If I had an account, I'd favourite the crap outta this one.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So make one..

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's not just the fact that socialized medicine won't work the way Obama has planned it, but the nerve of the federal government to try and force its people to purchase an item. That's blatantly unconstitutional. Besides that I think that it's been proven time and time again by government businesses such as Amtrak, Frannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the postal service, etc. that government is by design counter-productive to running businesses. And that's why Obamacare is a bad idea

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Which is why America has such superior health care in comparison to the rest of the first world that has universal health care. /sarcasm

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We kinda do...at least private insurers are. They have motive to provide good services for low prices and the means to do so while the government has none of this. What it boils down to is how much coverage you can afford from private insurers. In America there are very few people without healthcare and Obama makes the mistake of believing that everyone that doesn't have it can't afford it. This is false. Many people simply don't want insurance, which is why the Obamacare bill is outrageous: it forces everyone who doesn't need or doesn't want healthcare to buy it. Doctors seem to like the way our healthcare system functions now: over 83% of them are considering leaving the medical profession entirely because of this bill

by Anonymous 11 years ago

if that system is cheaper and more effective as you claim then why is america ranked 37th overall for health care, 24th for health life expectancy but 2nd for expenditure? People who do not have insurance are as high as 15% and those without health insurance also includes people who are ineligible because of pre-existing conditions. Do you think that these people should be allowed to die or go into serious debt because they have the misfortune of a condition like diabetes. As for that doctors statistic, can i please have a source because i can't seem to find anything close to that number and it sounds very unlikely. I don't think ACA is a very good act but it's a definite first step to America getting the universal health care it deserves. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0106394.html http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Its okay not to be number one in every aspect...there's not enough money to accomplish that. Fact of the matter is America has private and government healthcare that nearly all can reasonably afford. As for those who are ineligible, there are plenty of Heath providers that have no restrictions on pre-existing conditions. There is enough variety to find one that fits your needs. That's the great thing about private insurance versus government insurance. Here is the source: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/09/report-83-percent-of-doctors-have-considered-quitting-over-obamacare/#ixzz20GDLw9IW I will read your links but I'm gonna eat first

by Anonymous 11 years ago

my point was that you're spending more than nearly every nation with horrible results. Your survey only surveyed 700 doctors thats less than one hundredth of a percent of the total doctors in america, meanwhile there are entire sites created by doctors to promote the idea (http://www.drsforamerica.org/). I can't disprove it totally but the survey does not sound very reliable. The problem with health care offered to anyone with pre-existing conditions, is that it is rare, much more expensive and covers much less. Even with insurance most companies don't cover everything and it is in their best interests not to pay out whenever possible. I just honestly cannot understand why someone would be against universal health care.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well switching from the macro to the micro logistics of it... Go back to what I said about other government-run businesses. They never work and they always take huge amounts of money just to fail. In my mind this isn't even arguable; it happens literally EVERY TIME. Governments just aren't built to run like corporations. That's one reason why in against it: history tells it it will fail and drag the country down with it. Also, anytime you can get something for little to no cost, the quality sucks. You won't get good care for the price of bad care. When people are lining up for every sniffle, sneeze, or ache because it's "free, the waits get long. The doctors rush. They use valuable time and resources on those that don't need it when there are plenty of others (like the ones you mentioned) that desperately need it. Therefore the benefit to universal healthcare will also be one of its problems. Past that, it's less about healthcare and more about the role of government in everyday life. Should the government be allowed to force you to purchase anything? That is a slippery slope down to socialism when they can control your money, your health, and your choices as a consumer

by Anonymous 11 years ago

One more thing: It won't be free. You can derive that from common sense. We are $15.6 trillion in debt. We don't have spare change laying around to make everybody feel good. So how will this massive government overhaul be funded you ask? By you. And me. And that person with diabetes that can't get care. If you're one of those holdouts that sticks to your private insurance; you will be stuck with bill for Timmy who has a cough. And if youre one of those hard-hearted rebels that won't purchase healthcare at all you get stuck with a nice little 2.5% increase on your income tax as a punishment for insubordination. The candy isn't nearly as sweet as its shell

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Government run programs can be very successful. Just about every first world country has a form of universal health care and almost every one of those countries ranks above the US. I live in Canada and it is way too much effort to go to the doctors with something like a cold or mildly sprained or bruised body part that they wouldn't even treat except with "lots of rest". Sure some people do come in but it's fairly rare and in waiting rooms patients are usually seen based on how serious the injury is. I can't really remember a time I've waited more than a couple minutes at a clinic and i was treated within ten minutes when i thought i had broken my foot. In addition, instead of sitting around wondering if an injury is worth the money and/or insurance increases people go straight to the doctor and get their injury tended to. The right to good health is a basic human need. We have food stamps, homeless shelters, schools and libraries funded by the government and no one wants to get rid of those? health care is a universal right meaning that it should be given to people no matter how poor they are. And with free health care comes increased taxes but american taxes are very low.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The Supreme Court voted it constitutional. Why? Because you are NOT being forced to buy it. If you don't, though, you will be taxed, and that is perfectly legal. Besides, it's not like the government is forcing us all into one plan. This is NOT universal healthcare. You can keep your current insurance plan which you will pay for like always, and Obama's plan is putting laws into effect so that people can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions and other reasons. It will help get the millions of Americans without health care health care. You might say, what about those people who don't have healthcare because they can't afford it? That's what plans like Medicaid are for. You're saying some people don't want healthcare. Then fine. They can just pay the tax. The plan is meant to reform healthcare and make it more affordable so that more people can be covered.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Low? I lol. The US taxes on anybody making six figures or more are ridiculously high. And given the state of the economy tax increases are something even the most well-off of us cannot afford. Especially given that higher taxed empirically guarantees retarded economic growth. Not to mention that brings up a whole cascade of redistribution of wealth arguments. "A form of universal healthcare" does not mean complete government control of the industry which is what is being proposed with Obamacare. And in Cananda maybe it is a hassle to go to the doctors; maybe because everything is so spread out. In America where there is a clinic on every street corner it won't be a hassle. We've seen these kinds of waiting lines in numerous countries with socialized medicine where you can't even see a doctor for weeks. And lastly, health care is not a right. It is a luxury. Our rights are spelled out in the constitution and the government's duties to its people does not include paying for their health needs. It is impossible to take care of everybody who needs help and it's not the people's nor the governments obligation to pamper them. We CAN help but should not be expected or required to

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Dannydunnaway, American taxes //are// low when compared to the taxes of socialist countries, and increased taxation does not always retard economic growth. There are two ways to raise revenue, and in a balanced government both should be employed: taxation and cuts. We can't only rely on cuts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But the trick to get more revenue out of taxes isn't to increase them. That turns people into tax dodgers. They try and find any ways they can get out of their taxes and lie about their income, etc. No, the key is to grow the tax base by lowering them (yet making them concrete) so that everybody will actually start paying them. Then we have revenue and economic growth. And of course the taxes are lower than socialist countries. There's a great quote by Margeret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money." People in socialized countries think they're getting everything from the government for free but in reality they are still paying the same price for it in taxes. The difference is they have lost their freedom of choice to government control

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh yes, American healthcare is so bad. It's so bad in fact that people from other countries come HERE for treatment

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Anon - it's this attitude which is missing the point entirely! This post is not meant to be talking about how bad the QUALITY of US healthcare is - no one would deny it's the best. But at the same time, what's the point in all of that when it's so inaccessible to so many people, and so many of those who do access it end up in debt for the rest of their LIVES! The OP is making the point that IMO, Americans have been lied to about the nature of the socialized system, and it's all done to the benefit of health lobbyists and insurance company...and to the detriment of ordinary Americans.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

First off, socialized systems cost lots of money. We already have several failing government health systems that are in debt and we don't need another one. In fact, looking at the country's balance, we can't exactly afford it right now. And in 2007, the number of uninsured was 46 mil. That's what generally gets thrown around in this debate but around 10 mil of them are illegal aliens, etc. that wouldn't even qualify for universal healthcare. Half of the remaining 36 mil have a household income of over $75K--healthcare is very easily within their grasp. If they really wanted it, they could sacrifice a few luxuries. Another 14 mil qualify for existing programs but haven't applied. Also, two thirds of them are between the ages of 18-34 meaning that young, healthy people have decided that it's not something they want to prioritize. We really aren't that bad off

by Anonymous 11 years ago

ACA will reduce the american deficit http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/omb_aca_cbo_and_the_deficit.html and you could raise your ridiculously low taxes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I didn't catch anything in that article that explained why the act would cut the deficit. And not to mention: It's the Washington Post. Thinking logically, things that cost money take that money away from something else (i.e. deficit reduction). It makes a fair amount of sense. And our taxes are low when compared to a socialist country but fortunately that's not where most of us want to be. Where is the sense in having all that you work for taken forcefully and then used to give everyone else handouts? I would rather keep my money, pay for what I need, and just have the government excercise some fiscal responsibility.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Danny - you may have been told that it's health systems that cost the nation money - but don't wars and occupations cost a lot too? America finds the money for those all the time. Secondly, the socialized system is the only one that is geared towards actually saving money in the long-term. If you think about it, the socialized system has more of a reason to get people well faster, because in keeping the nation healthy you reduce the burden on the system

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yessir. That's why we're in debt. Doesn't give us a reason to add more costs on top of it. And that doesn't make much sense. Let's assume that the system succeeds and gets everyone healthy; is it not still costing money?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm not saying the sytem becomes free, haha. I think it's perfectly logical - the socialized system's advantage over the private one is that it isn't motivated by profits. "Getting people well" as the central motivation is beneficial to the system. The US style system benefits from having as many chronically sick people as possible. It may surprise you to discover that the stuff about the UK system in Sicko is absolutely accurate, despite being part of a documentary by Michael Moore (beautiful underhand snipe at Moore there, hehehehehe)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The American system of being motivated by profits is a good thing; it increases competition, and increases quality while decreasing price. Also many government run healthcare systems are the horrors you would think they would be.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In theory what you're talking about is true, but really? What about all the people who get charged $1,000 for an ambulance ride or end up remortgaging their houses so they don't die of cancer. These are the REAL horrors. Polarizing quality of healthcare using the terms private and socialized is inaccurate and misleading, and exactly the reason I posted this. People in America have been misled and lied to about socialized systems in order to keep business ticking over well for the board rooms of big insurance companies.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

why doesn't the government just issue a voucher system, like food stamps or public housing. Why do they have to bring the rest of us down with them. In Britain as of 2008, over a million Britons were on waiting list and another 200,000 were trying to get on such lists. According to the BBC, British patients face an average wait time of 8 months for cataract surgery; 11 months for a hip replacement; 12 months for a knee replacement; 5 months for slipped-disc surgery; and 5 months for a hernia repair. Usually when a patient is admitted his problem is curable, but the long waits often render the patient to weak to undergo the surgery reccomended for them. Further, most British hospitals are, by American standards, of poor quality.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

@Tommy Those costs are why private insurances are helpful. And Patrick was definitely on the right track about profit-motivation but maybe didn't explain enough. Profit-motivation gives companies reason to provide the best possible quality of service while minimizing the cost. Like I said originally, government businesses just aren't designed to do the same since they have no need to please consumers or save money. That's the reason they end up costing so much and why most Americans would like to stay with private insurance. You say getting the patients well would be the governments motivation but that isn't motivation, that's the outcome of motivation. You assume that everyone that would work in that system would have a heart three sizes too big and would do whatever it takes, no matter the cost to save one person's life. There aren't too many of those. In the end, uld rather have somebody operating on me that IS motivated to do a good job, by money or anything, and not by somebody that SHOULD be motivated enough by that aspect that they're making me feel better

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Why should I have to pay a tax that funds some dipshit to go to the dr for something they caused on themself. I could care less if they die in a ditch because they are an idiot.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wow really? You are aware are you not that the system would mean other people would be paying taxes for when YOU needed the doctor for something. What if you get cancer and then your insurance company denies you the treatment? What will you say then? I'll bet you'd wish you'd paid a little tax. You know paying a little tax for healthcare is the same as paying your premium...it's just that the socialized system won't reject you because of pre-existing conditions or other bullshit

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Don't worry, you won't pay any tax. The rich are going to pay for it. Remember, 47% of income earners pay no income tax in the united states

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And 100% of big corporations also pay next to nothing when it comes to taxes. I've seen the reports.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Most big corporations pay the same amount of taxes that middle upper class americans pay(20-30%) I'd like to see these reports. Anyway, why does it matter if they pay low taxes. It just means they invest more, generate more wealth, and pass it down onto their workers. Improving the quality of life for everyone.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

except they don't - what they DO do though is cut off people's pensions and give the execs massive bonuses. If you think corporations are anything but sinister and uncaring, then you're deluded. Sorry.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Most tax revenue comes from the middle and working classes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

See for yourself http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The bottom 50% only pay 2.25% http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html The graph may be misleading, but it actually shows the top 1% pay almost the same amount of taxes as the bottom 99%

by Anonymous 11 years ago

and the reason this is an argument against universal health care is? Rich people should be paying more taxes individually because they also use more resources, especially corporations. Saying that less tax for them generates wealth for people is a nonsense since they make more money for THEMSELVES, it's not like they spread it around or anything

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Universal healthcare involves a simple tax you pay with your salary, and in return you get unlimited healthcare whenever and wherever you need it. Where's the catch?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The rich may make money (if they didn't why would they work) but this money "trickles down" to the lower classes. This happens because the rich can't just sit on their money, they have to buy groceries, expensive cars, gardeners, and GIGANTIC HOUSES. All this spreads the wealth around without having to go through the horrors of socialism, and even though the rich become richer at a increased rate, what's wrong with that? The wealth they created keeps turning out wealth and everyone benefits

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Universal healthcare is a horrible waste of public funds because it results in long waiting list and doesn't help those who really need help. A perfect examPle of this is theNational Institute for Clinical Evaluation and Excellence (NICE), a panel that determines which patients are preferred in terms of the treatments for which they are eligible, the medications they may be given, and how soon they may have access to a doctor. Because of cost-effectiveness considerations, NICE generally gives preference to young people over older people, and to healthy people over those with chronic disease or destructive habits such as smoking or alcoholism.NICE is also explicitly tasked with limiting people’s access to the latest and most effective drugs, again basing its decisions on what it considers to be most “cost-effective.”

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Futhermore, universal healthcare is shown to be remarkably inferior to free market healthcare. the five-year survival rate for American women with breast cancer is 83.9 percent; for women in Britain, the corresponding figureis just 69.7 percent. For men-with prostate cancer, the five-year survival rate is 91.9 percent in the United States; 73.7 percent in France; and 51.1 percent in Great Britain. Similarly, American men and women with colon cancer are more than 35 percent likelier to survive the disease than are their British counterparts.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And yet still on the whole people live longer in both the UK and France. Amazing. All the stuff your talking is utter crap. First, to address the rich. The money does not "trickle down" as you say, or perhaps it does, literally, penny by penny. The rich absolutely do sit on their money. And it's not cool that they are allowed to get so rich, especially when you look at how most of the achieve it. There's nothing wrong with creating a more regulated system that allows people to do well, without trampling all over other people to do it. Thatcherites like you are just convinced we either have to have your uber-capitalist fantasy or a communist soviet nightmare. Get real

by Anonymous 11 years ago

As for healthcare standards - I guess the American system will continue to refuse to give a damn about people who can't get the healthcare they need when they need it. The socialized system is preferable to anyone with half a brain because it's the one system that won't refuse you based on financial concerns. It's the only ethical system, and the only fair one. I can't believe you would trust your health and well-being to the board room of an insurance company. And a waste of public funds? Are you serious? Getting people well and caring for them? A waste? What's wrong with you? I suppose you think a good way to spend the money is on cruise missiles or Nimitz-class Carriers? The US spent 79 billion on the F-22, and it turns out it can't even best a Euro Fighter in close-quarter combat. Now THAT'S a waste of money.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Healthcare standards aren't just based on pure results you know, they're also based on availability. And that's where the US system is FAILING. You rank so low in WHO rankings because there are thousands upon thousands of Americans who can't get treatment because they can't afford insurance, and then hospitals won't treat them as a result. What kind of system is that? Where whether or not a person can be treated depends on their finances. How utterly shambolic and ridiculous. The US has 5 times the population of the UK, but around 6-7 times the GDP - if we can afford it, then you guys should be able to, especially since you already have the infrastructure required. Your country's shameless fear-mongering when it comes to universal healthcare is nothing more than cowardly penny-grabbing by lobbyists acting on behalf of big businesses who expand their profits at the expense of people's LIVES. You can't POSSIBLY argue that that is a superior system. It's unethical, unprincipled, sinister and downright WRONG.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thatcherites... That's a new one. I guess that is what you call conservatives in British. I would rather be called a churchillite, or better yet, a churchillian. UK and France have much smaller populations than America, therefore the statistics for those countries are bound to be more stable than America's which fluctuate with the times. we also have been going through a rough economic downturn brought on by government regulation. But don't worry, Europe's about to go through a buttload of its own problems. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the rich to sit on their money. Why? That money has to be stored somewhere, and is usually in a bank. Does the money sit there? No, the bank "invests" that money when it lends it out to small businesses starting up, people needing loans, and other enterprises that lead to more wealth generation. This is a HUGE part of the economy and stamping it out is is pretty much destroying that economy. By the way, I don't see how the rich make their money is bad. They give us something we want and we give them our money. Seems pretty noble to me. Being able to sit there and know your pumping out wealth and jobs.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Maybe this will help you: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEoQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmEZ4St2BYnk&ei=io0YUIDcC4-y8AT3nID4Bw&usg=AFQjCNFRhC2__bWxe2LNvfK8vtfCkXIVdA&sig2=oQkt1BEu8mquP9y6ZeUbAw

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Did you even read what I said, NICE rations healthcare in Britian to People they "prefer". I'd trust my healthcare to a insurance board naysay rather than trust it to a gov. Agency.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That was anyday, not naysay, typing on a phone sure has it's disadvantages, like autocorrect

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Healthcare cost so much because of government regulation and waste. No one said it better than Dr. Donald M. Berwick, who was appointed by President Obama to serve a stint as head of the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services. According to Berwick, there is an “extremely high level of waste” in federal health spending, ranging between 20 and 30 percent. Much is done that does not help patients at all,” said Berwick in December 2011. “And many physicians know it.” 

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"a waste of public funds? Are you serious? Getting people well and caring for them? A waste? What's wrong with you?" This statement shows through all of you arguments. It shows that you base your conclusion on emotions, not fact. Occasionally you see fake statistics on CNN or BBC that seem to support your cause, but your base, your last line of defense, is emotions. That's why you get so angry at my disagreement, because you think," how dare you disagree with me, my system is kind and caring, and yours is profit motivated and evil. You must hate the poor, you must hate the lower classes. Your a greedy, evil capitalist, the tv said so." rip into this comment and start the cycle over again. Maybe something will get through.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

FYI in case you didn't notice, most of the rich put their money in banks, that's for sure, just not banks in countries ordinary people have ever heard of. Your ideas of how money works are fanciful at best. And your typifying the very kind of person I'm talking about when I say Thatcherite, with idealistic thinking on how money will work its way down. It's blatantly obvious that that isn't how it works.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

OK, if you don't wanna just hear what i feel about healthcare, then here's also what I think. The socialized system makes healthcare readily available to all people who are living within that society (and even foreigners who are in need of emergency treatment), and availability is a highly important factor when it comes to creating a truly effective system. The US system places pure results on those treated at the top of its agenda, disregarding other factors. This is an erroneous perspective. No one is saying that the quality of US healthcare is substandard, it would be foolish to say so. But at the same time, what's the point of all that when thousands of people have no access to it? And why is that you say what BBC and CNN say is fake? I suppose it means what YOU hear in the media about your system is absolutely accurate? I would be highly skeptical about the findings in a system motivated by profit, compared to those found in a system that ISN'T motivated by profit.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's natural that US media would perpetuate the idea that the socialized system is terrible, and that us supporters of it are being lied to. Your system is a business, and in order to keep business good, you have to make everything else look terrible. If you wanna talk about facts, how about the fact that you are lied to in the US about the nature of what we have in countries like the UK and France, and the effects it has on the nation. Socialized medicine is not what is driving the economy down. Costly wars, declines in manufacturing, and DE-REGULATION of the financial system have precipitated economic downturn. You say it's regulation that causes it, but I say different. I say regulation in the long term is more beneficial to steady and sustainable growth. De-regulation leads to boom and bust, which allows the rich to get richer quick, and others to do nothing but lose. You are naive if you think the NHS, which was set up in 1948 after WWII and the devastation of that time, is unable to effectively operate in our current economic climate. If you have money to hurt people, then you should have money to help people.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The socialized system faces difficulty in an aging population, this is true, but the greater burden there comes in state pensions and social welfare, rather than in healthcare concerns. My grandparents for example don't go to the doctor any more than is average for anyone in the UK. And in our area, there are no long waiting lists, or corrupt goings-on as you have cited already. Changes and reforms can be made to make it work more effectively to face the challenges of a new time. This is nothing new for socialized systems like ours, since it is over 60 years old. Your claim that my information is nothing and yours is everything is hypocritical, since you give absolutely no reason why yours should really be trusted over mine. I say again, why would you trust the word of a system motivated purely in its own interest and its own profit-making. It is in the interest of insurance companies and lobbyists to keep socialized healthcare away, even though it could help millions of Americans.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Other facts for you, patients in the UK might complain sometimes about the system, as they no doubt do in the US, especially if they end up having to pay themselves despite having insurance, but at the same time they would never trade it for a US-style system, which is risky, untrustworthy, unfair and ill-motivated. The losses outweight the gains, it's quite simple. Socialized medicine where I come from is as non-controversial as votes for women (as Benn put it), and every single day I'm glad of it. The system delivered me and my brother, got my grandfather through heart surgery, looked after my dad for 4 weeks in hospital after he had a stroke, and my grandmother for the same thing, and has also operated on my grandma's spine and neck 6 times to fix highly complex chronic issues, it fixed my brother's broken nose after a rugby accident, and stiched up my slashed leg after another rugby accident, it got the bullet out of my best friends shoulder, and even gave our canadian cousin a full leg cast after a skiing accident. No one claims its perfect, but it's the better of the two systems, and that IS a fact.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Americans love to discredit socialized medicine, claiming that "free healthcare" is unreasonable and unsustainable - well I should remind those people, universal healthcare is NOT free. You pay for it through your taxes and as I understand it, a bit through local council taxes as well. Paying your national insurance is just the same as paying a private company for your health insurance, but the key difference is that there is absolutely no risk of the local health authority denying you treatment in some effort to save money and keep their investors in the black. Waste comes in many forms, and the idea that private business never wastes is frankly laughable - corporate jets, company getaways, bonuses to executives, decoration, pomp and all that other crap they spend money on with no tangible benefit to ANYONE. What did those bastards do with your $700 billion bailout money anyway? Did it "trickle down" to the pockets of employees? I doubt it

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm not surprised rich people take their money out of the country, I would if I were them. Rich people put their money in Switzerland and those islands I can't remember at the moment because there is a less regulatory environment there. The economy isn't fluctuating in those countries like it is in our countries. Inflation isn't taking away your savings in those countries as the government finances its debt. Capitalism will always seek out the least hostile environment it can find, and that's why those places are booming.  Deregulation caused the reccession? I don't think so. What happened was everyone thought the American dream was owning a home. So some liberals had a "great" idea to force banks to sell loans, even to high risk payers. So they made it happen. Yes, Bush did continue the Clinton housing policies, but he had try to rein in fanny/ Freddy but was stopped in the senate. It's way to complicated to explain here but this link may help: http://american.com/archive/201...reat-recession And if you like video's (recommended) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SagFfCO-k8

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I brought up the news media because the liberal stations distort the truth. The perfect example is the 46 million number, the supposed number of Americans without insurance. To be clear, the statistic is not pulled out of thin air. It comes from an yearly report by theCensus Bureau, which most recently stuck the number of uninsured at 45.7 million for 2007. But the problem is in the way the statistic is commonly stated and understood. the statistic does not mean that there are "46 million uninsured Americans,"  as the news media is so fond of throwing out when talking about healthcare . Just a look inside the Census Bureau data shows that 9.7 million of the uninsured are not citizens of the United States. Liberals can argue that we still have a moral duty to cover non-citizens, as you seemed to say above, but this doesn't change the fact that as a matter of accuracy, the Census data only tells us that 36 million Americans are uninsured. The problem goes deeper than that. The 46 million number is more likely to show people at where they currently are in life. The report goes on to say "[T]he estimate of the number of people without health insurance more closely approximates ...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

the number of people who are uninsured at a specific point in time during the year than the number of people uninsured for the entire year." How many people actually spend a whole year without health insurance? It's hard to say, and recent data is hard to come by. But in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office was up to the task, "we looked at two studies from 1998 that conducted interviews multiple times over the course of the survey period. One study pegged the number of people who were uninsured for the entire year at 31 million, while another put it even lower, at 21 million. In either case, the number was significantly lower than it was in 1998's Current Population Survey, which found 43.9 million uninsured". Seems like a lie to me  Other problems are:  many of those who are identified as uninsured are actually eligible for existing government programs but simply never bothered to enroll  some of the 46 million could theoretically afford health coverage, but chose not to purchase any. In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000 When all of these factors are put together, the 2003 BlueCross Bl...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

BlueShield study determined that 8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care but earn too much to qualify for government assistance. Even being without insurance still doesn't mean they won't have access to care, because federal law forbids hospitals from denying treatment to patients who show up at the emergency rooms

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So the conservative networks and individuals are absolutely truthful then, are they? Where I come from, all your media is regarded as untrustworthy since it all serves the cause of some corporate interest. It's perfectly typical of conservatives to call the liberals liars and cads, and vice versa - the truths are always somewhere in between. So what it really comes down to is which system offers the most benefit to the most people. IMO, the universal healthcare system is the fairest, the most practical and the most comprehensive one. It's also more compatible with the medical profession, which is based on a strict ethical code. I doubt you'll ever see that. You just like to believe the conservative crap that's dangled in front of you telling you that us poor folks in socialized systems are all suffering and dying waiting for treatment in over-crowded soviet-style hospitals.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh yeah, it doesn't matter if business uses money, even if it seems like waste, because they are using their OWN money. Besides, someone made those jets, refined that jet fuel, sustains those getaways, made and set up the decorations. So the money IS  Trickling down. Actually, the bailouts are not capitalism, it's something called "crony capitalism," in crony capitalism the government subsidizes  a private company. It actually leads to more corruption. A perfect example is government subsidization of colleges. These colleges have a ton of money, but still raise tuition. I wonder why, maybe cause they want more money... To me, when a government starts to support a private business that business is no longer private.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh, and plenty of the obama stimulus went to you europeans across the great pond. Oh you dirty bastards, engaging in crony capitalism and the such. 

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Unlike you guys, we don't polarize socialism and capitalism in such a grossly oversimplified way. You call us socialist, and perhaps hypocrites for also embracing capitalism. But what you perhaps don't realise is that the two things can co-exist perfectly fine. It's only weirdos like you and the Chinese who want to turn everything into a black and white issue

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you didn't realize this already this is still Patrick, If you noticed my responses are not connecting with the comment before it, it's because my response is part of my previous line of comments. So it's not that I don't read your comments, it's that I'm still responding to the massive amount of things we are covering. This conversation has truly blossomed out. Notice that the weirdo’s like us and the Chinese have steered clear of many socialist programs for the longest time and grew to the height of our power. it doesn't matter if the news is biased or not, it only matters if it's true. When you posted a article from CNN I did not criticize you on your biased source because the facts checked out. That does not mean all news stories are true, but that they should be assumed true until proven wrong. by the way CNN and NBC lie more than you would dare to believe.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

To examine the morality of Obama's proposed health reform and government run healthcare, we must ask the following questions: What is the role of government and what are its moral bounds? Also, how do these bounds apply to the current health-care debate? The acceptance of the proposition that a major purpose of government is to provide of some goods or services is related to another popularly held proposition. That notion is that government can miraculously generate resources to provide for people’s needs. But, how is that possible? Can government actually create material prosperity where none existed beforehand? It should be self-evident that the answer to these questions is no. Government cannot create by mandate. It relies on its power of taxation and coercion to provide material benefits to certain citizens. In order for it to provide some benefit for an individual it must impose a cost of equal or greater value either on that individual or on someone else. Nevertheless, the concept that government can provide cost-free benefits continues largely on the basis of wishful thinking.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In reality there is no effortless production of anything. We can only consume that which is produced by someone else’s labor. Furthermore, our government was not primarily instituted for the purpose of production. Its primary role with respect to the economy is to punish people who use force and lies for their own gain. History is testimony to the extent to which some individuals will inflict pain and hardship on others in order to obtain what they desire. Thus government’s primary role as a public institution is to thwart this behavior by punishing these people. To accomplish this, government uses force. Citizens are required to pay taxes to support the police function of government since society gains from the ensuing order which allow for civil relations among the citizens

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Regrettably, the same force can be used for illegitimate ends. This happens when government favors certain groups while confiscating property and curbing the rights of other groups. The most obvious cases revolve around the welfare state, where benefits are given to some while income is taxed away from others. The cost of the government providing these benefits will always exceed the cost of purchasing them directly because of government overhead which, as stated above, can be as much as thirty percent. The question of whether government healthcare is moral or not then is passed on to if redistribution of wealth is justified.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Every time I have a conversation about universal healthcare, the other person nearly always brings up that healthcare is a human right. This always leads me to think “what about being human gives us rights. It’s obvious that just being human doesn’t justify us having rights. If it did, then what separates our rights from hamster rights, or turtle rights? It only logically makes sense if our rights are endowed on us by our creator. So what are our rights? As expressed in the Declaration, the individual is endowed with the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. These rights allow each individual to use his talents and his property freely to the ends he personally has in mind so long as he does not violate the rights of others. In this context, people can voluntarily interact and trade with others on mutually agreeable terms to further their own interests.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Why has government more and more compromised its position by engaging in legal plunder when it is clear that such action is wrong? A big reason is selfishness. People would rather have someone else pay for their consumption than work hard and purchase things for themselves. This is as true for health care as it is for any other consumable. Many times it is not that a person lacks health insurance or that he cannot afford medical care. The real problem is that he does not want to pay for it himself. Rather, he wants someone else to pay, not as a matter of mercy shown to him, but as a matter of coercive force. Selfishness which leads to systematic thievery will destroy a nation. A nation can survive and prosper when there are a few thieves, but as more people leave productive endeavors to participate in government largess, production wanes and economic hardships increase. This is the inevitable outcome of all government schemes aimed at providing some benefit for some citizens at the expense of others.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Now, I am not saying people who truly need help should be left out to die, but I completely disagree with the idea that all of us should be made to suffer just because a small minority cannot afford health insurance. My solution is simple; the government should have a minimum income. A level at which a person can keep themselves alive and purchase the bare necessity instead of dying or going bankrupt. There is no reason a person couldn’t buy health insurance with this money. I am opposed to providing money to certain people just for housing, or just for food, or just for healthcare. A minimum income that is determined based on all of the current factors in the economy would solve all of the current money problems and cost of the welfare state without expanding it or hurting the rest of the citizens in the process. If a person spends beyond this minimum income and cannot afford health insurance, then we can say without a doubt that this person was not responsible with his money and should not receive any more payment until the next check. If this happens the government can refer the person to charity, and maybe they’ll learn a thing or two in the process.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I also have a sweeping solution, and it's way simpler. Let's institute an individual salary cap. Let's say no one person can earn any more than 120,000 a year. And also a strict limit on bonuses, say, 15,000 a year. That way, companies will have more money to invest in themselves, and we can simplify the tax system since the gap in salaries will be smaller. It gives people a more definite goal to reach, will improve forecasts for all kinds of revenue. It reduces the rich-poor gap while still promoting high standards of living. In theory, it can also attract more ethical business.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ok, I actually like you. You hold honest debate and don't resort to smearing. So when I say I'm horrified, I just don't like your ideas. What would stop me, the entrepreneur, from stop working at 120,000 and live off of that for the rest of the year. This would also severely limit the amount of wealth generated, which may then not be able to keep up with population. Besides all that, what's going to stop me from moving to France, which has 75% taxes, and you have 99% taxes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

First, thanks for the compliment. Same to you. I was raised in the countryside, so I was always taught that bullshit belongs on a field, not in a conversation. There's no point fannying about, and people who fanny about in conversations don't deserve my time and/or attention. Yorkshire people say what they mean, and they mean what they say! They also say what they like and LIKE what they say! But in a salary-cap system, we could just fix the rate of tax, couldn't we? So the tax burden would not be an issue. I agree that generation of wealth is an issue, which is the factor that makes the seemingly simple system more complex. But this problem is based on the assumption that everyone will stop working once they reach the amount of money because that's all they're in it for, the money. I know it sounds idealistic but there are a great deal of people who want to do business for more than just money. And 120,000 is not a small sum to earn per annum.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You seem to have it all figured out, even though I don't agree with it. I could really shoot it up, but I'll just point out the several major flaws: People working for more than just money? that was the same argument made by Karl Marx in support of communism. that the worker would work for the greater good of humanity, but human is a individualistic being. We work so it will benefit us, not everyone else. where would all the wealth that is taken away from the producers go to? if to government, then what would limit government from growing even bigger than the salary cap already made it?

by Anonymous 11 years ago