the US exists, and its not just welfare and social security.

The question is not whether the US should move towards a socialized society, but whether socialized programs are the best solution to a given problem over a privatized, for-profit one.

 

While we have privatized many of the support roles of our military, I would hope we never go to a purely mercenary force.

 

Many of the freedoms of travel we enjoy are due to the socialized nature of our infrastructure.

 

I am also one of those that believe that socialized medicine is another program that just makes sense, both ethically and financially.

[OldGreyEagle]

Gern I disagree that socialized medicine is a good idea. I havent seen a country where it works well nor a country that has socialized medicine that doe snot also have a "private" health system as well.

 

Yet we could claim we already have a socialized medicine system in this country, In 1997 1 out of every three dollars spent for healthcare came from a governmental unit. Hospitals set up their charging systems to be compliant with governmental rules. Hospitals struggle to meet the demands of their patient's while facing diminshing revenues. In all of this I ahve to say that while hospitals are required by law to treat all patients who present for treatment, the same is not said about physicians, The Docs are independent agent who see who they want to see and charge what they want to charge, they are the last true entrepreneurs of society.

 

Yet the helathcare system has to change. We either provide healthcare to all or we need to not have a problem stepping over the dead and dying in the Emergency Department parking lot. I have a lot of complaints about the healthcare system but the fix I guess is above my paygrade

[TheScout]

The real best solution to this whole dilemma is to realize the federal dream of our union.

 

Let each state decide on its own how to deal with the problem of health care. Live Free of Die New Hampshire and the "red states" of the west can keep a private system. The socialists of California, Oregon, and Massachusetts can make a mandatory health care system on the European model.

 

Voters can deciede through their state legislators what they want. Therefore each state can have a system that reflects the values, traditions, and aspirations of the people of that state? Programs would be smaller, easier to manage, closer to the people, with less bureaucracy if adopted.

 

This was the whole point of the federal union, wasn't it?

 

We don't need a one size fits all national solution.

[OldGreyEagle]

Except that the company I work for is located in Salt Lake City while I live in Bethlehem PA and the Compnay that owns the compnay O work for is located in Minnesota.

 

And what happens when we travel? I have often shudderd at the thought of National Health Care. Lets see, what other governmental enterprises do we have to compare them to? Amtrak didnt work out the way it was envisioned, the Postal System is so well thought of that it spawned multiple competitors, and the phrase "going postal"

 

I guess perhaps the best opinions on National Health Care should come from those who have already experienced the National Health System that already exists, Any Veteran want to comment on how the VA Clinics are run? Anyone familiar with CHAMPUS/TRICARE? How is their service level?

[GernBlansten]

"Gern I disagree that socialized medicine is a good idea. I havent seen a country where it works well nor a country that has socialized medicine that doe snot also have a "private" health system as well."

 

Canadians I've asked are satisfied with their system. Sure there are problems, but no system is perfect for everyone. If there was so much dissatisfaction with the Canadian system, wouldn't you think they would chuck it in favor of our "superior" system?

[packsaddle]

I will say that I'd sure enjoy the socialized health care program that congressmen enjoy. From my perspective, if a congressman is opposed to such a system for their constituents, it ought to be denied to THEM as well.