Everyone who loves their country but fears their government move to the right two steps. Everyone who fears their country but loves their government move to the right two steps. Damn! Right back where we started.
You realize that the public option would charge people? It would not be free insurance like other programs? SS has problems because they didn't anticipate the baby boom. Once the baby boom passes the program should be fine. That's a temporary issue. I am fine with the public option being a co-op independent of the gov't, I think that would meet your requirements and still get insurance provided to those who need it.
What Space Ghost really wants, apparently, is the ability to continue to rely on the availability of health care without paying for it. Somehow, this seems more fiscally acceptable to him.
On one hand, you say its going to be paid through premiums and cutting costs. I have yet to hear what these premiums will actually run. I have yet to hear how we're going to cut costs. Don't tell me we are going to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies w/out giving real numbers. On the other hand, you say SS didn't anticipate the baby boom, and you say the problem has been resolved. Sorry, but this in not a temporary issue. There are many foreseen and unforeseen problems with a public option. The private sector finds every reason not to treat someone. All of these people who have been screwed will flood the public option. Much like the cash for clunkers, you will have a mass flood into the public option, demanding treatment for everything. Im for a program that can be phased out if its a catastrophe. Co-ops do seem like a much better option, but is not a solution. A totally different approach is needed. Reward those who go out of their way to maintain a healthy lifestyle and make those pay who choose to engage in unhealthy lifestyles. Let insurance be for everything else in the middle.
It literally did get shot to hell in the Civil War. As far as crippling federal taxes keep in mind that the democracy has supported the tax structure we have warts and all. Its unclear whether if pre-Civil War Federalism had survived if we would be paying any less in taxes since the States would've continued setting their own taxes and the Federal programs we have now would've been paid for by the states. Its possible you would be paying much more for taxes if the pre-Civil War Federalism was still still around since the states can't run deficits.
I tend to agree with you in this regard and am skeptical if a public option can be deficit neutral. For that matter many of the savings seem rather vague. That said the experience of other countries with public options or even single payer is that health care is cheaper for them so it is possible that the savings could materialize. That really depends on how it is written. The problem with the idea that the private sector will find excuses to stop treating people so they will flood into the public option is that presumably the private insurerers will still want to stay in business and will find ways to do so. The analogy to Fedex and USPS is apt in this regard as Fedex not only found a way to successfully coexists with the USPS it out competes them where they go head to head in overnight delivery. I doubt a public option will be any sort of cadillac health care system and even if it does come out pretty good there will still be supplemental insurance just as there is private supplemental medicare insurance. I agree that we need a system that rewards healthy lifestyles but we don't have that currently and keeping the status quo isn't benefittng ayone. I don't know what other approach is needed than what is currently being debated and given the complexity of the issue I'm not sure there is one.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on your points here. But let's be realistic...if you got cancer, do you think you can pay out of pocket for all of it? It might run you $80k to treat that. Your insurance is going to weasel out of it as best as it can. I am not a proponent of a big gov't slush fund. SS isn't a bad program, it was badly managed. Not paying attention to the baby boomers aging was foolish, but I hate to tell you, when they are gone, SS will be solvent because you will have the children of the baby boomers (who are many) paying for a much smaller aging population (us). The baby boomers and increased life expectancy are the things hitting SS hard right now. That's why SS minimum age should have been increased in my opinion. I know there is no perfect solution. And I do think rewarding people for living healthier lifestyles is a good idea. But on the other hand...I wonder, why on earth do we need to reward people to be healthy? Isn't a healthier longer life the best reward? I mean, I quit smoking years ago, stopped eating fried food, go the gym, lost weight...do I want a reward for it? Eh....the reward is already there. But I do think it would be great to tax sugary drinks, fast food, and heavily processed food with a sin tax to help pay for health care costs that these things incur. Same with Cigarettes and alcohol. I consumer booze, and I don't mind paying a 3% tax if I know that money goes into medical care that covers the increased drain. Some would say this hits the poor the hardest. it does. But they benefit the most from the gov't, so I think it's alright. Eating healthy...being healthy, is not easy for poor people by the way. Healthy foods and lifestyle is more accessible to the wealthy. But I support the Obama plan because it's the right course. Not providing health care to the poor is just dumb. Beyond the immorality of it and the fact that most conservatives - who are Christian - are suppose to take care of the poor (I never understood why me, as a not a religious person seems to care more about the poor then these right wing nuts who claim to be close to Jesus)...but beyond that...the poor are goign to go into hospitals and get treatment anyway. They are increasing our costs anyway. Not to mention not getting treatment makes them carrier for diseases - everything from HIV to swine flu - and make them a public health threat. YOu have to do something. Starting over is just going to kill the whole thing. There's no starting over. If Dems and Repubs can get this through, it's game over until another decade or so when the next Democrat gets elected and tries to do it, when health care has become an even more dire problem. Do you treat the wound with the less perfect treatment - that may not be the best cure, it may not even work perfectly...or do you just let the wound fester and the infection spread? Things have gotten a lot worse since Clinton tried to cure the wound that is the health care problem in America. Can we wait another decade? I don't think so. It's time to do something.
you can't have less gov't without having an armed conflict. Every great patriot needs an armed conflict. Vietnam, nicaragua, sponsoring terrorism in el salvador, saving face in panama, Iraq, Iraq the sequel. It's not a coincidence.
Lots of success and lots of fail in here. This republic was founded on smaller government, and less federal interference. The idea was basically to give people freedom and avoid having corruption at the top levels. What Ron Paul advocates is MUCH less spending, MUCH less waste, and much more freedom. A free society is not necessarily a safer society (at least until people learn how to participate in one), but it is more in line with what this country was intended to be. What we have now are excessive laws, regulations, military, taxes, and wasteful spending. Even if you live in a more 'free' state, the feds can always come in and shut you down for doing something they don't like, even though you have the right to do it if the state you're in deems it acceptable. Moving away from a federal system allows for a more capitalistic society as well. If people are fed up with the laws of their state, they can always move to a different state. When we are all under the microscope of a completely federal system, our republic gradually crumbles. BTW lol at the FDA. What a corrupt institution that needs to go, same with the DEA and drug laws. We have the right to decide what we put into our bodies. It is only when we commit a crime that we are breaking the law (physical injury to others or destruction of personal property), not before.
Yes that pesky FDA. We need to allow giant pharmaceutical companies that have already mislabeled medicine, and pushed it for ailments it's not right for. Just look at Pfizer's recent settlement which isn't their first. If only we could return to the good old days of the robber baron period where there weren't the govt. regulations, and people had the freedom to be slum lords, force workers to work 90 + hours a week for low wages in dangerous conditions, and having children doing some of that work. They could put out unsafe products and nobody could call them on it. Those were the days.
He is so rich that he can pay for hundreds of thousands in case like cancer, heart attack, etc. That is the reason he does not have health insurance.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life. A good number of people that engage in "unhealthy" lifestyles do so because they can afford it. Look around you. Generally, unhealthy foods are much less expensive than healthy foods. So now you want to give tax credits to those with means and you want to tax those who can afford it the least. Not surprising coming from the same poster who in another thread indicated that you get diabetes because you can't put down the fork. Do some research before you spout this crap.
Brillant... let's get rid of the FDA! what was that peanut butter company that was shut down a few months ago after it's tainted products killed people all over the US? Oh here it is: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5090HM20090111 Funny how people go crazy over terrorism or H1N1 but tainted food and E.coli? Eh who cares, no need for red tape making our food safe when it might impede capitalism.
You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding for the basic functions and necessity of government entities in the realm of protecting the public trust and well-being. The fatal flaw and hubris of the libertarian mindset is that the shallow "individual freedoms" that attract many will be offset by the onset of corporate authoritarianism unfettered. There may not be any laws restricting you from whatever you want, but you will only be "free" to do the bidding of your corporate overlords. My favorite anarchist says it well: "Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination -- people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner." Noam Chomsky
Thats a complete load of crap that you have apparently bought into. There is a difference between buying organic, eating decent, and gorging on whatever taste great. It might be quite a bit more expensive to buy the healthiest food, but you can certainly put together a much healthier meal than eating at fast food 3x a day. Last i've heard, exercise is free too. So yes, someone who has the willpower to maintain a healthier lifestyle certainly deserves more tax breaks, regardless of their income level. Further, I never implied we should tax "sin foods".
