[Unknown Member]

What a misleading poll result. If you go to the link you see this :

“The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism ”

Well, what questions did they ask, then? How did they define such ephemeral concepts as ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’?
Did they ask – do you support nationalized healthcare? That could be construed as a ‘socialist’ answer but merely puts them in the majority of Americans and in line with most 1st world countries today.

[Unknown Member]

A turd by any other name is still a turd.  Socialism and redistributionist economics are a false security and a false promise.  Without growth and enterpreneurship you have stagnation. This breaks the human spirit. Sure, people look to the government for security in times of trouble, but it is best if the government serves only as a social safety net and not the broker of the economy (pun).  Capitalism creates wealth, albeit unevenly distributed.  Socialism impoverishes equally across the board.
 
The reason capitalism is out of favor is because we have a monolithic education system, a monolithic press and a monolithic popular culture. Champions for capitalism and conservatism are ridiculed and marginalized by the pseudointellectual socialists; the John Stewarts and Bill Mahers of this culture.  There is no longer open debate about ideas, but only vacuous assertive statements, demonization and ridicule.  This is a top-down problem that starts at the very top.
 
 I’ll take my chances with capitalism, thank-you.  The track record speaks for itself.

[eyoab2011_711]

I see Alda has defined Cheney:  vacuous assertive statements, demonization and ridicule

[Unknown Member]

And how about rampant capitalistic greed causing the current meltdown in our economy and our stupid and dumb reliance on consumerism for our continued economic success!

[Unknown Member]

I don’t want to hear you Marxists complain when the government completes the process of socializing medicine and gives half of your income to the family practitioners and the nurse practitioners.  That will be your social justice. 
 
Safety and largesse breeds fools. 

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: aldadoc

I don’t want to hear you Marxists complain when the government completes the process of socializing medicine and gives half of your income to the family practitioners and the nurse practitioners.  That will be your social justice. 

Safety and largesse breeds fools. 

So you have no response, then. Nor surprised. The Wall Street titans of industry finagled their own regulatory environment, got everything they wanted, and still managed to destroy our economy. Where’s you masters of capitalism, now? All you can do is shriek about phantom marxism. What a joke.

[Unknown Member]

Capitalism is inherently Darwinian and sometimes uncomfortable, because it relies on creative destruction, competition and greed.  These things are politically incorrect, but are the most powerful drivers of wealth creation.  Occasionally there are imbalances and excesses tha may need some regulatory direction, but overall this system has served us well and made us by far the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. 
 
The beauty of capitalism is that it is self healing.  Your claim that capitalism destroyed our economy is hyperbole and an excuse to ijustify government control. Get the blinders off.  Read a little Milton Friedman, you may learn something.  Recessions are a normal part of the economic cycle in a capitalist economy. How you handle a recession is what determines the speed of recovery.  Taxing and out of control spending are surely not the fast or most effective way out.

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: aldadoc

Capitalism is inherently Darwinian and sometimes uncomfortable, because it relies on creative destruction, competition and greed.  These things are politically incorrect, but are the most powerful drivers of wealth creation.  Occasionally there are imbalances and excesses tha may need some regulatory direction, but overall this system has served us well and made us by far the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. 

The beauty of capitalism is that it is self healing.  [b]Your claim that capitalism destroyed our economy is hyperbole and an excuse to ijustify government control[/b]. Get the blinders off.  Read a little Milton Friedman, you may learn something.  Recessions are a normal part of the economic cycle in a capitalist economy. How you handle a recession is what determines the speed of recovery.  Taxing and out of control spending are surely not the fast or most effective way out.

Can’t believe I missed this. I am saying capitalism DID NOT destroy our economy because what we have is not true capitalism. Quit arguing with the voices in your head.

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: nobody2008

ORIGINAL: aldadoc

Capitalism is inherently Darwinian and sometimes uncomfortable, because it relies on creative destruction, competition and greed.  These things are politically incorrect, but are the most powerful drivers of wealth creation.  Occasionally there are imbalances and excesses tha may need some regulatory direction, but overall this system has served us well and made us by far the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. 

The beauty of capitalism is that it is self healing.  [b]Your claim that capitalism destroyed our economy is hyperbole and an excuse to ijustify government control[/b]. Get the blinders off.  Read a little Milton Friedman, you may learn something.  Recessions are a normal part of the economic cycle in a capitalist economy. How you handle a recession is what determines the speed of recovery.  Taxing and out of control spending are surely not the fast or most effective way out.

[b] 
[/b]
Can’t believe I missed this. I am saying capitalism DID NOT destroy our economy because what we have is not true capitalism. Quit arguing with the voices in your head.

 
ORR- [b]”And how about rampant capitalistic greed causing the current meltdown in our economy and our stupid and dumb reliance on consumerism for our continued economic success!”[/b]
 
NOBODY – [b]”The Wall Street titans of industry finagled their own regulatory environment, got everything they wanted, and still managed to destroy our economy. Where’s you masters of capitalism, now? All you can do is shriek about phantom marxism. What a joke.”[/b]
[b][/b] 
These are the comments that preceeded my post.  The way I read it you both assert that capitalism destroyed our economy.  If this is not what you meant, maybe I’m not following your circular logic or lack of logic.  If you are trying to box me into saying that there shouldn’t be any regulation, then, good try.  I’m not biting.

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: aldadoc

ORIGINAL: nobody2008

ORIGINAL: aldadoc

Capitalism is inherently Darwinian and sometimes uncomfortable, because it relies on creative destruction, competition and greed.  These things are politically incorrect, but are the most powerful drivers of wealth creation.  Occasionally there are imbalances and excesses tha may need some regulatory direction, but overall this system has served us well and made us by far the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. 

The beauty of capitalism is that it is self healing.  [b]Your claim that capitalism destroyed our economy is hyperbole and an excuse to ijustify government control[/b]. Get the blinders off.  Read a little Milton Friedman, you may learn something.  Recessions are a normal part of the economic cycle in a capitalist economy. How you handle a recession is what determines the speed of recovery.  Taxing and out of control spending are surely not the fast or most effective way out.

[b] 
[/b]
Can’t believe I missed this. I am saying capitalism DID NOT destroy our economy because what we have is not true capitalism. Quit arguing with the voices in your head.

ORR- [b]”And how about rampant capitalistic greed causing the current meltdown in our economy and our stupid and dumb reliance on consumerism for our continued economic success!”[/b]

NOBODY – [b]”The Wall Street titans of industry finagled their own regulatory environment, got everything they wanted, and still managed to destroy our economy. Where’s you masters of capitalism, now? All you can do is shriek about phantom marxism. What a joke.”[/b]
[b][/b] 
These are the comments that preceeded my post.  The way I read it you both assert that capitalism destroyed our economy.  If this is not what you meant, maybe I’m not following your circular logic or lack of logic.  If you are trying to box me into saying that there shouldn’t be any regulation, then, good try.  I’m not biting.

Touche. To show I am a good sport, I’ll grant you my post was not clear. By [b]finagled[/b], I meant they had constructed their own regulatory environment to make themselves rich and avoid competition. As show in my later post in this thread

There is no such thing as true capitalism in the modern world. Corporations lobby for massive amounts of taxpayer money. How the hell is that capitalism? Corporations capture their regulatory bodies and turn them into defacto fiefdoms to protect themselves from competition. How the hell is that capitalism? The word is meaningless.

[Unknown Member]

I have new found respect for you as a fair minded person.

[winterberry]

ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

And how about rampant capitalistic greed causing the current meltdown in our economy and our stupid and dumb reliance on consumerism for our continued economic success!

So…

Define consumerism..

Now define an Economy.

Then tell me how you HAVE an economy without the consumer eventually buying things.

The stupid and dumb reliance is on the leftist propaganda that everyone is ENTITLED to money.  Entitled to credit, ENTITLED to everything they want .. NOW. 

“Rampant capitalistic greed”  as opposed to the rampant, socialist greed of sack the rich?  The rampant greed of politicians to buy votes?  The rampant greed of the product of the leftist ideologue ‘educators’ of the last 40 years?  The rampant greed of the neomarxist who votes in a politician who promises them government largess, an end to them paying taxes and cynically uses jealousy and envy of the successful to attain and maintain power?  Even if they have to switch parties…

Enjoy your coming 80% reduction in take home, your increased workloads, your increased malpractice premiums, your loss of high dollar exams to other specialties and your status as drone for the government.

Of course if it gets too bad, your ‘rampant, capitalist greed’ will cause you to get out of medicine altogether and do something else.

Like sooo may other doctors have done in recent years.

[jquinones8812_854]

agreed radtraveller.

[kayla.meyer_144]

One can always move to a non-socialist country that does not practice socialized medicine and has low to no taxes and then become fabulously rich. Anyone know of any?

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: Frumious

One can always move to a non-socialist country that does not practice socialized medicine and has low to no taxes and then become fabulously rich. Anyone know of any?

Bingo. Maybe Somalia.

There is no such thing as true capitalism in the modern world. Corporations lobby for massive amounts of taxpayer money. How the hell is that capitalism? Corporations capture their regulatory bodies and turn them into defacto fiefdoms to protect themselves from competition. How the hell is that capitalism? The word is meaningless. Throwing around ‘capitalism’ vs ‘socialism’ or the even more vacuous ‘marxism’ is posturing. The real problems can’t be defined with this crap rhetoric. The bottom line is we are a modern democracy with many constituencies who have maneuvered us into this dire state. Corporations have made their bed through striving to AVOID the competition and free information tenets of capitalism. The voters want more expensive social services and will likely get it. The question is, “how can we maneuver through this?” not “how can I blame dirty hippies?” Talk about blinders.

[Unknown Member]

“Enjoy your coming 80% reduction in take home, your increased workloads, your increased malpractice premiums, your loss of high dollar exams to other specialties and your status as drone for the government.”

You do realize in a purely capitalistic system there would be no Medicare, no Medicaid and very limited (if any) employer funded health insurances (because there would be no tax incentives to provide it). What you would get paid would be what you are willing to work for and what the patient is willing to pay, not what you negotiated from the insurance companies. While you may think your getting a pittance for reading a chest x-ray most regular Joe’s would look at the whole minute it takes you to read it and decide you were getting grossly overpaid. You would also have no protection whatsoever from poaching from other healthcare professionals.

Be very careful what you wish for.

[jquinones8812_854]

That is all true…but the other extreme isn’t pretty either.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

The people polled don’t understand what capitalism is….A poll from the same group show they support the “free market economy” over a government run one 3:1 and more now than since the last poll:
[link=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/support_for_free_market_economy_up_seven_points_since_december]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/support_for_free_market_economy_up_seven_points_since_december[/link]
 
“Seventy-seven percent (77%) of U.S. voters say that they prefer a free market economy over a government-managed economy. Thats up seven points since [link=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/voters_champion_free_market_but_want_more_regulation][u][color=#0066cc]December[/color][/u][/link]……”
 
 
 

[jquinones8812_854]

Ah, public education at its best.  I know I went to public schools…and was not required to take any economics classes.  I only did in college.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Really? I’ll bet there are many with a non-public school education who don’t know any more that your public schoolers about economics. I’ll bet there are many with advanced degrees who don’t understand either. Postcall is correct, you can’t ask for a totally capitalistic system with safeguards too. It’s an oxymoron. I’d still like to know an example of a capitalistic system meaning no socialism taint at all, that you all would hold up as an example that we should emulate.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

^this post is what is currenty wrong with our political system.   You have to go to extremes.  No one says that SOME safeguards aren’t needed, but our culture is if 1 is good then 100 is better.  No common sense with the policy..it is either one or the other.

We swung too far in the favor of regulation and it stiffled the economy, we went too far in deregulation, and now we swing the other way with overly aggresiv gov polices and gov ownership of banks dispite some of the banks wanting to repay money some never needed in the first place but where made to take.

Why cant we just have a middle ground. Excess in either direction leads to bad outcomes..end of story.
 
BTW, as a private school graduate, I would argue that it does help prepare better.  for example, I was able to take actual (not AP) college courses as a high school student. All but 3 people in my graduating class started college and about half the class had some sort of non-athletetic scholarship (about 1/5 and athletetic scholarship.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Dr J,

I agree in that examples are often in extremes, such as the socialism vs capitalism argument, if you don’t believe in a laissez faire free market you must be a socialist and we know that can’t be good even if one does not know what it means. Like Kevin James talking about “appeasement.”

As far as your private schooling, no issue, many in public school know things too. I’m from public school & don’t think I do so bad, but most of my learning came after public school anyway.

[Unknown Member]

Incremental socialism is still socialism.  It is just a way to get the liberal agenda in through the back door with the “ssshhh … if we do it slowly maybe nobody will notice” approach.  Nobody said that you don’t need some regulatory controls, but are way past reasonable controls increasingly into socialism.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Wasn’t it the Domino Theory that helped cause the miscalculations of getting us involved in Vietnam?

Curious Alda, please show me a totally capitalist society without any socialism as you describe it. Anywhere. Any place. Any time. I’d like to see how it works other than it not being socialism.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

ORIGINAL: Frumious

Dr J,

I agree in that examples are often in extremes, such as the socialism vs capitalism argument, if you don’t believe in a laissez faire free market you must be a socialist and we know that can’t be good even if one does not know what it means. Like Kevin James talking about “appeasement.”

As far as your private schooling, no issue, many in public school know things too. I’m from public school & don’t think I do so bad, but most of my learning came after public school anyway.

I do think the current admin is going to far in the direction of socialism.  Gov ownership of companies, the presidents office hiring and firing CEOs, basically forcing specific mergers with foriegn owned companies, not allowing banks to pay back loans they were forced to take so that the gov retains control…..this is more like “true” socialism and a fair step beyond individual safety nets.

Re: private schools…My wife attended public schools and we ended up at similar undergraduate progams (hers was a little better) but she was #2 in her graduating class where I was somewhere in the top 1/3.  So If I want to stay married, I can’t say that people that come out of private schools are smarter..LOL.   About 20% of here class went to college after graduation which is still a little higher than the national ave.  There is a difference in who the private schools get as they are usually children of professionals, usually from households that are well above poverty etc but when she and I compare the educational opportunities, there were things I had access to that she did not see until college. I think that is the main issue, which prepares the student better.

[kayla.meyer_144]

I have to disagree with the socialism especially as far as business ‘ownership’ is concerned. IMO, too many business “leaders” have gone catatonic and are also paying the costs of to many bad business decisions over too many years, correction, decades – while fabulously rewarding themselves to boot. Which businesses, banks and AIG? For banks, there is precident such as the S&L crisis in the late 1980’s. When the government comes into a bank & shuts it down, fires the Officers, what is that if not the government taking ownership. They clean it up and if possible put it back into private business again but have they ever kept ownership? What’s the difference between Citi & Bear, & Morgan between Truman “taking over” the steel industry or Reagan firing the air traffic controllers? Truman was too long ago, but Reagan was an Republican so it’s OK but Obama is a Democrat so it’s socialism? If the companies are too big to fail maybe the government should declare they are too big to exist. No company has the right to drag us down to oblivion because of excessive greed and bad business decisions. If they get “bailed out” should it be with no strings attached? Obama and Bush should give away hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars with no strings attached, no right to say, “You’re out of line & you’re fired!”? just because they royally screwed up & threaten to drag our and the world’s economies down with it? Just like any other incompetant or by ‘simply’ making multiple $trillions of dollars mistake, why should they be protected from being fired. If the companies were allowed to fail they would be out of a job anyway, except of course they’d get their golden parachute first.

If you fear that Obama won’t let go, what’s your basis? Has the government kept any of these failed businesses before? Have they ever taken over a company on a whim? Was this all just Obama’s whim?

If the private sector is paralyzed and sinking the world economies, the governments should do nothing because it is socialism? Maybe just cut some taxes would fix the problem? I don’t think so.

My issue with Mistrad and public schools is not that I’m against private schools, but the Republican reflex of bashing public schools. Public schooling have historically been one of America’s greatest strengths & while not near perfect should be supported not automatically bashed. Low performance can be attributed to many factors, not just poor and uncaring districts and teachers but curriculums teaching religious “science” for example.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

ORIGINAL: Frumious

I have to disagree with the socialism especially as far as business ‘ownership’ is concerned. IMO, too many business “leaders” have gone catatonic and are also paying the costs of to many bad business decisions over too many years, correction, decades – while fabulously rewarding themselves to boot. Which businesses, banks and AIG? For banks, there is precident such as the S&L crisis in the late 1980’s. When the government comes into a bank & shuts it down, fires the Officers, what is that if not the government taking ownership. They clean it up and if possible put it back into private business again but have they ever kept ownership? What’s the difference between Citi & Bear, & Morgan between Truman “taking over” the steel industry or Reagan firing the air traffic controllers? Truman was too long ago, but Reagan was an Republican so it’s OK but Obama is a Democrat so it’s socialism? If the companies are too big to fail maybe the government should declare they are too big to exist. No company has the right to drag us down to oblivion because of excessive greed and bad business decisions. If they get “bailed out” should it be with no strings attached? Obama and Bush should give away hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars with no strings attached, no right to say, “You’re out of line & you’re fired!”? just because they royally screwed up & threaten to drag our and the world’s economies down with it? Just like any other incompetant or by ‘simply’ making multiple $trillions of dollars mistake, why should they be protected from being fired. If the companies were allowed to fail they would be out of a job anyway, except of course they’d get their golden parachute first.

 
First off, the air traffic controllers are federal employees, so easier to fire them as the president…completely different than president having the ability to fire someone in private industry. 
 
Second, the past bailouts have been negotiated over buisness plans (like now) with certain assets held by the gov as collateral.  the company were allowed to, as they were able (a judgement made by the company itself, not the gov) to pay back the money owed. Similarly afte the Sand Ls failed, the gov bought some of the bad assets and sold them off as things recovered at a profit.  Again, they did not buy the companies and impose themselves into the industry In the current situation, there were banks THAT DID NOT WANT THE MONEY, where FORCED to take it with all the strings attached..including gov ownership/control, and are NOT being allowed to pay the money back.  To me that is crossing the line as you have government forcing it self on a private company.   
 
To be clear, there should be a negotiated purpose for the money (ie, for stabilization of the company/bank, not bonuses etc…btw, Obama’s crew with all their intervention, dropped the ball on that right?), but not a gov take over of the industry (ie out and out socialism).  Really, the pure capitalism would just let all these companies die and that would take care of the

ORIGINAL: Frumious
If you fear that Obama won’t let go, what’s your basis? Has the government kept any of these failed businesses before? Have they ever taken over a company on a whim? Was this all just Obama’s whim?

If the private sector is paralyzed and sinking the world economies, the governments should do nothing because it is socialism? Maybe just cut some taxes would fix the problem? I don’t think so.

 
In a word, yes…I am worried that the gov will not let them go.  Politicians are as greedy as those in buisness except for they write the rules in addition to having money and power.  It is not just Obama but the current mood in gov in general.  Honestly proposing placing GPS devices on every car to track them (for tax purposes at first but after….), forcing healthcare providers into computer records that will be open sorced to Medicare (ie the gov), controlling many of the largest banks and industries…all make me very very nervous.  Rome cheered when they took an emperor, Hitler was elected to office…it is a slippery slope that we have to be careful of….
 
“Those who would give up freedom for security deserve and will get neither”-Thomas Jefferson

ORIGINAL: FrumiousMy issue with Mistrad and public schools is not that I’m against private schools, but the Republican reflex of bashing public schools. Public schooling have historically been one of America’s greatest strengths & while not near perfect should be supported not automatically bashed. Low performance can be attributed to many factors, not just poor and uncaring districts and teachers but curriculums teaching religious “science” for example.

 
LOL at the last comment.  I went to a religous affiliated (fundimentalist for that matter) private school (very well thought of in the city where I lived) and we had both chapel and religious classes daily. Some of these were overt bible study, some where comparitive religion, and some where ethics/philosophy classes.  Keep in mind that many of the students attended because of the schools reputation and not for the religious element. Creationism was NOT taught in the science classes and evidence for evolution, big bang etc were all presented in pretty much the same manner as when I was in college. What was discussed at the end of that section was the context of the known scientific evidence and its impact on Genesis etc.    For those who where Chirstian, it was very helpful to be exposed to all the scientific facts and theories and be involved in a discussion where it challenged them and allowed them to frame it in the context of their faith.  For those who where not, it exposed them to ideas that they will also come in contact with and at least gave them exposure….actually for a bunch of 15 yr olds (when population biology was taught) it was a pretty engaging series of classes from what I remember. 
 
Regardless, did not seem to effect my education (have a PhD in neurosceince also).

[Unknown Member]

I guess that all those that want pure capitalism don’t want any government involvement in healthcare. I guess you are willing to give up all your Medicare pay? Also you will gladly reimburse the government for your medical school costs. The vast majority of what it costs to educate a medical student and all the costs of residents is from government. When you send that check for about 400K+ to Uncle Sam let me know. Also I assume that many of you work in hospital. Please find out if you can quit accepting Medicare or Medicaid patients. I’m sure the hospital will say fine. We aslo won’t have most insurance because companies will stop providing it with no tax writeoff. Yes you can charge whatever you want for your exams with no government control or insurors, but the 5-6 exams you read probably won’t make you that much income. Also I hope that all of you don’t want public education, fire departments, police, military because those are all government programs and therefore socialist. I guess we can all just revert back to a hunter/gatherer society with a you eat what you kill philosophy. I hope you now how to make your own bow and arrow because with no roads, rails, etc. you won’t be buying much of anything. If you live in city, I hope you enjoy human meat because that will be all that you will find to shoot.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

I really don’t think anyone wants all one thing or the other….I think the discussion is on where to draw the line.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

An additional point…just saw where someone in Congress wants to haul the NCAA into testify and force them to have a playoff system for football. 
 
I don’t like the BCS but is this really what we want?  The Gov to come in and decide everything?  Holy crap, this is rediculous. 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Dr. J

First off, the air traffic controllers are federal employees, so easier to fire them as the president…completely different than president having the ability to fire someone in private industry. 

OK but they grabbed my rescue rope with me tied to them with a rock that they tied around their own ankles ready to drag us both down with the threat, “save me or I’ll drown you with me.” Under those circumstances I want to kick their a$$ when we get back to dry land not thank them for tying me to a rock. Without the rescue they would have drowned. Republicans are complaining that they were not allowed to drown but when their company is saved & they are kicked out Republicans also complain that government has no right to fire them. This is confusing & sounds like speaking out of both sides.

Second, the past bailouts have been negotiated over buisness plans (like now) with certain assets held by the gov as collateral.  the company were allowed to, as they were able (a judgement made by the company itself, not the gov) to pay back the money owed. Similarly afte the Sand Ls failed, the gov bought some of the bad assets and sold them off as things recovered at a profit.  Again, they did not buy the companies and impose themselves into the industry In the current situation, there were banks THAT DID NOT WANT THE MONEY, where FORCED to take it with all the strings attached..including gov ownership/control, and are NOT being allowed to pay the money back.  To me that is crossing the line as you have government forcing it self on a private company.   

Bush & Paulson pressured the banks to accept and many who said they were healthy had their pens anxiously held out nevertheless.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2008/oct/15/banking

I don’t know how “forced” they all were to accept or the reasons to force so-called healthy banks to accept the money. Why did Bush & Paulson force so-called healthy banks to accept funds supposedly not needed?

To be clear, there should be a negotiated purpose for the money (ie, for stabilization of the company/bank, not bonuses etc…btw, Obama’s crew with all their intervention, dropped the ball on that right?), but not a gov take over of the industry (ie out and out socialism).  Really, the pure capitalism would just let all these companies die and that would take care of the

I agree, let them die but not global multiples of Lehman Brothers. For what, a moral hazard lesson? & who pays for this lesson if my economy & children’s prospects are diminished as a result? I posted another time a story I had heard about a tailor who made suits for the Wall Street “suits” in the 1920’s. After the fall he cheered for their downfall saying they deserved it, but he never worked again says the story a bit plausibly. This is too high a price for an impotent cheer just before I become destitute in turn.

In a word, yes…I am worried that the gov will not let them go.  Politicians are as greedy as those in buisness except for they write the rules in addition to having money and power.  It is not just Obama but the current mood in gov in general.  Honestly proposing placing GPS devices on every car to track them (for tax purposes at first but after….), forcing healthcare providers into computer records that will be open sorced to Medicare (ie the gov), controlling many of the largest banks and industries…all make me very very nervous.  Rome cheered when they took an emperor, Hitler was elected to office…it is a slippery slope that we have to be careful of….

“Those who would give up freedom for security deserve and will get neither”-Thomas Jefferson

Not to be picky, but the quote was by Ben Franklin. I am not seeing Obama as the new Emperor or Hitler. If anything Bush’s supporters were saying he was the uni-Executive & not answerable to the Law or Congress or the Court. In fact I think it is Bruce Fein along with other Conservatives who warned about Bush’s practices & wanted him & Cheney impeached & warned what about these powers being used by succeeding Presidents? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Freedom_Agenda

Suddenly now we are in danger of having Emperor Obama but not Emperor Bush, because Obama fired some CEOs?

Seriously, GPS on every car? I don’t think so.

LOL at the last comment.  I went to a religous affiliated (fundimentalist for that matter) private school (very well thought of in the city where I lived) and we had both chapel and religious classes daily. Some of these were overt bible study, some where comparitive religion, and some where ethics/philosophy classes.  Keep in mind that many of the students attended because of the schools reputation and not for the religious element. Creationism was NOT taught in the science classes and evidence for evolution, big bang etc were all presented in pretty much the same manner as when I was in college. What was discussed at the end of that section was the context of the known scientific evidence and its impact on Genesis etc.    For those who where Chirstian, it was very helpful to be exposed to all the scientific facts and theories and be involved in a discussion where it challenged them and allowed them to frame it in the context of their faith.  For those who where not, it exposed them to ideas that they will also come in contact with and at least gave them exposure….actually for a bunch of 15 yr olds (when population biology was taught) it was a pretty engaging series of classes from what I remember. 

Regardless, did not seem to effect my education (have a PhD in neurosceince also).

Comparative religion & ethics/philosophy are not the issues. You were taught that science & religion are not mutually exclusive, but that is not something believed by some Fundamentalists & Creationists. Find for their children but not mine & not with my tax money, I don’t want to pay taxes to teach ignorance.

[melkushon]

ORIGINAL: Frumious

I don’t know how “forced” they all were to accept or the reasons to force so-called healthy banks to accept the money. Why did Bush & Paulson force so-called healthy banks to accept funds supposedly not needed?

A banker friend of mine tells me his large and healthy bank (one of a number of national banks with excellent risk-management) was forced to take TARP money because the government did not want to create concern that the banks that wanted/needed to take TARP money were insolvent.  Now they have this TARP money and cannot give it back.  They have to hold it for 3 years and repay with 5% interest.  If they try to pay it back ahead of time, they pay a penalty.  It is a no-win situation for them.

Interestingly, the bank has consistently done quite well but recently couldn’t reward its employees with a retreat because it “took TARP money”.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

ORIGINAL: Frumious
OK but they grabbed my rescue rope with me tied to them with a rock that they tied around their own ankles ready to drag us both down with the threat, “save me or I’ll drown you with me.” Under those circumstances I want to kick their a$$ when we get back to dry land not thank them for tying me to a rock. Without the rescue they would have drowned. Republicans are complaining that they were not allowed to drown but when their company is saved & they are kicked out Republicans also complain that government has no right to fire them. This is confusing & sounds like speaking out of both sides.

Well, Gov does have to be the savior here….I would not even be opposed to saying that a condition for the change is that there has to be obvious restructuring and even discussions about short term plans….but specificaly outlining who will and will not be fired is too much intrusion into the day to day buisness and beyond the scope of the Federal Gov IMHO.  If the industry is that lost, then let them die.
 

Bush & Paulson pressured the banks to accept and many who said they were healthy had their pens anxiously held out nevertheless.
[link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2008/oct/15/banking]http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2008/oct/15/banking[/link]

I don’t know how “forced” they all were to accept or the reasons to force so-called healthy banks to accept the money. Why did Bush & Paulson force so-called healthy banks to accept funds supposedly not needed?

I never said this was just Obama’s fault.  Bush has done plenty to push us away from the free country we think we live in…the wire taps, etc.  I have no idea why these banks were pushed to take the funds.   It is Obama’s people who refuse to let the banks pay it back though.

Not to be picky, but the quote was by Ben Franklin. I am not seeing Obama as the new Emperor or Hitler. If anything Bush’s supporters were saying he was the uni-Executive & not answerable to the Law or Congress or the Court. In fact I think it is Bruce Fein along with other Conservatives who warned about Bush’s practices & wanted him & Cheney impeached & warned what about these powers being used by succeeding Presidents? [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Freedom_Agenda]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Freedom_Agenda[/link]

Suddenly now we are in danger of having Emperor Obama but not Emperor Bush, because Obama fired some CEOs?

Seriously, GPS on every car? I don’t think so.

It has been a while since history class so you could be right…still no less true.  I agree with Bush overstepping his bounds and Cheney’s arguements over hime being accoutable to the law also horrible.  That said, Obama is continuing to push us down the road.  Lets continue your arguement from above….The Gov takes over healthcare…now I am invested in YOUR health.  If I see you eating the wrong thing YOU are costing me money, “taking me down with you”  in your previous example.  The more we allow the Fed Gov to ‘protect us’ the more we become its slave because the more direct interest it has in how we impact the “collective” good (borg reference intentional).

For the GPS follow this link that I posted in a previous thread->:[link=http://www.detnews.com/article/20090429/POLITICS03/904290380/1148/rss25]http://www.detnews.com/article/20090429/POLITICS03/904290380/1148/rss25[/link]

“…..The [b]tax would entail [u]equipping vehicles with GPS technology[/u] to determine how many miles a car has been driven and whether on interstate highways or secondary roads. The devices would also calculate the amount of tax owed. [/b]
“At this point there are a lot of things that are under consideration and there is also a strong need to find revenue,” Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard said. “A vehicle miles-traveled tax is a logical complement, and perhaps a future replacement, for fuel taxes.”
Gas tax revenues — the primary source of federal funding for highway programs — have dropped dramatically in the last two years, first because gas prices were high and later because of the economic downturn. They are forecast to continue going down as drivers switch to fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles…..”

Comparative religion & ethics/philosophy are not the issues. You were taught that science & religion are not mutually exclusive, but that is not something believed by some Fundamentalists & Creationists. Find for their children but not mine & not with my tax money, I don’t want to pay taxes to teach ignorance.

The irony in your statement is that if you follow that through, then they will never discuss religion and the philosophy associated with it and the specific roles different beliefs played on history (History of the reformation church till present and the Middle Ages to present european/US history are almost inseperable), you are, in fact, ignorant of those things….I would argue, my education was more complete as it did not confine itself to ONLY secular teaching.  The funny thing I find about this line of thinking is that some are seem as scared for their children to be exposed to religious ideas who are atheist as people who are religious are afraid to allow their children to be exposed to ideas contrary to their beliefs.  It is as though, if they hear that some believe in a God etc then their children will be converted. It is not like they will never be exposed to it. 

The wisdom (although I did not see it at the time) in the way I was taught was that they presented all of it…it was up to the individual to make their own judgement.  So many positives to this.  You realize that not everyone thinks as you or your parents do, you are presented with ideas that challenge you belief system, you develop your own critical thought process to sort through how and what you think and believe, and, because you often disagreed with the teacher and other students in the class, taught you tolerence for people who disagree with you….

If the teaching  does not include compartive religion, ethics and philosophy and only teaches a specific idealogy then I would be in more agreement with your point….I am more inclined to think that specifiying certain ideas that cannot be discussed is not what education should be…certainly is not the Socratic method that much of western education attempts to follow. IMHO, more is better as long as the opposing aspects are also offered.  Regardless, this further demonstrates some aspects of my education in a private setting not offered in the current public ones.

[eyoab2011_711]

“An additional point…just saw where someone in Congress wants to haul the NCAA into testify and force them to have a playoff system for football. 

I don’t like the BCS but is this really what we want?  The Gov to come in and decide everything?  Holy crap, this is rediculous.”
 
And this is from Joe Barton (R) Texas
 
100% rating Americans for Prosperity
96% rating American Conservative Union
90% rating Christian Coalition
62% rating John Birch Society
 
[link=http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=27082&type=category&category=17&go.x=16&go.y=12]http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=27082&type=category&category=17&go.x=16&go.y=12[/link]
 
So because his state school didn’t get to be the BCS title game, suddenly government intervention is necessary.  So much for ideologic purity….
 
To be fair he is working with Bobby Rush (D) Illinois
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Dr J,

There is a danger in a nanny-government, yes. But we already have something worse with the private insurance industry in that they can make coverage more expensive or just refuse to cover you, or cover you & then deny coverage or “renewal” if you live a dangerous lifestyle. It’s as much as having a “pre-existing condition.” The application is not much different. Do you know of patients who will pay out of pocket to ensure that some results are not part of their file? Why would they do that since there is no nanny-government health care?

The fact is that I do believe in public health. I think it serves society better than “you’re on your own” experience we have now. A majority of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. How many people do you know who have thoroughly read their coverage & fully understand it?

I listened to Uwe Reinhardt recently discussing costs of health care. Your comment about the “collective good, (borg reference intentional) made me remember a specific point he made. He was discussing the argument between America’s “I can have it now” with Canada’s & Britain’s & Germany’s “scheduled” care. This of course assumes that you have insurance that will actually cover your care in America. His mother in Germany was scheduled for a hospital bed in 2 weeks, he didn’t say why. He volunteered to call to get her in sooner & she lectured him that he was asocial, if she got in sooner some other person would be forced to wait an additional 2 weeks. The question is, is this simply a Borg mentality, end of discussion? There are always compromises for any system chosen, assuming there are choices.

The discussion of the subjects have been missing for years with examples that are extremes, as you note. Reinhardt finishes by warning all to be cautious of discussions calling these issues “socialism” because these labels won’t solve any problems. He notes that some say Americans don’t want Socialized Medicine but they do want immediate care & feel that society owes them to get them good & quick care. That’s a contradiction.

——————
I’m aware of your posting the GPS story. The fact is this can already be done with tom-toms, etc voluntarily installed by the owners. I don’t see it happening. If anything, private companies would be more interested in tracking your comings and goings & whereabouts.

The irony in your statement is that if you follow that through, then they will never discuss religion and the philosophy associated with it and the specific roles different beliefs played on history (History of the reformation church till present and the Middle Ages to present european/US history are almost inseperable), you are, in fact, ignorant of those things….I would argue, my education was more complete as it did not confine itself to ONLY secular teaching.  The funny thing I find about this line of thinking is that some are seem as scared for their children to be exposed to religious ideas who are atheist as people who are religious are afraid to allow their children to be exposed to ideas contrary to their beliefs.  It is as though, if they hear that some believe in a God etc then their children will be converted. It is not like they will never be exposed to it. 

The wisdom (although I did not see it at the time) in the way I was taught was that they presented all of it…it was up to the individual to make their own judgement.

You are concluding something I never said. I have no problems with real comparative religion classes in schools, but let’s not limit the classes to Christianity then, let’s make it more of a Joseph Campbell class & study them all & the ideas behind them all. Your discussion of the Reformation is limited to the Christian European history. Go back further to the origins of the Bible, what stories were chosen to be put in & which out & why, which books were written when & what the politics of the times were, the similarities of the Christ story with pagan mythologies and with Buddahism, Greek/Roman mythology and further back & other countries’ religious beliefs, even Islam. How about comparative interpretations of Judaism with Christian Old Testament? That would be comparative religion worth studying. If my children become Buddhists or Jains or Catholics is fine with me so long as they understand why.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

ORIGINAL: Frumious

Dr J,

There is a danger in a nanny-government, yes. But we already have something worse with the private insurance industry in that they can make coverage more expensive or just refuse to cover you, or cover you & then deny coverage or “renewal” if you live a dangerous lifestyle. It’s as much as having a “pre-existing condition.” The application is not much different. Do you know of patients who will pay out of pocket to ensure that some results are not part of their file? Why would they do that since there is no nanny-government health care?

 

 
Sorry….I cannot agree with this. If you live a more dangerous lifestyle then you have to accept responsibility for you actions.  Why should I pay for your poor or risky choices.  I used to race cars and understood my regular health policy would not cover me while I was racing.  I had to pay for additional coverage through another company while racing.  I accepted that as part of the extra risk I assumed by an activity the increased my risk of injury or death.  It was not fair for you or others to assume that risk equally with me for MY choices.  Equally, if you are doing something stupid or risky, then I don’t want to pay for you either.
 

ORIGINAL: Frumious
 
The fact is that I do believe in public health. I think it serves society better than “you’re on your own” experience we have now. A majority of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. How many people do you know who have thoroughly read their coverage & fully understand it?

I listened to Uwe Reinhardt recently discussing costs of health care. Your comment about the “collective good, (borg reference intentional) made me remember a specific point he made. He was discussing the argument between America’s “I can have it now” with Canada’s & Britain’s & Germany’s “scheduled” care. This of course assumes that you have insurance that will actually cover your care in America. His mother in Germany was scheduled for a hospital bed in 2 weeks, he didn’t say why. He volunteered to call to get her in sooner & she lectured him that he was asocial, if she got in sooner some other person would be forced to wait an additional 2 weeks. The question is, is this simply a Borg mentality, end of discussion? There are always compromises for any system chosen, assuming there are choices.

The discussion of the subjects have been missing for years with examples that are extremes, as you note. Reinhardt finishes by warning all to be cautious of discussions calling these issues “socialism” because these labels won’t solve any problems. He notes that some say Americans don’t want Socialized Medicine but they do want immediate care & feel that society owes them to get them good & quick care. That’s a contradiction.

 
You want to be taken care of.  I want to be allowed to take care of myself.   The freedom to succeed also allows me the freedom to fail.  A safety net so I don’t starve and die is a good role for gov.  A system that tries to make sure bad things never happen to good people is self defeating.  Even in your example of all the more enlightened people in Germany demonstrates that not only are their people who can manipulate the system to their advantage but that are willing to..So your example of the person willing to wait, are, in a way foolish.
 
I want the ability to choose what happens to me as much as possible….at least not have the government choose for me.  If that means I carry more risk then fine….more risk usually = more reward.

ORIGINAL: Frumious
——————
I’m aware of your posting the GPS story. The fact is this can already be done with tom-toms, etc voluntarily installed by the owners. I don’t see it happening. If anything, private companies would be more interested in tracking your comings and goings & whereabouts.

 
Tom-Toms aren’t registered to specific people and the government does not have access to do the tracking, the devices are not manditory.  all different than the big brother we would set up.

ORIGINAL: Frumious
You are concluding something I never said. I have no problems with real comparative religion classes in schools, but let’s not limit the classes to Christianity then, let’s make it more of a Joseph Campbell class & study them all & the ideas behind them all. Your discussion of the Reformation is limited to the Christian European history. Go back further to the origins of the Bible, what stories were chosen to be put in & which out & why, which books were written when & what the politics of the times were, the similarities of the Christ story with pagan mythologies and with Buddahism, Greek/Roman mythology and further back & other countries’ religious beliefs, even Islam. How about comparative interpretations of Judaism with Christian Old Testament? That would be comparative religion worth studying. If my children become Buddhists or Jains or Catholics is fine with me so long as they understand why.

 
I never said it was limited ot the Reformation…just a specific example to illustrate a point.  Did you expect that I outlined the entire curruculum for 4 years?

[kayla.meyer_144]

ORIGINAL: Dr. J

Sorry….I cannot agree with this. If you live a more dangerous lifestyle then you have to accept responsibility for you actions.  Why should I pay for your poor or risky choices.  I used to race cars and understood my regular health policy would not cover me while I was racing.  I had to pay for additional coverage through another company while racing.  I accepted that as part of the extra risk I assumed by an activity the increased my risk of injury or death.  It was not fair for you or others to assume that risk equally with me for MY choices.  Equally, if you are doing something stupid or risky, then I don’t want to pay for you either.

Interesting, you complained earlier about people using extreme arguments that don’t correctly illustrate the issue & then you use extreme examples. No one is talking about skydivers or race car drivers. How about “pre-existing conditions” like a family history of disease so that you cannot buy insurance or you develop cancer & get dropped & can’t buy new insurance or a policy that “renews” every 6 months & suddenly the next 6 month renewal is denied based on a pre-existing condition?

I suppose as long as I stay healthy & you are not so fortunate, I wouldn’t want to pay for you either.

You want to be taken care of.  I want to be allowed to take care of myself.   The freedom to succeed also allows me the freedom to fail.  A safety net so I don’t starve and die is a good role for gov.  A system that tries to make sure bad things never happen to good people is self defeating.  Even in your example of all the more enlightened people in Germany demonstrates that not only are their people who can manipulate the system to their advantage but that are willing to..So your example of the person willing to wait, are, in a way foolish.

I want the ability to choose what happens to me as much as possible….at least not have the government choose for me.  If that means I carry more risk then fine….more risk usually = more reward.

Repeat of the 1st paragraph regarding extreme arguments. It’s relatively easy to be affluent and healthy & then argue that anyone not affluent or healthy are victims of their own failures. As for Reinhardt’s mother’s foolishness, your argument holds no water. The example never tried to illustrate that even in Germany the system can’t be manipulated & your argument that it can be, ergo she is a fool? Because she refuses the “me first, screw you” ethos? Perhaps it’s more an illustration of your feelings of privilege and entitlement and rationalizations than her foolishness?

Tom-Toms aren’t registered to specific people and the government does not have access to do the tracking, the devices are not manditory.  all different than the big brother we would set up.

Sorry, but this is still paranoid musings. Big Brother can do this more effectively and cheaply than creating & staffing a new intrusion department monitoring your driving. Why go through all that bother, just raise the tax on fuel, the more you burn the more miles you’ve driven the more taxes are collected. No so hard.

I never said it was limited ot the Reformation…just a specific example to illustrate a point.  Did you expect that I outlined the entire curruculum for 4 years?

You covered all that in 4 years? Good. But how many people know comparative religion or the history & origins of their religious beliefs & how they compare with others’ beliefs? Most beliefs center around, “My God can lick your God” & “My Book was created by God and is word-for-word-true but yours is a lie” & “I’m going to Heaven & you’re going to Hell.” You were also concerned about non-believers & their children. My belief is that there are many ways to the truth.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

ORIGINAL: Frumious

Interesting, you complained earlier about people using extreme arguments that don’t correctly illustrate the issue & then you use extreme examples. No one is talking about skydivers or race car drivers. How about “pre-existing conditions” like a family history of disease so that you cannot buy insurance or you develop cancer & get dropped & can’t buy new insurance or a policy that “renews” every 6 months & suddenly the next 6 month renewal is denied based on a pre-existing condition?

I suppose as long as I stay healthy & you are not so fortunate, I wouldn’t want to pay for you either.

 
You said, “But we already have something worse with the private insurance industry in that they can make coverage more expensive or just refuse to cover you, or cover you & then deny coverage or “renewal” if you live a dangerous lifestyle.”  That is different that someone with an existing medical condition.  What did you mean if not someone who chooses to preform occupational or personal activites that increase their risk for injury, disease or death.  To me it is compeletly fair for those (including myself) to pay more because of increased risk to the pool of insured.

 Repeat of the 1st paragraph regarding extreme arguments. It’s relatively easy to be affluent and healthy & then argue that anyone not affluent or healthy are victims of their own failures. As for Reinhardt’s mother’s foolishness, your argument holds no water. The example never tried to illustrate that even in Germany the system can’t be manipulated & your argument that it can be, ergo she is a fool? Because she refuses the “me first, screw you” ethos? Perhaps it’s more an illustration of your feelings of privilege and entitlement and rationalizations than her foolishness?

 
I woudl argue that your assumption that you should be taken care of with no risk by a grandfather like gov suggests more entitlement than a restricted gov that provides only opportunity and safety nets in extreme circumstances.
 
Maybe I missunderstood your point. you seemed to be holding her up as an example of an attitude held by people in other countries facilitate the health care utopia you wish for the US…ie they are benevolent to the extreme, even at the cost of their own health.  My point is that in your own example, you have another family member who not only had the will but the abiliity to manipulate the situation to undermind the system at the expense of people like Reinhardts’ mother….if not, why would he suggest it? Seems that people arn’t that much different.

  Sorry, but this is still paranoid musings. Big Brother can do this more effectively and cheaply than creating & staffing a new intrusion department monitoring your driving. Why go through all that bother, just raise the tax on fuel, the more you burn the more miles you’ve driven the more taxes are collected. No so hard.

 
raising taxes on fuel, while stupid right now, does not violate personal privacy….so yes that is better.

You covered all that in 4 years? Good. But how many people know comparative religion or the history & origins of their religious beliefs & how they compare with others’ beliefs? Most beliefs center around, “My God can lick your God” & “My Book was created by God and is word-for-word-true but yours is a lie” & “I’m going to Heaven & you’re going to Hell.” You were also concerned about non-believers & their children. My belief is that there are many ways to the truth.

 
oddly, most who have no religious belief also engauge in this….instead it takes the form of “if you are religious you are ignorant and stupid”…people always feel the need to look down on others.

[kayla.meyer_144]

I mean you don’t use the example of a skydiver’s of race car driver’s risk choices to justify not covering most people. Evel Knievel’s health insurance policy is not the example and justification of why so many people have no coverage. It does not follow to compare his with a librarian’s risks and cost. It is not logical, it is a straw man argument.

Again you lead with a statement that “I” would like to be taken care of by the government in a “utopian” health care system… Another leading and misleading argument. Another non sequitur.

Regarding Reinhardt’s mother, he considered what most American’s would consider, to help his mother. She declined the offer & scolded him & you think she is foolish because she choose not to employ his assistance to move ahead of the line elbowing someone else out of the way. Therefore that “proves” the German system is flawed, not “perfect,” not immune to influence. As for her foolishness at not pushing to the head of the line, perhaps she does not have a glioblastoma so 2 weeks is not life threatening therfore her “foolishness” is more related to a lack of fast-food treatment expectations. Reinhardt did not elaborate & still spoke of her in the present tense therefore it was probably not a life threatening issue so her foolishness is moot?

I never said anyone was ignorant because they are religious. I look down on no one based on the presence of religious belief. Why do you need to make non sequitur arguments? I’m very sure we don’t share religious beliefs but for you to therefore conclude something more perhaps says something about your beliefs than mine. I did see a woman with a sign this weekend that said, “You have to be ________ to get to Heaven.” The space was filled in but I don’t share her, IMO, narrow-minded view about which flavor of belief is necessary to get to heaven.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

ORIGINAL: Frumious

I mean you don’t use the example of a skydiver’s of race car driver’s risk choices to justify not covering most people. Evel Knievel’s health insurance policy is not the example and justification of why so many people have no coverage. It does not follow to compare his with a librarian’s risks and cost. It is not logical, it is a straw man argument. 

 
Sort of covered in the other thread but your are missusing the phrase straw man argument. 
 
OK…I was using an easy example to use a point but I will go another way.
 
There are a large number of illnesses directly associated with smoking.  Lung Cancer was as rare as hen’s teeth until the turn of the 19th century when the mass production of premade cigarettes hit wide distribution.  Physicians could practice their entire careers and never see a case.  It has been demonstrated that smoking signficantly increases the risk of Lung cancer, bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, renal cell cancer, cervical cancer, esophogeal cancer, AAA, peripheral artery disease, emphysema/COPD, and pharyngeal cancer and increases the risk of heart disease and stroke (says so on the label).  All of these diseases carry a significant morbitiy and mortality, all cost a crap load to diagnose and treat.  If someone chooses to smoke, they have made a lifestyle choice that significantly increases their risk of developing a disease and die that they would not have had if the did not smoke.  There is a hell of a lot more of them then there are racing drivers or skydivers meaning their potential impact on the overall cost of health care is signifcantly higher than all the racing drivers combined…which acually probably carries a lower risk of actual death or injury when compared to 30+yrs of smoking.
 
Similar impact from obesity (more than half the population in the US now) and type 2 DM that often accompanies it.
 
Aside from the few people who have hormone disturbances etc, most of these people have their associated conditions from something they choose  to do (smoking, overeating) or not choose to do (exercise, quit smoking, loose wieght).  It is my position that they carry with them a greater burden to the health care system and risk to those who insure them and should..because it is a choice, pay more.
 

ORIGINAL: FrumiousAgain you lead with a statement that “I” would like to be taken care of by the government in a “utopian” health care system… Another leading and misleading argument. Another non sequitur.

Regarding Reinhardt’s mother, he considered what most American’s would consider, to help his mother. She declined the offer & scolded him & you think she is foolish because she choose not to employ his assistance to move ahead of the line elbowing someone else out of the way. Therefore that “proves” the German system is flawed, not “perfect,” not immune to influence. As for her foolishness at not pushing to the head of the line, perhaps she does not have a glioblastoma so 2 weeks is not life threatening therfore her “foolishness” is more related to a lack of fast-food treatment expectations. Reinhardt did not elaborate & still spoke of her in the present tense therefore it was probably not a life threatening issue so her foolishness is moot?

 
I described it as utopian because you are describing a population of humans that does not exist…where all say after you. It has never existed, and does not exist. Not even in Canada, the UK or Germany (where many of their citizens that can afford to fly to the US to get treated instead of waiting BTW).
 
I said she was foolish because she will be taken advantage of by people like her own family member who will bump her out of line if they can. 
 
I was critical of your story because you were trying to use it to show how enlightened the general public is in Germany and I was pointing out that out of a sample of 2, 1 did not share that inclination.  My true opinion is that I don’t want to rely on someone else to make my choices for me. If that means I carry more risk then that is the price of freedom IMHO.  This also goes back to my previous point. Everything comes down to cost and reward.  I wanted to race cars, the cost was an increased risk to myself (unrealized loss) and increased insurance premiums (as well as 6 years of my early 20s but that is besides the point). My reward was the experience in the races, traveling around, meeting famous people and a little money that I earned while doing it. 
 
I would rather be more responsible for securing my own future and enjoy the extra freedom that comes with it…including the freedom to fail.
 

ORIGINAL: FrumiousI never said anyone was ignorant because they are religious. I look down on no one based on the presence of religious belief. Why do you need to make non sequitur arguments? I’m very sure we don’t share religious beliefs but for you to therefore conclude something more perhaps says something about your beliefs than mine. I did see a woman with a sign this weekend that said, “You have to be ________ to get to Heaven.” The space was filled in but I don’t share her, IMO, narrow-minded view about which flavor of belief is necessary to get to heaven.

 
Lets end this part of the discussion. This grew out of the comments about private school vs public where I gave examples of some advantages not offered in public schools and countered that teaching reglious beliefs in itself is not necessarily a bad thing (with the caveats we have discussed).  You have read too much into my last two comments as I never said you thought or have said during this discussion people where ignorant etc. I was just illustrating the point that it is a human tendency not a tendency of only religious people to hold their opinions about such things above others by pointing out that there is a defacto atheist “orthodoxy” concerning opinions about reglion that is equally narrowminded and judgemental.   Lets end this point on areas where we seem to agree, scholarly discussion of such matters is not a bad thing given the right context and the way it is presented (although, there is something to be said about being confronted by someone who believes strongly against your own beliefs).

[kayla.meyer_144]

Nothing would stop creating policies that are more expensive for people who engage in risky lifestyles. No one is complaining that a life insurance policy is more expensive for smokers than non-smokers. If you are asking in a world with mandatory health coverage how to cover those people, that needs to be worked out. I’m asking what of people who do not engage is a risky lifestyle who have no coverage. I’m asking how to address the problem of medical costs being a leading cause of bankruptcy or lack of coverage being a major factor in higher morality.

You make a blanket conclusion that except for people with hormonal problems, most all other health problems are ‘self-inflicted’ and their personal costs should be higher. That assumes they can get coverage at all and that is a might large assumption that their health problems are their own due to their irresponsibility. While I agree that some are their own worst enemy I also think your assumption is a convenient cop-out. First, what of those with hormonal problems, are they getting adequate care or should they get a normal rate because it’s not their fault? What of children, including teenagers? What of mental health? Too many holes in your argument, too many left out. Not all sick people are themselves at fault.

As for utopia, no one is seeking utopia. I’m told that Paradise will come in the next life. That’s good enough for me, in the meantime I’d like to leave this world a better place than found. Utopia never was the destination.

As for Reinhardt’s mother, who in her family is bumping her out of the way? That makes no sense. I never said Germans were superior, that’s your misinterpretation, deliberate? Maybe Germans do have a different sense of social responsibility? Maybe David Brooks can illustrate in today’s opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/opinion/05brooks.html

For example, in Fords 1946 movie, My Darling Clementine, Henry Fonda plays Wyatt Earp, the marshal who tamed Tombstone. But the movie isnt really about the gunfight and the lone bravery of a heroic man. Its about how decent people build a town. Much of the movie is about how the townsfolk put up a church, hire a teacher, enjoy Shakespeare, get a surgeon and work to improve their manners.
The movie, in other words, is really about religion, education, science, culture, etiquette and rule of law the pillars of community. In Fords movie, as in real life, the story of Western settlement is the story of community-building.

They would begin every day by reminding themselves of the concrete ways people build orderly neighborhoods, and how those neighborhoods bind a nation. They would ask: What threatens Americans efforts to build orderly places to raise their kids? The answers would produce an agenda: the disruption caused by a boom and bust economy; the fragility of the American family; the explosion of public and private debt; the wild swings in energy costs; the fraying of the health care system; the segmentation of society and the way the ladders of social mobility seem to be dissolving.

The Republicans talk more about the market than about society, more about income than quality of life. They celebrate capitalism, which is a means, and are inarticulate about the good life, which is the end. They take things like tax cuts, which are tactics that are good in some circumstances, and elevate them to holy principle, to be pursued in all circumstances.

There is the liberal theory, in which teams of experts draw up plans to engineer order wherever problems arise. And there is the more conservative vision in which government sets certain rules, but mostly empowers the complex web of institutions in which the market is embedded. Both of these visions are now contained within the Democratic Party.

Community will almost always get things done better than an individual looking out for themself. That’s my point. Not, “I want to be taken care of.” The homesteader who had the neighbors come over for a barnraising was not looking for a free handout or to be taken care of.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

Nothing would stop creating policies that are more expensive for people who engage in risky lifestyles. No one is complaining that a life insurance policy is more expensive for smokers than non-smokers. If you are asking in a world with mandatory health coverage how to cover those people, that needs to be worked out. I’m asking what of people who do not engage is a risky lifestyle who have no coverage. I’m asking how to address the problem of medical costs being a leading cause of bankruptcy or lack of coverage being a major factor in higher morality.

You make a blanket conclusion that except for people with hormonal problems, most all other health problems are ‘self-inflicted’ and their personal costs should be higher. That assumes they can get coverage at all and that is a might large assumption that their health problems are their own due to their irresponsibility. While I agree that some are their own worst enemy I also think your assumption is a convenient cop-out. First, what of those with hormonal problems, are they getting adequate care or should they get a normal rate because it’s not their fault? What of children, including teenagers? What of mental health? Too many holes in your argument, too many left out. Not all sick people are themselves at fault.

As for utopia, no one is seeking utopia. I’m told that Paradise will come in the next life. That’s good enough for me, in the meantime I’d like to leave this world a better place than found. Utopia never was the destination.

 
I was not really talking about life insurance…we are talking pimarily about health coverage which is acutally a larger cost.  I work this year in a hospital where essentailly everyone comes in for free because it is a teaching hospital and they can see the residents.  Everyone is seen.  We would have at least (and I am being generous here as it is likely more) 60-70% of the patients that are being seen as a direct or inderect result of their own unwillingness to make the right choices concerning their own health care.   If you took away  DM, obesity and smoking related diseases not to mention various infectious diseases (hepatitis, STDs for examples), the hospital census would be cut in half if not less.  My wife does family practice and it is no different in her practice.  So it is not like we are talking about 5-10%.  Look at epidemiology statistics and usually the smallest segment of causes for most pathology is due to a genetic cause.  The rest, are aquired, often through activites that are avoidible and known to most of the population.
 
Here is what I dislike about socialism in general and is behind most of my part of this (admitting that no system is likely to be all on thing or another), it either requires intrusive government that has to control for all these varibles so it can afford to pay the costs or it depends on a complete altruistic population.  You will never have the latter so you end up with the former…which is a society that I don’t wish to be apart of….You say “it is something that will have to be worked out”…well that will be more laws outlawing this and that because it costs the gov. too much money.   Look what Canada has had to do…outlaw private healthcare of anytype. Is that what you really want? Not to mention the gov usually does a crapy job at most things.  During the off seasons before I started back to school, I worked for the EPA…10 people doing 2 people’s job (is why I worked there I had could take time off for travel and racing), impossible to fire lazy often incompetent workers, people often promoted to jobs they were not qualified for to get them out of departments where they were not liked, ‘cost cutting’ almost never got rid of real problem people but just ones that did not have enough political capital to stay…I can’t imagine my healthcare being decided by a similar group of people.  
 
I am fine with a health care system that picks up kids and people not insurable….or, how about a competiting private system that mandates coverage for all adults (dispersing the cost more broadly) based on a lottery system to assign the higher risk/poor pts to the insurance companies and subsidized by the gov to reduce cost.  Similar systems work pretty well for car insurance in some states. 
 
 
 

As for Reinhardt’s mother, who in her family is bumping her out of the way? That makes no sense. I never said Germans were superior, that’s your misinterpretation, deliberate? Maybe Germans do have a different sense of social responsibility? Maybe David Brooks can illustrate in today’s opinion.

 
Reinhardt had the idea to use the system to get his mother in front of others instead of waiting.  From the story, the ONLY reason this did not happen is because she objected.  Therefore, in the absence of her objection (had she said, lets do it), he would have done it.  The fact he sugested it shows that people over there thing just as someone here would, it also suggests he thought he could pull it off.  Therefore, intent and opportunity in the mind of Rienhardt demonstrates that 1 of the 2 people in your story do not share Rienhardt’s mother’s point of view.  This is pretty consistent with most humans I have met on this planet so it is likely that there are more of him around….even in Germany.  That is the point I have been making. You told the story in an attempt to demonstrate the system could work, it would just take a little work to get Americans to change their attitudes.  I don’t think they will change.  I have traveled around quite a bit and have worked with people from many different countries.  There are some differences but basic ones are not that much different.  It is like being a successful coach…..you have to use the players you have, you don’t try to force them to do things they can’t, you use what they do well and form a system around that.  MOST (you and Reinhardt’s mother might be different) people act out of self interest or self perservation.  You just have to align the goals you want with those that conicide with the individuals in the population.
 
BTW, i don’t blame Reinthardt, if it were my daughter, wife, mother I would do what I had to do to get them the medical care they needed. 

[eyoab2011_711]

Dr J:  You conveniently leave out key problems.  1) Unlike the govt, insurance companies are for profit, they have as much incentive to deny excess procedures if not more the the govt.  2) Private insurance company’s goals are not the welfare of the individual per se, but the welfare of the corporation and its investors.  3)  While they may employ fewer people to do the sam e sorts of jobs, all these companies have just as bad, if not worse built in complexity with back end denials that they already know that the provider will see as more expensive to fight than try to collect.  4)  As currently run, health insurance companies have different rules and regulations such that you cannot simply switch to one from the other without running into crazy arcane rules that are completely opposite.  Since health plans come and go it is not always possible to avoid these situations.
 
I am always stunned that physicians see change as the problem; the status quo is the problem; until we are able to come with a simpler common alternative and stop silly label scare tactics we will continue on this untenable path.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

ORIGINAL: Thor

Dr J:  You conveniently leave out key problems.  1) Unlike the govt, insurance companies are for profit, they have as much incentive to deny excess procedures if not more the the govt.  2) Private insurance company’s goals are not the welfare of the individual per se, but the welfare of the corporation and its investors.  3)  While they may employ fewer people to do the sam e sorts of jobs, all these companies have just as bad, if not worse built in complexity with back end denials that they already know that the provider will see as more expensive to fight than try to collect.  4)  As currently run, health insurance companies have different rules and regulations such that you cannot simply switch to one from the other without running into crazy arcane rules that are completely opposite.  Since health plans come and go it is not always possible to avoid these situations.

I am always stunned that physicians see change as the problem; the status quo is the problem; until we are able to come with a simpler common alternative and stop silly label scare tactics we will continue on this untenable path.

 
The profit is the motivation to do it for cheaper and better.  The goverment will have just as much incentive to deny coverage when they run out of money (eventually we will no longer be able to borrow all this money) and face the rath of voters when they double the taxes.  As to what is paid or not, there is oversight (a legitimate role for gov).
 
That said, I think we are headed to a 2 teir system regardless what happens.  Those who don’t have much money will get the public system and those that do will get be able to afford the increased rate of insurance for private health care…just like education.  I am not scared of change as long as it is a better system. Yet to see a proposal that fits that.

[kayla.meyer_144]

The “solution” is not to look at the lowest common denominator and therfore conclude there is no better way forward, in fact, there is no way forward. History is the proof that you are wrong. The world is better than it was 2000 years ago, better than 500 years, better than 100 years ago. What is the American character? To see a new day, a new beginning. People came here, why? Because Americans are fat & smoke a lot & will steal the shirt off your back, just screw & pass on STDs & other infectious diseases and live risky lifestyles to the detriment of themselves and society at large.

Where’s humanity in your observations? They’re all the walking dead? Did you ever live with these walking dead, speak to them & hear their lives? You wife agrees & stays in the profession? Why? It’s a lucrative job?

I’ve lived with these people all my life, in my own family even. Sometimes a swift kick is the best they deserve but they want something better, especially for their kids, the vast majority of them. Some are leeches some are hopeless meaning they gave up their dreams or never had them. I’ll stop before I cry but they are not a waste. I don’t want to give the time to some of them either but they all don’t deserve condemnation. Most don’t deserve to be thrown away. A lot of successful adults came from broken hard lives. Not everyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Not every kid is a doctor’s son.

What you don’t like about Socialism is intrusive government so the alternative is, what? Get them before they get you? Every man for themselves?

Community is the social in socialism. Your church requires social responsibility. Is that Socialism? You spoke of religion and Christianity & history. Christianity’s Messiah lived with society’s outcasts, not the rich and socially favored. Things were even worse that what you and I and your wife have seen and experienced.

You say you would do the same for your mother or daughter or wife. What about your son or brother? You would do the same & yet criticize him because he thought he could “pull it off.” It is a story that things are not as bleak as you paint them. People can be altruistic without being stupid. The story was more an illustration however because it was so different of how Conservatives paint ‘reality.’ Conservatives believe in the dark side of humanity but that is not the way forward. It is not how history has progressed. There is more opportunities for the human detritus now than there was 50 years ago & there could be more opportunities in the future. People don’t come to America because the American Dream is less hopeful than the life they left behind.

Watch some john Ford movies & see.

Profit motive is not evil but it can be a lower road. The government has not made things worse otherwise it would have no support at all for evils like Social Security & Medicare & Medicaid & equality and air and water quality and other laws. Detroit and Wall St collapsed because of the blind belief in short-term profits over long-range goals. Capitalism like Democracy is the worst, except for all other ways. But even democracy has limiting rules. Too much of a good thing can kill you.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

The “solution” is not to look at the lowest common denominator and therfore conclude there is no better way forward, in fact, there is no way forward. History is the proof that you are wrong. The world is better than it was 2000 years ago, better than 500 years, better than 100 years ago. What is the American character? To see a new day, a new beginning. People came here, why? Because Americans are fat & smoke a lot & will steal the shirt off your back, just screw & pass on STDs & other infectious diseases and live risky lifestyles to the detriment of themselves and society at large.

Where’s humanity in your observations? They’re all the walking dead? Did you ever live with these walking dead, speak to them & hear their lives? You wife agrees & stays in the profession? Why? It’s a lucrative job? 

I’ve lived with these people all my life, in my own family even. Sometimes a swift kick is the best they deserve but they want something better, especially for their kids, the vast majority of them. Some are leeches some are hopeless meaning they gave up their dreams or never had them. I’ll stop before I cry but they are not a waste. I don’t want to give the time to some of them either but they all don’t deserve condemnation. Most don’t deserve to be thrown away. A lot of successful adults came from broken hard lives. Not everyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Not every kid is a doctor’s son

What you don’t like about Socialism is intrusive government so the alternative is, what? Get them before they get you? Every man for themselves?

.

It is not the lowest common denominator, it is just how things are.  As much as you and I for that matter, would like to see it, human nature is what it is.  I would argue the humanity in my observations is recognizing the good and the bad and the relative balance of each.  IMO, providing for yourself is not bad, it is what you should do.  Should you feel an obligation to help those around you?  Sure, I think most do and I am not even against spending some tax payer money for it (although not sure it should be the Federal Gov).  That said, it does not remove the responsibilty and consequences of choices made from the individual.  The people who produce in this country do this…

The hard truth is that government is dependent on the private sector for all that money.  Government produces nothing, it lives off the backs of the producers in our society.  I am the only person in my family to get a doctorate of any type…in fact, i am only one of 3 that have ever held a college degree and one of only a few that finished highschool.  My mother worked and provided for me and her though she had a chronic illness requiring multiple surgeries, did not even a college education and had to do it alone.  Through it all, she never took one dime from the government outside of money back on her taxes. But she came from an era when it was a point of pride NOT to take money from the goverment. My step father who came along after I graduated from highschool, went into the military and paid for his own education as an architect and started his own firm that he still runs today. My wife’s father came to the US by himself at 17yrs old after being released from a Nazi work camp (parents dead) at the end of WWII with literally only the clothes on his back, did not even speak English and was able educate himself and build his own electrician buisness from scratch, raise three kids and pay all three’s way through college. To me these examples epitimize what the US should be…that if you work hard, pay attentition and good things happen.  Most people who are a success (don’t consider myself in that group yet) don’t do it through luck (BTW, I define success by being able to provide for yourself, your family while fulfilling your role as a father/mother/son/daughter). “The harder I work the lucker I am”-Sterling Moss. 

You can think of it this way, the more you are able to provide for yourself and family, the better shape you are in to help others.  That is why the US (well up until recently) has been in a position to provide military and finacial help for many poorer contries around the world.  By being successful, we were in a position to do this.

If you have an illness, accident, are functionally mentally retarted, have a deblitating psychiatric condition..then yes, society has an obligation to help provide for you.  Lazy, unwilling to work, choose to smoke crack and sleep with prostitutes but othewise, physcially and mentally sound, then you should have to work like the rest of us and give back to the world.  To take the money when you are able to do otherwise, then IMHO you are in a way stealing from those who are really in need that the money was actually intended to go to.

Community is the social in socialism. Your church requires social responsibility. Is that Socialism? You spoke of religion and Christianity & history. Christianity’s Messiah lived with society’s outcasts, not the rich and socially favored. Things were even worse that what you and I and your wife have seen and experienced.

You say you would do the same for your mother or daughter or wife. What about your son or brother? You would do the same & yet criticize him because he thought he could “pull it off.” It is a story that things are not as bleak as you paint them. People can be altruistic without being stupid. The story was more an illustration however because it was so different of how Conservatives paint ‘reality.’ Conservatives believe in the dark side of humanity but that is not the way forward. It is not how history has progressed. There is more opportunities for the human detritus now than there was 50 years ago & there could be more opportunities in the future. People don’t come to America because the American Dream is less hopeful than the life they left behind.

The American dream is the opportunity to succed and the freedom to make your own choices.  I see our freedoms being slowly taken away.  Before you jump, both parties have contributed.  W Bush was as bad as any tax and spend Democrat we have ever had…probably worse as I think his presidency could be the down fall long term of this country. Is it still better than most countries?  Sure..but that is slowly changing.

Profit motive is not evil but it can be a lower road. The government has not made things worse otherwise it would have no support at all for evils like Social Security & Medicare & Medicaid & equality and air and water quality and other laws. Detroit and Wall St collapsed because of the blind belief in short-term profits over long-range goals. Capitalism like Democracy is the worst, except for all other ways. But even democracy has limiting rules. Too much of a good thing can kill you.

the profit motive will always exist, even if it is not called the profit motive. I again agree that pure capiltism is not the way to go but you have to allow those who are willing and able to produce do so and motivate those who can but don’t want to  to join in. The companies that you decry don’t have people they can force to hand them money every April 15th.  Look at the government’s books.  The whole thing is defered costs and borrowed money.  The only difference between GM and the Fed Gov is they have a gun pointed at the “shareholders” to hand over more money and can print their own money.  It is a mismanaged as the car companies and just as self serving. Why give it the entire healthcare system to screw up?

all that said, the health care system does need to fixed..but don’t want the whole thing handed to the federal government.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Some auto-bio of my own. My mother raised us after divorcing my father who was an alcoholic, the last 20 years of his life unemployed, cared for by his mother, neither of whom was on Food Stamps or Welfare of any kind except for my grandmother’s SS checks – does that qualify? My mother was a factory worker & she died of cancer in my early adulthood, she also never was on the dole. My wife’s family also worked and was never on the dole except for SS after retirement, their sole income. She had an uncle who was an alcoholic & lived in SRO’s but he didn’t exactly have people over for dinners at the holidays and was distant.

I don’t know anyone who smoked crack, is lazy and unwilling to work and/or sleeps with prostitutes. Even the local hard-luck kids – young adults – I know who are unlucky in their parental “choices’ want to and do work, hard, don’t smoke crack or hang with prostitutes. Their incomes however are substantially below the national average & many are not quite advanced degree material but they try & are not irresponsible. They have no insurance or benefits of any kind worth noting so they save up cash for a trip to the dentist or a local GP for instance.

What I disagree most with your postings and many other like-minded posters is the grouping together in a refuse category & hang assumptions about them generally being lay-abouts who just want to suck the cash from hard working affluent people and are not willing to work and provide for their own families. Times have also changed. My 1st job was working in a shipyard with a pay – and benefits – that would allow me to rent a nice apartment & I could go to college & pay for tuition and borrow the rest in student loans. Not too many of those around anymore. Most of the new jobs have no bennies and pay minimum wage and apartments cost a bit more than minimum wages even for 2.

[jquinones8812_854]

Clearly times have changed.  People should not have to depend on their employer for health care.

That said, I still believe there are alternatives to a national health care system.  Just nationalizing the system will not automatically solve the problems that are inherent in the system. 

[kayla.meyer_144]

“Automatically”? [u]No one[/u] believes that.

I agree, strapping the employer with health insurance costs is not the proper way to do it and is a legacy of corporate decisions made to avoid discussions of nationalizing health insurance, but the time has come. That said, how would you propose private insurance companies cover most people with good insurance, easy to understand policies at affordable rates? Is there a country in the world that does this? Better yet, is there a country or countries that cover most or all of its population with good insurance with easy to understand policies at affordable rates? How is it done?

There will be tradeoffs in any system but the present one we have is falling down on the job and it is the most expensive in the world.

[jquinones8812_854]

That was an overstatement on my part.

I think we generally agree.  The part that I don’t know how they will make work is if there is a government system built in.  Wouldn’t it automatically have an advantage that insurers wouldnt, such as not tax burden?  I am not sure how you maintain any free market insurers along side a wholly nationalized system.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Perhaps something like Germany does it with supplemental insurance which provide more perks.

In truth, based on past experience I am highly skeptical about the success of a 100% or majority private insurance market providing a majority of coverage for a majority of people. We’ve had a couple of decades and it’s got worse, not better under private insurance plans. All those “Harry & Louise” scare tactics against the Clinton health plan have in fact been put into place by these same private health insurance companies.

[jquinones8812_854]

Germany is the best of the ‘socialized’ plans.  I agree with you there.

As for insurers…look they are certainly to blame for a lot.  But so is the government.  Every year we have more and more restrictions.  Our reimbursements for CMS drop…which in turn push insurer reimbursements downward.  The government increases regulations on what needs to be covered.  Well, all of those things will push costs up.  There is no way around it.  And the legal system doesn’t help. 

No one of those factors is purely responsible.  It is all of the above.

The question is how do we fix it?  I think we need a bottom to top restructuring of the whole system.  Even the private insurer system has to be revamped.  We have to frankly decide that certain things cannot be covered, simply because we can’t afford it. 

Again, I know it is a bad word, but the only way we will ever get costs controlled is some kind of rationing.  The problem is, no one is brave enough yet to be honest with the public about that.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Also no arguments about some government culpability. It’s great to be able to say all are covered under Medicare/Medicaid & watch these same people being dropped by physicians, etc because they can’t afford to treat them because the government keeps cutting reimbursements in order to keep everything “affordable” forcing Hospitals to make up the difference through the private insurance of their other patients. I’ve decided that my mortgage is too high for me to afford, and my energy bill too so I’m informing them that as of next month I will now pay $0.33 for every $1 charged to me; they can make up my difference by charging the other customers the difference.

Time to get real. No more Ponzi schemes, no more games.

[jquinones8812_854]

See many of these things are common sense…if we could just get past some of the ridiculous politics.

[kayla.meyer_144]

And unhelpful “Socialized Medicine” characterizations used to cut off discussions.

[jquinones8812_854]

Like others have said…we are already partially socialized…for good or ill.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

ORIGINAL: Frumious

Also no arguments about some government culpability. It’s great to be able to say all are covered under Medicare/Medicaid & watch these same people being dropped by physicians, etc because they can’t afford to treat them because the government keeps cutting reimbursements in order to keep everything “affordable” forcing Hospitals to make up the difference through the private insurance of their other patients. I’ve decided that my mortgage is too high for me to afford, and my energy bill too so I’m informing them that as of next month I will now pay $0.33 for every $1 charged to me; they can make up my difference by charging the other customers the difference.

Time to get real. No more Ponzi schemes, no more games.

 
Agree with much of this.
 
I wonder if a system simlar to that used in car insurance would work…Bascially, everyone has to be covered, those who are poor risks or cannot afford it are placed into a lottery and the company that gets them has to cover them with premiums subsidized by goverment funds. You still have competition between carriers, gov oversite (as they would set the benefit levels and conditions for inclusion), and retain free will for practitioners.
 
Another model is the one used in Tenn where there is universal healthcare but only for those who cannot afford it or have been rejected for coverage.  You have to provide proof of either (by tax return or rejection letters), and it is limited to just those people. The providers are run just like an HMO.  This system makes sense to me as the help goes to the people who need it while retaining insurance competition etc.

[SAULBKNYC_904]

ORIGINAL: Frumious

Some auto-bio of my own. My mother raised us after divorcing my father who was an alcoholic, the last 20 years of his life unemployed, cared for by his mother, neither of whom was on Food Stamps or Welfare of any kind except for my grandmother’s SS checks – does that qualify? My mother was a factory worker & she died of cancer in my early adulthood, she also never was on the dole. My wife’s family also worked and was never on the dole except for SS after retirement, their sole income. She had an uncle who was an alcoholic & lived in SRO’s but he didn’t exactly have people over for dinners at the holidays and was distant.

I don’t know anyone who smoked crack, is lazy and unwilling to work and/or sleeps with prostitutes. Even the local hard-luck kids – young adults – I know who are unlucky in their parental “choices’ want to and do work, hard, don’t smoke crack or hang with prostitutes. Their incomes however are substantially below the national average & many are not quite advanced degree material but they try & are not irresponsible. They have no insurance or benefits of any kind worth noting so they save up cash for a trip to the dentist or a local GP for instance.

 
First, sorry to hear about your mother.
 
I always find it interesting how people can experience similar things and see them differently.  I am all for helping people who are trying and think that is a very sound investment for tax dollars.  What started us down this discussion was you saying that people who engauge in risky lifestyles should not pay more ie assume more responsibiliy and that led to this part of the discussion.  This does not include people who behave responsibly but just not making enough to make it out.  Your expereince tells you this is a small minority…mine tells me that it is a significant portion and diverts the money and resources away from the people who are trying. My perspective is that it was hard to see my mother work 10-12 hr days and pay taxes while people who could work had been unemployed for months lived in the same building collecting gov checks from tax money paid by her.
 
How to potect those who are trying to make it out of poverty while not setting up a system for people to abuse is a tough question. I think everyone, including me, would like to see the healthcare system change but how to do it where the absolute quality does not suffer or one where the people making the choices are bureaucrats instead of the Drs. and pts.  I saw too much waste while working for the Fed gov to have any faith in it running healthcare. 
 

ORIGINAL: Frumious
What I disagree most with your postings and many other like-minded posters is the grouping together in a refuse category & hang assumptions about them generally being lay-abouts who just want to suck the cash from hard working affluent people and are not willing to work and provide for their own families. Times have also changed. My 1st job was working in a shipyard with a pay – and benefits – that would allow me to rent a nice apartment & I could go to college & pay for tuition and borrow the rest in student loans. Not too many of those around anymore. Most of the new jobs have no bennies and pay minimum wage and apartments cost a bit more than minimum wages even for 2.

\
 
It is not the affluent people who get screwed by the system, it is the low middle to middle class or upper lower class that get screwed.  Many of these are small buisness owners whose personal assets and income is the buisness it self.  Their buisness income is counted as personal but really is the money they have to reinvest into the buisness.  As to the number of unmotivated people, I have to say my experience this year working for a county hospital tells me there is more than enough around to be a signficant burden on the system. 
 
 

[stlmchenry_510]

At both extreme ends of the spectrum lies fascism/dictatorship. The problem is with how some people define capitalism. This to me does not mean taking advantage of others. It means using your craft/education and ability to turn a profit. The more special, unique, in-demand etc it is, the more profit can be made. Violation of personal privacy laws, bad faith contractsetc..these are rights violations, not capitalism.

[stlmchenry_510]

Where the rights are violated, the government should intervene. To me, thats partially what we pay taxes for at citizens of this Country.

[stlmchenry_510]

Adhesion contracts and exploitations that allow rights violations should also be done away with.

[btomba_77]

Yeah. Maybe I picked a bad thread to post this, as the title implies that an increased level of government support for individuals isn’t “capitalism.”
 
 
Most people want a capitalist society … they just want the government to help provide a social safety net, consumer protections, make sure tha business don’t destroy the environment, and maintain a rule of law that applies to everyone in the same way.
 
It doesn’t make the society any less capitalist to put those things in place.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from dergon

Most people want a capitalist society … they just want the government to help provide a social safety net, consumer protections, make sure tha business don’t destroy the environment, and maintain a rule of law that applies to everyone in the same way.

I agree with this on the veneer surface but in my experience too many do not understand this at all, much less capitalism vs anything else. And as we’ve seen for decades now, good laws & regulations can be deliberately made to be misunderstood. Especially with zero-sum explanations.
 
According to 1 party/political philosophy, what do we have entirely too much of?
 
Regulations. That’s what.

[kayla.meyer_144]

And let’s not forget the social safety net that makes people lazy takers. Recall a few years ago that was a primary discussion point on AM Off-topics, lazy takers and government enslavement making people into salves by helping. The type of help DeSantis was opposed to with Sandy for instance but likes the help with Ian.

[satyanar]

Quote from dergon

Most people want a capitalist society … they just want the government to help provide a social safety net, consumer protections, make sure tha business don’t destroy the environment, and maintain a rule of law that applies to everyone in the same way.

It doesn’t make the society any less capitalist to put those things in place.

 
Agree, which is why it’s so important that our political candidates are encouraged to appeal to these wants while not posturing that it is the “capitalists” that are at fault for individual’s station on life. Our extremely wealthy corporations must take on some of the responsibility to provide for the public, if our government is asked to do less and less for people. 
 
I’ve always been in favor of large tax incentives for corporations that do a better job of employing and giving benefits to their work force. Much better idea IMO than taking money through more taxes and trusting the government with what to do with it.
 
Of course there will always be those that need the safety net. The capitalists, if properly incentivized, could really help limit that number. 

[stlmchenry_510]

Yeah, weve all been pretty much reduced to a computing node.

[stlmchenry_510]

People or groups should also not be able to have access to personal data on your phone, such as photos, text messages, notes, phone calls. This is all under reasonable expectation of privacy and should only be accessible by law enforcement with a search warrant that all parties are made aware of.

[stlmchenry_510]

Apparently this data can be bought or accessed without our knowledge or consent. Sick.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from Picasso01

People or groups should also not be able to have access to personal data on your phone, such as photos, text messages, notes, phone calls. This is all under reasonable expectation of privacy and should only be accessible by law enforcement with a search warrant that all parties are made aware of.

As the Supremes have told & shown us, there is no right or expectation of privacy. The Founders neglected to consider phones, computers, photos, text messages, phone calls, etc in the Constitution & since privacy is not explicitly stated, it does not exist.
 
Short sighted of the Founders not to mention those things.

[stlmchenry_510]

So then we need to take it back.

[stlmchenry_510]

By the way, no matter what the terms say, I never signed anything that gave away my rights. Thats ridiculous. Everyone has their own agenda and thats not my own.

[kayla.meyer_144]

[link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PPbVCfAu5E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PPbVCfAu5E[/link]

[stlmchenry_510]

A wee bit of assistance

[kayla.meyer_144]

Unfortunately many capitalists do not agree with you. The public is there to make money off of so long as it is legal, even that’s no bar. Many capitalists believe in laissez-faire markets with no legal interference.
 
Caveat emptor, if you get fleeced it’s your own fault even if you can’t make heads or tails out of it. Better yet.
 
Consumer protection = government over-reach.
 
Want some CDO’s? They’re backed by predatory loan mortgages so what could go wrong.
 
Like democracy, capitalism is the worst system – except for all the others. Capitalism requires regulation, but that is anathema to some.

[Unknown Member]

George Bush Sr and co. loosened govt. controls on Freddie Mac.

His son was too busy chasing Saddam’s ass while ignoring the lax regulation of lending practices in his own country.

The results are the results, with 1 trillion dollar deficits and record unemployment.  It’s sad that Uganda’s economy is growing by 6.5% while the U.S. economy is [b]contracting [/b]by the same 6.5%

If the Republicans are universally unpopular now, they brought it upon themselves and they fully deserve it.

There is no capable Republican leadership on the horizon – they are left with a high schoolish  governor of Alaska and an immature shallow soundbite quoting governor of Lousiana.

[Unknown Member]

That may be better than a vapid president and his sidekick dummies Biden and Gibbs.

[Unknown Member]

Those numbers tell me the majority of Americans still prefer capitalism and only a small minority prefer socialism. That’s enough of a margin to win an election. There is still hope. Now if we can just get the Republicans off of “self-implode” mode we might get somewhere.

I still see some of us are clinging to the notion (delusion) that the medical system, as it exists today, has even a shadows resemblance to a freely functioning capitalistic system when in fact it is probably one of the most socialized systems in America today. A simple visit to the discussion in “general radiology” about proposed “government” cuts in reimbursements should tell you EXACTLY what kind of system you are in.

[btomba_77]

[h1][b]Majority Want More Help from the Government[/b][/h1]  
A new [link=https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-voters-want-uncle-sam-lend-hand]Fox News survey[/link] asked which of two messages voters would send to the federal government: Lend me a hand or Leave me alone.
 
A majority of 52% would ask Washington to lend them a hand, up from 44% in 2021. The eight-point increase comes mostly from[b] a 19-point jump among Republicans [/b]as views among Democrats held steady.