If the US healthcare system is the best and socialism is the worst

[UpAndAbout]

They can't answer the question because Socialism is a catch all word for anything that they don't like. Since they are steeped in a certain set of beliefs they would never bother to find out what something means. There may actually be one or two that actually know and they probably don't use the word wrongly.

Pure bullshit.

This is the grade school semantics game that socialists play, when they try to muddy the waters and claim that there really isn't any socialism anywhere.

You two schmucks will go a lot farther when you quit pretending that nobody has ever heard your vapid and intellectually bankrupt arguments before.

There is no pure form of socialism anywhere in the world. Just as there is no pure form of Capitalism anywhere in the world. There are only degrees of implementation.

And as an advocate of Universal Health Care for America, I will tell you this, pure socialism would never work, just as pure Capitalism can never work, because neither takes into account human nature, specifically human greed. Each expects everyone to just be on their best behavior. Not going to happen. Pure socialism starves human greed and pure capitalism over feeds it.

The answer is somewhere in between.

Here you go: List of socialist countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vidi]

Pure bullshit.

This is the grade school semantics game that socialists play, when they try to muddy the waters and claim that there really isn't any socialism anywhere.

You two schmucks will go a lot farther when you quit pretending that nobody has ever heard your vapid and intellectually bankrupt arguments before.

There is no pure form of socialism anywhere in the world. Just as there is no pure form of Capitalism anywhere in the world. There are only degrees of implementation.

And as an advocate of Universal Health Care for America, I will tell you this, pure socialism would never work, just as pure Capitalism can never work, because neither takes into account human nature, specifically human greed. Each expects everyone to just be on their best behavior. Not going to happen. Pure socialism starves human greed and pure capitalism over feeds it.

The answer is somewhere in between.

Here you go: List of socialist countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Way to completely miss the point.

And maybe...just maybe you should read...at least the first paragraph of what you linked to, huh?

This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions. No other criteria are used; thus, some or all of these countries may not fit any specific definition of socialism

America calls itself a Capitalist Democracy...are we?

Some say it's a socialist republic...still others would say its more of a socialist plutocracy...

What people call themselves and what they really are often are different things.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Europe's Sad Socialism Experiment & What America Can Learn From It




Very often when discussing the issue of universal health care with liberals, they almost always resort to the argument that "we're the only nation in the free world that doesn't have universal health care. Other countries have figured out a way to pay for it, so why can't we?"

Well, now we know the answer to that question, thanks to a startling new article from the New York Times, entitled "Payback Time: Europeans Fear Crisis Threatens Liberal Benefits."

For years, liberals have turned green with envy at the European Union's 30-hour work week, its lengthy vacation packages, its wide-ranging early retirement benefits and its government-sponsored health care coverage. The European social model has been copied by countries outside the EU, and liberal American Democrats have put tremendous pressure on the federal government to adopt a similar framework for these government-backed spending sprees here at home. President Barack Obama has made great strides toward implementing the European Socialist form of government with passage of his recent health care reform plan, and his current push for amnesty is being described by liberal Democrats as an answer to America's illegal immigration problem.

It appears, however, that the European Union is finally waking up to the fact that nothing in life comes for free. The citizens of the European Union are becoming angry as they realize they will have to pay dearly if they want to continue to enjoy their existing lifestyle or make dramatic spending cuts if they want to maintain the little wealth they have left. Greece was the first to wake up to a debt crisis, but every country in the EU is facing a similar fate. Most recently, Spain has succumbed to a crisis of its own.



So what does all this mean for the U.S.? Why should we care what happens across the Atlantic?

Although the mainstream media has largely ignored the social issues angle raised in the Times' report, there are a number of reasons the European Union's woes should trouble the United States. First and foremost, after suffering through one of the worst recessions in U.S. history, America is finally beginning to emerge. Unless there is a dramatic shift in the way the European Union operates its collective economies, the crisis in Europe will set off another recession. If America fails to insulate itself from the impending implosion, it likely will be sucked into the vortex right along with the rest of the world. Secondly, President Barack Obama and Congress must take a hard look at the policies it's been pursuing since last year and take corrective measures to reduce America's long-term debt and eliminate as much deficit spending as possible.

There is an age-old problem that exists in politics. People want the government to provide them with everything, but they don't want to pay for anything. When the government does begin to provide its citizens with everything, it creates an unsustainable entitlement. Then, when future generations are forced to deal with the poor decisions of its predecessors, those who feel entitled to these "free" services are revolting because they are being taken away. That, folks, is a recipe for revolution.

How could anyone forget the woman who, after attending an Obama rally in 2008, believed that if she helped lift Obama to victory, she'd no longer have to "worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage ..."

Imagine how disappointed that woman must be today after discovering that she did indeed have to pay for her own gas and she still has to pay her mortgage even though the candidate she supported became president.

Thanks for the link.
Now lets examine the story, better yet let's examine the far right lean of the article. Let's look deeper into how unbiased this article is not.
The author is Justin Quinn. Who is he what is his political affiliation. First he writes for About.com in the section on US Conservative politics. That tells me something about his opinion.

You will note the word conservative.

From Justin Quinn:

The mission of this site is to provide accurate, thoughtful and informative content for people interested in learning more about the conservative movement and its political agenda. It is my hope that it will serve as a clearinghouse for conservative politics and issues, and also as a place for discussion and healthy debate. Readers looking to break into conservative politics at any level will find this site to be a great first-step toward familiarizing themselves with conservative ideologies and the contemporary challenges facing political conservatives in the US.

He states his mission is to spread the conservative movement. I guess that leaves us with a very biased source.
There is a mention of an eleven year career. I am able to find nothing published by him in any national news source.
Your link is biased at best and hold little water. It would be akin to using a post from this site as a source. He did quote an article from the New York Times, but that alone doesn't make this any sort of real journalism. Thanks for the effort but you'll need to do better than that.

The source for the quotes: Justin Quinn's Biography - Biography of the Guide for Conservative U.S. Politics and Issues at About.com

I didn't expect any liberal to believe this. But you DO believe Greece went belly up right, it was on all the news channels, even MSNBS. Do a little research then on possibly relocating to Sweden or somewhere with your precious socialized medicine and see what you find. The fact is you believe what you want to believe. The German people refused to believe that Hitler was up to no good until it was too late. The Cubans refused to believe anything bad about Castro -- until it was too late. Stop and expand your brain a bit and ask yourself what would happen if all of us decided to hell with it and quit our jobs, which trust me as crossed my mind, sold our homes and decided to rely on the goverment. With fewer and fewer tax payers, where is the government going to get the money? From money trees? or just print it in the basement. You liberals haven't got the sense God gave a goose!! You DO believe the sky is blue and grass is green, right? Or do you need a "link" for that?

I would not give you a biased link from someone akin to a political poster as a valid link. The man says is mission is to promote conservative issues. Why would I believe it or even pay attention? I did read it and checked it out.

 

[Meister]

They can't answer the question because Socialism is a catch all word for anything that they don't like. Since they are steeped in a certain set of beliefs they would never bother to find out what something means. There may actually be one or two that actually know and they probably don't use the word wrongly.

Pure bullshit.

This is the grade school semantics game that socialists play, when they try to muddy the waters and claim that there really isn't any socialism anywhere.

You two schmucks will go a lot farther when you quit pretending that nobody has ever heard your vapid and intellectually bankrupt arguments before.

There is no pure form of socialism anywhere in the world. Just as there is no pure form of Capitalism anywhere in the world. There are only degrees of implementation.

And as an advocate of Universal Health Care for America, I will tell you this, pure socialism would never work, just as pure Capitalism can never work, because neither takes into account human nature, specifically human greed. Each expects everyone to just be on their best behavior. Not going to happen. Pure socialism starves human greed and pure capitalism over feeds it.

The answer is somewhere in between.

Very true, Vidi...I agree with your assessment of the terms.
Having said that, I don't think the country can afford the UHS.
Our country in my opinion cannot afford the strain it would cause
the economy. For one, I think our country is too large at
300 million and growing. I really don't see UHS as a success in
other countries. Waste, fraud, and yes, even rationing would come
into play. Rationing is seen in Germany right now.
Funding will be a big boondoggle for this to move forward, and on
who's back?

 

[Syphon]

Pure bullshit.

This is the grade school semantics game that socialists play, when they try to muddy the waters and claim that there really isn't any socialism anywhere.

You two schmucks will go a lot farther when you quit pretending that nobody has ever heard your vapid and intellectually bankrupt arguments before.

There is no pure form of socialism anywhere in the world. Just as there is no pure form of Capitalism anywhere in the world. There are only degrees of implementation.

And as an advocate of Universal Health Care for America, I will tell you this, pure socialism would never work, just as pure Capitalism can never work, because neither takes into account human nature, specifically human greed. Each expects everyone to just be on their best behavior. Not going to happen. Pure socialism starves human greed and pure capitalism over feeds it.

The answer is somewhere in between.

Here you go: List of socialist countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yup your list shows Cuba, China, Vietnam and Laos......

and actually all 4 of those countries are communist. i dont see any western nations on that list. no european countries or even south american countries..

you totally showed us!

 

[Political Junky]

I do. Or that's at least the case with many on the right. Maybe most. Same with the left. Ignorance reigns supreme.

can you define socialism with using a dictionary then?

Sure! So can you. It's easy on the world wide web. Here ya go:

Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com

Not many places where that exists, are there?

 

[Vidi]

Pure bullshit.

This is the grade school semantics game that socialists play, when they try to muddy the waters and claim that there really isn't any socialism anywhere.

You two schmucks will go a lot farther when you quit pretending that nobody has ever heard your vapid and intellectually bankrupt arguments before.

There is no pure form of socialism anywhere in the world. Just as there is no pure form of Capitalism anywhere in the world. There are only degrees of implementation.

And as an advocate of Universal Health Care for America, I will tell you this, pure socialism would never work, just as pure Capitalism can never work, because neither takes into account human nature, specifically human greed. Each expects everyone to just be on their best behavior. Not going to happen. Pure socialism starves human greed and pure capitalism over feeds it.

The answer is somewhere in between.

Very true, Vidi...I agree with your assessment of the terms.
Having said that, I don't think the country can afford the UHS.
Our country in my opinion cannot afford the strain it would cause
on the economy. For one, I think our country is too large at
300 million and growing. I really don't see UHS as a success in
other countries. Waste, fraud, and yes, even rationing would come
into play. This is seen in Germany right now.
Funding will be a big boondoggle for this to move forward, and on
who's back?

Germany doesny have Universal Health Care as most Americans see it. In fact they are under the Bismark system in which health care is provided through a combination of Employer and employee premiums, which if you get your health care through your employer, youre pretty much on right now.

Universal Health care in this country however would NOT be an easy switch. We cant just say Here it is and everything is hunky dory. The change WILL cause some people to lose their jobs as health insurance companies would no longer require their services to process claims.

But heres the thing:

The US has always been great at seeing how other countries have done things and modifying or improving those systems to suit our needs. Our interstate highway system for example came as a direct result of Eisenhower seeing the autobon in germany during the war and bringing that idea back to the US.

If we really wanted to fix the health care issues in this country, we could find a solution. Maybe Universal Health care isnt the solution to our problem, but before we can fix anything we first have to all admit that our system is not working.

check out The Healing of America by TR Reid. Its an excellent book on the subject of the various systems throughout the world ( theres basically only four ) and how America is the only one that utilizes all four.

 

[Meister]

Like Vidi stated...."there are degrees of implementation"...says enough for me to understand. Maybe not to most apparently, seems like it's a black and white thing.
Either it's full blown socialism or its not at all socialism.

 

[Political Junky]

I listened to callers on a talk show. Unfortunately I didn't hear the whole show, but one woman said her son had been treated for pneumonia in the US and it was cured. He didn't feel well, however, and later when he was transferred to Canada and had to get on their Medicare, it was discovered he had kidney failure. They not only did a kidney transplant for free, but flew his mother to and from Canada and covered her costs so that she could give him her kidney.

 

[Syphon]

I do. Or that's at least the case with many on the right. Maybe most. Same with the left. Ignorance reigns supreme.

can you define socialism with using a dictionary then?

Sure! So can you. It's easy on the world wide web. Here ya go:

Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com

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

wow, now that you know what it actually means you can educate yourself and learn that Obama is actually not a socialist...... yay for you

 

[Meister]

There is no pure form of socialism anywhere in the world. Just as there is no pure form of Capitalism anywhere in the world. There are only degrees of implementation.

And as an advocate of Universal Health Care for America, I will tell you this, pure socialism would never work, just as pure Capitalism can never work, because neither takes into account human nature, specifically human greed. Each expects everyone to just be on their best behavior. Not going to happen. Pure socialism starves human greed and pure capitalism over feeds it.

The answer is somewhere in between.

Very true, Vidi...I agree with your assessment of the terms.
Having said that, I don't think the country can afford the UHS.
Our country in my opinion cannot afford the strain it would cause
on the economy. For one, I think our country is too large at
300 million and growing. I really don't see UHS as a success in
other countries. Waste, fraud, and yes, even rationing would come
into play. This is seen in Germany right now.
Funding will be a big boondoggle for this to move forward, and on
who's back?

Germany doesny have Universal Health Care as most Americans see it. In fact they are under the Bismark system in which health care is provided through a combination of Employer and employee premiums, which if you get your health care through your employer, youre pretty much on right now.

Universal Health care in this country however would NOT be an easy switch. We cant just say Here it is and everything is hunky dory. The change WILL cause some people to lose their jobs as health insurance companies would no longer require their services to process claims.

But heres the thing:

The US has always been great at seeing how other countries have done things and modifying or improving those systems to suit our needs. Our interstate highway system for example came as a direct result of Eisenhower seeing the autobon in germany during the war and bringing that idea back to the US.

If we really wanted to fix the health care issues in this country, we could find a solution. Maybe Universal Health care isnt the solution to our problem, but before we can fix anything we first have to all admit that our system is not working.

check out The Healing of America by TR Reid. Its an excellent book on the subject of the various systems throughout the world ( theres basically only four ) and how America is the only one that utilizes all four.

I do agree that if we really wanted it fixed, it could be done, Vidi.
I just don't see our politicians capable of doing it right now.
Both sides have an agenda where there isn't any middle ground.
The people of this great nation are the ones who suffer because of
the stalemate regarding bipartisanship.

 

[Oddball]

They can't answer the question because Socialism is a catch all word for anything that they don't like. Since they are steeped in a certain set of beliefs they would never bother to find out what something means. There may actually be one or two that actually know and they probably don't use the word wrongly.

Pure bullshit.

This is the grade school semantics game that socialists play, when they try to muddy the waters and claim that there really isn't any socialism anywhere.

You two schmucks will go a lot farther when you quit pretending that nobody has ever heard your vapid and intellectually bankrupt arguments before.

There is no pure form of socialism anywhere in the world. Just as there is no pure form of Capitalism anywhere in the world. There are only degrees of implementation.

And as an advocate of Universal Health Care for America, I will tell you this, pure socialism would never work, just as pure Capitalism can never work, because neither takes into account human nature, specifically human greed. Each expects everyone to just be on their best behavior. Not going to happen. Pure socialism starves human greed and pure capitalism over feeds it.

The answer is somewhere in between.

Funny how the socialists never seem to take into account the human greed of the people who seek to be the ones in charge of the leviathan state.

Nonetheless, we've tried this "in between" for no less than the last century, (i.e. the so-called "third way" touted by progressives, Keynesians and other closet totalitarians) and it's an unqualified disaster, which invariably requires more bureaucratic fixes to fix the fix that was supposed to fix all of America's problems.

Much as you may like to believe differently, failure of bureaucratic central planning is not evidence that even more bureaucratic central planning is called for.

 

[Vidi]

Very true, Vidi...I agree with your assessment of the terms.
Having said that, I don't think the country can afford the UHS.
Our country in my opinion cannot afford the strain it would cause
on the economy. For one, I think our country is too large at
300 million and growing. I really don't see UHS as a success in
other countries. Waste, fraud, and yes, even rationing would come
into play. This is seen in Germany right now.
Funding will be a big boondoggle for this to move forward, and on
who's back?

Germany doesny have Universal Health Care as most Americans see it. In fact they are under the Bismark system in which health care is provided through a combination of Employer and employee premiums, which if you get your health care through your employer, youre pretty much on right now.

Universal Health care in this country however would NOT be an easy switch. We cant just say Here it is and everything is hunky dory. The change WILL cause some people to lose their jobs as health insurance companies would no longer require their services to process claims.

But heres the thing:

The US has always been great at seeing how other countries have done things and modifying or improving those systems to suit our needs. Our interstate highway system for example came as a direct result of Eisenhower seeing the autobon in germany during the war and bringing that idea back to the US.

If we really wanted to fix the health care issues in this country, we could find a solution. Maybe Universal Health care isnt the solution to our problem, but before we can fix anything we first have to all admit that our system is not working.

check out The Healing of America by TR Reid. Its an excellent book on the subject of the various systems throughout the world ( theres basically only four ) and how America is the only one that utilizes all four.

I do agree that if we really wanted it fixed, it could be done, Vidi.
I just don't see our politicians capable of doing it right now.
Both sides have an agenda where there isn't any middle ground.
The people of this great nation are the ones who suffer because of
the stalemate regarding bipartisanship.

I agree.

I don't mind the extremes we have now. It's the fact they can't find a middle ground compromise that bugs me the most.

But, and I know this will start a firestorm, I also think this country has been incrementally moving further and further right since Reagan. I miss Eisenhower and Nixon, true conservatives...( I'm not that old lol )

 

[Foxfyre]

Very true, Vidi...I agree with your assessment of the terms.
Having said that, I don't think the country can afford the UHS.
Our country in my opinion cannot afford the strain it would cause
on the economy. For one, I think our country is too large at
300 million and growing. I really don't see UHS as a success in
other countries. Waste, fraud, and yes, even rationing would come
into play. This is seen in Germany right now.
Funding will be a big boondoggle for this to move forward, and on
who's back?

Germany doesny have Universal Health Care as most Americans see it. In fact they are under the Bismark system in which health care is provided through a combination of Employer and employee premiums, which if you get your health care through your employer, youre pretty much on right now.

Universal Health care in this country however would NOT be an easy switch. We cant just say Here it is and everything is hunky dory. The change WILL cause some people to lose their jobs as health insurance companies would no longer require their services to process claims.

But heres the thing:

The US has always been great at seeing how other countries have done things and modifying or improving those systems to suit our needs. Our interstate highway system for example came as a direct result of Eisenhower seeing the autobon in germany during the war and bringing that idea back to the US.

If we really wanted to fix the health care issues in this country, we could find a solution. Maybe Universal Health care isnt the solution to our problem, but before we can fix anything we first have to all admit that our system is not working.

check out The Healing of America by TR Reid. Its an excellent book on the subject of the various systems throughout the world ( theres basically only four ) and how America is the only one that utilizes all four.

I do agree that if we really wanted it fixed, it could be done, Vidi.
I just don't see our politicians capable of doing it right now.
Both sides have an agenda where there isn't any middle ground.
The people of this great nation are the ones who suffer because of
the stalemate regarding bipartisanship.

As long as elected politicians, political appointees, and bureaucrats are able to increase their power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes via partisanship, bipartisanship is not going to happen. Nor in the history of the entire world has any government voluntarily relinquished power once it obtained it.

The Founders intended for the central government to recognize--that is recognize and not assign--the rights of the people and then leave the people alone to govern themselves.

We the people do not need the federal government to fix anything.

We the people need to rise up and demand that the federal government get out of healthcare and every other program that the federal government was never intended to manage and return that responsibility back to the people in the states, in their local communities, on the farms, or whatever.

When that happens, we will have bipartisanship again, and things can get fixed.

Until then, I frankly think we are screwed.

 

[Oddball]

But, and I know this will start a firestorm, I also think this country has been incrementally moving further and further right since Reagan. I miss Eisenhower and Nixon, true conservatives...( I'm not that old lol )

A cacophony of incredulous laughter ain't a firestorm, tovarich.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

They can't answer the question because Socialism is a catch all word for anything that they don't like. Since they are steeped in a certain set of beliefs they would never bother to find out what something means. There may actually be one or two that actually know and they probably don't use the word wrongly.

Pure bullshit.

This is the grade school semantics game that socialists play, when they try to muddy the waters and claim that there really isn't any socialism anywhere.

You two schmucks will go a lot farther when you quit pretending that nobody has ever heard your vapid and intellectually bankrupt arguments before.

There is no pure form of socialism anywhere in the world. Just as there is no pure form of Capitalism anywhere in the world. There are only degrees of implementation.

And as an advocate of Universal Health Care for America, I will tell you this, pure socialism would never work, just as pure Capitalism can never work, because neither takes into account human nature, specifically human greed. Each expects everyone to just be on their best behavior. Not going to happen. Pure socialism starves human greed and pure capitalism over feeds it.

The answer is somewhere in between.

Monetary greed and power greed are huge forces trained into the human nature. Yet if people are never expected to be better we have just given up. Universal health care can and does work. Like any human invention there are flaws even in the best of them.
US medical costs are way beyond everyone who does have universal health care.
You have runaway prices for equipment and medicines. You have the high cost of doctors and no one denies them a decent living. The cost to run a hospital. It is expensive.
You add to that the profit for insurance executives and the cost gets higher. You add the cost of filing to twenty different insurance companies. You add in calls on every claim and it gets insane.
You look at Medicare and VA coverage. You are looking at two of the highest risk groups and the US covers them with no lower and healthier groups to ease the grading on costs. There is no buffer group.
The cost of medical care is all about profit. Universal health care would still have premiums and is not free as it isn't today. People would not stop paying for coverage. The government would get the premium money. Insurance companies survive on premium money. The government would do the same. Why would anyone think the government will not charge the premium. All the other nations have a premium.

 

[Vidi]

Germany doesny have Universal Health Care as most Americans see it. In fact they are under the Bismark system in which health care is provided through a combination of Employer and employee premiums, which if you get your health care through your employer, youre pretty much on right now.

Universal Health care in this country however would NOT be an easy switch. We cant just say Here it is and everything is hunky dory. The change WILL cause some people to lose their jobs as health insurance companies would no longer require their services to process claims.

But heres the thing:

The US has always been great at seeing how other countries have done things and modifying or improving those systems to suit our needs. Our interstate highway system for example came as a direct result of Eisenhower seeing the autobon in germany during the war and bringing that idea back to the US.

If we really wanted to fix the health care issues in this country, we could find a solution. Maybe Universal Health care isnt the solution to our problem, but before we can fix anything we first have to all admit that our system is not working.

check out The Healing of America by TR Reid. Its an excellent book on the subject of the various systems throughout the world ( theres basically only four ) and how America is the only one that utilizes all four.

I do agree that if we really wanted it fixed, it could be done, Vidi.
I just don't see our politicians capable of doing it right now.
Both sides have an agenda where there isn't any middle ground.
The people of this great nation are the ones who suffer because of
the stalemate regarding bipartisanship.

As long as elected politicians, political appointees, and bureaucrats are able to increase their power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes via partisanship, bipartisanship is not going to happen. Nor in the history of the entire world has any government voluntarily relinquished power once it obtained it.

The Founders intended for the central government to recognize--that is recognize and not assign--the rights of the people and then leave the people alone to govern themselves.

We the people do not need the federal government to fix anything.

We the people need to rise up and demand that the federal government get out of healthcare and every other program that the federal government was never intended to manage and return that responsibility back to the people in the states, in their local communities, on the farms, or whatever.

When that happens, we will have bipartisanship again, and things can get fixed.

Until then, I frankly think we are screwed.

I have to disagree.

I believe the Government must maintain some control in order to protect the rights of the people.

Health Care is a good example.

The first document of our country lists only three rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And I believe that order of rights is important. Without Liberty, there can be no pursuit. Without Life, there can be no Liberty.

Without access to proper health care, all three of those rights are diminished if not completely removed.

Therefore, if it is the governments role to not only recognize but protect the rights of the people, then the government must find a way to provide health care for all citizens.

 

[Oddball]

I do agree that if we really wanted it fixed, it could be done, Vidi.
I just don't see our politicians capable of doing it right now.
Both sides have an agenda where there isn't any middle ground.
The people of this great nation are the ones who suffer because of
the stalemate regarding bipartisanship.

As long as elected politicians, political appointees, and bureaucrats are able to increase their power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes via partisanship, bipartisanship is not going to happen. Nor in the history of the entire world has any government voluntarily relinquished power once it obtained it.

The Founders intended for the central government to recognize--that is recognize and not assign--the rights of the people and then leave the people alone to govern themselves.

We the people do not need the federal government to fix anything.

We the people need to rise up and demand that the federal government get out of healthcare and every other program that the federal government was never intended to manage and return that responsibility back to the people in the states, in their local communities, on the farms, or whatever.

When that happens, we will have bipartisanship again, and things can get fixed.

Until then, I frankly think we are screwed.

I have to disagree.

I believe the Government must maintain some control in order to protect the rights of the people.

Health Care is a good example.

The first document of our country lists only three rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And I believe that order of rights is important. Without Liberty, there can be no pursuit. Without Life, there can be no Liberty.

Without access to proper health care, all three of those rights are diminished if not completely removed.

Therefore, if it is the governments role to not only recognize but protect the rights of the people, then the government must find a way to provide health care for all citizens.

Man, what convoluted "logic" (for lack of a better term).

There's no lack of access to health care....None whatsoever.

And while we're talking about life and liberty, what of the lives and liberties of the people who enter the medical profession, to earn what the market will bear paying them?

 

[Meister]

Pure bullshit.

This is the grade school semantics game that socialists play, when they try to muddy the waters and claim that there really isn't any socialism anywhere.

You two schmucks will go a lot farther when you quit pretending that nobody has ever heard your vapid and intellectually bankrupt arguments before.

There is no pure form of socialism anywhere in the world. Just as there is no pure form of Capitalism anywhere in the world. There are only degrees of implementation.

And as an advocate of Universal Health Care for America, I will tell you this, pure socialism would never work, just as pure Capitalism can never work, because neither takes into account human nature, specifically human greed. Each expects everyone to just be on their best behavior. Not going to happen. Pure socialism starves human greed and pure capitalism over feeds it.

The answer is somewhere in between.

Monetary greed and power greed are huge forces trained into the human nature. Yet if people are never expected to be better we have just given up. Universal health care can and does work. Like any human invention there are flaws even in the best of them.
US medical costs are way beyond everyone who does have universal health care.
You have runaway prices for equipment and medicines. You have the high cost of doctors and no one denies them a decent living. The cost to run a hospital. It is expensive.
You add to that the profit for insurance executives and the cost gets higher. You add the cost of filing to twenty different insurance companies. You add in calls on every claim and it gets insane.
You look at Medicare and VA coverage. You are looking at two of the highest risk groups and the US covers them with no lower and healthier groups to ease the grading on costs. There is no buffer group.
The cost of medical care is all about profit. Universal health care would still have premiums and is not free as it isn't today. People would not stop paying for coverage. The government would get the premium money. Insurance companies survive on premium money. The government would do the same. Why would anyone think the government will not charge the premium. All the other nations have a premium.

When has the government been prudent with our money?
Please list all the success stories that the government has
accomplished on budget or under budget.
I'll be waiting for your answer.

 

[Foxfyre]

I do agree that if we really wanted it fixed, it could be done, Vidi.
I just don't see our politicians capable of doing it right now.
Both sides have an agenda where there isn't any middle ground.
The people of this great nation are the ones who suffer because of
the stalemate regarding bipartisanship.

As long as elected politicians, political appointees, and bureaucrats are able to increase their power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes via partisanship, bipartisanship is not going to happen. Nor in the history of the entire world has any government voluntarily relinquished power once it obtained it.

The Founders intended for the central government to recognize--that is recognize and not assign--the rights of the people and then leave the people alone to govern themselves.

We the people do not need the federal government to fix anything.

We the people need to rise up and demand that the federal government get out of healthcare and every other program that the federal government was never intended to manage and return that responsibility back to the people in the states, in their local communities, on the farms, or whatever.

When that happens, we will have bipartisanship again, and things can get fixed.

Until then, I frankly think we are screwed.

I have to disagree.

I believe the Government must maintain some control in order to protect the rights of the people.

Health Care is a good example.

The first document of our country lists only three rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And I believe that order of rights is important. Without Liberty, there can be no pursuit. Without Life, there can be no Liberty.

Without access to proper health care, all three of those rights are diminished if not completely removed.

Therefore, if it is the governments role to not only recognize but protect the rights of the people, then the government must find a way to provide health care for all citizens.

No, because the government can never accomplish a competent sustainable healthcare system because it has to take property away from people in order to do that. There isn't enough money on the planet to sustain a universal healthcare system paid for only by taxes. The Preamble is very specific that the purpose of the federal government and the Constitution to which it is bound is to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.

Welfare in this sense was not freebies or services that the government gives to people--even a cursory reading of the Founders makes that quite clear--but rather encourage the ability of the people to form the society they wanted--and the Blessings of Liberty of course referred to the Declaration's recognition of unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

American exceptionalism is built on the concept that the government cannot give rights but can only recognize, acknowledge, and defend them. That would assume the right of the people to create a healthcare sysem, but no 'right' for the government to provide it any more than there is a right for the government to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc., all necessities of life. Why? Because the federal government was not intended own property and therefore was not intended to confiscate anybody's property for its own benefit or the benefit of anybody else. It all belongs to the people. The intent was for the free market to accomplish and provide whatever the people wanted to have.