Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Liberalism versus Liberalism versus Progressivism
conservatives have hijacked part of liberalism and tied it to 'classic' liberalism which died ages and ages ago. they have tied traditional liberalism (liberalism of the last century) to progressivism.
You may as well deny we have a Bill of Rights why you're squawking that bullshit.
Classical liberalism is alive and well - you're reading a classical liberal's post right now... I subscribe to Thomas Jefferson's sociopolitical philosophy.
BTW, progressivism is not liberalism at all - it's the exact opposite as a matter of fact..
My now inactive thread on the addictive effects of free stuff dispensed by the government was intended to illustrate the negative consequences of that for a society based on individual liberties.
This thread has illustrated in spades how most modern day liberals/progressives are absolutely incapable of even understanding the principles underlying classical liberalism, much more so they seem incapable of articulating it or a rebuttal against it. Further they are unable to discuss any such principle at face value but think only in the context of non sequiturs, red herrings, and straw men.
I cannot imagine how the human spirit would not embrace liberty and self governance once they understood the principle. Is the corruption of free stuff/nanny state so strong that it destroys the natural human longing for liberty? Or are they so addicted to the free stuff that they are emotionally incapable of saying anything that might jeopardize that free stuff even if they do understand the principles of classical liberalism?
Some People Never make it to the point where they can see through their own eyes. It's about conditioning, needing to belong taking precedent over Honest Witness. There is a First Principle hidden in there.Sometimes too, the Abused resist being Liberated.
The addicted almost always resist being liberated. Such is the nature of addiction. Which, in my opinion, is the overt or subliminal motive in making more and more Americans addicted to illusions of government freebies, benevolence, promised protection, etc. As each one is mezmerized or brainwashed into accepting tentacles of government closing around them, the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those manipulating the tentacles is significantly increased.
It was specifically that threat/danger/reality that the Founders worked so hard to prevent. And little by little the leftists/liberals among us chip away at the protections offered by freedom and embracing increasing servitude to a governing authority.
Some People Never make it to the point where they can see through their own eyes. It's about conditioning, needing to belong taking precedent over Honest Witness. There is a First Principle hidden in there.
The addicted almost always resist being liberated. Such is the nature of addiction. Which, in my opinion, is the overt or subliminal motive in making more and more Americans addicted to illusions of government freebies, benevolence, promised protection, etc. As each one is mezmerized or brainwashed into accepting tentacles of government closing around them, the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those manipulating the tentacles is significantly increased.
It was specifically that threat/danger/reality that the Founders worked so hard to prevent. And little by little the leftists/liberals among us chip away at the protections offered by freedom and embracing increasing servitude to a governing authority.
Your social Darwinism is making me physically ill. You are one sick piece of work. Do you EVER have an adult like thought in your tiny dogma driven mind?
Let's take a look at Medicare. Before Medicare senior citizens were the most likely group of Americans to end up in poverty. After Medicare, they became among the LEAST likely to end up in poverty. Before Medicare, many seniors had to be supported by their children.
We live in a society with employer based health insurance. Senior citizens DON'T HAVE an employer. The cost of insurance without an employer is unaffordable for young, healthy people. It would be astronomical for senior citizens. Seniors would pay the highest premiums because of actuary risk and frequency of illness.
Medicare has created INDEPENDENCE for seniors, not dependency.
Remember, the primary function is People Care. Now put that Vacation Brochure down, and get back to work. 
Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.
You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative
Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.
Fucking waste of time
Some People Never make it to the point where they can see through their own eyes. It's about conditioning, needing to belong taking precedent over Honest Witness. There is a First Principle hidden in there.
The addicted almost always resist being liberated. Such is the nature of addiction. Which, in my opinion, is the overt or subliminal motive in making more and more Americans addicted to illusions of government freebies, benevolence, promised protection, etc. As each one is mezmerized or brainwashed into accepting tentacles of government closing around them, the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those manipulating the tentacles is significantly increased.
It was specifically that threat/danger/reality that the Founders worked so hard to prevent. And little by little the leftists/liberals among us chip away at the protections offered by freedom and embracing increasing servitude to a governing authority.
Your social Darwinism is making me physically ill. You are one sick piece of work. Do you EVER have an adult like thought in your tiny dogma driven mind?
Let's take a look at Medicare. Before Medicare senior citizens were the most likely group of Americans to end up in poverty. After Medicare, they became among the LEAST likely to end up in poverty. Before Medicare, many seniors had to be supported by their children.
We live in a society with employer based health insurance. Senior citizens DON'T HAVE an employer. The cost of insurance without an employer is unaffordable for young, healthy people. It would be astronomical for senior citizens. Seniors would pay the highest premiums because of actuary risk and frequency of illness.
Medicare has created INDEPENDENCE for seniors, not dependency.
The addicted almost always resist being liberated. Such is the nature of addiction. Which, in my opinion, is the overt or subliminal motive in making more and more Americans addicted to illusions of government freebies, benevolence, promised protection, etc. As each one is mezmerized or brainwashed into accepting tentacles of government closing around them, the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those manipulating the tentacles is significantly increased.
It was specifically that threat/danger/reality that the Founders worked so hard to prevent. And little by little the leftists/liberals among us chip away at the protections offered by freedom and embracing increasing servitude to a governing authority.
Your social Darwinism is making me physically ill. You are one sick piece of work. Do you EVER have an adult like thought in your tiny dogma driven mind?
Let's take a look at Medicare. Before Medicare senior citizens were the most likely group of Americans to end up in poverty. After Medicare, they became among the LEAST likely to end up in poverty. Before Medicare, many seniors had to be supported by their children.
We live in a society with employer based health insurance. Senior citizens DON'T HAVE an employer. The cost of insurance without an employer is unaffordable for young, healthy people. It would be astronomical for senior citizens. Seniors would pay the highest premiums because of actuary risk and frequency of illness.
Medicare has created INDEPENDENCE for seniors, not dependency.
We live in a Society where we like to improve the quality of life for each of us. When presented with a problem, we look for solutions. When solutions create more problems, we should be looking for better solutions. Try to be more objective. Consider that more Bureaucracy does not always equate better solutions, as enticing and lucrative as all those administrative salaries are.
The addicted almost always resist being liberated. Such is the nature of addiction. Which, in my opinion, is the overt or subliminal motive in making more and more Americans addicted to illusions of government freebies, benevolence, promised protection, etc. As each one is mezmerized or brainwashed into accepting tentacles of government closing around them, the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those manipulating the tentacles is significantly increased.
It was specifically that threat/danger/reality that the Founders worked so hard to prevent. And little by little the leftists/liberals among us chip away at the protections offered by freedom and embracing increasing servitude to a governing authority.
Your social Darwinism is making me physically ill. You are one sick piece of work. Do you EVER have an adult like thought in your tiny dogma driven mind?
Let's take a look at Medicare. Before Medicare senior citizens were the most likely group of Americans to end up in poverty. After Medicare, they became among the LEAST likely to end up in poverty. Before Medicare, many seniors had to be supported by their children.
We live in a society with employer based health insurance. Senior citizens DON'T HAVE an employer. The cost of insurance without an employer is unaffordable for young, healthy people. It would be astronomical for senior citizens. Seniors would pay the highest premiums because of actuary risk and frequency of illness.
Medicare has created INDEPENDENCE for seniors, not dependency.
Well if I bother you so much, please just put me on ignore and you won't have to see my 'sickening' posts.
How do you suppose senior citizens survived before Social Security? Before Medicare? Some experienced very difficult circumstances. Some experience very difficult circumstances now because Social Security in no way provides any kind of standard of living for many, probably most. Those lulled into depending on Social Security for their retirement are far worse off than those who prepared themselves privately for retirement. Medicare has driven healthcare costs beyond the reach of most people these days. I am old enough that I was able to watch that happen--in fact was working in hospitals where I could observe that first hand.
And there are all the other social consequences of a government dependent society that students of socioeconomics and history are able to see. Those truly trapped in dogma--those who see anybody questioning the statist philosophy as being the evil ones--are perhaps now too handicapped to be objective about any of it.
My 'tiny little dogma driven mind' is pretty capable of recognizing the negatives in government dependency and the dangers if we don't start turning that around now. So, if it is all right with you, I would like to continue to discuss the pros and cons of classical liberalism versus modern day American progressivism.
Your social Darwinism is making me physically ill. You are one sick piece of work. Do you EVER have an adult like thought in your tiny dogma driven mind?
Let's take a look at Medicare. Before Medicare senior citizens were the most likely group of Americans to end up in poverty. After Medicare, they became among the LEAST likely to end up in poverty. Before Medicare, many seniors had to be supported by their children.
We live in a society with employer based health insurance. Senior citizens DON'T HAVE an employer. The cost of insurance without an employer is unaffordable for young, healthy people. It would be astronomical for senior citizens. Seniors would pay the highest premiums because of actuary risk and frequency of illness.
Medicare has created INDEPENDENCE for seniors, not dependency.
Well if I bother you so much, please just put me on ignore and you won't have to see my 'sickening' posts.
How do you suppose senior citizens survived before Social Security? Before Medicare? Some experienced very difficult circumstances. Some experience very difficult circumstances now because Social Security in no way provides any kind of standard of living for many, probably most. Those lulled into depending on Social Security for their retirement are far worse off than those who prepared themselves privately for retirement. Medicare has driven healthcare costs beyond the reach of most people these days. I am old enough that I was able to watch that happen--in fact was working in hospitals where I could observe that first hand.
And there are all the other social consequences of a government dependent society that students of socioeconomics and history are able to see. Those truly trapped in dogma--those who see anybody questioning the statist philosophy as being the evil ones--are perhaps now too handicapped to be objective about any of it.
My 'tiny little dogma driven mind' is pretty capable of recognizing the negatives in government dependency and the dangers if we don't start turning that around now. So, if it is all right with you, I would like to continue to discuss the pros and cons of classical liberalism versus modern day American progressivism.
AGAIN, your tiny little dogma driven mind can't decipher WHAT caused health care costs to skyrocket. It was NOT Medicare.
Medicare was a comprehensiveand comprehensibleprogram, available throughout the country and with a core set of benefits.
In other words, it delivers the opposite of what the private insurance industry has been providing. And it is doing so with a better track record of controlling costs. Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicares cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicares cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.
So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesnt have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?
Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance cooperative that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate.
Rather than cut Medicare, if we want to dramatically reduce health care costs and thus lower our national debt, we need to build on what works and expand to a "Medicare for All" national health insurance program. Every other industrialized nation has some form of national health insurance. They pay half as much per person, cover everyone and have as good or better overall medical outcomes than we do. According to both the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, our overall rankings are still at the bottom or near bottom when compared to other industrialized nations despite that fact that we spend twice as much.
How can these democratic nations spend so much less yet have such high-quality care? It's because none have for-profit private health plans that play central roles in financing health care. They are able to put a higher percentage of their health care dollars to actual health care because they are not paying for the waste and profiteering associated with the "middleman" private health insurance industry.
Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system with administrative costs of just 4 percent to 6 percent compared with for-profit health insurance administrative costs of between 16 percent and 26.5 percent. In a "Medicare for All" program, administrative savings would amount to about $400 billion each year by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. That's enough to provide high-quality health care for every American and end co-pays and deductibles. Americans could go to any provider they wished to see. And, as with Medicare, the majority of health providers and hospitals would remain private and could receive fair reimbursements for their services.
So celebrate the birthday of Medicare (and Social Security on Aug. 14) and reflect on their lessons for today: that we have a social contract to care for our fellow citizens and we can save money if we fulfill it with a national health program. Tell the debt commission, "No cuts to Medicare. Expand it to all of us."
Well if I bother you so much, please just put me on ignore and you won't have to see my 'sickening' posts.
How do you suppose senior citizens survived before Social Security? Before Medicare? Some experienced very difficult circumstances. Some experience very difficult circumstances now because Social Security in no way provides any kind of standard of living for many, probably most. Those lulled into depending on Social Security for their retirement are far worse off than those who prepared themselves privately for retirement. Medicare has driven healthcare costs beyond the reach of most people these days. I am old enough that I was able to watch that happen--in fact was working in hospitals where I could observe that first hand.
And there are all the other social consequences of a government dependent society that students of socioeconomics and history are able to see. Those truly trapped in dogma--those who see anybody questioning the statist philosophy as being the evil ones--are perhaps now too handicapped to be objective about any of it.
My 'tiny little dogma driven mind' is pretty capable of recognizing the negatives in government dependency and the dangers if we don't start turning that around now. So, if it is all right with you, I would like to continue to discuss the pros and cons of classical liberalism versus modern day American progressivism.
AGAIN, your tiny little dogma driven mind can't decipher WHAT caused health care costs to skyrocket. It was NOT Medicare.
Medicare was a comprehensiveand comprehensibleprogram, available throughout the country and with a core set of benefits.
In other words, it delivers the opposite of what the private insurance industry has been providing. And it is doing so with a better track record of controlling costs. Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicares cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicares cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.
So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesnt have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?
Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance cooperative that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate.
Rather than cut Medicare, if we want to dramatically reduce health care costs and thus lower our national debt, we need to build on what works and expand to a "Medicare for All" national health insurance program. Every other industrialized nation has some form of national health insurance. They pay half as much per person, cover everyone and have as good or better overall medical outcomes than we do. According to both the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, our overall rankings are still at the bottom or near bottom when compared to other industrialized nations despite that fact that we spend twice as much.
How can these democratic nations spend so much less yet have such high-quality care? It's because none have for-profit private health plans that play central roles in financing health care. They are able to put a higher percentage of their health care dollars to actual health care because they are not paying for the waste and profiteering associated with the "middleman" private health insurance industry.
Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system with administrative costs of just 4 percent to 6 percent compared with for-profit health insurance administrative costs of between 16 percent and 26.5 percent. In a "Medicare for All" program, administrative savings would amount to about $400 billion each year by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. That's enough to provide high-quality health care for every American and end co-pays and deductibles. Americans could go to any provider they wished to see. And, as with Medicare, the majority of health providers and hospitals would remain private and could receive fair reimbursements for their services.
So celebrate the birthday of Medicare (and Social Security on Aug. 14) and reflect on their lessons for today: that we have a social contract to care for our fellow citizens and we can save money if we fulfill it with a national health program. Tell the debt commission, "No cuts to Medicare. Expand it to all of us."
Translation: Other Peoples
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Both Social Security and Medicare were well intended at the time. And both have proved to be unsustainable as ALL entitlement programs based on poorly thought out future earnings are.
Classical Liberals don't concern themselves with assigning blame, but look for practical solutions for the dilemma. And, it is the nature of Classical Liberalism to look to the private sector and the ability of the American ingenuity, productivity, and initiative to produce those solutions.
The modfern day Progressives/Statists seem to be unable to or at least refuse to consider anything other than more and bigger government or more intrusive government as the solution to every problem. And by making more and more people dependent on the government, the government acquires more and more power to do any damn thing to any of us that it chooses to do.
With approximately 50% of the American people already now dependent on the federal government for at least some benefits, we are rapidly approaching the point that we will not be able to turn it around even when most realize they have screwed themselves.
Both Social Security and Medicare were well intended at the time. And both have proved to be unsustainable as ALL entitlement programs based on poorly thought out future earnings are.
Classical Liberals don't concern themselves with assigning blame, but look for practical solutions for the dilemma. And, it is the nature of Classical Liberalism to look to the private sector and the ability of the American ingenuity, productivity, and initiative to produce those solutions.
The modfern day Progressives/Statists seem to be unable to or at least refuse to consider anything other than more and bigger government or more intrusive government as the solution to every problem. And by making more and more people dependent on the government, the government acquires more and more power to do any damn thing to any of us that it chooses to do.
With approximately 50% of the American people already now dependent on the federal government for at least some benefits, we are rapidly approaching the point that we will not be able to turn it around even when most realize they have screwed themselves.
The 'practical' solution has already been documented for you. But, your dogmatic mind can't absorb it. All other industrialized nations have implemented the 'practical' solution, and they have lower health care costs than America. WHY? We HAVE your beloved 'private sector' health care. It is an epic failure. EPIC!
Here is your lesson for the day. Try to absorb this into your sick little brain:
'Government' is not some 'other', it is We, the People.
"we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".
President Abraham Lincoln
Well if I bother you so much, please just put me on ignore and you won't have to see my 'sickening' posts.
How do you suppose senior citizens survived before Social Security? Before Medicare? Some experienced very difficult circumstances. Some experience very difficult circumstances now because Social Security in no way provides any kind of standard of living for many, probably most. Those lulled into depending on Social Security for their retirement are far worse off than those who prepared themselves privately for retirement. Medicare has driven healthcare costs beyond the reach of most people these days. I am old enough that I was able to watch that happen--in fact was working in hospitals where I could observe that first hand.
And there are all the other social consequences of a government dependent society that students of socioeconomics and history are able to see. Those truly trapped in dogma--those who see anybody questioning the statist philosophy as being the evil ones--are perhaps now too handicapped to be objective about any of it.
My 'tiny little dogma driven mind' is pretty capable of recognizing the negatives in government dependency and the dangers if we don't start turning that around now. So, if it is all right with you, I would like to continue to discuss the pros and cons of classical liberalism versus modern day American progressivism.
AGAIN, your tiny little dogma driven mind can't decipher WHAT caused health care costs to skyrocket. It was NOT Medicare.
Medicare was a comprehensiveand comprehensibleprogram, available throughout the country and with a core set of benefits.
In other words, it delivers the opposite of what the private insurance industry has been providing. And it is doing so with a better track record of controlling costs. Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicares cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicares cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.
So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesnt have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?
Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance cooperative that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate.
Rather than cut Medicare, if we want to dramatically reduce health care costs and thus lower our national debt, we need to build on what works and expand to a "Medicare for All" national health insurance program. Every other industrialized nation has some form of national health insurance. They pay half as much per person, cover everyone and have as good or better overall medical outcomes than we do. According to both the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, our overall rankings are still at the bottom or near bottom when compared to other industrialized nations despite that fact that we spend twice as much.
How can these democratic nations spend so much less yet have such high-quality care? It's because none have for-profit private health plans that play central roles in financing health care. They are able to put a higher percentage of their health care dollars to actual health care because they are not paying for the waste and profiteering associated with the "middleman" private health insurance industry.
Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system with administrative costs of just 4 percent to 6 percent compared with for-profit health insurance administrative costs of between 16 percent and 26.5 percent. In a "Medicare for All" program, administrative savings would amount to about $400 billion each year by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. That's enough to provide high-quality health care for every American and end co-pays and deductibles. Americans could go to any provider they wished to see. And, as with Medicare, the majority of health providers and hospitals would remain private and could receive fair reimbursements for their services.
So celebrate the birthday of Medicare (and Social Security on Aug. 14) and reflect on their lessons for today: that we have a social contract to care for our fellow citizens and we can save money if we fulfill it with a national health program. Tell the debt commission, "No cuts to Medicare. Expand it to all of us."
Translation: Other Peoples
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Both Social Security and Medicare were well intended at the time. And both have proved to be unsustainable as ALL entitlement programs based on poorly thought out future earnings are.
Classical Liberals don't concern themselves with assigning blame, but look for practical solutions for the dilemma. And, it is the nature of Classical Liberalism to look to the private sector and the ability of the American ingenuity, productivity, and initiative to produce those solutions.
The modfern day Progressives/Statists seem to be unable to or at least refuse to consider anything other than more and bigger government or more intrusive government as the solution to every problem. And by making more and more people dependent on the government, the government acquires more and more power to do any damn thing to any of us that it chooses to do.
With approximately 50% of the American people already now dependent on the federal government for at least some benefits, we are rapidly approaching the point that we will not be able to turn it around even when most realize they have screwed themselves.
The 'practical' solution has already been documented for you. But, your dogmatic mind can't absorb it. All other industrialized nations have implemented the 'practical' solution, and they have lower health care costs than America. WHY? We HAVE your beloved 'private sector' health care. It is an epic failure. EPIC!
Here is your lesson for the day. Try to absorb this into your sick little brain:
'Government' is not some 'other', it is We, the People.
"we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".
President Abraham Lincoln
Hey, Miss Congeniality...... Yeah You, we agree on pain and suffering, where we disagree is that more of it as not the solution. Not everyone get's to work for the Government, creating more dependency, while living a charmed life. The Rules and Regulations, you set up cross the line and cause the cost increases, unfunded costs, dumped on those that actually buy the services and products. It's real noble what you do with other peoples money to buy votes and support, but, that is the problem. Get it? Good. See, not all remedies are compatible with Federalism, some actually, tear it apart. We want to feed Self Reliance, not Dependency. Government is at least as much of the problem as Private Industry, not less. Government has the force of Law behind it, look at what it has done with that charge. Look at the IRS Laws. Simplify, first Rule. Too many Chief's, not enough Indians. We need Worker Bee's, not more Bosses.
AGAIN, your tiny little dogma driven mind can't decipher WHAT caused health care costs to skyrocket. It was NOT Medicare.
Medicare was a comprehensiveand comprehensibleprogram, available throughout the country and with a core set of benefits.
In other words, it delivers the opposite of what the private insurance industry has been providing. And it is doing so with a better track record of controlling costs. Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicares cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicares cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.
So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesnt have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?
Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance cooperative that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate.
Rather than cut Medicare, if we want to dramatically reduce health care costs and thus lower our national debt, we need to build on what works and expand to a "Medicare for All" national health insurance program. Every other industrialized nation has some form of national health insurance. They pay half as much per person, cover everyone and have as good or better overall medical outcomes than we do. According to both the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, our overall rankings are still at the bottom or near bottom when compared to other industrialized nations despite that fact that we spend twice as much.
How can these democratic nations spend so much less yet have such high-quality care? It's because none have for-profit private health plans that play central roles in financing health care. They are able to put a higher percentage of their health care dollars to actual health care because they are not paying for the waste and profiteering associated with the "middleman" private health insurance industry.
Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system with administrative costs of just 4 percent to 6 percent compared with for-profit health insurance administrative costs of between 16 percent and 26.5 percent. In a "Medicare for All" program, administrative savings would amount to about $400 billion each year by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. That's enough to provide high-quality health care for every American and end co-pays and deductibles. Americans could go to any provider they wished to see. And, as with Medicare, the majority of health providers and hospitals would remain private and could receive fair reimbursements for their services.
So celebrate the birthday of Medicare (and Social Security on Aug. 14) and reflect on their lessons for today: that we have a social contract to care for our fellow citizens and we can save money if we fulfill it with a national health program. Tell the debt commission, "No cuts to Medicare. Expand it to all of us."
Translation: Other Peoples
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You smash your car into a tree, WHO pays for the repairs?
Translation: Other Peoples
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You have a heart attack and are rushed to the hospital, WHO pays for the treatment?
Translation: Other Peoples
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
A tornado levels your house, WHO pays for rebuilding the house?
Translation: Other Peoples
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Social security and Medicare are social INSURANCE programs. Why don't you start with a basic course in civics and ask the teacher how the REAL world works.
But, ... But,.... Butt,........ it's not working, that's the point silly. Obama think is compounding the damage. Don't worry though, tens of Millions will fall before you before your Government Payroll check becomes insolvent.
It certainly IS working. But let's see how honest you are...
WHAT have private insurance corporations done over the years due to the rising cost of health care?
Let me see.....What do you do when the cost of doing business rises? No wait, you don't run a business. I bet no matter what the Economy does, you get your 3% minimum raise every year, plus all the perks that are probably equal to your salary. Tell me why Cuomo is steering away from Pension Plans and into 401K's? If investment payoff's are evil in your eyes, how do you justify Pension's and all of the schemes that go with them? To answer your question, when the cost of doing business rises, it is only natural for the end cost of product or service to rise. I'm sure your Pension Fund Investment controllers would dump any holdings unable to generate return.
It certainly IS working. But let's see how honest you are...
WHAT have private insurance corporations done over the years due to the rising cost of health care?
Let me see.....What do you do when the cost of doing business rises? No wait, you don't run a business. I bet no matter what the Economy does, you get your 3% minimum raise every year, plus all the perks that are probably equal to your salary. Tell me why Cuomo is steering away from Pension Plans and into 401K's? If investment payoff's are evil in your eyes, how do you justify Pension's and all of the schemes that go with them? To answer your question, when the cost of doing business rises, it is only natural for the end cost of product or service to rise. I'm sure your Pension Fund Investment controllers would dump any holdings unable to generate return.
SO.......when the cost rises, insurance corporations raise premiums. But, when the cost rises, the evil government dare not raise revenues.
You see, this is why the conservative mind is so immature. There is not an ounce of business acumen on the right. Their ONLY solution is to cut, even if human beings are exterminated in the process. But conservatism doesn't have an ounce of human capital in their 'solution's either.
Let me see.....What do you do when the cost of doing business rises? No wait, you don't run a business. I bet no matter what the Economy does, you get your 3% minimum raise every year, plus all the perks that are probably equal to your salary. Tell me why Cuomo is steering away from Pension Plans and into 401K's? If investment payoff's are evil in your eyes, how do you justify Pension's and all of the schemes that go with them? To answer your question, when the cost of doing business rises, it is only natural for the end cost of product or service to rise. I'm sure your Pension Fund Investment controllers would dump any holdings unable to generate return.
SO.......when the cost rises, insurance corporations raise premiums. But, when the cost rises, the evil government dare not raise revenues.
You see, this is why the conservative mind is so immature. There is not an ounce of business acumen on the right. Their ONLY solution is to cut, even if human beings are exterminated in the process. But conservatism doesn't have an ounce of human capital in their 'solution's either.
See, here is the thing, when Businesses raise the price tag on a product or service based on the direct relationship between added cost, keeping the profit margin constant, the percentage remains unchanged. When it raises the cost based on wanting a better cut, it too many times is traced back to it being a Government Sponsored Monopoly, where the Government, the Silent Partner is also being compensated, contrary to fair market value. Still, the purchase is generally voluntary, at least to some extent.
When Government raises revenue, increasing the percentage of tax it takes effecting the ratio, increasing it's share, while diminishing ours, it effects the balance of our relationship. Oppression is oppression, by any name. We the People, recognize both the need for Government, and what happens when it's limits are ignored. When you act beyond consent, there are complications. Some of them from conception, compound the crime. What we need is good Government. You do seem to be at war with the Private Sector. You have issues there. Me, personally, I am just trying to survive. We are all Human Beings first, regardless of where one's income comes from. Best not to forget that.
