Longest rant competition: sgreger1 vs. snuppy. Do not enter

[tom502]

Ron Paul was our only hope.

[sgreger1]

Yes I like the police, roads, fire dept etc. These are all infrastructure and not social programs like welfare.

We do not HAVE to have welfare. See Marie Antoinette for what happens in that case.

I don't mind welfare as long as it is strictly for those who are unable to work. Too many moochers is bad for the economy. Give them food, not cash. keep it out of the drug dealers hands. Also, I have no clue who Marie Anoinette is.

This does not mean that you can use that excuse to say everything we do should be socialist now.

Outside of you, in the above quote, who has ever made such a claim?

You were implying it in your earlier post. Saying that socialism is a good thing, look at the roads fire dept etc, so don't be scared of it. See below. There's a different between gov running certain things such as infrastructure, as opposed to socialism, in which the gov controls MOST things.

Oh the horrors of socialism! Do you complain about our socialized police force? Do you complain about our socialized fire departments? Do you complain about our socialized libraries? Do you complain about our socialized roads and highways? Please explain how socialized police, fire, roads and libraries are bringing our country to it's knees due to the BOO! SCARY! nature of socialized services.

By your standard, every country has a military so is every country socialist?

How cute you are when you attempt to place your own words into my mouth. Strawman much?

Okay now you are starting to sound more like a troll. Your whole argument (which I quoted above) was saying that having a military, fire dept etc is socialist. I said, well by that standard than all countries are socialist. (At least all those who have a military, roads, police etc.)

In america we have a balance between socialism and capitalism.

HUH? Care to elaborate?

Wow you spend the first half of your argument in your other post talking about exactly this. Let me give youa quick review. We have social programs such as welfare, gov ran police, schools, social security. Also, the gov owns a huge stake in auto companies, banks, etc. But at the same time we do still have a relitavely free market although heavily regulated, but it is still very capitalist at the end of the day.

Hence, in America we don't have JUST a pure capitalist system, we have a gentle balance of allowing people to make money and own the fruits of their labor, while also doing a little bit of wealth redistribution and offering mulitple social programs such as welfare etc. Is that elaborating enough?

I agree that healthcare needs to be reformed, but the plan that is on the table is something even GW could not have ****ed up so badly.

Agreed. 676 would be so much better and save far more money.

If we are going to be commies about it, I agree with you, at least go in balls deep. A truly one payer system would work better especially if it focused on preventative care.

All it is is another way to mandate taxes and exercise more power.

It's a gift to the insurance industry. Nothing more and nothing less.

Which is why I don't understand why all of you liberals are rallying behind this. If republicans had introduced this bill you would be calling them sellouts for helping the insurance companies/ big pharma etc. All this is is a way to get everyone buying it like they did with auto insurance. Like auto insurance they promised it would be cheaper if everyone bought it but as we all know that did not happen. At least it sure as hell didn't in CA.


Obama: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

If you think the gov will not be rationing/denying treatment and that they will be more ethical than the insurance companies, you must have never gone out into the real world.

Why not discuss the rationing of healthcare under our PRESENT capitalist health insurance system? Do you care to address the deaths of Natalie and Nick? Or do the deaths of 17 year old Americans at the hands of capitalist health insurance companies, not fall into your definition of 'rationing,' all because an insurance company decides it doesn't want to pay for treatments?

I know it is already being rationed. Because there is only so much money to pay for the expensive top of the line treatments in America which are not available to some other countries such as europe. See examples below.

Cancer patients are to be denied drugs which could keep them alive after the NHS rationing watchdog ruled that they are too expensive.

Many new, privately available drugs are potential lifesavers but are de facto prohibited by Britain's slow-changing government monopoly health care bureaucracy.



UK rationed health care denies breast cancer treatment

We ration now, so how is it "reform" to just hand it over to the gov and allow them to ration? It sounds like a transfer of power more than actaual reform to me...

I cannot wait for all of you liberals to see that this plan that is being proposed (house bill that just passed) is not going to be the savior you have been looking for.

You've not a clue of what you are talking about. I don't support 3200. I support 676, even if I do understand the need for health care reform.


We all want reform, no one is arguing that. The point is that the house just passed 3200 so a revised version of it will probably be what we end up with. I maintain my stance that this "reform" will just be more of the same, except now they are expecting the younger people to buy coverage when they normally would not have in order to subsidize the higher cost of the elderly's care. Another ponzi scheme like social security. Bernie Maddof would be proud.

Instead of private companies rationing coverage it will just be the gov now,

Then it should be trivial for you to provide examples of the government rationing healthcare under Medicare. So where are these examples?

We are talking about rationing that would occur under the proposed system, not our current one. But if you want examples of gov rationing medicare (even though it is still overwhelmingly expensive for us), see below.

Medicare rationing « A Brief History…

LAWSUIT RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT VICTORY AGAINST MEDICARE RATIONING ...

Medicare Rationing for Kidney Dialysis - Yahoo! News

Medicare rationing: one doctor's story | MailTribune.com

Promising ovarian cancer drug not covered by Medicare in Colorado ...

and they are much beter at rationing because they have politicians in charge who are always claiming how they are going to "cut cost" etc to look good politically.

You are very good at spreading FUD. Pity you've not a shred of evidence to back it up.

Pitty I listed several pieces of evidence earlier in this post. Companies ration helathcare to save money so they make more money. Gov ration healthcare so that they can drive down costs to the budget. Either way, it's rationing, and it is goign to happen no matter what.

The private sector can handle it.

Oh yeah! The private sector most certainly handled the housing bubble so very well, didn't they?

The private sector banks were told by the gov that they shouldn't be barring poor people or those who cannot afford it the ability to buy a house. The feds made rules that allowed for banks to use exotic financing options to allow these poorer people to be able to afford houses via ARM mortgages etc.
The private sector is not completely bad, and the gov played a big part in this whole collapse.

the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA), the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982 (AMTPA), andthe Fair Housing Act.

Also, the private sector is not your enemy. In our country the private sector via small business creates most of the jobs and is a significant player in the economy. In countries where the private sector has been eliminated... well we all know what happened to russia.

If you think that the gov will somehow deny coverage any less you are wrong.

Then prove me wrong! Where are your examples which demonstrate the government rations health care in Medicare?

I did above. Also, it will only get bigger if they are left in charge of the entire system. They will be blamed for not balancing the budget, and they will set up comitees to figure out how to deny coverage for things that are too expensive. I guarantee you that certain procedures/medications will be denied, especially fo rthose who are terminally ill. REGARDLESS of what system is in place.

Look at other countries with socialized medicine... they routinely deny new top of the line treatments because they are too expensive, whereas americans have the ability to pay for it if they want.

Proof?

I provided proof above of how the NHS routinely does this, and people dont have access to live saving treatments that are available to those willing to pay in the US and other countries. [/url]

[VBSnus]

Since we're again talking about the healthcare bill as socialism, I'm going to go ahead and post one of my first ever political posts from SnusOn for now (with two tiny changes), because it seems we've come full circle:

The problem with health insurance (too many people confuse "healthcare" and "health insurance" in this debate), is that it doesn't fit into the capitalist vs. socialist spectrum. They produce no goods, they do not own property, they add nothing at all to the medical market except for overhead. They're like the ticket brokers who buy up all the concert tickets and resell them at 3x the cost and call it a "service".

The current corporate system of health care does not support a free market. People cannot simply leave their job to start a new business or pursue further education and still get quality, guaranteed health insurance. With that kind of barrier to entry, we're guaranteeing that large corporations will stay stocked with people and new businesses cannot flourish.

For example, I'm a self-employed consultant getting paid over $160,000 a year, I pay an obscene amount in taxes, and I can't get health insurance due to a pre-existing condition. I've been outright denied by every single insurance carrier out there.

What about the guy who wants to open a restaurant? The woman who wants to start a consulting company. The artist, the musician, the work-from-home? Corporation based health insurance is a surefire way to stifle small business and entrepreneurship, empower corporations, and keep America monopolized. Only by making this commodity available to all can we truly claim to have a free and open market.

Now, we could say that if you want to start a business, you have to accept certain risks. You'll have to pay more in taxes and accept that if you have pre-existing conditions, you may not get health insurance. Then you accidentally break your ankle, and you pay thousands of dollars to get it fixed. You go to the doc for a physical and pay $200 for the visit and $200 for the follow-up. And if something really catastrophic happens like a heart attack, you go to the ER and go bankrupt, thus putting the burden back on the tax payers anyways. What about something that requires continuous care? You think you can just hit the ER for chemo therapy?

Tax payers, you're already paying for the burden of healthcare. When those without insurance need help, they go to the ER. They clog up the waiting room, the beds, and they ignore the bills because they can't afford the outrageous fees charged by a medical profession artificially boosted by insurance overhead. Wouldn't it make more sense to provide better health insurance from the beginning so they don't end up in the ER so much using emergency services and costing more due to conditions they could have prevented?

Instead of worrying about smokers, fat people, and other "high risk" individuals being on your tax-funded plan, wouldn't it make more sense to make health care available to all so those conditions can be prevented or kept in check?

Worried about "death panels" or "rationing"? No worries, you've already got these great services through your corporate sponsored or private health insurance. Because when you contract some fatal and expensive disease, I guarantee you they won't be there for you. I've seen it myself. And if you somehow survive this disease, I guarantee you won't get coverage later due to the pre-existing condition. It's extortion, pure and simple. Rationing occurs whether you like it or not. Which is scarier, a government which wants to cut costs or a company who wants to make as much profit as possible to satisfy shareholders?

Millions of Americans can't retire until 65 because they won't get insured without Medicare. Millions of Americans can't start businesses or leave the corporate world because they won't get insured at all. Sure, millions also live off the state and leech tax money from others...but that's the way it is everywhere. Don't you have that guy at work who always leeches credit, barely works, and makes you work harder? It sucks, but it's human. Is it fair to condemn those who don't act that way to the same fate?

I saw a slideshow of the town hall protesters rallying against a public option. Over 80% of them were either old enough to be on Medicare or obese. These people would not be able to get insurance if they did not work for a major business. They would drag a small business down with huge premiums. Yet they're rallying against something they either use or could use because of a word: socialism.

Definitions

* Main Entry: so·cial·ism
* Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

The insurance companies produce no goods. They distribute no goods. They own no property. They have no production. They do not pay according to work done, they pay according to the plan you buy into or the company you work for.

* Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
* Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1877

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Health insurance companies own no goods. They produce nothing. They distribute nothing. The health insurance market today is not "free", it's a monopoly. The only part of capitalism that applies to for-profit health insurance is the word "prices".

Arguments

Q. But I know this woman, she has 8 kids and just sits at home making babies.
A. Sure, this is an issue. But in this equation there is only one person who you're insuring who doesn't "deserve" it...the one woman. Those 8 kids didn't do anything wrong but be born, and you can't condemn them for that. Even the woman is questionable...sure, she's milking the system, but she's still a human being.

Q. Why should I pay for people who lead high-risk lives?
A. You already do, they'll just go to the ER when near-death instead of to a doctor to get their high risk life under control. Insurance companies are designed to make profit off of healthy people who don't need the coverage. You're already paying for people who lead high-risk lives.

Q. I don't want the government deciding when my grandma dies.
A. 1) This is ridiculous. The bill called for "end of life counseling" to discuss living wills and medical needs. It's a service that many people (like adults taking care of their parents) who love, so the burden of their parents' final days can be eased. 2) It wouldn't be the first time. Remember Terri Shiavo?

Q: Illegals will be going to the doctor on my tax money!
A: Is the threat of a few Mexicans getting health care really worth condemning millions of your fellow Americans to a life without it? Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free...but for God's sake, don't give them health insurance! Should we instead not give them the public option, forcing them to continue clogging our ERs and milking the system as it is today? Or perhaps we should just deport them back to Mexico when they show up bleeding at the hospital.

Q: What about people who don't pay anything, have a problem, and then get insurance even with their pre-existing condition?
A: That's why there's a mandate that everyone must get insured. But we can't mandate that without options for everyone, which we do not currently have.

Q: But if we have a public option, private health insurers will go out of business because they can't compete!
A: There's a few answers to this. 1) Yes, that's why USPS put FedEx and UPS out of business, right? 2) Sure, that's why private schools don't exist. 3) Maybe you shouldn't pay your CEO $8 million dollars a year. I mean, it's the choice of the company to do so (we are a free country), but is that a smart business decision? 4) Which is more important for a free market: the ability of a monopoly to exhort even more from the American people, or the ability of each an every American to be their own boss if they so choose?

Conclusion

I know many people won't agree with me on this, but I'm pretty impassioned about it. I hope I didn't offend anyone with my views...I just think we're better served having an honest, get it all on the table debate instead of shouting matches and word flinging (nazi, socialist, fascist, commie, son of a biscuit eater).

And so you know, I was a Republican up until the end of Bush's second term...I voted for him both times. But once I saw a Republican president bailing out lenders, banks, and corporations I changed my tune a bit. If my tax money is going to be given out anyways, I'd prefer it be for things that benefit the people on the streets, not the people in power.

Also, sgreger, thanks for giving proof of rationing under Medicare. Isn't it AWESOME that you can find proof of it because it's a government system where the news has full access to report on corruption or problems in the system? Wouldn't it suck if this were happening all over America every day to the point where it's not even newsworthy anymore? Oh, wait...

[sgreger1]

@VB


Look I agree with you and have said that I believe what Lxskllr does, that there should be no middle man and it should just be pay as you go between you and the Dr.


But no one is proposing that. The dems either want to own the insurance industry, or make it so that they exercise more control over the insurance industry and then make the money on the back end via lobbyists from the insurance company.

No one is proposing we get rid of the middle man, only that government become the new middle man.


Do you see what i'm saying? Their reform is not really that reformy at all.


Of course you can find info on rationing in medicare, in insurance companies and in other countries universal health systems... this is because rationing is PART OF THE GAME, the costs would be too high if everyone could just get whatever they want for free. Surely you don't think that would be a sustainable model, do you?


I don't mind reform,a nd like I said I think a one payer system would be less suckythan what they are proposing, but evena one payer system I do not fully support. We should just cut the middle man. All I see in the house bill that was just passed is a new way for insurance companies to make money, not any real long term help for the little guy, or the country.




EDIT:

"And so you know, I was a Republican up until the end of Bush's second term...I voted for him both times. But once I saw a Republican president bailing out lenders, banks, and corporations I changed my tune a bit. If my tax money is going to be given out anyways, I'd prefer it be for things that benefit the people on the streets, not the people in power."

lol, if that was the deal breaker, than I bet you feel really stupid about supporting Obama. Since he.. you know.. did exactly that but with MORE taxpayer money.

[truthwolf1]

I am sensing a gigantic public mind f$#$ game with this so called health care reform bill. It seems like it will give government more control and keep everything else about the current system status quo.

There is all this talk about public option and keeping your own plan etc.. but nobody is talking about why a hospital has to charge enormous amounts per services. Will there be a Government audit of policy? Probably not.

When my wife had our daughter I remember we had to sign for a epedermal shot which took the girl maybe 5 minutes to complete with a charge of $3000 dollars. I think even though both of us had insurance we still had to kick out of our own pockets close to 7,000 dollars after the whole thing.

I go to a dentist here in America. $300 dollars to fill a cavity. I go to eastern europe $30 bucks.

Everything health care related here is inflated to the tilt!!! and until that b.s. is reigned in we will consistently pay and pay with a 1-6% increase every year no matter if you are on a public option or whatever they want to sell you next.

[snupy]

I don't mind welfare as long as it is strictly for those who are unable to work.

What percentage of the federal budget is spent on welfare fraud? Is it greater or lesser than that spent on say, war?

You were implying it in your earlier post.

Provide a post number and direct quote where I have ever claimed "everything we do should be socialist now," or I will consider the claim withdrawn due to falsehood.

Saying that socialism is a good thing,

Provide a post number and direct quote where I have ever claimed such or I will consider the claim withdrawn due to falsehood. Hint: Very few things in life are 'good' or 'bad,' except to 5 year olds or those with a similar mentality.

Okay now you are starting to sound more like a troll.

That means much coming from the author of the above two strawman arguments.

Your whole argument (which I quoted above) was saying that having a military, fire dept etc is socialist. I said, well by that standard than all countries are socialist. (At least all those who have a military, roads, police etc.)

Having not even TRIED to understand what I am saying, you once again, put YOUR words in MY mouth. Provide a post number and direct quote where I have EVER claimed socialized government services proves beyond all doubt a nation is socialist.

Wow you spend the first half of your argument in your other post talking about exactly this.

What's so funny here is you rail against socialism in health care, then turn around and say we have a balance of capitalism and socialism in this country. What then, is your problem?

Let me give youa quick review. We have social programs such as welfare, gov ran police, schools, social security.

Also, the gov owns a huge stake in auto companies, banks, etc.

So? That doesn't make the US socialist either. Does the government own a huge stake in EVERY industry and corporation in the country? No, it does not. Gee, I wonder what the difference might be in those two industries you cited?

Hence, in America we don't have JUST a pure capitalist system, we have a gentle balance of allowing people to make money and own the fruits of their labor, while also doing a little bit of wealth redistribution and offering mulitple social programs such as welfare etc. Is that elaborating enough?

Then what's your issue with socialized health care? I again pose the following question:

With capitalist health insurance companies, the more claims DENIED, the greater the PROFIT.

Am I the only one who sees a conflict of interest here?

If we are going to be commies about it, I agree with you, at least go in balls deep.

In what way is Canada, who has such a system, 'commie?'

Which is why I don't understand why all of you liberals are rallying behind this.

This discussion is OVER until and unless you decide to READ and COMPREHEND what I have written. How many times must I type 'I support 676, not 3200' before you get it? If you can't READ or COMPREHEND my posts, there's no point in this discussion continuing. What do you think I mean when I say '3200 is a gift to the insurance industry?' How can you possibly interpret that to mean I 'rally behind' 3200?

If republicans had introduced this bill you would be calling them sellouts for helping the insurance companies/ big pharma etc.

Democrats introduced this bill and I call them sell-outs. Oh wait, you are stuck in the false choice that one must be either repub or dem. Therefore, you ASSUME that if one is not repub, one must be dem. Are you also aware that Phillip Morris wrote the tobacco legislation under the dems as well? Are you also aware I call the dems sell-outs for that one too? Seriously, stop assuming what you do not know. It works neither for you, nor for the arguments you wish to make.

All this is is a way to get everyone buying it like they did with auto insurance.

Gee, do you think maybe that's what I meant when I said 'it was a gift to the insurance industry, nothing more?'

Because there is only so much money to pay for the expensive top of the line treatments in America

What percentage of health care costs in the US are for 'expensive top of the line treatments?'

Cancer patients are to be denied drugs which could keep them alive after the NHS rationing watchdog ruled that they are too expensive.

I am not quite sure if your problem is with READING or with COMPREHENSION. You claim the government will ration healthcare, but we already have government health care, known as Medicare, so I asked you the following:

Where are your examples which demonstrate the government rations health care in Medicare?

Instead of answering the question on US government rationing health care, you go off on tangents regarding the British system. Hint: the US is not England and 3200 is not single payer.

We ration now, so how is it "reform" to just hand it over to the gov and allow them to ration?

Oh I thought private insurance companies offering and selling insurance was different from 'handing it over to the government.'

We are talking about rationing that would occur under the proposed system, not our current one.

I thought we were talking about rationing health care in the US, not England.

So basically, you are claiming the US MIGHT ration health care. You really don't know for sure, which means you've no proof whatsoever to back up your claim, other than using the example of Britain, which is single-payer, which 3200 most definitely is not, since 3200 leaves private insurers in operation.

We all want reform, no one is arguing that. The point is that the house just passed 3200 so a revised version of it will probably be what we end up with.

If you keep responding like this, others might end up believing you to be a simpleton. This is what you said:

I cannot wait for all of you liberals to see that this plan that is being proposed (house bill that just passed) is not going to be the savior you have been looking for.

I responded I do not support 3200 and you answer by saying 'no one is arguing' we want reform. Do you understand you accused me of believing 3200 is a 'savior' and your accusation is FACTUALLY INCORRECT, because I support 676 and not 3200?

We are talking about rationing that would occur under the proposed system, not our current one. But if you want examples of gov rationing medicare (even though it is still overwhelmingly expensive for us), see below.

Medicare rationing « A Brief History…

DUDE! Do you know the origin of that chart? Did you even READ the article? Did you notice it links to the OPINION PAGE of the Wall Street Journal?

LAWSUIT RESULTS IN SIGNIFICANT VICTORY AGAINST MEDICARE RATIONING ...

This was an absurdity in the Medicare laws that was corrected in the lawsuit. The decision simply says any whose treatment wasn't covered under Medicare were now free to pay for it out of pocket. That bodes well for 3200, in the event rationing DID occur, because it sets a precedent for others to pay out of pocket if the treatment isn't covered under insurance. Why would you cite an article that argues AGAINST the point you wish to make here?

Medicare Rationing for Kidney Dialysis - Yahoo! News

Another OPINION piece and on a PROPSAL at that!

Medicare rationing: one doctor's story | MailTribune.com

Lovely! An personal anecdote from 22 years ago!

Promising ovarian cancer drug not covered by Medicare in Colorado ...

WTF? A discussion forum? With comments like the following:

"Medicare tried to order her dialsis doctor to give her a different drug. She asked which drug she was going to get. It was the bad one."

Whoever posted the above can't spell, and can only tell us Medicare wanted to give a 'bad' drug, without mentioning the name of the drug.

Pitty I listed several pieces of evidence earlier in this post.

You offer articles about the British system, which has nothing AT ALL to do with 3200, since England is single payer whereas 3200 leaves private companies in operation. You then offer two articles which are OPINION pieces, one article about a court case which had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Medicare rationing, but a quirk in the law since corrected and a discussion forum with assertions claiming Medicare offered a 'bad' drug to treat 'dialsis.'

Come clean sgreger1 and admit you've no evidence whatsoever that health care will be rationed under 3200 or not. You are merely here to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD).

The private sector banks were told by the gov that they shouldn't be barring poor people or those who cannot afford it the ability to buy a house.

Proof?

The feds made rules that allowed for banks to use exotic financing options to allow these poorer people to be able to afford houses via ARM mortgages etc.

Then why isn't BB&T awash in bad sub-prime mortgages?

The private sector is not completely bad, and the gov played a big part in this whole collapse.

Proof?

the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA), the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982 (AMTPA),

Then how is it possible that BB&T did not write such mortgages, if they are subject to these acts? Cite the sections of the above acts which demanded banks such as BB&T write bad mortgages. Explain how it took 25-27 years AFTER the above acts for the housing bubble to occur, if what you claim is true.

andthe Fair Housing Act.

The Fair Housing Act says NOTHING about what qualifications are necessary to have a mortgage. It only bars discrimination in providing mortgages and related real estate transactions.

Also, the private sector is not your enemy.

Oh it most certainly can be, particularly without government regulation. You may be fine with private industry selling toys for kids with lead paint. I am not.

n our country the private sector via small business creates most of the jobs and is a significant player in the economy. In countries where the private sector has been eliminated... well we all know what happened to russia.

No one here but you have made any statement whatsoever that private industry should be eliminated. Once again, we have the mentality of a five year old who sees things in 'black or white' and 'right or wrong.' Private industry can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances, industry, individual business and the employees.

Also, it will only get bigger if they are left in charge of the entire system. They will be blamed for not balancing the budget, and they will set up comitees to figure out how to deny coverage for things that are too expensive. I guarantee you that certain procedures/medications will be denied, especially fo rthose who are terminally ill. REGARDLESS of what system is in place.

And you know this how? The Psychic Friends Network?

I provided proof above of how the NHS routinely does this,

NHS is single payer. 3200 is not. Therefore, whatever occurs in the British system has no relation AT ALL to 3200. A better example for you to find instances of this would be Sweden, whose national health care needs are provided by private companies.

But in the morning I will respond to your last message and litterally obliterate you

TEASE! And I really had my hopes up too.

[tom502]

I think if we took the model of German National Socialism, and removed the ethnocintrical element, we'd have the closest system to perfection.

[sgreger1]

Snuppy, i'm sure me and you have a lot more in common than we would expect, as I have found with some of the otehr on this forum. But **** man, let me break this down real quick:

What percentage of the federal budget is spent on welfare fraud? Is it greater or lesser than that spent on say, war?

I AM NOT FOR MROE WAR SPENDING. However, are you saying we should spend more on internal gov audits than on our standing army? Lol, thank GOD we didn't do this in WW| or WW||.

Provide a post number and direct quote where I have ever claimed "everything we do should be socialist now," or I will consider the claim withdrawn due to falsehood.

I included the verbaige directly quoted from you in the post you just replied to. here it is again

Oh the horrors of socialism! Do you complain about our socialized police force? Do you complain about our socialized fire departments? Do you complain about our socialized libraries? Do you complain about our socialized roads and highways? Please explain how socialized police, fire, roads and libraries are bringing our country to it's knees due to the BOO! SCARY! nature of socialized services.

To me that reads, "Well we already have socialised x,y,z, so socialism isn't so bad, so why are you afraid of it? What has it done wrong?"

Saying that socialism is a good thing,

Provide a post number and direct quote where I have ever claimed such or I will consider the claim withdrawn due to falsehood. Hint: Very few things in life are 'good' or 'bad,' except to 5 year olds or those with a similar mentality.

I did so above. Also, snupy, on this forum we have a lot of people on both sides. I myself can get pretty heated, but lets try and not have flame war type comments like trying to compare me to a 5 year old. I can assure you that while my position may not be something you agree with, it is not because I am stupid, I just see things in a different light.

Please, lets have a clean fight here. We're all just wasting time at work anyways lol.

Your whole argument (which I quoted above) was saying that having a military, fire dept etc is socialist. I said, well by that standard than all countries are socialist. (At least all those who have a military, roads, police etc.)

Having not even TRIED to understand what I am saying, you once again, put YOUR words in MY mouth. Provide a post number and direct quote where I have EVER claimed socialized government services proves beyond all doubt a nation is socialist.

Sigh... Im n putting words in your mouth, just explaining how I read it. Perhaps I was wrong. But what was the purpose of you arguing about how we already have socialism so why be scared of it, if you were not trying to promote it further?

Yes, every government has some amount of "socialist" concepts. Anything the gov taxes from one and then spends on another is socialism, and all govs do this. I am jsut saying that while a certain level of that is required for infrastructure, army, etc, it doens't mean we should base our entire system on it.

Calm down, seriousely.

Wow you spend the first half of your argument in your other post talking about exactly this.

What's so funny here is you rail against socialism in health care, then turn around and say we have a balance of capitalism and socialism in this country. What then, is your problem?

Like I siad, we have a balance. What I see, is that the current admin is trying to offset that balance to make it more socialist in nature, more tax and spend if you will. And I think that the past few admins followed a similar course. My problem is that we need to maintain our balance, and not tip too far in one direction. (on either side)

Let me give youa quick review. We have social programs such as welfare, gov ran police, schools, social security.

Also, the gov owns a huge stake in auto companies, banks, etc.

So? That doesn't make the US socialist either. Does the government own a huge stake in EVERY industry and corporation in the country? No, it does not. Gee, I wonder what the difference might be in those two industries you cited?

I never said it did. The whole base of my argument is that while certain social programs and or socialist concepts such as gov owning a big stake in the private sector could be beneficial, we should not be so hasty to in 1 year try to change the whole system over to a solely socialist one. I feel that the balance is being upset here, and I think we have learned from history that large countries that try these communist concepts do not fare well in the long run.

Then what's your issue with socialized health care? I again pose the following question:

With capitalist health insurance companies, the more claims DENIED, the greater the PROFIT.

Am I the only one who sees a conflict of interest here?

My problem is with the current proposed way of "reforming" our helath INSURANCE industry. It sounds like the gov is jsut gaining a larger market share, while at the same time not really changing the system in any truly meaningfull way. They are just helping those same insurance companies that you hate os much.

If you think that no treatment will go denied if the gov ran the whole thing, you are wrong, and I posted multiple examples of it in my last post. If one did more research i'm sure the pile of evidence would stack quite high.


I would be more in favor of a universal system than what we have now. Not that I think we need a universal system, but what they have brought ot the table is JUST MORE OF THE SAME, and goes against everything you are advocating in your posts.

If we are going to be commies about it, I agree with you, at least go in balls deep.

In what way is Canada, who has such a system, 'commie?'

Satire my friend, satire. I wouldn't mind canada's system so much. Sure the lines are longer and they ration just like our insurance companies do, but it would be worth it. 3% higher taxes and average cost per family on an annual basis drops significantly. Everything is free as long as youve got your health card. I wouldn't mind waiting in line. And self employed or entrepreneurs can get access (like VB's situation).

Which is why I don't understand why all of you liberals are rallying behind this.

This discussion is OVER until and unless you decide to READ and COMPREHEND what I have written. How many times must I type 'I support 676, not 3200' before you get it? If you can't READ or COMPREHEND my posts, there's no point in this discussion continuing. What do you think I mean when I say '3200 is a gift to the insurance industry?' How can you possibly interpret that to mean I 'rally behind' 3200?

[quote="sgreger1"]


I read what you wrote, try reading mine and it may become clearer.

Democrats introduced this bill and I call them sell-outs. Oh wait, you are stuck in the false choice that one must be either repub or dem. Therefore, you ASSUME that if one is not repub, one must be dem. Are you also aware that Phillip Morris wrote the tobacco legislation under the dems as well? Are you also aware I call the dems sell-outs for that one too? Seriously, stop assuming what you do not know. It works neither for you, nor for the arguments you wish to make.

And this brings us back to the first sentence of this post. We have more in common than i think you realize. I am a right leaning libertarian. Fiscally conservative and somewhat liberal socially. I don't think either party does shit different for the most part, it seems like more of the same. I have advocated this in nearly every post on Snuson.

Where are your examples which demonstrate the government rations health care in Medicare?
Instead of answering the question on US government rationing health care, you go off on tangents regarding the British system. Hint: the US is not England.

I did provide the links. Everything from cancer drugs, to other things depending on which state you are talking about. And furthernmore, perhaps it is the lack of rationing that has left medicare with trillions in unfunded liabilities. If anything, it proves that gov DOES NOT DO IT CHEAPER.

We ration now, so how is it "reform" to just hand it over to the gov and allow them to ration?

Oh I thought private insurance companies offering and selling insurance was different from 'handing it over to the government.'

We are handing control of the system itself over to the gov. The private companies will still be around but the gov now pulls the strings. All they are doing is legislating themselves into being shareholders of these insurance companies, and have offered to help them in return for whatever politicians gain by such power, whether it be lobbyists, power in general etc.

We are talking about rationing that would occur under the proposed system, not our current one.

I thought we were talking about rationing health care in the US, not England.

So basically, you are claiming the US MIGHT ration health care. You really don't know for sure, which means you've no proof whatsoever to back up your claim, other than using the example of Britain, which is single-payer, which 3200 most definitely is not, since 3200 leavea private insurers in operation.

Look guy, I can't prove to you something that hasn't happened yet. But the one thing we know is that 1) Medical care is expensive in America (and elsewhere), 2)we have a limited budget. Therefore, some form of rationing will take place, just like it already does today.

If you keep responding like this, others might end up believing you to be a simpleton. This is what you said:

I responded I do not support 3200 and you answer by saying 'no one is arguing' we want reform. Do you understand you accused me of believing 3200 is a 'savior' and your accusation is FACTUALLY INCORRECT, because I support 676 and not 3200?

For the last ****ing time, I get it. You don't support 3200, you want the full package. I got it. I was saying "all you liberals" as a blanket term, as others on this site support 3200. The dems have control of all 3 branches of the government, the entire media sans fox news, the supreme court, and hollywood, and yet they still couldn't pass a decent bill in a year.

= FAIL.

Also, cut it out with the "your a 5 year old", "your a simpleton" crap. Don't act like you are the end all be all in knowledge about the world. If you listened sometimes, you might learn something. No need for name calling. I have had many long drawn out threads like this with VB snus who believes very much like you do, and we stay away from the name calling and i've learned a lot from him. Rational debate can occur if both parties make an effort.

Come clean sgreger1 and admit you've no evidence whatsoever that health care will be rationed under 3200 or not.

Sorry I have limited access to shit on the net because of my companies firewall, and I am too busy with my kid once I get home to be on snuson all that often. The point is that rationing will occur, jsut like it does today. There is no way of getting around it. I cannot provide evidence of rationing in a system which does not currently exist yet. Only make assumptions based on the reality, which is that HC is expensive and the Gov will eventually realize how much money it's costing. The politicians will get heckled by the repubs about how "we were right, it's too expensive" and the politicians will create commitees that will end up putting limits on treatment.

Obama wants this whole thing to go through without it costing $1 to the deficit. It cannot happen. You cannot cover an addition 50 million people and not have it cost anything, no matter what kind of ponzi scheme you put into effect.

The private sector banks were told by the gov that they shouldn't be barring poor people or those who cannot afford it the ability to buy a house.

Proof?

This shows me how little you know about our current crisis. Gov paved the way for this to happen because some feel good senators wanted to make housing "affordable" to thos ehwo could not afford it.

For this, you will have to do your own research as it is too lengthy to incolude in this reply.

Also, the private sector is not your enemy.

Oh it most certainly can be, particularly without government regulation. You may be fine with private industry selling toys for kids with lead paint. I am not.

I never advocated NO regulation, just not OVER regulation. Like I said, balance.

But in the morning I will respond to your last message and litterally obliterate you

TEASE!

lol. Alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all of lifes problems.

[snupy]

@ VB SNUS
The private sectors that collapsed and led us into this recession were the ones most heavily regulated by the government.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YEAH RIGHT! Any company could take crap mortgages, bundle them into CDOs, have them stamped 'AAA" by a ratings agency (instead of S-H-I-T) and sell them to someone else. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT REGULATION AGAINST IT!

"CDOs were marketed as investments with a defined risk and reward. In other words, if you bought one you would know how much of a return you could expect in exchange for risking your capital. The investment banks that were creating the CDOs presented them as investments in which the key factors were not the underlying assets. Rather, the key to CDOs was the use of mathematical calculations to create and distribute the cash flows. In other words, the basis of a CDO wasn't a mortgage, a bond or even a derivative -- it was the metrics and algorithms of quants and traders. In particular, the CDO market skyrocketed in 2001 with the invention of a formula called the Gaussian Copula, which made it easier to price CDOs quickly.

But what seemed to be the great strength of CDOs -- complex formulas that protected against risk while generating high returns -- turned out to be flawed"

[sgreger1]

@ VB SNUS
The private sectors that collapsed and led us into this recession were the ones most heavily regulated by the government.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YEAH RIGHT! Any company could take crap mortgages, bundle them into CDOs, have them stamped 'AAA" by a ratings agency (instead of S-H-I-T) and sell them to someone else. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT REGULATION AGAINST IT!

"CDOs were marketed as investments with a defined risk and reward. In other words, if you bought one you would know how much of a return you could expect in exchange for risking your capital. The investment banks that were creating the CDOs presented them as investments in which the key factors were not the underlying assets. Rather, the key to CDOs was the use of mathematical calculations to create and distribute the cash flows. In other words, the basis of a CDO wasn't a mortgage, a bond or even a derivative -- it was the metrics and algorithms of quants and traders. In particular, the CDO market skyrocketed in 2001 with the invention of a formula called the Gaussian Copula, which made it easier to price CDOs quickly.

But what seemed to be the great strength of CDOs -- complex formulas that protected against risk while generating high returns -- turned out to be flawed"

Sigh... Okay snuppy, there is no regulation in the banking, lending, or mortgage industry. Gov didn't affect this at all, it was just those evil Americans wanting to make money that did it all, we should stop them at once.

There, you happy?

[snupy]

I AM NOT FOR MROE WAR SPENDING.

You missed the point. You earlier complained about welfare. I simply wish to know how much of the federal budget goes to welfare fraud.

I included the verbaige directly quoted from you in the post you just replied to. here it is again

Where in that quote do I state everything should be socialized, particularly in a list of services that are presently socialized?

To me that reads, "Well we already have socialised x,y,z, so socialism isn't so bad, so why are you afraid of it? What has it done wrong?"

Good. You have withdrawn the claim that I stated 'everything should be socialized now.' But you still miss the point. Socialized services can save COSTS, which, from what I understand, fiscal conservatives might find attractive.

I did so above.

In what way does providing a list of socialized government services somehow come to mean that socialism is 'good?'

lets try and not have flame war type comments like trying to compare me to a 5 year old.

But that IS the case. You view many situations as duality, when there are more than two options, possibly three, four or more options. The world is not black and white. Socialism and capitalism are not 'good' or 'bad.' There are instances where capitalism is the BEST option, just as there are instances where it is the WORSE option.

Sigh... Im n putting words in your mouth, just explaining how I read it.

You are ASSUMING what you do not know.

Perhaps I was wrong. But what was the purpose of you arguing about how we already have socialism so why be scared of it, if you were not trying to promote it further?

There are instances where socialized services are a good choice, for several reasons, just as there are instances where capitalism is a good choice, for several reasons. That DOES NOT MEAN 'everything should be socialized now' no more than it means 'socialism good capitalism bad", mmmmmmkay?

Anything the gov taxes from one and then spends on another is socialism, and all govs do this.

Can you give me a link to a definition of the word 'socialism' that includes the concept you quoted above?

I am jsut saying that while a certain level of that is required for infrastructure, army, etc, it doens't mean we should base our entire system on it.

Who here, other than you in the above quote, has claimed we should base our entire system on socialism?

Like I siad, we have a balance. What I see, is that the current admin is trying to offset that balance to make it more socialist in nature, more tax and spend if you will.

Now I am really confused. So you define 'socialism' as 'tax and spend? Again, can you provide a link to this particular definition of socialism that you appear to accept?

My problem is that we need to maintain our balance, and not tip too far in one direction. (on either side)

So how does 'socialism' play into 3200, given that private insurers will be selling health insurance in the private market, just as before? How is that 'socialist?'

I never said it did. The whole base of my argument is that while certain social programs and or socialist concepts such as gov owning a big stake in the private sector could be beneficial, we should not be so hasty to in 1 year try to change the whole system over to a solely socialist one.

How is it 'socialist' for the government to step into, temporarily, the bank and auto industries? What definition of socialism can you cite, which defines socialism as government temporarily intervening in two industries (and not EVERY company within those two industries) out of tens of thousands?

I feel that the balance is being upset here, and I think we have learned from history that large countries that try these communist concepts do not fare well in the long run.

So it is communist for a government to temporarily intervene in two industries (but not EVERY company in those two industries)? Didn't you say earlier this was 'socialist?' Can you provide a link to this definition of 'communism,' in which you seem to believe?

My problem is with the current proposed way of "reforming" our helath INSURANCE industry. It sounds like the gov is jsut gaining a larger market share, while at the same time not really changing the system in any truly meaningfull way.

How is the government gaining a larger market share from 3200? Did you say earlier 3200 would be a windfall for the insurance industry? Isn't the insurance industry composed of privately held, capitalist companies? Or if privately held, capitalist companies sell health insurance under 3200, do they then magically become 'communist' or 'socialist?'

They are just helping those same insurance companies that you hate os much.

I hate when any part of our government sells out we the people for we the corporations, which both Republicans and Democrats do and have always done. One party is no better than they other. They are both whores for the corporations/aristocrats.

If you think that no treatment will go denied if the gov ran the whole thing, you are wrong, and I posted multiple examples of it in my last post. If one did more research i'm sure the pile of evidence would stack quite high.

What you posted were two OPINION pieces. OPINIONS ARE NOT FACTS. You also offered a 22 year old anecdote from a doctor. Personal anecdotes (anecdotal evidence) do not provide proof of anything. How much has changed in the last 22 years since that anecdote (assuming it is true) was penned? The fourth piece of 'evidence' you offered was from someone who couldn't even spell and didn't even name the 'bad' drug she claimed Medicare recommended.

I would be more in favor of a universal system than what we have now. Not that I think we need a universal system, but what they have brought ot the table is JUST MORE OF THE SAME, and goes against everything you are advocating in your posts.

Gee, do you think that is why I have REPEATEDLY stated I don't support 3200? Do yo think it is possible I know the REASONS we need reform, even if I DON'T support 3200?

Satire my friend, satire.

As is your definition of the word 'socialist' apparently.

I read what you wrote, try reading mine and it may become clearer.

Opinion pieces and web discussions from those who can't spell are neither of FACTS, nor are they EVIDENCE of anything, beyond the author's opinions.

I did provide the links.

Except you didn't read them, else you would know they are not evidence to back up what you claim.

And furthernmore, perhaps it is the lack of rationing that has left medicare with trillions in unfunded liabilities.

Oh yeah. It couldn't possibly have anything AT ALL to do with the aging of the baby boomers.

If anything, it proves that gov DOES NOT DO IT CHEAPER.

Then why do you like Canada's system so much? Could it be that purchasing services in volume (like an entire nation) lowers costs?

We are handing control of the system itself over to the gov.

Well yeah, in some ways we are. Private insurers will no longer be able to RATION HEALTHCARE based on pre-existing conditions. Private insurers will no longer be able to RESCIND policies just because you need a transplant or get cancer.

The private companies will still be around but the gov now pulls the strings. All they are doing is legislating themselves into being shareholders of these insurance companies, and have offered to help them in return for whatever politicians gain by such power, whether it be lobbyists, power in general etc.

Which leaves us in more power in some ways, for instance by not having 60% of bankruptcies due to medical bills.

Look guy, I can't prove to you something that hasn't happened yet.

FINALLY YOU GET HONEST! THANK YOU! You can't prove a word of what you have claimed here, just as I suspected.

But the one thing we know is that 1) Medical care is expensive in America (and elsewhere),

It doesn't have to be.

2)we have a limited budget. Therefore, some form of rationing will take place, just like it already does today.

Yet, you have no proof.

The dems have control of all 3 branches of the government, the entire media sans fox news, the supreme court, and hollywood, and yet they still couldn't pass a decent bill in a year.

You didn't SERIOUSLY expect the dems to do any better than the Republicans, did you? Besides, the dems DID get a decent bill which thoroughly supports their constituents, who are Big Pharma and Big Insurance, which is a resounding success in political terms.

Don't act like you are the end all be all in knowledge about the world. If you listened sometimes, you might learn something. No need for name calling.

STOP THE ASSUMPTIONS and you have a deal!

I cannot provide evidence of rationing in a system which does not currently exist yet.

That's all you needed to say from the beginning.

Obama wants this whole thing to go through without it costing $1 to the deficit. It cannot happen. You cannot cover an addition 50 million people and not have it cost anything, no matter what kind of ponzi scheme you put into effect.

???????????? WHO has ever claimed it would not cost anything, other than you in the above quote?

This shows me how little you know about our current crisis. Gov paved the way for this to happen because some feel good senators wanted to make housing "affordable" to thos ehwo could not afford it.

Seriously, radio entertainers are not who you listen to for political advice. And please, do not EVEN begin to accuse others of knowing so little about the mortgage crisis with the level of ignorance you are displaying here. PLEASE do yourself a favor and educate yourself by reading this link in it's entirety.

As an example, the WIkipedia article notes mortgage underwriting standards declined during the bubble, and cites an article dated 2004. How can the decline of mortgage underwriting standards possibly have anything AT ALL to do with the legislation you cited earlier from 1980 and 1982? Oh, that's right. IT CAN'T. One of Countrywide's (one of the biggest players in the bubble) biggest free-market 'innovations' was automated underwriting, Instead of waiting a week to get approved for a mortgage, it was done by computer, such that approvals were instant. Guess what happened if you applied and didn't qualify INSTANTLY? The mortgage officer could fudge your income numbers up and you would be INSTANTLY approved. And as late as 2008, Countrywide was still advising potential clients to LIE about their incomes on the mortgage application.

Countrywide is also:

1. Under investigation by the FBI for securities FRAUD

2. Under class action lawsuit by the state of New York

3. Under class action lawsuit by the state of Connecticut

4. Under class action lawsuit by the state of Illinois.

5. Under class action lawsuit by the state of California

Can you say 'predatory lending' boys and girls?

But you would have us believe the mortgage crisis was all the government's fault for forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them, even though you have yet to explain why BB&T is not awash in bad mortgages if what you claimed is true. You fail to mention the FACT the Federal Reserve keeping interests rates as low as they did fed the housing bubble. You fail to mention how CDOs played into the mortgage crisis. You fail to mention the FACT that 22% of the homes purchased in 2006 were for speculative purposes (house flippers) and another 14% purchased in that year were for vacation homes. In 2005, those numbers were 28% and 12% respectively, meaning 40% of homes purchased in that year were NOT for primary residences. Sub-prime mortages went from 5% of all mortgages in 1994 to 20% of all mortgages in 2006, when Countrywide was at their height.

But you would have us IGNORE all the other factors that played into this, and put the blame squarely on the BIG EVIL GOVERNMENT, as if we were simple minded enough to believe it!

For this, you will have to do your own research as it is too lengthy to incolude in this reply.

I will be more than happy to have those who read here determine which of the two us needs to do more research.

I never advocated NO regulation, just not OVER regulation. Like I said, balance.

Tell it to Countrywide, a PRIVATE, CAPITALIST company.

[snupy]

Sigh... Okay snuppy, there is no regulation in the banking, lending, or mortgage industry. Gov didn't affect this at all, it was just those evil Americans wanting to make money that did it all, we should stop them at once.
There, you happy?

I defer to Sheila Bair, a BUSH appointee and the FDIC Chariman:

"Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.

You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.

Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple.

CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, ---->"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions"<---.

Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not." Source

[sgreger1]

You missed the point. You earlier complained about welfare. I simply wish to know how much of the federal budget goes to welfare fraud.

I don't know the number. Welfare in total is only like 2% of the gdp if I recall correctly. Don't know how much is spent on fraud.

To me that reads, "Well we already have socialised x,y,z, so socialism isn't so bad, so why are you afraid of it? What has it done wrong?"

Good. You have withdrawn the claim that I stated 'everything should be socialized now.' But you still miss the point. Socialized services can save COSTS, which, from what I understand, fiscal conservatives might find attractive.

No, I maintain that you implied it, and continue to imply more socialization in this response as well. SOME things may benefit from socialization, basic infrastructure items. I do not consider health insurance to be part of infrastructure, so we will have to agree to disagree.

In what way does providing a list of socialized government services somehow come to mean that socialism is 'good?'

That would hold clout if you had just provided a list of socialized services. You instead went on a rant about how you shouldnt be scared of socialism and look at all the good socialist things we have now, why are you soafraid??" etc.

lets try and not have flame war type comments like trying to compare me to a 5 year old.

But that IS the case. You view many situations as duality, when there are more than two options, possibly three, four or more options. The world is not black and white. Socialism and capitalism are not 'good' or 'bad.' There are instances where capitalism is the BEST option, just as there are instances where it is the WORSE option.

Take your own advice, read what I said. I was saying the entire time that we have to have a balance, too much of one extreme is bad. I never said that one is good and one is bad, I advocated a balance between the two being good, and either extreme being bad. Don't put words in my mouth.

Sigh... Im n putting words in your mouth, just explaining how I read it.

You are ASSUMING what you do not know.

All I know is what you type.

Perhaps I was wrong. But what was the purpose of you arguing about how we already have socialism so why be scared of it, if you were not trying to promote it further?

There are instances where socialized services are a good choice, for several reasons, just as there are instances where capitalism is a good choice, for several reasons. That DOES NOT MEAN 'everything should be socialized now' no more than it means 'socialism good capitalism bad", mmmmmmkay?

So what are you arguing about. We agree, we should have a little of both. How to distribute between the two is our only problem.

Anything the gov taxes from one and then spends on another is socialism, and all govs do this.

Can you give me a link to a definition of the word 'socialism' that includes the concept you quoted above?

**** do you not know how to use google?

Here:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

This is the whole premise, to "share the wealth" and welath redistribution. What I am refering to is socialism light, or even better:

utopian socialism 
–noun (sometimes initial capital letter) an economic system based on the premise that if capital voluntarily surrendered its ownership of the means of production to the state or the workers, unemployment and poverty would be abolished.

This is more like it. If we give it up and let the state handle it, they will better know how to distribute us to stop poverty, bad healthy, and make sure every one gets their daily ration of flowers.

I am jsut saying that while a certain level of that is required for infrastructure, army, etc, it doens't mean we should base our entire system on it.

Who here, other than you in the above quote, has claimed we should base our entire system on socialism?

Where in the above quote do I advocate that our entire system should be based on socialism?

I am not advocating that in the above quote. I was making a comment base don my opinion. Many people believe that socialism is the way to go, or some even full on communism, I am saying imo we should have a balance of capitalist free market with a few social programs. No where in the above quote did I say that you thought we should make it a completely socialized system.

Now I am really confused. So you define 'socialism' as 'tax and spend? Again, can you provide a link to this particular definition of socialism that you appear to accept?

If i'm a 5 year old, than you are thick as a ****ing rock.

My problem is that we need to maintain our balance, and not tip too far in one direction. (on either side)

So how does 'socialism' play into 3200, given that private insurers will be selling health insurance in the private market, just as before? How is that 'socialist?'

It is the first step, giving control over to the federal government like we have with the banks, the states, GM, the schools, etc. It's just another step. You are thinking too small and do not see the long term big picture here of where concepts like this will lead us.

I never said it did. The whole base of my argument is that while certain social programs and or socialist concepts such as gov owning a big stake in the private sector could be beneficial, we should not be so hasty to in 1 year try to change the whole system over to a solely socialist one.

How is it 'socialist' for the government to step into, temporarily, the bank and auto industries? What definition of socialism can you cite, which defines socialism as government temporarily intervening in two industries (and not EVERY company within those two industries) out of tens of thousands?

Like I said, it never happens overnight, it is done in steps. Taking over some private companies, the banks, then letting the feds have more power to control them etc is another inch in the wrong direction. Also, the word temporary, control, and government don't go well together.

I feel that the balance is being upset here, and I think we have learned from history that large countries that try these communist concepts do not fare well in the long run.

So it is communist for a government to temporarily intervene in two industries (but not EVERY company in those two industries)? Didn't you say earlier this was 'socialist?' Can you provide a link to this definition of 'communism,' in which you seem to believe?

Communism is where the state runs your shit, the state is running big players in these industries ("temporarily"). It's kind of commie. Socialism is the step right before communism, but they have a lot of the same founding principles.

My problem is with the current proposed way of "reforming" our helath INSURANCE industry. It sounds like the gov is jsut gaining a larger market share, while at the same time not really changing the system in any truly meaningfull way.

How is the government gaining a larger market share from 3200? Did you say earlier 3200 would be a windfall for the insurance industry? Isn't the insurance industry composed of privately held, capitalist companies? Or if privately held, capitalist companies sell health insurance under 3200, do they then magically become 'communist' or 'socialist?'

This is how it starts, the gov starts regulating ina way to where they have more and then complete control of certain industires, creating the illusion that these industries are still operating in the private sector. Then when the regulations choke it out, the feds bail them out and say "we are paying for this now so we get to make the rules".

I hate when any part of our government sells out we the people for we the corporations, which both Republicans and Democrats do and have always done. One party is no better than they other. They are both whores for the corporations/aristocrats.

No argument there.

And furthernmore, perhaps it is the lack of rationing that has left medicare with trillions in unfunded liabilities.

Oh yeah. It couldn't possibly have anything AT ALL to do with the aging of the baby boomers.

Of course it does, did I ever say they played no part?

If anything, it proves that gov DOES NOT DO IT CHEAPER.

Then why do you like Canada's system so much? Could it be that purchasing services in volume (like an entire nation) lowers costs?

One thing the modern day liberal need to realize is how different the US is from the other countries they like to compare themselves to. What works in Sweden, canada etc, may not work here. Maybe Canada's system would maybe it wouldn't, but looking at how OUR government does business, I highly doubt more gov involvement will result in anything being cheaper.

Which leaves us in more power in some ways, for instance by not having 60% of bankruptcies due to medical bills.

Yes my friend, growing the size of government historically has led to more power for the people... It's like you just don't get it.

FINALLY YOU GET HONEST! THANK YOU! You can't prove a word of what you have claimed here, just as I suspected.

Everything I have said has been my opinion on the end result of all this. You can't prove anything either, as it is in the future and has not happened. You can only make an educated guess. You and me are doing the same thing.

But the one thing we know is that 1) Medical care is expensive in America (and elsewhere),

It doesn't have to be.

How do you suppose we pay for all of the immense amount of technology, administration, dr's, nurses, medical staff, drugs, research and developement etc that is part of the healthcare industry? If you think we can have the level of care we have but with it being cheap, I would submit that you are wrong. Cheaper, perhaps, but it is still going to be expensive to pay all these professionals to give us treatment.

no one is going to get a PHD to get a job that makes 40k a year.

2)we have a limited budget. Therefore, some form of rationing will take place, just like it already does today.

Yet, you have no proof.

Do I really need to research google for you to prove that insurance companies ration care? You advocate it in your own argument. I am saying that shit is expensive, we cannot pay for everything for everyone without it costing us something. You want better care and cover everyone without it costing us anything. It won't happen.

The dems have control of all 3 branches of the government, the entire media sans fox news, the supreme court, and hollywood, and yet they still couldn't pass a decent bill in a year.

You didn't SERIOUSLY expect the dems to do any better than the Republicans, did you? Besides, the dems DID get a decent bill which thoroughly supports their constituents, who are Big Pharma and Big Insurance, which is a resounding success in political terms.

Haha, you are correct, I didnt expect the dems to actually accomplish anything for the greater good. Ill give it to them though, at least they make a fake attempt to make it look like they are doing their jobs, unlike the republicans who sat quiet for 8 years.

Don't act like you are the end all be all in knowledge about the world. If you listened sometimes, you might learn something. No need for name calling.

STOP THE ASSUMPTIONS and you have a deal!

I ASSUME... that we have a deal :wink:

I cannot provide evidence of rationing in a system which does not currently exist yet.

That's all you needed to say from the beginning.

No, the whole point is that I was saying that in my opinion, this will occur. That is what i said from the beginning. You cant say it won't happen either, since like I said, it's in the future. Its all opinion untill it happens.

Obama wants this whole thing to go through without it costing $1 to the deficit. It cannot happen. You cannot cover an addition 50 million people and not have it cost anything, no matter what kind of ponzi scheme you put into effect.

???????????? WHO has ever claimed it would not cost anything, other than you in the above quote?

Have you been living under a freaking rock? Obama has made it the state of his message that he will not sign any HC reform bill that adds even 1$ to the deficit. How can you be unaware of this? He even said it in his big address to congress where the whole "you lie!" incedent has happened.

Seriously, radio entertainers are not who you listen to for political advice.

When did I say I get my advice from the radio? Let me guess, you ASSUME (I thought you hated people who assume?) that I am a Rush limbaugh fan or something huh?

As an example, the WIkipedia article notes mortgage underwriting standards declined during the bubble, and cites an article dated 2004. How can the decline of mortgage underwriting standards possibly have anything AT ALL to do with the legislation you cited earlier from 1980 and 1982? Oh, that's right. IT CAN'T. One of Countrywide's (one of the biggest players in the bubble) biggest free-market 'innovations' was automated underwriting, Instead of waiting a week to get approved for a mortgage, it was done by computer, such that approvals were instant. Guess what happened if you applied and didn't qualify INSTANTLY? The mortgage officer could fudge your income numbers up and you would be INSTANTLY approved. And as late as 2008, Countrywide was still advising potential clients to LIE about their incomes on the mortgage application.

Countrywide is also:

1. Under investigation by the FBI for securities FRAUD

2. Under class action lawsuit by the state of New York

3. Under class action lawsuit by the state of Connecticut

4. Under class action lawsuit by the state of Illinois.

5. Under class action lawsuit by the state of California

Can you say 'predatory lending' boys and girls?

Yes I am aware that the lenders played a huge role in this as well as the people who accepted the mortgages, but so did gov.


Let look at some other companies other than Countrywide. How about Fannie and Freddy? Oh the ones that have all the top dem player son their payroll since forever.

Dems are the ones who wouldn't allow the gov to crackdown on these bad lending policies

For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...umnist_hassett

But you would have us IGNORE all the other factors that played into this, and put the blame squarely on the BIG EVIL GOVERNMENT, as if we were simple minded enough to believe it!

Never said these companies are not at fault. Gov's job is to reign them in, dems stopped that from happening. (See above) Therefore, gov, as well as the lenders, and people who took the loans are all at fault to some extent.

Tell it to Countrywide, a PRIVATE, CAPITALIST company.

How about tell it to every dem that wouldn't allow them to be more heavly regulated. The bills were put in to try and stop this collapse but dems ignored it. These people, including chris dodd, are still in power. And YOU TRUST THEM TO DO THE REGULATING FROM NOW ON?

If they let these evil corps get away with murder in the past, why do you think they won't any more?

[tom502]

I don't like liberal welfare socialism, but I do like hardline socialism, Stalinism, GDR, DPRK, non ethno NS.

[daruckis]

too long, didnt read.