Why so serious...winners and losers of health-care reform.

Preventative care saves lives not money. Preventative care costs money.

The theory of someone will go to the dr. before their rotting foot or whatever starts smelling super bad instead of going when they first got the injury is not preventative care.

 

People who cheaply remove polyps during a colonoscopy cost a lot less to take care of than people who get colon cancer.

 

That's a ridiculous statement.

 

I think it might be because you are not really thinking about what preventative care does, or you have a broader definition of it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204005504574235751720822322.html

 

Can you please define socialism and explain how this bill is a socialist bill?

 

Socialism: this bill.
This bill: socialism.

Questions?

Sincerely,
Glenn The-Brain-Cancer-of-America Beck
Rush Civil-War-II-Will-Make-Me-Richer Limbaugh
Rupert I-actually-believe-this-crap Murdock

 

You forgot to quote this line from your WSJ article:

"The bottom line is that our health care is costly because it is costly,

genius!

 

Continued government intervention into the economy is socialism.
Those capitalist principals are what made this country great.

If anyone disagrees with a point why do you people have to get so personal and assume someone is a Beck/Rush tool?

I think it reflects your emotional response to issues in life which is why you can't understand the financial and economic implications of this path and all you can think about is your emotions towards the problem.

 

Look up the definition of socialism and write again. That one is a strike.

 

Oh man.

 

It's already been pointed out, that you are incorrect in what you believe socialism to be.

The reason why someone might think you are a Beck or Rush tool is because you are accusing something of being socialism that isn't even close to socialism. Those are the same things Beck and Rush do.

 

"Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy."

What you all desire is a continued nationalisation of healthcare and state control within the system.

How is this bill not even more socialized than our current system?

Its wonderful how government intervention raises prices and creates the efficiency of government in healthcare and then we want more to bring down prices and improve efficiency!!

 

What made this country great was an immigrant class, set loose on a virgin continent, without the constraints imposed by a two thousand year history of feudalism. Where capitalism has been unchecked in this country it has resulted in tainted foods, exploited children, spoiled environments, economic crashes, destitute seniors, and robber barons owning the government. Because, the interests of capitalism have little regard for the general welfare, committing only enough consideration to maintain markets and profits.

If we had left capitalism unmodified by socialism in this country we would all be coal miners dying of black lung disease in debt to the Peabody Company store.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/108963/bring-back-the-robber-barons

I'd take back the Robber Barons over the Political Gamers any day of the week.

At least the innovators created something new and needed instead of taking from the masses the way the government gamers do. The 'robber barons' created wealth for themselves but brought down prices for all. Vanderbilt was hated because he ended a government monopoly and was cheaper and put the others out of business! The consumers benefitted!

What is Feudalism? An all powerful government that controls all facets of society. Doesn't sound like the free market i'm talking about.

Tainted foods? Exploited Children? Destitute Seniors? I'm sure continued outbreaks of e coli would bankrupt McDonalds and they would not want that despite 'government' approval. Destitute seniors and healthcare should be the job of private charity, which i'm very involved in. And not the forced inefficient hand of government.

 

This is the disagreement. A free market brings down prices for EVERYONE. When prices are lower, people are able to pay off debt and one day maybe start their own business and thats how a middle class is created.

70% of the jobs in this nation are small businesses. Burdening business forces businesses to cut costs (employees) and raise prices. This in turn forces people that make $100 to spend $95 instead of $90 on. That extra margin gives them breathing room beyond subsistence living that is the essence of an economy. Opportunity.

Why do you think Micro-lending works so well. They pay off the minor debt and give them the opportunity to run their own small business and that is how an economy grows. Not do to a sweeping hand of a government agencies.

 

not only do you not understand what socialism is, you also don't understand the robber baron period of American history.

 

Looking back, Bill Gates will be called a Robber Baron. What did Rockefeller, Carnegie or Vanderbilt do that we as a society haven't benefitted from for ages.

Dynamic individuals will create new ideas and wealth and everybody will go along for the ride.

 

I really didn't mean my post to address you at all, but I can see why you read it that way, as the original question was posed to you.

What I was parodying was a lot of what I've heard, with people throwing "isms" around without any understanding of what they truly mean, technically. They do use a circular logic, and I think "my" side is really not the emotional one when you take a national snapshot at the moment. You do see the frothing anger from some people, right? The broken windows and spit and what-have-you? It's odd to say that I'm emotionally driven, in that context.

Anyway, I do not assume you are a Beck "tool" or whatever, but I don't agree with your definition of socialism. If that definition is accurate, every nation on earth, from democracies to totalitarian regimes is "socialist" compared to us. That doesn't seem like a useful definition.

The US government was already very involved in healthcare, spending 25 cents on every tax dollar on a massively inefficient system for elders and certain poor people -- more money than other nations spend, per capita, to cover *everyone*. According to the CBO, the government can actually spend less over time in the healthcare economy than it would had we let the status quo run.

 

Bill Gates may very well be called a robber baron because of his illegal business practices. He has faced many challenges from the Justice Department of the US as well as regulators in Europe regarding unfair business practices, specifically overly aggressive and illegal treatment of competitors.

The robber barons didn't have any such checks on their power, if a competitor came up with better technology, the robber barons would reduce prices and take a loss for as long as it took to put the competitor out of business. Then, they would buy the competitor's technology for pennies on the dollar and jack prices back up again.

Robber barons ran sweatshops, worked children under 12, worked employees 12 hours a day seven days a week, and had such egregiously bad business practices that they hurt far more Americans than they ever benefited. It is easy to point at Rockefeller Center or any of the Carnegie libraries as proof of the benevolence of these men, but how much of their gains came on the backs of people who, while technically not slaves, were often worked as if they were?

Yes, now that there is a regulatory framework that prohibits businesses from engaging in the business practices of robber barons.

 

No need to make the humanitarian argument with respect to robber barons and completely unregulated markets etc - the economic arguments against them are plain and obvious to anybody who has had college-level economics.

They make everybody worse off. Period.