He chose a white guy

[acco40]

Facts: Health care cost money & resources. The United States of America does not have an unlimited amount of money & resources. Therefore, unlimited health care is an impossibility.

 

Now, the question is do you feel a basic level (or minimum level, or moderate level - you can decide what level) of health care should be a right or a commodity to be bought?

 

I'll say this, health care is the only commodity that I purchase that I have no idea of the price when I make the purchase. The cause in the insurance industry.

[packsaddle]

Acco40, I invite you to exercise your presence in the commodities marketplace and don't make the purchase. Skip the checkups. Do without the drugs. Much of health care isn't a necessity, isn't a matter of life or death, not that we really care about that in the first place. Millions of people are demonstrating this all the time. Otherwise, if you think it is overpriced, create your own health-care business and outcompete everyone else. You'll be doing us a favor with the lower prices.

We get very emotional about our reverence for fertilized eggs and then care little or nothing about post-natal life - unless it can pay for services. It is an obscene hypocrisy.

[Gold Winger]

"I'll say this, health care is the only commodity that I purchase that I have no idea of the price when I make the purchase. The cause in the insurance industry."

 

How true. You don't even have an idea of WHO you're going to be paying. I went to see my doctor. He took a urine sample and someone in his office did some tests. No problems. Then I get a bill from another doctor. Seems my doctor sent my sample to this other guy to "check."

 

How about when you're in the hospital and there's the parade of doctors that you've never seen before and they all send bill for their "consults."

 

People I know from the UK and Canada say that the system works well until as long as you have nothing more serious than a cold or a broken arm. Heart problems, cancer, etc. and you might wind up waiting months to see a doctor.

 

We already have socialized medicine. If you have a serious problem and have no insurance, there are state and local agencies that will pick up the bill. They might not pay for the sniffles but they will get you treatment for your brain tumor.

[packsaddle]

GW, I just got yelled at by my doctor at my most recent checkup. Reason: he seems to think that three years between checkup is longer than it should be. Sorrrrryyyyyy. I just didn't feel like it. I'm in control. I chose to skip a few years and now I wish I'd made it longer. He wrote a prescription. I just threw it away. There's nothing life-threatening, no reason to waste resources that can go to other interests like, say, a new 'cycle. You can do it too. Just pass it by. You are in control too. You CAN do it. Or else you can let fear rule your life and you can pour your fortune down the health-care rat hole. Stand up to the system. Just say no. I'm pulling for ya.

[TheScout]

I don't think anyone yet has described how they would pay for the national health care system.

[GernBlansten]

Simple. NHC would eliminate the need for private, employer subsidized health insurance. This would free up vast amounts of money to offset the increased taxes necessary to fund the program. Net result to the typical consumer, lower costs. Yes your taxes would rise, but it would be offset by you no longer needing private insurance.

 

Remember, its really just one giant public insurance company, not a dozen private ones. Think an expansion of Medicare, which is a government managed insurance program.

The model wouldn't change, the risk pool would be massive so cost per subscriber required to offset the disbursements would be less than the current system. Shareholder profit and executive bonus' would be a thing of the past. Those expenses eliminated. Write-offs for uninsured/under-insured patients would also be eliminated. Those costs are now fed back into the system increasing our premiums to offset them.

 

Since employers would no longer offer health care as a benefit of employment, they will need to use other methods to retain and recruit employees, like bonus plans or increased salaries. Employees will have mobility to move from job to job without fear of losing their coverage. Freedom to boldly start from scratch if they wish, or follow an entrepreneurial vision.

 

 

[TheScout]

Interesting take on freedom, to be forced into a government program and have my taxes raised.

 

I would prefer to have lower taxes and buy my own insurance, or choose not to buy it at all.

 

I think your blind faith in the ability of government to put on a cost efficient program that would be better than the private insurance system as a bit naive. Besides it legitimate functions government does nothing as well as the private sector.

 

Under you logic why don't we just have a giant public company to do everything instead of many little private ones. They could pump our oil, grow our food, manage the distribution, etc. We could all just have a little higher taxes and we could have a different public company to run every facet of our economic life and make things better for all our people. It would get rid of profit and make everything more egalitarian.

 

Alexis de Tocqueville once said, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

 

A national health system would only restrain individual choice. That was not the dream of the Revolution.

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

As usual, there are a number of issues floating around here. The issue of what is wrong with our nation's health care system, how it can be fixed, and to what degree the government should be involved, are interesting questions, but not ones that I choose to discuss in this forum. I believe the original issue was whether someone who advocates government involvement in the health care system is appropriately described as an "unabashed Socialist." The fact is, whether people in this forum like it or not, the United States has a "mixed economy." Economic activity in this country is mostly in the private sector, but with government involvement in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons. Personally I do not believe that advocacy or acceptance of government involvement in the economy necessarily makes one a "Socialist", otherwise that label could be applied to most people reading this. It also seems to me that the UK has had "socialized medicine" for many years, including the period in which Margaret Thatcher was prime minister. She did not eliminate "socialized medicine", so was she a "Socialist" too?

 

I guess the real question is, can we discuss programs and candidates without throwing labels around? The fact is that in this election, there are two major candidates, both with pluses and minuses. We each draw our own conclusions regarding their experience, their positions on the issues, their perceived abilities to do what needs to be done, and anything else that we find relevant to our decision. It is reasonable to discuss those questions in this forum, though so far I have seen little need to do so.

 

But name-calling -- Socialist, fascist, whatever -- seems somewhat beside the point -- as does the implication in the title of this thread.

[TheScout]

I don't understand why we hate labels so much. I suppose they can cause division? But they do exist for a reason. They were not created for no purpose.

 

I suppose in modern times all politicans such as Mrs. Thatcher are involved with the "socialist" nature of the governments they lead.

 

We all know the US is not a pure capitalist or socialist state. But the term "socialist" does mean something. Maybe here only to the extent of one's policies having more socialist tendencies than another.

 

If one persons policies are more socialist than another's, isn't it fair to say so?

[GernBlansten]

Labels are fine, but they are frequently applied too liberally to describe a complex situation. They are often used in a derogatory way which makes them even more useless.

 

Most people applying those labels are ignorant of the substance of the label itself.

 

Example: To claim that socialism is bad or that the object of your disdain is an unabashed socialist, then advocate that some socialist programs are swell, diminishes the label to become meaningless.

[Lisabob]

Two thoughts:

 

1) Biden is far from "safe" because you really never know what will come out of his mouth at any inopportune moment.

 

2) So he chose a white guy, so what? Fact is, the ranks from which to choose are still overwhelmingly populated by white guys.

 

Well ok, three thoughts:

3) As for the Reps, I don't think McC will choose Lieberman, much as I'd like him to (spelling victory for Obama). I think he'll choose Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty or else Mitt Romney. But hey, what do I know, I didn't think Obama would pick Biden either. We'll find out on Friday.

 

 

 

 

[Rooster7]

TheScout,

 

"If one persons policies are more socialist than another's, isn't it fair to say so?"

 

Careful now...you're making sense here.

 

The only problem I have will labels is when they're applied to someone strictly to distort and distract from what the person represents and/or is attempting to state.

 

For example, I'm a Bible believing Christian who's pretty conservative in my political views. Sometimes I will make an argument based purely on my beliefs in God and His teachings. However, most times there are secular arguments to support my views as well, and I don't hesitate to present them. Yet some folks prefer that I don't - it's much easier for them to label me as a Bible Thumping Christian (or something less polite) than to resort to reason. In their minds (and unfortunately in the minds of those who gobble up labels and swallow false stereotypes without thought), they have nullified (and ignored) my argument by portraying me as someone "less credible".

 

I dont mind be calling a Bible Thumping Christian. Its not entirely complete but its true enough and succinct. That said, I do mind the label when its purpose is to call to ones mind a disparaging typecast and ultimately to taint who I am or what Im saying. Its a lazy and weak minded response. And alas, too often it works because many folks are too lazy and weak minded to look pass the label and to analyze the argument.

 

That said - I wont hestitate to call someone a flaming liberal when they consistently present arguments which support the extreme left. But my ascertion would not be to distort or to distract, but to summarize the obvious. You can call me a fanatical Christian I dont mind. In fact, its what I strive to be. Just dont call me that when were discussing Jim Jones or David Corresh.

[NJCubScouter]

Lisabob, as for what comes out of Biden's mouth, I feel fairly certain that before Obama "sealed the deal" with him, a very clear understanding was reached about Biden's role in the campaign, including an agreement that he is not going to speak "off the cuff" and that all of his speeches are going to be carefully screened by Obama's staff. Of course, there is going to be a vice presidential debate and what he says there can't be completely controlled, since he won't know the questions in advance. On the other hand, we don't know who he is going to be competing against. I can think of several Republicans over the years who also seemed to have a defective internal screening mechanism between their brain and their mouth. As a matter of fact, one of them is named John McCain. I have seen and read about several instances in which he lost his temper, or stumbled badly, when being questioned by the media. I doubt that even his strongest supporters are happy with the way he handled the "How many houses do you own" question. So who knows what will happen in the presidential debates? If I had to guess which of the presidential candidates will prove to be better at "staying cool" under the stress of tough questioning, it would not be McCain.

[packsaddle]

Gern, if there was even an 'optional' system like that, I'd opt into it for reasons of portability if nothing else.

 

I think that McCain's best (but poor) option is Romney. Romney is a ZERO. I can't avoid looking back and wishing that Republicans had not done to McCain what they did to him during the 2000 SC primary. If he had been President instead of Bush...just think of how much better everything would have been now. But he didn't get the nomination. And for what?...a race-baiting lie pretty much ended it and gave Bush the nomination.

In retrospect it fits the Rove/Cheney/Bush ethic perfectly.

McCain would have been THE man to have back then...perhaps pursuing simlar policies to Bush and perhaps not, but he would have executed his duties honestly, with honor and integrity.

[TheScout]

Look at the history of American politics in the early 19th Century. Political attacks were even cruder back then! The 1800, 1824, and the 1828 campaigns come to mind in particular. Dirty politics have been around as long as our republic. Though not excusing this, I do not think this is a valid reason to criticize Mr. Bush.