"Affordable" health care advocates explain this please.

stockingfull wrote:Look, I'm not sure what the point is of assigning responsibility for a good idea (preventative care), the exclusive franchise for which was given to a group of private insurers who proved in the long run, just like the Wall St investment bankers, to be corrupt.

But, if we're going down that road, it obviously couldn't have happened without Nixon's OK. Do you dispute that?

(BTW, the link didn't work for me.)

Wall St bankers haven't been proven to be corrupt. It's congress that is corrupt. The bankers were being bankers and within the law. Except for Maddoff, I haven't heard of any indictments of the investment bankers in this crisis. I have heard of some politicians recently..... and perpetually, though they haven't indicted themselves for screwing up the economy. Gee, I hope they get around to it.

You see, Mike, this is where we just see the world differently.

Where you see Wall St bankers who invented investment instruments that were (or maybe weren't) beyond the scope of existing regulations, then used them to become obscenely rich, while creating an enormously destabilizing force in the markets and find "law-abiding entrepreneurs," I just see corrupt people who circumvented regulations intended to promote market fairness in order to cheat investors.

Where you condemn the growth in regulations enacted by gov't, I see them as serial reactions by the people, through their gov't, to the corruption and excesses of the un- and/or under-regulated marketplace.

You could view it as a "chicken and egg" issue but it's clearly not. You'll hardly find a marketplace regulation that wasn't preceded by a scandal like we've just seen. Put another way, Mike, the very existence of the body of market regulations proves that the "free market" actually was always rigged and never really "free."

Unfortunately, with 49 million uninsured Americans and more and more joining that population every day when they lose their jobs and thus their employee sponsored healthcare, it's a model that no longer works. Those 49 million want and deserve health care too - as do the millions who have lost their jobs in recent months.



First, no one deserves health care. It is not a right. Check your Constitution.
Second, in a country of 320 million, 49 million(I don't believe the number), don't have health care, so you scrap the system and screw the 270 million who work for their health care, and are happy with it? No thanks.
Three, how many of these are illeagally in this country.
Four, the reason health care is so expensive is because of lawyers like John Edwards. As long as you keep electing lawyers, the price of malpractice insurance, and health care, will never go down.

JohnMck wrote:First, no one deserves health care. It is not a right. Check your Constitution.

Legislation can simply make it a right, or if you say a "Right" must be in the original Constitution then don't call it a "Right"........Call it a "Fred".......but just pass the law already.

JohnMck wrote:Second, in a country of 320 million, 49 million(I don't believe the number), don't have health care, so you scrap the system and screw the 270 million who work for their health care, and are happy with it? No thanks.

Why would that "Screw" anyone?? We are already paying for the uninsured through our high insurance rates. It would just save money

JohnMck wrote:
Four, the reason health care is so expensive is because of lawyers like John Edwards. As long as you keep electing lawyers, the price of malpractice insurance, and health care, will never go down.

for all of us.
A small factor

Stockingfull, the "legislation after a scandal" you're talking about was called "Glass-Steagal" and it was working pretty well until Congress screwed it up by pandering to the poverty pimps and passed Gramm-Leach. The same Congress who passed the HMO Act. And the same Congress you think will fix the problem. Asking Congress to fix anything is like playing Russian Roulette with one empty chamber.

I see now jpete thank-you. Now I know that in your opinion we should have the same Congress that got us into this mess show us how to get out. Somehow I don`t think thats going to work, then again what do I know? I do think that whatever it takes to get us out won`t happen today. It might even take a week or two more.

I smell a touch of sarcasm there samhill. Seriously, look at all the bad legislation that has come out of Congress lately. Although I guess "bad" is a relative term. If it is your opinion that spending our way out of debt can work then I suppose you agree with recent policy and nothing but time will tell who is correct.

jpete wrote:Seriously, look at all the bad legislation that has come out of Congress lately. Although I guess "bad" is a relative term. If it is your opinion that spending our way out of debt can work then I suppose you agree with recent policy and nothing but time will tell who is correct.

We spent our way out oif the Great Depression & almost all economists agree we need a massive spending program. When Republicans controlled the White Hose, they were in favor of massive spending. Now that the Dems are there, the attitude is: "We're in favor of massive spending as long as it comes to OUR district/State, but we'd like it better if we could just cut out..............SPENDING!
It's such a transparently ludicrous,Un-American & just plain DUMB stance that no one (outside of a very few on this forum) is even taking it seriously.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter- ... nsName=wwi
England
The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash.

Canada
For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks. Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless.

Sweden
Tales from the Health-care Crypt," published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008). Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor's request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.

So, we have example after example of Government run Healthcare models, each one will make an American cringe at the thought once they've seen how these good intentions bring misery and dispair.
Don't think for a moment that Dear Leader hasn't seen these reports, Dashcle himself endorsed the idea that healthcare should be based on the probablity through models on who would recieve care and those that should just pass on.

Off topic Alert

Devil505 wrote:We spent our way out oif the Great Depression & almost all economists agree we need a massive spending program. When Republicans controlled the White Hose, they were in favor of massive spending. Now that the Dems are there, the attitude is: "We're in favor of massive spending as long as it comes to OUR district/State, but we'd like it better if we could just cut out..............SPENDING!
It's such a transparently ludicrous,Un-American & just plain DUMB stance that no one (outside of a very few on this forum) is even taking it seriously.

Every Historian credits WWII with that, they also admit the FDR caused the Depression to last 7yrs longer than it should have.
As far as your "outside of a very few on this forum"Statement, that's your opinion and a minority opinon at that. Of 568 adults surveyed last Monday through Thursday, 67% favored cutting federal taxes on businesses, 79% favored cuts in individual income taxes and — despite the fact that only half of Americans are investors — 62% even favored cuts in capitals gains taxes.http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=318817943603584
You fail to mention the Republicans lost favor for being Copies of BIG Spending Democrats.

Ed.A wrote:Every Historian credits WWII with that

& why is that Ed.A....Because we got good war movies out of it??....NO...It was because WWII necessitated massive government SPENDING! ............which created JOBS.

So now, we do the same thing but we don't spend money on making B-24 bombers, Sherman Tanks or M-1 Garrand rifles......We build schools, hospitals, fix the electrical grid, bridges, tunnels, etc...etc...etc.

Edit: & who funds "Creaters.com that you link to above??? Why should we believe a THING they say???
I sure as hell don't!

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:Seriously, look at all the bad legislation that has come out of Congress lately. Although I guess "bad" is a relative term. If it is your opinion that spending our way out of debt can work then I suppose you agree with recent policy and nothing but time will tell who is correct.

We spent our way out oif the Great Depression & almost all economists agree we need a massive spending program. When Republicans controlled the White Hose, they were in favor of massive spending. Now that the Dems are there, the attitude is: "We're in favor of massive spending as long as it comes to OUR district/State, but we'd like it better if we could just cut out..............SPENDING!
It's such a transparently ludicrous,Un-American & just plain DUMB stance that no one (outside of a very few on this forum) is even taking it seriously.

I'm only seeing one "dumb" thing here Devil. Besides, who is "most"? Keynesians? I already posted a list of economists which ran several hundred names that don't agree. It took WWII to get out of the last depression. And we didn't throw money around. We MANUFACTURED our way out. NAFTA made sure we don't do that anymore. Also, we sold war bonds. Which means Americans owned all the debt of the US. Now China, the UAE, and Japan own all our debt. Stick to your lie Devil. It's been working well so far.

jpete wrote:Stockingfull, the "legislation after a scandal" you're talking about was called "Glass-Steagal" and it was working pretty well until Congress screwed it up by pandering to the poverty pimps and passed Gramm-Leach. The same Congress who passed the HMO Act. And the same Congress you think will fix the problem. Asking Congress to fix anything is like playing Russian Roulette with one empty chamber.

Here's what "Investopedia (a Forbes Digital Company)" said about them:

The limitations of the Glass-Steagall Act on the banking sector sparked a debate over how much restriction is healthy for the industry. Many argued that allowing banks to diversify in moderation offers the banking industry the potential to reduce risk, so the restrictions of the GSA could have actually had an adverse effect, making the banking industry riskier rather than safer. Furthermore, big banks of the post-Enron market are likely to be more transparent, lessening the possibility of assuming too much risk or masking unsound investment decisions. As such, reputation has come to mean everything in today's market, and that could be enough to motivate banks to regulate themselves.

Consequently, to the delight of many in the banking industry (not everyone, however, was happy), in November of 1999 Congress repealed the GSA with the establishment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated the GSA restrictions against affiliations between commercial and investment banks. Furthermore, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allows banking institutions to provide a broader range of services, including underwriting and other dealing activities.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp [italics mine]

Two points, Jeff. First, the description of "self-regulating" banks concerned about their "reputations" sounds pretty quaint at this point in time, doesn't it? Second, where do you get off claiming that "poverty pimps" changed the law, when it pretty obviously was Phil Gramm and his merry band of dereg-meisters who started this train wreck?

In any event, Congress is always being pushed toward de-regulation by Republicans (who controlled both Houses when G-L-B was passed), then back toward regulatory frameworks when the inevitable abuses surface, as they just did last fall. To say that, because they haven't always gotten it right, they should stop trying, makes absolutely no sense. These guys are elected officials; if they don't do the right thing, we replace them with people who stand for a different approach. That's what just happened in November.

And that's why healthcare will be restructured. This year.

Devil505 wrote:
Edit: & who funds "Creaters.com that you link to above??? Why should we believe a THING they say???
I sure as hell don't!

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Walter E Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist, I gave a link that came up. Everything sited about the Socialized Healthcare in his op-ed is Factual and Sources sited.

So really I must ask....What the hell are you talking about? Would you care to debate his FACTS? C'mon Dick, I thought you were better than that.

On the FDR Comment in a totally different post. It was Jpete that had to expain it to you. Sorry I thought ( wrongly assumed) that you realized that.

Stockingfull, you must be dizzy all day from the spinning you do. I noticed you convieniently left all the Democrats out of your vitriol. At least I'm honest enough to blame both sides. I'm sure Phil "Mental Receszion" Gramm did a favor for his banker buddies but why did Leach get on board? And it's not like Congress overrode a veto. Clinton happily signed GLB into law. And though we don't agree on anything, I think we could probably agree that the term "right" is subjective. What you call right and what I call right are two totally different things. And for me, the less Congress does, the better.