# How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option



## Life_Long_Dem! (Jun 8, 2009)

I'ved poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.

You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.

So they're pulling out all the stops -- pushing Democrats and a handful of so-called "moderate" Republicans who say they're in favor of a public option to support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they've been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers.

Robert Reich's Blog: How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option, And What Obama and the Rest of Us Must Do


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 8, 2009)

Of course they don't, since while the government is in charge of what companies are allowed to sell what, all they have to do is bribe them to keep out competition.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 8, 2009)

I'm sorry and killing this option is a bad thing?  The Federal Govt. does not belong in the business of direct competetion with a private  company that it also regulates.  The Obama administration knows they cannot get a "single payer" plan through congress they don't have the vote. let's forget for a moment the constitutional issue. So what do they do? they set up a Govt. run option that will in effect drive everyone to the Govt. run program as  Insurance carriers  drop the option, or get out of the business period, in effect  getting a "single payer" system anyway.  So is there any doubt that a private company would not want to fight this?  I know  I would not want to be in direct competetion with the Federal Govt.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 8, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Of course they don't, since while the government is in charge of what companies are allowed to sell what, all they have to do is bribe them to keep out competition.



Wrong.  It's the government going into business expressly to compete against them, and put them out of business. That's not the way it works in America.


----------



## Lycurgus (Jun 8, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they don't, since while the government is in charge of what companies are allowed to sell what, all they have to do is bribe them to keep out competition.
> ...





In Obama's America that is the way it works. 

God Bless The Obama Revolution!


----------



## Chris (Jun 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I'm sorry and killing this option is a bad thing?  The Federal Govt. does not belong in the business of direct competetion with a private  company that it also regulates.  The Obama administration knows they cannot get a "single payer" plan through congress they don't have the vote. let's forget for a moment the constitutional issue. So what do they do? they set up a Govt. run option that will in effect drive everyone to the Govt. run program as  Insurance carriers  drop the option, or get out of the business period, in effect  getting a "single payer" system anyway.  So is there any doubt that a private company would not want to fight this?  I know  I would not want to be in direct competetion with the Federal Govt.



I agree.

Therefore, you should give up your government sponsored healthcare.


----------



## Chris (Jun 10, 2009)

Life_Long_Dem! said:


> I'ved poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.
> 
> You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.
> 
> ...



This is why I don't have health insurance.

I refuse to support this ridiculously expensive and bloated for profit healthcare system. Every other Western country has a single payer system, and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay for insurance companies, liability lawyers, and Big Pharma. Even the doctors are now in favor of a single payer system.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 10, 2009)

Honestly, I'm just sick of this shit.  I had insurance, but now I can't afford it because I moved to a different state.  Hipaa rules didn't help me out any and I'm screwed.  The only way I can get coverage again is to go to work for a company that offers insurance.  I kind of like being self-employed.  So now I have to choose, my career or health insurance.  

The insurance companies don't give a shit about the health of their policy holders.  Actually, I should rephrase that.  They do care that you remain healthy.  As soon as you become sick, they will do whatever they can to get you off of their plan because you are now a liability. 

But I guess that's just my personal problem, so long as the rest of you are covered, why worry about me?  I'm just a number anyway.  I wonder how you all would feel if you were in my shoes.  Would you still be so supportive of the wonderful insurance companies?  Would you still be more worried about your choices?  Oh that's right, you wouldn't really have many choices.


----------



## editec (Jun 10, 2009)

Structurally there are three problems facing the HC delievery system

1. An aging population

2. Overall Diminishing wages for Americans in comparison to the inflation in HC costs

3. Increasing HC costs due to advances in medicine  (not merely inflationary costs)

If we do nothing, these problems will continue to make our HC delivery system increasingly less effective.

These problems will  challenge _any system_ we devise.


----------



## RodISHI (Jun 10, 2009)

We have not had health insurance since 1995. It became too expensive to maintain. Along with there were so many things it did not pay for and the deductible was $1,500.00 a year for each of us it was not something I could afford to keep paying. 

On my trip recently to see my folks after my dad's heart surgery I met one of their neighbors I had not met before. She is the daughter of a guy that was good friends with my grandpa. She and her husband moved into her dad's house when they retired. Her husband's mom has alzheimer's. She was telling us how they had heart surgery done on this poor woman. Over eighty thousand dollars in hospital and doctors to extend the life of someone who does not know where she is or who she is. The heart surgery is estimated to extend her life by fifteen years. The institutions will make out well over the extended years of her life.


----------



## editec (Jun 10, 2009)

RodISHI said:


> We have not had health insurance since 1995. It became too expensive to maintain. Along with there were so many things it did not pay for and the deductible was $1,500.00 a year for each of us it was not something I could afford to keep paying.
> 
> On my trip recently to see my folks after my dad's heart surgery I met one of their neighbors I had not met before. She is the daughter of a guy that was good friends with my grandpa. She and her husband moved into her dad's house when they retired. Her husband's mom has alzheimer's. She was telling us how they had heart surgery done on this poor woman. Over eighty thousand dollars in hospital and doctors to extend the life of someone who does not know where she is or who she is. The heart surgery is estimated to extend her life by fifteen years. The institutions will make out well over the extended years of her life.


 
Yeah, that's part of the increasing age problem, too, isn't it?

Ironically as HC becomes better at extending lives, it also increases demand for more HC at the same time.

I don't know if it's still true, but in the late 70s almost 50% of every HC dollar spent in this nation was spent on the LAST YEAR OF LIFE for all  paitents.

So one can EASILY see how much pressure might come to RATION HC on those people who are entirely dependent on HC to keep them alive for a few months more, right?

And that pressure will be applied on the payers of HC regardless of whether the payer is the government OR private industry.

The dirty little secret about HC is that we are ALREADY rationing HC.

We're just doing it now based on ability to pay.

The argument can be made that that's the best way to do it, but since there's more poor people than wealthy people, it's not a politically viable argument one can make *out loud.*

Hence, when advocates of the DO NOTHING school of HC thinkers get together they do NOT talk about the HC delivery system.

Instead they make true statements that don't really address the problem.

Statesments like 

_"We have the best health care in the world"_ 

And that is probably, true, too isn't it?  If you're wealthy enough the best HC in the world is available to you.

So we have the best HC available, but _*we do not have the best HC delivery system*_.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 10, 2009)

Well Chris as I've said many times on this board I'd be glad to give up my TRICARE as soon as  the president and congress agree to forgo their  salaries and benefits and agree to term limits. Then you will see me  more willing to accept your suggestion.  However, you do know the difference between earning a benefit and being given one right?  The facts are my retirement benefits would not be there had I not met the criteria  set down ahead of time.  This is a lost concept on many Americans the fact you have to earn something you have and not have it actually be given to you.   In fact it's not like your latest  playstation game where you get to level 10 and they give you 10 more points and thats the problem,  many people expect benefits to be handed to them as a "right" for existing rather than earning it.  So if you think for one moment  I'm ashamed of the benfits I earned for not seeing my daughter  grow up or being deployed when my wife passed away you would be wrong.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they don't, since while the government is in charge of what companies are allowed to sell what, all they have to do is bribe them to keep out competition.
> ...



It "works" they way the majority of americans voted.  You lost. What is it about that reality you don't understand?

Using the sick and dying as a commodity is american? Fuck you and all the sick fucks that think like you.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 10, 2009)

lycurgus said:


> fraulein hilda said:
> 
> 
> > kittenkoder said:
> ...


 *<<<  the problem!*


----------



## Barb (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they don't, since while the government is in charge of what companies are allowed to sell what, all they have to do is bribe them to keep out competition.
> ...



They'll have to become more competitive then, won't they? I don't see why the government shouldn't compete in a free market. In fact, the collusion and inflationary price fixing in the private markets mandates such competition. If they can come up with a system that the consumer would prefer over the government system, they'll survive. If they _choose_ to remain the blood-sucking parasites that they are, then they won't. Its about time people had real choices.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 10, 2009)

&#8220;I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.&#8221; &#8211; Thomas Jefferson

 &#8220;Nations crumble from within when the citizenry asks of government those things which the citizenry might better provide for itself.&#8221;  Ronald Reagan 

&#8220;Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.&#8221; &#8211; Ben Franklin

&#8220;&#8230;a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.&#8221; &#8211; Thomas Jefferson

The facts are in this country, yes a majority of people voted for  Barack Obama to be President and he now sits in the White House as a result, however that in and of itself  is not a license to change the very fabric this nation was founded upon.  While it's noble to wish that all people not suffer, and those  that cannot take care of themselves we as a society should  take care of them. The fact remains, it is NOT the Federal Govts. job to provide healthcare to it's citizens, had that been the intent of the framers of the constitution then it would be in there.  There are many ways in order to accomplish this within the framework of our Govt.. Perhaps the frist one the comes to mind is a constitutional Amendment on healthcare that 2/3rds of the states must ratify.  This is well within the  framework of our form of Govt. or perhaps  another way  would be for the Govt. to actually regualte commerce as it's supposed too and bring down the cost of  care and further regulate the costs of  mandated  liability insurance that Doctors and Hospitals are passing on to the consumer.  There are many ways to accomplish this, the facts are  no one wishes to explore these becsuse the current mind set is that the Govt. owes  it's citizens healthcare when it clearly does not.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 10, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Where did you get the idea that winning an election provides the winner with the means to 'do whatever they want?'

I mean I know you've claimed to have been a smuggler and such is indicative of one failing to grasp the civics portion of the education which was GIVEN TO YOU... but that doesn't excuse this absurd ignorance which you seem determined to cling to, which sets aside the full scope of whole "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC" thing...

So again... what leads you to believe that the whole US Constitution can be scrapped, because you idiots won an election?


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



That's the way it "worked" in the Soviet bloc until it collapsed because there was't enough being produced to pay for everything everyone had a "right" to.

Americans did not vote for government control of their healthcare decisions and yet another government entitlement nobody has a clue how to pay for.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jun 10, 2009)

I am always amazed by those on these boards who have been sodomized by the Big Pharma and the Managed Care businesses and just keep smiling.   


Oh, Oh,  good golly Ms Molly, we can't let the goverment get this right, that would be socialism.

Medicare works.  Medicaid works.  TriCare works.  A single payer for all Americans would work, but we just can't step on capitilism gone amok, that would be socialism.  When capitlism's only guiding principle is greed, it really only takes care of those who own it.

Bend over righties and keep on taking it.  Maybe you have gotten to like it.

We pay more than any other country for care per person and get less effective care than 36 other nations.

Mr. Shelby stated we have the best healthcare in the world.  He may as a Senator, you don't as the average citizen paying the Aetana, Big Blues and Humanas of our country.


----------



## Barb (Jun 10, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Fraulein Hilda said:
> ...



I don't believe in your overblown and rather melodramatic supposition about the "whole US Constitution being scrapped," but to answer your question within its extremes, the rolling it into a blunt and passing it around the republican majority (and don't give me any of that crap about two years for a majority dem Senate, Joe didn't count for our side, and the pubs threatened filibuster for everything) for the last eight years might do


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 10, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> I am always amazed by those on these boards who have been sodomized by the Big Pharma and the Managed Care businesses and just keep smiling.



Indeed...  And when we KNOW that "Managed Care" which is to say the HMO was saddled upon us BY THE SAME FUCKING PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO DISMANTLE THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM TODAY; USING THE SAME TIRD, LONG DISCREDITED ARGUMENTS.

It's AMAZING how those who come to bemoan "Managed CARE" drone on about a system which IS PRECISELY THE SAME DAMN THING; but VASTLY LARGER AND TO THE DEGREE THAT IT STRIPS FROM THE SYSTEM ANY VIABLE ALTERNATIVE.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Barb said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Forget about the Constitution, then.  Every time government intervenes in private enterprise, it fucks it up.  It doesn't help the people it intends to help and the cost of doing it explodes.

Government has no damned business running the healthcare industry.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

And you do not have a right to something someone else has to pay for.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 10, 2009)

if you think health care is expensive now.....wait until its free....


----------



## Barb (Jun 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.  Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Nations crumble from within when the citizenry asks of government those things which the citizenry might better provide for itself.  Ronald Reagan
> 
> ...




Thomas Jefferson

Benefits
"Those who bear equally the burthens of Government 
should equally participate of its benefits." 
Thomas Jefferson

*Corporations
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed 
corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a 
trial of strength and bid 
defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson, 1812 
Source:Liberty Quotes*

"The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs,
nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately,
by the grace of God."
Thomas Jefferson
Source:Thomas Jefferson Quote with Comments


----------



## Barb (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> And you do not have a right to something someone else has to pay for.



I've worked since I was twelve, and have everything that I need. Always have, always will. As a taxpayer, I rather pay for a health care system that works rather than another bomb. As a voter, I get to say so. You go ahead and vote for whatever suits you. I just wish there were a way to split up the results.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Government can't guarantee results.  It makes things worse every time it tries.  Does Barack Obama need to fuck up the economy any worse than it already is and kill more jobs than already have been killed?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

They didn't even want to give single payer a seat at the table.  Today they get a seat at the table.  

A Seat at the Table for Single-Payer

Now single payer is going to get an opportunity to squash all the right wing garbage can talking points on why it won't work.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 10, 2009)

TRICARE Works ray because it doesn't have  250 million plus  people  managed under it also,  it works because  the contractors  under TRICARE are not in direct competetion with the Federal Govt. to proivde healthcare to the general public.  In otherwords the Federal Govt. is only offering this as a benefit earned, not as a  healthcare product abailable for public consumption. So your  using Medicare, TRICARE, etc. as  examples is a weak argument at best.  As for as the socialism thing goes,  I personally don't care what label you put on it, you can call it wizbangcare if you want, it is still unconstitutional and as i pointed out, there are many ways to make it that way or perhaps work within the framework of this form of Govt. rather than look to another form of Govt.  I find it  actually  amsuing that people would quote other nations as being shinning examples of care, when those nations are a disaster. One of the founders of Canada's Health Care system is now advocating  "free choice" .   U.K's health care system is in shambles. So  when people put these statistics up , they don't reflect the reality of the situation. Yes, our healthcare system needs  COST reform badly, it needs it to the point where  healthcare can be affordable to more people thats true.  There are as I've stated above many ways to go about this, mandating an illegal form of healthcare is not one of them.  In fact the only group of Americans that are constitutionally covered for healthcare are prisoners. 

Socialized medicine has meant rationed care and lack of innovation. Small wonder Canadians are looking to the market.

Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux&#8212;a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body&#8212;and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin&#8217;s insurance didn&#8217;t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies&#8212;in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

 Anyone naïve enough to believe that health provision in this country has become a little more market-driven under New Labour should take a look at the NHS Confederation's warning  that the health service faces the gravest funding crisis in its history.

Such shroud waving by the state health care provider is designed to scare politicians of every stripe into continuing to treat the NHS as the great sacred cow of British politics that must be fed taxpayers' billions even when it is patently obvious such largesse is not working.
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

According to the trustees report the financial outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund that pays hospital benefits has deteriorated significantly from last year, with annual cash flow deficits beginning this year. These deficits will continue through the decade and explode in 2010 as the first baby boomers retire and being using Medicare. By the trustees estimates the trust fund will be exhausted (broke) by the year 2019, just as the greatest numbers of baby boomers start relying on Medicare for health care coverage.

Medicare In Crisis

Congress will worsen a near crisis of runaway military health care costs if it enacts a Senate-backed provision to open the new TRICARE Reserve Select program to all drilling Reserve and National Guard members, the Defense Department's top health official has warned.

In testimony before a House subcommittee, Dr. William Winkenwerder said military health costs have doubled in just the last four years, from $18 billion a year to more than $36 billion, largely because of enhancements in benefits for retirees and their families.
TRICARE Near Cost Crisis?

As I said before, this is a COST issue and needs to be addressed as such, it takes a little more courage and working within the framework of this form of  Govt.


----------



## Barb (Jun 10, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> rayboyusmc said:
> 
> 
> > I am always amazed by those on these boards who have been sodomized by the Big Pharma and the Managed Care businesses and just keep smiling.
> ...



Actually, HMO's were introduced to Nixon by, oh crap, lemme go look, there we go, by Ehrlichman. I remembered it from researching Nixon last year, and a whole bunch of stuff was declassified. Anyway, here you go: 
The start of the HMO began in Nixon's Oval Office
" February 17, 1971 
5:30 p.m.
Ehrlichman: "We have now narrowed down the vice president's problem on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these Health Maintenance Organizations like Edgar Kaiser's Permanente thing."

Nixon: "Now let me ask you...you know I'm not too keen on any of these damn medical programs."

Ehrlichman: "This is a private enterprise one."

Nixon: "Well that appeals to me."

Ehrlichman: "Edgar Kaiser is running this Permanente deal for profit and the reason he can do it...I had Edgar Kaiser come in, talk to me about this, and I went into some depth. *All the incentives are toward less medical care. Because the less care they give them, the more money they make."*

Nixon: "Fine."

Ehrlichman: "...and the incentives run the right way."

Nixon: "Not bad."


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> They didn't even want to give single payer a seat at the table.  Today they get a seat at the table.
> 
> A Seat at the Table for Single-Payer
> 
> Now single payer is going to get an opportunity to squash all the right wing garbage can talking points on why it won't work.



Government making people's healthcare decisions doesn't work.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

That blog is a week old.  A new public healthcare benefit is DOA.  No Republicans and increasing numers of Democrats don't support it.


----------



## Barb (Jun 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> TRICARE Works ray because it doesn't have  250 million plus  people  managed under it also,  it works because  the contractors  under TRICARE are not in direct competetion with the Federal Govt. to proivde healthcare to the general public.  In otherwords the Federal Govt. is only offering this as a benefit earned, not as a  healthcare product abailable for public consumption. So your  using Medicare, TRICARE, etc. as  examples is a weak argument at best.  As for as the socialism thing goes,  I personally don't care what label you put on it, you can call it wizbangcare if you want, it is still unconstitutional and as i pointed out, there are many ways to make it that way or perhaps work within the framework of this form of Govt. rather than look to another form of Govt.  I find it  actually  amsuing that people would quote other nations as being shinning examples of care, when those nations are a disaster. One of the founders of Canada's Health Care system is now advocating  "free choice" .   U.K's health care system is in shambles. So  when people put these statistics up , they don't reflect the reality of the situation. Yes, our healthcare system needs  COST reform badly, it needs it to the point where  healthcare can be affordable to more people thats true.  There are as I've stated above many ways to go about this, mandating an illegal form of healthcare is not one of them.  In fact the only group of Americans that are constitutionally covered for healthcare are prisoners.
> 
> Socialized medicine has meant rationed care and lack of innovation. Small wonder Canadians are looking to the market.
> 
> ...



"TRICARE Works ray because it doesn't have 250 million plus people managed under it also, it works because the contractors under TRICARE are not in direct competetion with the Federal Govt. to proivde healthcare to the general public. In otherwords the Federal Govt. is only offering this as a benefit earned, not as a healthcare product abailable for public consumption."

Health insurance, TRICARE included, is a contractual benefit agreement. It is not the fault of the public, union, private, or government workers that the costs of fulfilling those contracted agreements became so expensive. That all belongs to the drug and insurance companies, and they are the ones looking for a "free ride," not the people cornered into paying them to second-guess their doctors and fixing loaded dice in a system that works solely to their benefit.


----------



## Barb (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> That blog is a week old.  A new public healthcare benefit is DOA.  No Republicans and increasing numers of Democrats don't support it.



Not so fast. I called my representatives today. They've heard from a lot of others. I suspect the phone lines are pretty busy on this.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Why would people give up what they have and believe the promises of a President who has accomplished nothing?


----------



## Barb (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Why would people give up what they have and believe the promises of a President who has accomplished nothing?



Oh hell. Sez you, and you're dismissed.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 10, 2009)

Corporations
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed 
corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a 
trial of strength and bid 
defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson, 1812 
Source:Liberty Quotes

Barb, 

I rather liked that quote actually and sort of sums of what I have been saying that  under the  commerce clause of the constitution this issue of costs can be solved rather easily  with a congress that is willing to work within it's framework and provide a path through regulation and de-regulation a method to reduce overall costs and  stimulate  competetion.  Jefferson however, like just about all the founding fathers was  very much in favor of limited Govt.  and his views  on healthcare  it can be said were very much influenced by Dr. Benjamin Rush.

"[The people] are in truth the only legitimate proprietors of the soil and government." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1813. ME 19:197

"I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:146

No matter though, I'm sure though some tax provision that this  healthcare bill will be passed and  the sides that are advocating this will be  well satisfied till they see for themselves its result.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> They didn't even want to give single payer a seat at the table.  Today they get a seat at the table.
> 
> A Seat at the Table for Single-Payer
> 
> Now single payer is going to get an opportunity to squash all the right wing garbage can talking points on why it won't work.



Bobo i hate to squash your love fest here...but there many left wingers who are against this shit also.....because they realize,unlike you,that if Uncle Sam gets to have a say in any of this,especially on how who and why.....one problem will just become a bigger problem.....like my doc. told me....many people think the doctors and nurses are automatically for this....they do want it,BUT,they wanna know who will be calling the shots...


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> if you think health care is expensive now.....wait until its free....



First of all, healthcare isn't free no matter who is running it.  From my viewpoint, my personal cost for healthcare right now is over $15,000 per year, if I could afford it that is.  That doesn't include my kids; that's just for me.  If I could afford it, by the time I reach 55, in ten years, my personal cost will increase to nearly $25,000 per year. 

So are you telling me that if the government becomes involved in healthcare, my cost is going to be more than that?


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Why would people give up what they have and believe the promises of a President who has accomplished nothing?



Why would I give up what?  $15,000 per year that I can't afford?  You know, honestly, if the greedy insurance companies wouldn't have fucked me, I would be in full support of the current system.  But the current system is not set up for the best interest of the people.  It's set up for the insurance companies to make as much profit as possible with no regard to the health or well being of those it is supposed to protect.


----------



## Barb (Jun 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Corporations
> "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
> corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a
> trial of strength and bid
> ...



He was about limited government. He was especially about limited corporate influence on government. 

That's what I don't understand about any of you. Honestly, and I'm trying not to be horrible  here.

but

What part of "working against your own interests" don't you get? "The market" has a proven track record for eating its own tail, and failing.Where the public good, and public goods are to be considered,the market is not a reliable gauge. Period.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > Why would people give up what they have and believe the promises of a President who has accomplished nothing?
> ...



If you stay in a private plan, it will be taxed.  It will be more expensive.  It may even disappear altogether.

If you have a public plan, it will be rationed.

What is Barack Obama's track record except accomplishing nothing or failing to accomplish what he said he would?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > They didn't even want to give single payer a seat at the table.  Today they get a seat at the table.
> ...



You keep saying that but what you don't realize and what we DO realize is that you are just repeating what the for profits are telling you to say.  

Then if it won't work, tell us how we are going to stop the for profits from raising their prices another 400%?

Until you can't afford it anymore, or your company can't afford it anymore.  That's what is happening to millions of Americans.

So tell us your solution.  And don't you say less regulations unless you are specific.

We have been warning you for years about putting healthcare in the for profits hands.  You'll get old dummy.  Then you'll see when you are in the nursing home, no tv, because tv wastes electricity.  And you don't talk, so you won't complain if they go to 2 meals a day.  And the professional that took care of you is too expensive, so they hire an illegal for $6 hr, and he molests your stupid ass.  Is that what it is going to take to convince you that FOR PROFIT healthcare is not right?  

Or you lose your job and come down with something.  It would bankrupt you!!!  And the next insurance company won't take you because of a pre existing condition.

Tell us your fix.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Fraulein Hilda said:
> ...



You seem to be missing the point that I don't have an option of an affordable private plan.  The insurance companies have seen to that when I moved from one state to another.  So I really could give a fuck if private plans disappear since I can't get one anyway.  The funny thing is that you can make one point after another against government healthcare, but if you were in my shoes, you'd be in favor of it.  Either that or you'd be happy going without any insurance whatsoever.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> What is Barack Obama's track record except accomplishing nothing or failing to accomplish what he said he would?



That's being unfair to our President, since he has managed to accomplish:

* Nearly quadrupling the budget deficit 
* Massive seizures of private property
* Granting unprecedented powers to unelected officials of the executive branch

You should give the guy a break, after all he hasn't been in office long enough to completely destroy the country yet.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

Barb said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Corporations
> ...



He's brainwashed barb.  Government sucks.  And its hard to argue with him on that.  But they are using that fact to screw us on oil, defense, healthcare, banks, etc.

Hey Barb.  Want me to scare you away from government controlled healthcare?  Imagine Bush and Tom Delay in charge of government and they get to screw with it.  They would have privatized all the profits and socialized all the losses.  

But single payer will just be the middle man.  Instead of having a thousand for profit thieving insurance companies being the middle man, one government agency will be the go between.  And they won't deny anyone care, make a profit, need to advertise or give ceo's $20 billion.

But the government shouldn't be able to fuck with it in future administrations.

The thought of Bush controlling the government, or the idea that anyone so greedy/evil could ever be president, scares me when I think of him getting to steal from the funds.  

The GOP purposely overspent on defense so they could bankrupt the treasury and end social programs they don't approve of.  Helping poor people is throwing money away in their eyes.  

The whole recession was done on purpose.  Record profits in the middle of the decade, and in the end, they got us tax payers to bail them out with probably $4 trillion dollars.  

These idiots are crying about $30K to GM or $750 billion to the bankers and they ignore the $2 trillion I showed them the other day.  They don't want to tea bag the bankers who own this country, just Obama.  I think he's handsome too.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 10, 2009)

The fact is Barb, Govt. no longer becomes limited when the power to choose is given to it willingly. As I've said many times here this is a COST issue where healthcare costs are  out of control. If so regulate the costs. The facts are some people simply do not want to be  told that they must have health insurance by the Federal Govt.  You want to bring down costs.  limit lawsuits on the health providers and bring down the insurance they are required to carry as a result and pass on to you. One more thing you can do, promote competetion and force  interstate  providers to provide low cost insurance across the board as a  requirement of  offering  insurance state to state.  This is not a difficult problem to solve.  Limited Govt. means just that Barb,  it means  limited Govt.  No matter how noble the cause or no matter how much you or I want  a Federal Govt. to do something. The facts are the  American people are better suited to provide for themselves win a properly regulated system.  Take drug companies for example.  and look at how long a patent is held on a drug, well as long as it is then there is no comepetetion on that drug and the cost is set by only one company.  It would be at least in my mind an easy thing for the Govt. to simply say. well as a matter of course to approve a patent you will need to provide x percentage of this drug as a low cost alternative to those who cannot afford it. Thats regulating.  We need not simply hand over  a right to choose for our children and grandchildren that we enjoyed to a central Govt.  when the problem is easily solved. with a little hard work.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



You seem to be missing the point that affordable to you means somebody else will pay for it.

I would love to see most health insurance disappear and let providers vie for patients based on price for most no-catastrophic care.  It's the only way costs will go down.

Government rationing healthcare is not cost containment.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > What is Barack Obama's track record except accomplishing nothing or failing to accomplish what he said he would?
> ...



Bush sure did dig him into a huge hole, huh? 

What did Bush do with the surplus Clinton handed him?  

How about Reagan?  Didn't think so.  Teabagger.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Um, bobo, government already runs the banks, auto industry,and defense.  

So who except government is screwing you on those?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Fraulein Hilda said:
> ...


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> > Fraulein Hilda said:
> ...



That again?  What has Obama done to change anything?   Unemployment is already higher than he projected it, based on the results of his stimulus.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> > Fraulein Hilda said:
> ...



Yeah I guess because previous Presidents were fuck ups makes it ok that the current one is too.  

Welcome to Fantasy Island ....


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Um, bobo, government already runs the banks, auto industry,and defense.
> 
> So who except government is screwing you on those?



Government runs something like 2/10th of 1% of our economy.

And soon GM will be back in good hands and did you hear banks are paying back their loans with interest?

They don't want to be in Obama's hands.

Bush?  Hell, they would have stayed in his hands all 8 years.  Bush would have privatized all the profits and socialized all the losses.

The bankers today are paying back part of what they owe plus $2 million in interest.  Bush wouldn't have charged them any interest.  Nice guy he was.  

And no oversite.  Don't even ask who got the money or for it back when Bush was in office.  You're a retard.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

In Barack Obama's world, "fair" and "equal" means government lowers the bar and everyone has less.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > Um, bobo, government already runs the banks, auto industry,and defense.
> ...



Goverment is in charge of all those things.  How have things changed in the last 5 months?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > STAND4LIBERTY said:
> ...



That wasn't the point I was making.  Bush stole the debt he created.  Where's the money stupid?  Switzerland?  Caymens?  And you defend it too???  Or if you aren't a republican, you need to talk to your right wing buddies, because they defend it.  That's where Bush's deficit went.  To his rich buddies.

Now obama's spending bill, putting people to work, updating buildings to save energy, extending unemployment benefits because people can't find work because YOUR FUCKING PARTY sent too many jobs overseas and let too many foreign imports in and it is killing middle class America.

So can Obama undo this?  Do you even want him to Mr. Fucking Liberty?  Makes me want to puke.  You care more about capitalism than you do democracy.  And you don't understand that the liberals created the fucking middle class.  And your party is trying to kill us. 

Are you rich?  Then fuck off.  Are you dumb?  Then bugger off.  

You libertards.  You think you are so smart.  You only got one thing right.  The bankers need to go!  The rest, you might as well be a right winger to me.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> In Barack Obama's world, "fair" and "equal" means government lowers the bar and everyone has less.



Everyone had less the last 8 years.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Fraulein Hilda said:
> ...



Probably not much.  We found out that the Federal Reserve gave the bankers $2 trillion last year, before Bush got on tv and said give them $750 billion or else, and don't ask any questions because we will give you no answers.  

God knows how many trillions they have given away.

And at least with Obama, the government now owns GM until they pay back their loan.  Sort of gives them an incentive to pay back their loans.

So you keep spinning it the way you like.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 10, 2009)

Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs over 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.  
Federal Jobs Net: Federal Government Jobs / Employment - All Government Jobs Including Post Office Jobs.

Tell me again, how little impact the Federal Govt. has on the economy when they are the  largest employer in the United States.  I find that very telling when and nations largest employer is also the same Govt. that runs it.  In fact  when almost every other sector is laying off people the Govt. is hiring at a  record pace.  I suppose if your  predisposed to believe that Govt. is good  and  the more the better this is a good thing, which it seems a LOT of Americans are these days.  I wonder though, when the nations largest private employer is  Wal-Mart and all the Manufacturing base is gone because of the big bad evil corporations are now providing the same goods made in China and elsewhere that Americans buy in Wal-Mart how good that Govt. is going to be in lets say 20 years when the only career left for a young person is Govt. or managing the local taco bell.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Government runs something like 2/10th of 1% of our economy.


Care to show your math on that one??

The military-industrial complex all by itself blows by that number the first week of January.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> That wasn't the point I was making.


Oh you were actually trying to make a point? I thought you were just trying to deflect valid criticisms of the current president by pointing to the mistakes of past ones.... how silly of me ....



> Bush stole the debt he created.  Where's the money stupid?  Switzerland?  Caymens?  And you defend it too???


Please point to where I defended anyone or anything ..... Oh, I forgot you have a severe reading disorder which causes you to just make shit up out thin air. 



> Or if you aren't a republican, you need to talk to your right wing buddies, because they defend it.  That's where Bush's deficit went.  To his rich buddies.


Er... I'm not a republican, I'm also not a right winger.... it's right there beside my name stupid "Independent Libertarian" ... look it up if you don't know what it means. 



> putting people to work,


Except the Economy continues to hemorrage private sector jobs = waste of tax payer money. 



> updating buildings to save energy,


LOL, this one is a joke, right ? 



> extending unemployment benefits because people can't find work because


Hey maybe if he stopped squeezing the productive portion of the economy (the private sector) to enlarge the unproductive portion of the economy (government), people could actually find jobs and wouldn't need unemployment benefits "extended" , crazy idea I know. 



> YOUR FUCKING PARTY sent too many jobs overseas and let too many foreign imports in and it is killing middle class America.


My "FUCKING PARTY" , there goes that reading disability acting up on you again, did you take your meds today? 



> So can Obama undo this?  Do you even want him to Mr. Fucking Liberty?


Obama is incapable of undoing this, since it's statists that share his philosphy that got us into this mess in the first place. 



> You care more about capitalism than you do democracy.


Actually I care more about individual liberty, those two items are a means to end not the end itself. 



> And you don't understand that the liberals created the fucking middle class.


LOL, you're so confused, capitalism created the middle class, it's you mutant collectivists claiming to be "liberals" (you're not liberals BTW) that are destroying it.  



> And your party is trying to kill us.
> 
> Are you rich?  Then fuck off.  Are you dumb?  Then bugger off.
> 
> You libertards.  You think you are so smart.  You only got one thing right.  The bankers need to go!  The rest, you might as well be a right winger to me.



Wow, getting a bit angry are we? maybe if you calm down you could figure how to present something resembling a rational point of view for a change.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Fraulein Hilda said:
> ...



Affordable to me means someone else will pay for it?  Where the fuck do you get off?  I was paying for my own health insurance, and all the deductibles that went with it.  I had no problem paying for reasonably priced insurance.  By the fucking way, insurance is based on a pool, so when people do get sick, they don't lose everything they have.  Insurance is meant to spread the risk, so when one get sick, the rest help foot the bill.    

But these insurance companies don't want any risk.  They just want to get you out of the system if you are At least that is the way it is supposed to work.  But because I moved, I can't keep that old insurance policy.  Instead, the same fucking company I was inusred with says I can have a guaranteed issue policy at three times the premium and five times the deductible.  

I love all of you and your bright ideas as to how we can change all this for the better without any government involvement.  The problem is that only one of your solutions are workable, but you won't even support that one.  The only workable solution is to force the insurance companies to accept everyone.  But in order to do that, health insurance would have to be mandatory.  But the argument there is that we shouldn't force people to buy health insurance.  So your one viable solution is out the window.

The arguments are laughable.  The funniest thing of all is that every single one of you are counting on Medicare when you retire.  Without it, most all of you would be screwed.  Thinking that you could pay for private insurance through retirement is not even realistic.  Run the numbers.  Once you hit age 70, how much do you think the premiums would be?   The truth is, the insurance companies wouldn't even offer such policies because they couldn't make the premiums high enough.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs over 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.
> Federal Jobs Net: Federal Government Jobs / Employment - All Government Jobs Including Post Office Jobs.
> 
> Tell me again, how little impact the Federal Govt. has on the economy when they are the  largest employer in the United States.  I find that very telling when and nations largest employer is also the same Govt. that runs it.  In fact  when almost every other sector is laying off people the Govt. is hiring at a  record pace.  I suppose if your  predisposed to believe that Govt. is good  and  the more the better this is a good thing, which it seems a LOT of Americans are these days.  I wonder though, when the nations largest private employer is  Wal-Mart and all the Manufacturing base is gone because of the big bad evil corporations are now providing the same goods made in China and elsewhere that Americans buy in Wal-Mart how good that Govt. is going to be in lets say 20 years when the only career left for a young person is Govt. or managing the local taco bell.



I bitch about government jobs all the time.  

And the people who typically don't care about jobs in America, are the first people to cry that it'll cost jobs if we end a wasteful/unnecessary defense contract.

And my aunt works on the top floor of a 15 story building filled with administrative people who work for community mental health.  It bugs me when she brags that she makes $70K and does nothing all day.  

I don't like it either, but yes I do realize how many people are employed by the government.

Would you prefer we outsource our CIA and FBI to private companies???  

PS.  My VP brother admitted that when he worked for one of the big 3, yes, making cars was just an excuse to employ people.  If you think about all the people who work for Ford or GM, how many of them are really necessary?  But we want them to hire as many people as they can.  And its better to pay them high wages, although you will agree, because your primary care is the stockholders.  Mine is the employees.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > That wasn't the point I was making.
> ...



Libertarians are crazy.  They want the governments hands off EVERYTHING.  

Thus why your party is as popular as its going to get.  We all like one or two things about you and then we see the big picture and, no thanks.  

You can barely capitolize off the last 8 years of horrible GOP rule.  

Maybe you guys are good at governing but just bad at politics.  That's the Dems problem too.  The GOP are too good at politics, just bad at governing.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Government runs something like 2/10th of 1% of our economy.
> ...



Is that spending considered socialism?


----------



## editec (Jun 10, 2009)

*Barb asks the $64 trillion dollar question:*



> What part of "working against your own interests" don't you get?


 
They don't get any of it.

They see the interests of the international corporations (read massive accumlulations of capital they respresent) as the only American interest that counts.

Hence both parties encouraged free trade knowing full well that the flood of money flowing out of this econonomy would benefit those internation corporations and disadvantage the interests of the American working classes at the same time.

It wasn't personal it was just business.

They didn't care who it disadvantaged just so long as it worked to their advantage.

Their alliagance is to the world of capital, not to any land or to any people associated with any land, either

Such is the nature of American capitalists, and for all I know, most capitalists no matter from whence the hail.

They owe alligiance only to themselves.

The worship at the alter of Mammon, Ayn Rand is their profitess, and Libertarianism their current political dogma.

Remember the mantra of the Reagan period?

GREED IS GOOD​We have a huge percentage of our population who believe that.

They're here every damned day  defending the destruction of this nation behind the smokescreen of whining about government.

Not just bad governance (which they often support) but ALL government.

They're looking forward to a_ Bladerunner_ kind of society.

One where governments are meaningless and corporations and cartels of same control the planet.






​


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Didn't ask that......I asked you to show your math.

It's understandable that you can't do it and need to deflect.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2009)

editec said:


> *Barb asks the $64 trillion dollar question:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, we get it alright.

Only socialists are in the proper position to tell everyone else what is "in our best interests".

And they wonder how it happens that they get called elitist assholes.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 10, 2009)

sealy, I believe  that Govt. has a role and actually it's well defined.  I honestly don't know how you read into outsourcing  CIA and FBI services into that.  No matter, What I do think that if the Federal Govt. went about the business of promoting a friendly environment for  companies to do business rather than act as a self interested, often times  hindering party to American business. Then you know states like MI. where you live would see a thriving  auto industry, and jobs in sectors  other than service would be  very much available. Often times  companies move away from the United States for their very survival.  What people don't seem to understand at least some, is that the US is not the only marketplace for these companies goods and services. So even though these may be American companies they still are in the business to make a profit and in turn the more profitable they are the more people they can hire.  It really is a simple formula.  Where it goes wrong sealy is when Govt. comes in with a heavy hand and  starts to over regulate and mandate as well as  demand collective bargining  to the point where the demands effect the companies very survival often time to the detriment of the employee's. I want my daughter to have EVERY opportunity I had in this country growing up sealy and honestly with a heavy handed over taxing  over regulating Govt. doing things all in the name of common good and not allowing people to fail or  succeed on their own merits will result in a place with less  opportunities for all.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Libertarians are crazy.


Maybe so, but at least we don't wish to impose our insanity on everybody else unlike you collectivists that want use government force to take away everybody else's rights and property to serve your own wants. 



> They want the governments hands off EVERYTHING.


Not true, most libertarians want the government to serve the purpose it was created for, namely defending our rights and property from people like you. 



> Thus why your party is as popular as its going to get.


There you go again with "your party" , you really do have a reading disorder don't you? for the 100th time, I don't have a party... I don't even believe in political parties except the kind that involve lots of alcohol and strippers.


----------



## editec (Jun 10, 2009)

Dude said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > *Barb asks the $64 trillion dollar question:*
> ...


 
I'm not a socialist. 

I'm a historian playing the futurist for your benefit, Dude.

I'm just informing you what your future will look like.

Nationalist gopvernments are dying.

Corporatism will dominate the planet by the end of the century.

Some few people (far less than the combined number of national leaders) will control the world.

They will be the social scientists who  

"..are the proper position to tell everyone else what is "in our best interests".

One certainly doesn't need to be a socialist to see the writing on the walls, Dude.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2009)

editec said:


> I'm not a socialist.
> 
> I'm a historian playing the futurist for your benefit, Dude.
> 
> ...


You posted the sentiments of socialists....And tend to agree with them.

The slouch to global corporatism is being led by the biggest multi-national corporation in the world, known as "District of Columbia".  You seem to want to further enable and empower that corporation.

My bias is toward the individual, rather than any one of the various favored elite collectivist authoritarian cliques.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Libertarians are crazy.
> ...



We are all in this together.

No one wants your stuff.  It is the bankers that imposed the income tax in 1913.  Its the IRS and BOTH parties that are taking your shit, and I never get one dime.  

Don't the bankers sort of belong to the GOP?  Isn't the GOP the party of the rich?  

And I just busted you.  I know what you are now.  You can't deny it.  Here is the conversation we had:

Libertarians are crazy.  
[/quote]
Maybe so, but at least we don't 

WE?  Who's we?    Gotcha!!!!


----------



## RodISHI (Jun 10, 2009)

> "Don't the bankers sort of belong to the GOP? Isn't the GOP the party of the rich?"


  Not exactly.. many of them have bought into both parties. You should check into that someday. They outright payoff certain reps with campaign donations, the dems on the other get their through project payollas... Not one any better than the other when it comes to selling the people out and into poverty for nothing.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> We are all in this together.


No "we" are not... I want nothing from you at all 'cept to be left alone to live my life as I see fit, I want nothing from government except for protection from people like you collectivists that are clearly in "this" for THEMSELVES.  The problem you rabid collectivists are gonna eventually have is that most Americans at heart just want to be left alone to go about their lives just like I do and when they wake up and figure out how you and your ilk on the right and the left have been screwing them over all these years, they're gonna be pissed. 



> WE?  Who's we?    Gotcha!!!!


Libertarians, that's who "we" is, see even you don't understand the stupid bullshit you post, or are you so clueless that you don't realize the Libertarian PARTY is not synonymous with libertarians?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

RodISHI said:


> > "Don't the bankers sort of belong to the GOP? Isn't the GOP the party of the rich?"
> 
> 
> Not exactly.. many of them have bought into both parties. You should check into that someday. They outright payoff certain reps with campaign donations, the dems on the other get their through project payollas... Not one any better than the other when it comes to selling the people out and into poverty for nothing.



I understand what you are saying.  Now do you understand why the Democratic party betters serves the people than the Republicans?

Its because we call and tell our Democratic leaders to stop doing it.  And sometimes we get our way.  For example, Dodd giving the AIG exec's their bonus'.  

But you never call the GOP and tell them to stop helping corporations over people.  

What you do is stand there with your mouth open waiting for trickle down to come your way.  

PS.  Of course the rich bankers are the top 1% income earners in this country and that is the GOP's base, so it makes you seem dumb to suggest that there is no difference between dems and reps.  Yes they both take money from them.  And if that's all you know about politics, then of course you would think that makes them even, but I know more than just the fact that they both take from the bank lobby, so I know either you are dumb or being deceptive.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > We are all in this together.
> ...



Well protection from me is going to cost you buddy.

And you say you want nothing, but then an emergency may happen and we will bail you out.  Or if you have a heart attack, we'll send the ambulance for you whether you want it or not.  You are not an island.  If you want to be by yourself, then move to the wilderness.  

But you drive down our roads, got educated in our schools, use are airwaves to  make telephone calls, etc.  

Newt doesn't want to be a citizen of the world and you don't want to be a citizen of the UNITED states of America.

Do you even want your state to be part of the union?  Why?  I say you'd come crawling back in 20 days.  

People like you don't realize how much help they got to be where they are today.

And MOST Americans want and deserve much more than to be JUST LEFT ALONE.  You are a fringe sub culture in America.  You are not the mainstream.  Get used to it.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> People like you don't realize how much help they got to be where they are today.



Nope.  Wrong.  The country is better than any other precisely because its citizens have not been sitting on their asses waiting for government to fix things for them.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Well protection from me is going to cost you buddy.
> 
> And you say you want nothing, but then an emergency may happen and we will bail you out.  Or if you have a heart attack, we'll send the ambulance for you whether you want it or not.  You are not an island.  .


Well genius I have no problem paying for those things if I want them, I just don't expect everybody else to pay for them, nor would I support legalized plunder to force anybody else to pay for them, you see the difference? 



> If you want to be by yourself, then move to the wilderness


Actually it's you collectivists that should move to the wilderness, since I'm not the one that's a threat to those around me, people that think like YOU are.  After all You're the ones that like to use force on everybody else in society to make them comply with your wishes, I'm the one that disdains the use of force except in self defense. 



> And MOST Americans want and deserve much more than to be JUST LEFT ALONE.


Wow are you confused, most Americans have earned the right to be left alone and don't require or want a nanny state run by imbecilic collectivists to tell them how to dispose of their own property or how to live their lives.  This is something that you folks who have issues with self reliance and voluntary cooperation will never understand.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > People like you don't realize how much help they got to be where they are today.
> ...


Well. with the possible exception of New Orleans!!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > People like you don't realize how much help they got to be where they are today.
> ...



You are right.  Like, when we started unions or protested the viet nam war.  

And this country is great because of its strong/huge middle class.  Liberal policies created the middle class.  

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 10, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Well protection from me is going to cost you buddy.
> ...



Well if you put it that way.  

And most people don't want to see their wages go down while the companies profits and CEO's pay go up.  

Again, we are all in this together.  God bless you and me for not needing government cheese.  But that doesn't make me hate the people who do need it.  And just because 2% of them are just lazy, that doesn't make me want to cut everyone off.  

Do you buy home owners insurance?  Why?  Apply the same thoughts to why we are all in this together.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> And most people don't want to see their wages go down while the companies profits and CEO's pay go up.


People have the freedom (so far) to work for somebody else, not buy XYZ companies products, or start their own business and work for themselves, they don't need the gub'ment (especially one that's bought and paid for by corporations) to intervene. 



> Again, we are all in this together. God bless you and me for not needing government cheese.  But that doesn't make me hate the people who do need it.  And just because 2% of them are just lazy, that doesn't make me want to cut everyone off.


You should have the freedom to "help" anyone you wish with your OWN resources what you don't have the right to do is determine how to utilize MY resources to service your WANTS. 



> Do you buy home owners insurance?  Why?  Apply the same thoughts to why we are all in this together.


What the heck does home owners insurance have to do with anything? We're not all in this together and won't be until you collectivists wake up and start respecting the rights and property of your fellow citizens and stop advocating the use of force to deprive us of them.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Isn't the GOP the party of the rich?



and the Democrats are not?......here is where you are brainwashed Bobo.....i can at least see that BOTH parties can give a rats ass about the rest of us....oh they will throw us a bone once in a while,maybe sometimes it will even have a little meat on it....but they both can give a rats ass about you and me....and right now the Democrats are going to do as little as possible,but yet make it look like they are doing every thing they can to "help us out".....here comes a bone with a little meat.....and the Dems. and Repub. leaders walk back into their chambers laughing and patting themselves on their backs knowing,that guys like Bobo just ate it up....


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the GOP the party of the rich?
> ...



Word.

Where does Barack Obama fundraise when he REALLY needs an ace in the hole?  A cash cow?  A goose that lays a golden egg.

HOLLYWOOD!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > if you think health care is expensive now.....wait until its free....
> ...



im saying if the Feds have any say on HOW the plan is to work and what gets coverage and who gets coverage......then whatever some people are experiencing now will be nothing compared to what is coming down the line....if your not bald now 007.....you will be....


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



So if the Feds have a say, less people will be covered?  People will be denied whenever they become sick and need coverage the most?  That's a bit funny since that is the way the system currently works as per my situation.  So, I would have to disagree with you there Harry.  I can't see it getting worse than it is now.


----------



## Chris (Jun 10, 2009)

Our current healthcare system is a disaster.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF  per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system is more efficient.

 Eveyone in the world knows this except for the right wing idiots in America!


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

They pay less, and they get less healthcare.


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> They pay less, and they get less healthcare.



So says you.  Studies disagree.  Of course don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Waiting lists for elective surgeries, elderly patients cut off from expensive medications.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Health care facilities closed, like car dealerships, in the name of cost cutting.  Massive layoffs in the healthcare industry, like in the auto industry.

Taxes on healthcare benefits the government deems too "rich."

That is how the government will fix it.


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Waiting lists for elective surgeries, elderly patients cut off from expensive medications.



We don't have those now at all with private healthcare.


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Health care facilities closed, like car dealerships, in the name of cost cutting.  Massive layoffs in the healthcare industry, like in the auto industry.
> 
> Taxes on healthcare benefits the government deems too "rich."
> 
> That is how the government will fix it.



The auto industry isn't in the public good, its a business.  Its goal is to make money.  Healthcares goal is to save lives.  This is your problem, that you treat it like its a business.  Its not.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > Health care facilities closed, like car dealerships, in the name of cost cutting.  Massive layoffs in the healthcare industry, like in the auto industry.
> ...



The US government has command and control of the auto industry.  It would have command and control of the healthcare industry.  None of you drones will have any problem with the same type of cutbacks, which will happen.  There will be no difference.

Or, there will be no cost savings, then what's the point?  Providers will have to be eliminated.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Our current healthcare system is a disaster.
> 
> Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF  per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system is more efficient.
> 
> Eveyone in the world knows this except for the right wing idiots in America!



Chris are you not tired of saying the same dam thing every post?....just askin...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



double 0.....maybe im biased....i work for the Govt. and its funny how every time i hear about how things are done in other federal agencies its real similar....they fuck everything up.....there is a tendency to have way to many managers....too many managers mean that MANY of them have "jobs" that do nothing for the efficiency of the Co.,and these people are just creating NEEDLESS work trying to justify their jobs....now i will say again....IF the federal Govt. is going to have ANY say in how this HC plan is going to be run.....your going to have an even more frustrating and less efficient system....if they let people who know what they are doing run it,and they stay out,then things should improve.....but so far in ALL the posts i have seen here,half say YES they will be sticking their nose in it and the others say NO they wont be......so which is it?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > Waiting lists for elective surgeries, elderly patients cut off from expensive medications.
> ...



with some yes....others no....i have Blue Shield and have never had to wait more than 2 weeks for anything.....they even gave my wife back 10 grand out of a 15 thousand dollar ins payment to them from another ins co.paying for my wifes injuries in an auto accident,which they did not have to do....because they said she suffered through all this and should be compensated (that was the limit by the way that that Ins.Co. was obligated to pay)....and then they did a $25,000 surgery on her thigh...yea they sound greedy.....


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Fraulein Hilda said:
> ...



Then stay with your private healthcare, and let those who want to join a government run plan do so.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Free people can get all the healthcare they can buy, as soon as they want it.

Not so when government makes your healthcare decisions.

If your nearby private clinic donated too much to Republicans, or not enough to Democrats, they will get shut down like a car dealer.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



It ain't going to to work that way, jackass, and you know it.

Those plans will get taxed out of existence because they are too "rich" and they will need to pay for this pig.

And you and the rest of the drones will cheer that on.


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Free people can get all the healthcare they can buy, as soon as they want it.
> 
> Not so when government makes your healthcare decisions.
> 
> If your nearby private clinic donated too much to Republicans, or not enough to Democrats, they will get shut down like a car dealer.



Sorry that auto dealer shit was debunked.

Next lie?


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Sure they will


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

It wasn't debunked.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



go for it....im not standing in your way.....


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> It wasn't debunked.



Yeah, it was.  Mostly Republican dealerships were closed, because dealerships are mostly Republican.  What a crazy coincidence.  Its like asking why so few Californians are arrested in new york and then claiming its a crazy conspiracy.  The reason, if you weren't aware, is because most Californians aren't in New York.


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Well Republicans are.  Since I can't very well join a government plan if there isn't one.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

You just need to move someplace where the government has one.


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> You just need to move someplace where the government has one.



No thanks.  I'll just let the government pass one, and then you can move your ass to somewhere where the government doesn't have one.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Get out of my country.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



well then if it happens....


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 11, 2009)

Barb said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > rayboyusmc said:
> ...



ROFL... Ahhh.... So you're sourcing a message board...  OUTSTANDING!

Nothing says dumbass, like the sourcing of heresay...

Sadly, for you, and the American People... the FACT is that Ted Kennedy gave us the HMO...   He championed it, he nursed it, he stood in the senate and DEMANDED IT!  And he's the one to look to, for accountability for it.

Of course Kennedy is a Leftists, so accountability isn't his thing...  Like Bawny Fwank and the coercion of the Mortgage industry, who now DEMANDS that he 'TRIED HIS BEST TO GET FANNY AND FREDDIE UNDER CONTROL... but the Republicans wouldn't let him... the fact is that it was Bawny Fwank and her minions that DEMANDED that US mortgage banks scrap long standing actuarial lending policy and lend money to unsuitable borrowers...

And while Kennedy would LOVE to avoid ANY discussion of his influence on saddling the US with "Managed Care"... and foist the SAME THING on a VASTLY LARGER SCALE onto the SAME idiots that clammered for it THEN... there exist those of us who were THERE and remember all too well his vociferous demands that 'Health Maintenance Organizations would reduce the cost of health care by simply treating illness long before it becomes serious...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > Free people can get all the healthcare they can buy, as soon as they want it.
> ...



Where was this debunked, SFB?

Cite the specific argument that 'debunked' such...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > It wasn't debunked.
> ...



ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD!  Now that's precious...  

This member is clearly a cognitive deficient...  So her argument that the closing of Car Dealerships was not a politicla issue... that it was not a strike at the political opposition... it was merely a business decision which just happened to effect the political opposition...

ROFL... Oh lordy... what a buffoon...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Well you can run for the legislature... they have the 'best government helthcare plan' on earth...

You could join the US military... They have a HUGE government healthcare system...

You could do A LOT of things to be eligible for such... you simply do not want to do ANYTHING except reap the benefits minus the effort...  which of course identifies you as THE PROBLEM.


----------



## Barb (Jun 11, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > PubliusInfinitum said:
> ...



Weak. It's word for word from the declassified documents. But hey, listen for yourself:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QkgUkM0o6Q]YouTube - Nixon Launches the HMO's - What a SICKO[/ame]


----------



## editec (Jun 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a socialist.
> ...


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 12, 2009)

Barb said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


Absolutely right about that. Force the blood suckers to compete with a public plan, or cease to exist.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 12, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Get out of my country.


Oh my, how constructive.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 12, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the GOP the party of the rich?
> ...


The difference is that rich Democrats want to help less fortunate people.
Republicans spend their time finding excuses for being selfish.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 12, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > They didn't even want to give single payer a seat at the table.  Today they get a seat at the table.
> ...


Right now, bureaucrats in the private health industry are making medical decisions for you. It's their job to make a profit, thus denying care.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 12, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Hell, they'll deny you coverage if they can find a way to do it, should you actually need that coverage.  They love you when you're healthy, but get sick, and they'll try to deny you that coverage if they can find a way to do so.


----------



## etouffe123 (Jun 13, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they don't, since while the government is in charge of what companies are allowed to sell what, all they have to do is bribe them to keep out competition.
> ...



The government through the FDA determines which drugs can or cannot be sold in the USA. In so doing they can be a limiting factor in which companies can or cannot sell in the USA market. The FFA, another government entity, determines the qualifications of aircraft to fly in American airways and can ground any aircraft they see fit. The SEC sets rules and determines the legitimacy of actions by Wall St. If there in noncompliance the offender can be arrested, fined and/or imprisoned whether he be a individual, a corporation or a individual (Martha Stewart for instance and Milken for another).


----------



## Full-Auto (Jun 13, 2009)

Right now, bureaucrats in the private health industry are making medical decisions for you. It's their job to make a profit, thus denying care. 


Now you want government bureaucrats to make the decisions Like throwing seniors under the bus.  Damn you folks are greedy.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 13, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Get out of my country.



What country is that?

You can't possibly mean the USA.  

If anyone needs to get out of "here" and go find a compfy fascist country to live in it should be you.

I still maintain that you are not a regular "civilian" poster.  All your crap is as if you were a paid representative of an hmo.

I don't believe this is "your" country.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 13, 2009)

No offense to the other side in this debate,  but  I personally have never seen the "profit" motive as being a bad thing.  In fact  up until recently  making a "profit" was  a mark of success in business.  I have to disagree here, to all those that believe that the "profit" motive is somehow an evil thing and therefor makes these  insurance  companies evil.  Any company that enters into business  has a goal to turn a profit for it's owner or shareholders and  as a result the employee's benefit by more jobs, and more benefits. These evil people your talking about are  everyday working Americans like you and I , they are bound by  what the policies that the insured individuals  sign.  It's rather like going into a store and expecting  the  employee at the checkout stand to give you a 40% discount because you make less than the person in front of you.  We are bound by the contracts on insurance we sign. So if the contract is the issue change the contract structure.  While I understand that when a person suffers we all wish them the best and wish to take that suffering away, but  we can do that by giving those  among us that need medical insurance choices that are affordable and available  by promoting a competetive  environment and regulating where needed and allowing Americans to make  their own health decisions.  I put this in another post, and this point I am in agreement with President Obama on believe it or not,  healthcare co-ops I have come to believe are  a good method of reaching this goal.  Where it allows small businesses, farmers, and individuals to form co-ops to buy health insurance at low cost. I honestly believe that this will have he effect of bringing in competetion in areas of the country that are underserved at the moment and bring down the costs of rural healthcare especially as long as its left in private hands. However, I don't think Nancy Pelosi is a big fan and has said as much.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 13, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> No offense to the other side in this debate,  but  I personally have never seen the "profit" motive as being a bad thing.  In fact  up until recently  making a "profit" was  a mark of success in business.  I have to disagree here, to all those that believe that the "profit" motive is somehow an evil thing and therefor makes these  insurance  companies evil.  Any company that enters into business  has a goal to turn a profit for it's owner or shareholders and  as a result the employee's benefit by more jobs, and more benefits. These evil people your talking about are  everyday working Americans like you and I , they are bound by  what the policies that the insured individuals  sign.  It's rather like going into a store and expecting  the  employee at the checkout stand to give you a 40% discount because you make less than the person in front of you.  We are bound by the contracts on insurance we sign. So if the contract is the issue change the contract structure.  While I understand that when a person suffers we all wish them the best and wish to take that suffering away, but  we can do that by giving those  among us that need medical insurance choices that are affordable and available  by promoting a competetive  environment and regulating where needed and allowing Americans to make  their own health decisions.  I put this in another post, and this point I am in agreement with President Obama on believe it or not,  healthcare co-ops I have come to believe are  a good method of reaching this goal.  Where it allows small businesses, farmers, and individuals to form co-ops to buy health insurance at low cost. I honestly believe that this will have he effect of bringing in competetion in areas of the country that are underserved at the moment and bring down the costs of rural healthcare especially as long as its left in private hands. However, I don't think Nancy Pelosi is a big fan and has said as much.



There is nothing wrong with profit in almost every sector.  There are exceptions that make sense.  These areas are known as the commons.  Fire, police, water, highways, public transportation, and yes healthcare.  These are things we as human beings cannot do without.

I am a small businessman.  I am not a communist or a "lefty liberal".  Single payer makes sense.  

The hmo's need to see that they are going the way of the horse and buggy.  Thier cost to society makes them obsolete.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 13, 2009)

Huggy,  I don't think you see me label people as  communist leftys, however, I don't see healthcare as a given right under the constitution. I see healthcare as a personal responsibilty issue that the  frankly the Govt. has no business mandating.  I see the  healthcare providers, and the  insurance companies as simply service companies that offer a for profit service that  like any other business should be subject to regulation and  controls. Personally, as I have said many times, I willingly admit this issue needs addressing but and this is just my opinion and cannot speak for anyone else, I do not believe the Fed. Govt. should be the ultimate source of insurance in this nation.  I really  do believe the Federal Govt. if they were doing their job properly would regulate where it was needed and provide an atmosphere that would  allow competetion to thrive and allow people to have  500 choices for healthcare insurance rather than 50.  When that happens all of us know competetion is a good thing, the more there is , prices come down.  The Govts. job is to keep them all honest. If they are not doing that, then they need to.  I just don't see "profit" as a bad or evil thing even in the insurance business.


----------

