DEMOCRATS AND THEIR ANTI-CAPITALIST NONSENSE

Well, here we go again. The Democrats are proposing a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies. Gas prices, you see, are on the way up. Americans love to whine about high gas prices. Americans also don't know squat about oil company profits and profit margins, nor could most Americans write a cohesive paragraph on the role of supply and demand in setting prices in the marketplace. When oil companies post their huge profit figures the leftist media is eager to tell the world. Tell me, when is the last time you read a story about oil company profits that contained any reference to profit margin? Yeah .. you're right. Virtually never.

So ... ripe ground for Democrat demagogues. Slamming the very free enterprise system that brought us our incredible standard of living in this country is no problem for a Democrat who wants to exploit the economic stupidity of the American people.

Claire McCaskill is a Democrat senator from Missouri. Yesterday she was sounding like a high school drop out. To paraphrase this brilliant Democrat: "Here's what I don't get! Gas prices go up, and profits go up! I don't get it!" Yeah, Claire, I'm sure you don't.

Now .. .did Senator McCaskill mean profits or profit margins go up? Ask her that question and wait for the big "huh?" Look, Claire. Let me try to explain this to you. The reason gas prices are going up is because the demand for gas is going up and the supply is not rising to meet the demand. When the demand goes up you sell more gas. With me so far? Ok .... concentrate here for a moment. The oil companies make a certain amount of profit on the sale of every gallon of gas. Right now that figure is around seven cents. If the demand goes up you sell more gas. If you sell more gas you make that seven cents per gallon on the additional gallons you sell because of the increased demand. This means your profit goes up. See how hard that was! Now ... I don't want to fry your brain with too much information here, but even though the profits may be going up with the increased demand, that doesn't mean the profit margins are going up.

I'd better stop here. We don't want to give the brilliant Claire McCaskill too much to think about right now. Her mind is on getting back to Missouri for the weekend so that she can tell all her friends at her town hall meetings about her plans to bring these nasty oil companies under control.


By: Boortz

SOMEbody will have to raise taxes. The amount of deficit generated by the irresponsible spending of the current administration is alarming, particularly when the current administration mislabels itself "conservative."

Ok some democrats are socialist and some arn't.
I am a socialist. I believe in Universal Health Care and I believe everyone should have a decent home, food and clothing.

I don't believe in capitalizm for several reasons.
It is survival of the fitest and the disabled, dumb and mentally ill are left in the cold.
If it was an equal playing field say the disabled, dumb and mentally ill were given the same chance to succeed as the fit people I would be ok with capitalzim because than truly everyone has a chance to succeed.
But that is not how it is.

I believe in a fair game. It is not fair to have a game running up the stairs when one of the 4 people in the race and one is in a wheel chair!! So the the other 3 depending on who comes up in 1rst place, 2nd place and third place will get 100 dollars, 50 dollar and 25 dollars and the dude in the wheel chair and be in the last place gets 2 dollars.
This is capitalizm.
It is not fair to everyone.
Same with a class.. and grades those who make A's get 100 dollars, B's 50 dollars and C's get 25 dollars and D's 5 dollars and F's 0 dollars. HOw is this fair when someone who has an IQ of 12 is against people with IQs of 130?

It is not a fair game.

I believe in limited government. It's not the governments job to provide health care.


Ok some democrats are socialist and some arn't.
I am a socialist. I believe in Universal Health Care and I believe everyone should have a decent home, food and clothing.

I don't believe in capitalizm for several reasons.
It is survival of the fitest and the disabled, dumb and mentally ill are left in the cold.
If it was an equal playing field say the disabled, dumb and mentally ill were given the same chance to succeed as the fit people I would be ok with capitalzim because than truly everyone has a chance to succeed.
But that is not how it is.

I believe in a fair game. It is not fair to have a game running up the stairs when one of the 4 people in the race and one is in a wheel chair!! So the the other 3 depending on who comes up in 1rst place, 2nd place and third place will get 100 dollars, 50 dollar and 25 dollars and the dude in the wheel chair and be in the last place gets 2 dollars.
This is capitalizm.
It is not fair to everyone.
Same with a class.. and grades those who make A's get 100 dollars, B's 50 dollars and C's get 25 dollars and D's 5 dollars and F's 0 dollars. HOw is this fair when someone who has an IQ of 12 is against people with IQs of 130?

It is not a fair game.

It is the governments duty to make sure it's citizens have basic needs. Medical care is a basic need.

SOMEbody will have to raise taxes. The amount of deficit generated by the irresponsible spending of the current administration is alarming, particularly when the current administration mislabels itself "conservative."
i blame the Executive branch. just because Congress authorizes a bridge to nowhere, doesn't mean it has to be built.:mad:

If the windfall profits tax is the same sham it was the last time it was enacted, it will not affect the oil companies at all. It will do absolutely nothing to control oil prices, or to inhibit profiteering. In fact, if they do what they did last time, the oil companies will not even have to pay the tax.

The last time, they taxed the owners of the oil. The oil companies lease the mineral rights, and own almost none of the oil. The people that were taxed were the land owners, who had a fixed contract that set a price for the oil. They were not recieving any increased profit, since the leases run for many years and specify the price, yet they were the ones actually taxed. The oil companies payed nothing. Congress got all the great publicity for taking on the oil companies and quietly pocketed the campaign contributions.

I suspect this will be a similair program, a tax increase on people wh are not making one additional penny from the high price of oil, while the corporations that are manipulating the supply will pay nothing.

It is survival of the fitest and the disabled, dumb and mentally ill are left in the cold.
If it was an equal playing field say the disabled, dumb and mentally ill were given the same chance to succeed as the fit people I would be ok with capitalzim because than truly everyone has a chance to succeed.
But that is not how it is.



so now we are not only responsible for maintaining the Earths climate at a level good for human life but we are entrusted to reverse darwins laws? One thing a t a time warrior. Lets master climate control first, then we can get around to stamping out natural selection.

It is you christians that claim we are not animals and are higher than this concept of darwinism but capitalizm is darwinism in its finist moment. Can't keep up little guy oh too bad we leave you to die in the cold. Too bad.

You can't let the government force it's people to pay a bunch of taxes and then give the money to those it sees fit. That is not the way it should work.

It is you christians that claim we are not animals and are higher than this concept of darwinism but capitalizm is darwinism in its finist moment. Can't keep up little guy oh too bad we leave you to die in the cold. Too bad.

Your statement below is false.

It is the governments main duty to protect its people. (protect borders, exc.)

It is also the governments duty to provide police (protection) to provide

a court system to handle disputes.

It is not the governments duty to provide health insurance. If it does that, it gets too big and too expensive. Health insurance should be handled through employment. If you need health insurance, and your job does not provide it, then you should consider getting a new job.

People depend on the government far too much as it is.

It is the governments duty to make sure it's citizens have basic needs. Medical care is a basic need.

It is you christians that claim we are not animals and are higher than this concept of darwinism but capitalizm is darwinism in its finist moment. Can't keep up little guy oh too bad we leave you to die in the cold. Too bad.

is everyone who disagrees with you a christian by default? I told you already, we have a member with a phobia of christians already, we dont need 2 of you.

Your statement below is false.

It is the governments main duty to protect its people. (protect borders, exc.)

It is also the governments duty to provide police (protection) to provide

a court system to handle disputes.

It is not the governments duty to provide health insurance. If it does that, it gets too big and too expensive. Health insurance should be handled through employment. If you need health insurance, and your job does not provide it, then you should consider getting a new job.

People depend on the government far too much as it is.

umm how come 90 percent of hospitals cannot turn you away if you are uninsured?
You the tax payer will pay for it one way or another and universal health care is cheaper than the millions of dollars a year that hopitals make paying customes pay every year from those who are uninsured.
There are many many programs from pharmacy companies helping people who cannot afford medication pay for thie medication guess who they pass that price unto....YOU!!!

So whether the government makes you pay or the hospital and insurance companies pass it on to you. They have to take care of the weak and ill because otherwise America would be put on trial for neglect of basic needs.

the sad thing is when I got hurt at work a few weeks ago I, in incredible pain, had to drive around and walk around to a dozen different doctors looking for treatment, none would take a dept. of labor workmans comp case. I bet if I were an illegal alien I would have been treated and relesed by the time I found a doctor to take my case.

probably
That is indeed very sad. :(

You should never have problem finding help!

Reading some posts here you dont get the impression of very much camaraderie between Americans. As has been said, its survival of the fittest, its a sad reflection on the worlds richest country.

not really survival of the fittest...

we have these things called "rights".. in case you havn't heard of them.. like a right to an attorney, or a right to not get beat up or shot for your wallet... look it up.

Do these famous rights say anything about 'protecting the poor and disadvantaged' in American society.

Do these famous rights say anything about 'protecting the poor and disadvantaged' in American society.

what do you think welfare and food stamps are?

Welfare and foodstamps dont seem to help the homeless find homes, the uneducated get schooling, the sick get a doctor, the jobless find work.

Your statement below is false.

It is the governments duty to make sure it's citizens have basic needs. Medical care is a basic need.

It is the governments main duty to protect its people. (protect borders, exc.)

It is also the governments duty to provide police (protection) to provide

a court system to handle disputes.

It is not the governments duty to provide health insurance. If it does that, it gets too big and too expensive. Health insurance should be handled through employment. If you need health insurance, and your job does not provide it, then you should consider getting a new job.

People depend on the government far too much as it is.
I think basic needs--education, health, housing, clean water, food--should be provided by the government as much as possible. Security has a higher priority, but largely America could (and actually does) provide many of these other basic needs.

The particular problem with health care is that demand approaches infinity (there is nothing we won't do to stay healthy if others are paying the bill).

Originally Posted by Leper
SOMEbody will have to raise taxes. The amount of deficit generated by the irresponsible spending of the current administration is alarming, particularly when the current administration mislabels itself "conservative."

i blame the Executive branch. just because Congress authorizes a bridge to nowhere, doesn't mean it has to be built.:mad:

The pertinent point here is that whenever some warmongering Washington conservative (with deep ties to the oil industry) decides to wage a *war to nowhere*, (IOW, a war on a country that has never threatened America but that DOES possess massive oil reserves) that war will most certainly be fought.

And we the taxpayers will be handed the bill.

[quote=Imagineer]If the windfall profits tax is the same sham it was the last time it was enacted, it will not affect the oil companies at all. It will do absolutely nothing to control oil prices, or to inhibit profiteering. In fact, if they do what they did last time, the oil companies will not even have to pay the tax.

The last time, they taxed the owners of the oil. The oil companies lease the mineral rights :hahanot: ... Ah ,they oughta tax yer Mineral rights.thar
Gramps.
As a Homeowner.everyone has a fee simple right to whatever
minerals are found on their property.Even air rights.

Reading some posts here you dont get the impression of very much camaraderie between Americans. As has been said, its survival of the fittest, its a sad reflection on the worlds richest country.


agreed

You don't get rich by spending it or giving it away. The government is not the answer for health care. There are only 2 things the US government does even remotely well. .......... can you guess what they are????
.................................................. .................................................. .................... the answer is...........................

1. The Postal Service 2. The Millitary



Reading some posts here you dont get the impression of very much camaraderie between Americans. As has been said, its survival of the fittest, its a sad reflection on the worlds richest country.

You don't get rich by spending it or giving it away. The government is not the answer for health care. There are only 2 things the US government does even remotely well. .......... can you guess what they are????
.................................................. .................................................. .................... the answer is...........................

1. The Postal Service 2. The Millitary
Beyond question private enterprise, when kept competing with other private enterprise, delivers things the most efficiently and cheaply. Government bureaucracies can never keep up with competing private enterprises.

However, with medical care there are problems with using profit and efficiency as a standard, so that I think a mix of private and public is needed.

[quote=Imagineer]If the windfall profits tax is the same sham it was the last time it was enacted, it will not affect the oil companies at all. It will do absolutely nothing to control oil prices, or to inhibit profiteering. In fact, if they do what they did last time, the oil companies will not even have to pay the tax.

The last time, they taxed the owners of the oil. The oil companies lease the mineral rights :hahanot: ... Ah ,they oughta tax yer Mineral rights.thar
Gramps.
As a Homeowner.everyone has a fee simple right to whatever
minerals are found on their property.Even air rights.

The money earned from sale of the oil is already taxed as income. What I am objecting to is not that, but instead the hypocritical action of saying that they are punishing oil companies for manipulating the markets and making record profits while actually taxing someone who is not doing that. The property owners are receiving none of the windfall, and should not be punished for the actions of others.

By the way, I do object to you altering what I posted, and claiming it as a quote. I am assuming that was accidental on your part, and that you will apologize for it.

Beyond question private enterprise, when kept competing with other private enterprise, delivers things the most efficiently and cheaply. Government bureaucracies can never keep up with competing private enterprises.While these statements are generally true they are demonstrably false when it comes to health insurance. The fact is every other modern country on the planet provides universal coverage and delivers health care more cheaply and efficiently than does the US. This is the main problem opponents of universal health care have: they cannot refute the specifics of the argument and are forced to rely on generalities and platitudes to make their case. Take, for example, the Fix Health Care (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=25690&highlight=health+care) thread. The proponents of universal coverage put forward many specifics to prove their case. These were met with various renditions of the "Everbuddy knows guvmint is stoopid" theme which is the standard fall-back position for those who can't argue the facts.

Some states in this union provide health insurance. For the most part, it is not efficient. It is too expensive when it gets handed to the tax payer.


While these statements are generally true they are demonstrably false when it comes to health insurance. The fact is every other modern country on the planet provides universal coverage and delivers health care more cheaply and efficiently than does the US. This is the main problem opponents of universal health care have: they cannot refute the specifics of the argument and are forced to rely on generalities and platitudes to make their case. Take, for example, the Fix Health Care (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=25690&highlight=health+care) thread. The proponents of universal coverage put forward many specifics to prove their case. These were met with various renditions of the "Everbuddy knows guvmint is stoopid" theme which is the standard fall-back position for those who can't argue the facts.

Some states in this union provide health insurance. For the most part, it is not efficient. It is too expensive when it gets handed to the tax payer.In theory I'm opposed to states involving themselves with health insurance -- this only adds to the hodge-podge of mixed coverages and complex billing structures that make our current system so unworkable. In practice, however, states sometimes need to get the ball rolling when the federal government is remiss in fixing a problem. A single-payer system at the federal level will eliminate the need for these state programs -- as well as the parasitic HMO's and insurance companies that currently gouge your wallet far worse than any state program ever will.

Welfare and foodstamps dont seem to help the homeless find homes, the uneducated get schooling, the sick get a doctor, the jobless find work.

Unfortunately, our government has its hands in all of these things. Education is free through high school, and even assisted in college. There is government-assisted housing. And there are agencies to assist people in finding a job.

Unfortunatly, in all western societys we have people who, dont wanna work, dont want educated, tho Ive never met someone who didnt want housed.
I think its our moral and patriotic duty to offer medical care to all in society,our countrys can afford it.

It is not the governments duty to provide health insurance. If it does that, it gets too big and too expensive. Health insurance should be handled through employment. If you need health insurance, and your job does not provide it, then you should consider getting a new job.


Government health care is much less costly than any private health care.

Government health care is much less costly than any private health care.

How so? What aspects of a government health care would make it less costly?

Some states in this union provide health insurance. For the most part, it is not efficient. It is too expensive when it gets handed to the tax payer.

That's because they are providing health insurance as you so correctly stated.

What they need to provide is health care -- which is the argument up-thread. Health care is delivered much cheaper than health insurance in every civilized nation in the world, where the result is a life expectancy higher than in the United States.

You simply take the insurance companies out of the equations and the savings is an instant 35% or more on the spot. From there, you tweek and massage until health care is being delivered in an efficient manner.

This isn't rocket surgery.

How so? What aspects of a government health care would make it less costly?

Well I'll start with Medicare which has an monthly premium of $93.00.

You can start by trying to beat that price and then move on to another government health care program and the best in the country IMHO -- the Veterans Administration.

Or how about some of the state medicaid programs like the one in Arizona (ACCHS) which is an overwhelming success.

How so? What aspects of a government health care would make it less costly?Here's an excellent answer for your questions:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18802

That's because they are providing health insurance as you so correctly stated.

What they need to provide is health care -- which is the argument up-thread. Health care is delivered much cheaper than health insurance in every civilized nation in the world, where the result is a life expectancy higher than in the United States.
Health insurance compensates the insured for expenses for health care. It is a service, not a replacement for health care. Almost all other countries in the world have health insurance as well as health care - or they have universal health care which nullifies health insurance.

Here are the stats on life expectancy. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

You simply take the insurance companies out of the equations and the savings is an instant 35% or more on the spot. From there, you tweek and massage until health care is being delivered in an efficient manner.
Can you back up that claim? Where is the money coming from for those savings?

This isn't rocket surgery. No comment.

Well I'll start with Medicare which has an monthly premium of $93.00.

You can start by trying to beat that price and then move on to another government health care program and the best in the country IMHO -- the Veterans Administration.

Or how about some of the state medicaid programs like the one in Arizona (ACCHS) which is an overwhelming success.

The money for medicare is coming from taxpayers too. It's more than 93 dollars too.

* $226.00 per month (in 2007) for people having 30-39 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.
* $410.00 per month (in 2007) for people who are not otherwise eligible for premium-free hospital insurance and have less than 30 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.

I'll read sedan's link first and then I'll finish up my reply

The money for medicare is coming from taxpayers too. It's more than 93 dollars too.

* $226.00 per month (in 2007) for people having 30-39 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.
* $410.00 per month (in 2007) for people who are not otherwise eligible for premium-free hospital insurance and have less than 30 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.

I'll read sedan's link first and then I'll finish up my reply

Medicare is $93/month.

Here are the stats on life expectancy. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html


Sorry WW but using the CIA as a source is like using Snopes ... LOL

Notice how they conveniently have Cuba below the U.S. on the chart ROTFLMAO


Can you back up that claim? Where is the money coming from for those savings?


The savings come from cutting out the middle-(wo)man -- in this case it's the insurance companies.

No comment.

OK - I'll change it to 'brain science'.

Sorry WW but using the CIA as a source is like using Snopes ... LOL
Yes Dop, because if you disagree with the source, or the facts, they must be wrong!

Sorry WW but using the CIA as a source is like using Snopes ... LOL

Notice how they conveniently have Cuba below the U.S. on the chart ROTFLMAO
I wasn't trying to prove a point by posting that. I was just offering for you to look at. It is a valid source, I don't know why you don't think it would be.

As for Cuba -
http://www.who.int/countries/cub/en/
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=116&Country=CU
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0107443.html

Every single website I looked at had Cuba's life expectancy either at right around 77 (What the World Factbook states them at) or below that.

The savings come from cutting out the middle-(wo)man -- in this case it's the insurance companies.
You could cut out the insurance companies without having universal health care. It would be the exact same 'savings'.

Medicare is $93/month.

I think it is dependant on your income. I was on medicaid for the first 2 years of my disability than they switched my to Medicare for some reason in my 3rd year. I think they were restructering. Medicaid is much better than medicare by far. I began to be charged for a premimium of 93 dollars but because I was at poverty level medicaid picked up the premium tab.

I think it dependent on your income how much of the premium that you pay.

I think it is dependant on your income. I was on medicaid for the first 2 years of my disability than they switched my to Medicare for some reason in my 3rd year. I think they were restructering. Medicaid is much better than medicare by far. I began to be charged for a premimium of 93 dollars but because I was at poverty level medicaid picked up the premium tab.

I think it dependent on your income how much of the premium that you pay.

there is some means testing that is taking place or going to start taking place shortly but the base price of medicare is $93 (and change) ... and the means testing will affect only the pretty well off.

The dems will kill the means testing when they take the white house in '09.

The dems will kill the means testing when they take the white house in '09.
with your track record, are you sure you want to be making predictions like that?

with your track record, are you sure you want to be making predictions like that?

I almost forgot ... every single thing you post here is proven 100% correct with never a mistake being made, not even a typo.

that reminds me of a pic I got to share
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Z/j/kerry_ambiguouslygayduo.jpg

Government health care is much less costly than any private health care.

You are correct sir.

Marketing alone adds billions of dollars to our healthcare costs. Not to mention the salaries they pay their executives, like the $1.7 Billion that William McGuire from Unitedhealth got.

We would save billions with a single-payer universal healthcare system.

You are correct sir.

Marketing alone adds billions of dollars to our healthcare costs. Not to mention the salaries they pay their executives, like the $1.7 Billion that William McGuire from Unitedhealth got.

We would save billions with a single-payer universal healthcare system.
Marketing adds costs, so does the profit the investors require. (The latter is offset by the fact that the capital they provide doesn't carry interest or even principle repayment).

Offset that against the bureaucracy and private enterprise will win every day.

The reason has to do with who gets hired and who gets fired and who gets promoted and who doesn't. In every organization, public or private, there is nepotism, politics, favoritism, and so on.

In a private firm that engages in these practices, when there is effective competition, over time the firm diminishes to the point where the stockholders rebel and replace the managment.

In a public firm things just get less and less efficient, with a constant demand for more and more money and more and more bodies to build the little empires.

I wasn't trying to prove a point by posting that. I was just offering for you to look at. It is a valid source, I don't know why you don't think it would be.

As for Cuba -
http://www.who.int/countries/cub/en/
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=116&Country=CU
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0107443.html

Every single website I looked at had Cuba's life expectancy either at right around 77 (What the World Factbook states them at) or below that.


You could cut out the insurance companies without having universal health care. It would be the exact same 'savings'.
Don't believe statistics coming out of Communist countries. Take the Soviet Union--the CIA figured at least the trend of the official statistics had to be right, so they figured the country was a superpower. Now we know better.

Offset that against the bureaucracy and private enterprise will win every day.

The reason has to do with who gets hired and who gets fired and who gets promoted and who doesn't. In every organization, public or private, there is nepotism, politics, favoritism, and so on. Don't believe statistics coming out of capitalist entities. Take Enron for instance--the NYSE figured at least the trend of the official statistics had to be right, so they figured the business was a super investment. Now we know better.

Don't believe statistics coming out of capitalist entities. Take Halliburton for instance--the US government figured at least the trend of the official costs had to be right, so they figured the business was a good partner. Now we know better.

The U.S. infant mortality rate is on the rise for the first time since 1958, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2001, the infant mortality rate was 6.8 deaths per 1,000 live births -- in 2002, the rate rose to 7.0. (2003 data is not yet complete.)

At the same time, other countries are improving their infant mortality rates to the point that they have surpassed the United States. Cuba, for example, reported a lower 2002 rate than the United States at 6.3.

The CIA World Factbook estimates the infant mortality rate in the United States is now comparable to Croatia, Lithuania and Taiwan. Most analysts currently rank the United States 28th in the world in infant mortality, far behind other industrialized nations such as Sweden, France, Japan and Germany.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/story?id=1266515

Offset that against the bureaucracy and private enterprise will win every day.

Absolutely untrue.

Private "enterprise" has just as much bureaucracy as government. Arguably more, since they also have huge marketing departments that government agencies do not.

Private bureaucracy has more built in costs than government bureaucracy.


In a private firm that engages in these practices, when there is effective competition, over time the firm diminishes to the point where the stockholders rebel and replace the managment.

Several problems with that, first the major stockholders very often are management. Secondly, government run healthcare does not rule out private healthcare, but it means that the private will now have to compete with an entity they cannot run out of business.

Marketing adds costs, so does the profit the investors require. (The latter is offset by the fact that the capital they provide doesn't carry interest or even principle repayment).

Offset that against the bureaucracy and private enterprise will win every day.

The reason has to do with who gets hired and who gets fired and who gets promoted and who doesn't. In every organization, public or private, there is nepotism, politics, favoritism, and so on.

In a private firm that engages in these practices, when there is effective competition, over time the firm diminishes to the point where the stockholders rebel and replace the managment.

In a public firm things just get less and less efficient, with a constant demand for more and more money and more and more bodies to build the little empires. I'm not so sure about that but I know one thing for sure.

I feel much better knowing that the guy next to me in line at the supermarket might have tuburculosis or some other nasty communicable disease thats not being treated because he doesn't have the money to see a doctor....

I'm not so sure about that but I know one thing for sure.

I feel much better knowing that the guy next to me in line at the supermarket might have tuburculosis or some other nasty communicable disease thats not being treated because he doesn't have the money to see a doctor....
It takes much more exposure than that to get TB. Influenza and colds and some forms of measles are very easily spread, but not TB.

The best course is to make it a habit to try to avoid touching things in public places and, if you must, wash your hands afterward. Also train yourself to keep your hands away from your face. Hand to mouth is the most common source of upper respiratory infection.

It takes much more exposure than that to get TB. Influenza and colds and some forms of measles are very easily spread, but not TB.

The best course is to make it a habit to try to avoid touching things in public places and, if you must, wash your hands afterward. Also train yourself to keep your hands away from your face. Hand to mouth is the most common source of upper respiratory infection.

It seems you missed his point. Outbreaks of contagions are worse and last longer when the people cannot afford adequate medical care, as is the case in America right now for many people, including many who have medical insurance.

The fact is, if we let the government control health care, it will become like our public school system. In a couple of words...... it will be un productive.

Our public school system has a very high drop out rate. The students are not learing near as much as they did in my grandfathers day.


The only 2 things the government does remotely well are the US postal service and the millitary.

The only 2 things the government does remotely well are the US postal service and the millitary.

So am I to take it that you think the government fails in providing Police and Fire services?

It seems that the fact the government can and does do these things well puts the lie to the claim that the government can't do anything well.

The fact is, if we let the government control health care, it will become like our public school system. In a couple of words...... it will be un productive.

One reason being that in a Corporatist Government --or fascist Government; whichever term you prefer-- like the one in the U.S., the politicians are in thrall to the wealthy and powerful pharmaceutical industries.

The answer is not to deny the People government-provided health care --of the type that virtually all of the other first world nations are able to give their citizens-- but to instead change the government.

The fact is, if we let the government control health care, it will become like our public school system. In a couple of words...... it will be un productive.

Our public school system has a very high drop out rate. The students are not learing near as much as they did in my grandfathers day.


The only 2 things the government does remotely well are the US postal service and the millitary.
I do worry about that. Health care needs to be constantly changing to stay up with new discoveries. A government run system won't like change and will even suppress it. Even the regulation of private systems tends to do that in the name of safety.

Originally Posted by gmsisko1
The fact is, if we let the government control health care, it will become like our public school system. In a couple of words...... it will be un productive.

Our public school system has a very high drop out rate. The students are not learing near as much as they did in my grandfathers day.

The only 2 things the government does remotely well are the US postal service and the millitary.

HUH ? Can you explain what would happen that would make government health care unproductive?

The high drop out rate is due to hispanics that do not understand english and drop out simply because they can't handle the material. It has nothing to do with the government.


Thislin said:
I do worry about that. Health care needs to be constantly changing to stay up with new discoveries. A government run system won't like change and will even suppress it. Even the regulation of private systems tends to do that in the name of safety.

The government's only function in a national health care system is to pay the bills ... no more -- no less. They will not make any other decisions. So how do you figure they will fall behind, suppress it [sic] and regulate the system?

I do worry about that. Health care needs to be constantly changing to stay up with new discoveries. A government run system won't like change and will even suppress it.The NIH invests over $28 billion annually in medical research for the American people.

More than 80% of the NIH’s funding is awarded through almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 325,000 researchers at over 3,000 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions in every state and around the world.

http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm

The NIH invests over $28 billion annually in medical research for the American people.

More than 80% of the NIH’s funding is awarded through almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 325,000 researchers at over 3,000 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions in every state and around the world.

http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm
That is all as it should be; the worry is getting what they find applied by the hospitals who are just bureaucracies and by doctors who are only employees if the whole thing is a big bureaucracy without competition.

A system of private payment gives cadillac care to those who can afford it; a government system ends up rationing care down to mediocrity or worse for everyone. (This is because the univeral option for most goods and services--to do without--is not available to us when it comes to our lives).

I guess in the end there are things worse for mankind than medical inequalities. I prefer unequal but excellent care over equal but bureaucratic, mediocre, care.

The government's only function in a national health care system is to pay the bills ... no more -- no less. They will not make any other decisions. So how do you figure they will fall behind, suppress it [sic] and regulate the system?

What world do you live in? That is about the most naive thing I've seen this year.

If the government only pays the bills so that patients have no reason to worry about the bill, and doctors and drug companies and hospitals know they will be paid no matter what they charge, what do you think will happen?

No, someone has to worry about costs and prices. When there is a universal payer, there is no reason to keep costs down. So the government would end up imposing price rules and telling doctors how and where to practice and deciding where hospitals will be bulit and so on.

If the government ran health care, there would be no compitition.
That is why our public school system is un productive.
The teachers don't have to worry about loosing their jobs because they are protected by the teachers unions. Eve if htey do a bad job, they can't easily be fired.


Originally Posted by gmsisko1
The fact is, if we let the government control health care, it will become like our public school system. In a couple of words...... it will be un productive.

Our public school system has a very high drop out rate. The students are not learing near as much as they did in my grandfathers day.

The only 2 things the government does remotely well are the US postal service and the millitary.

HUH ? Can you explain what would happen that would make government health care unproductive?

The high drop out rate is due to hispanics that do not understand english and drop out simply because they can't handle the material. It has nothing to do with the government.


Thislin said:
I do worry about that. Health care needs to be constantly changing to stay up with new discoveries. A government run system won't like change and will even suppress it. Even the regulation of private systems tends to do that in the name of safety.

The government's only function in a national health care system is to pay the bills ... no more -- no less. They will not make any other decisions. So how do you figure they will fall behind, suppress it [sic] and regulate the system?