"What's so american about competition?"

Medicare is not the wonderful system you seem to think it is. The problems with it are so large, it's out of scope of this argument. Let's just say that there's a reason physicians put up signs that say they don't accept Medicare patients. Dumping that on the rest of the country as a "solution" to the health care problem created by our government in the first place is not the answer.

I didn't like a lot of what the patriot act did either. I don't see The O changing any of that, though. Do you? I do have no problem with not providing Consititutional Rights to foreigners in foreign lands picked up on the battlefield trying to kill our soldiers. Not my problem if we give them a bath and ask them where the next attack is coming from. Now, if they are a US Citizen, that's different. Then they should be tried for Treason and dealt with accordingly.

And Buzz, just because someone says that what is proposed is not the answer doesn't mean they like the current system. It just means that replacing it with another system that is most likely worse just to "do something" is stoopid. So stoopid that you should be running for Congress. There's going to be a lot of new openings there come 2010. All the ones there now think that doing something stoopid is much better than doing nothing at all while you think about the proper way to fix the problem. That's why they are losing their jobs.

More deflection. More finger-pointing. More assumptions about a person's beliefs on certain issues based on their position regarding HR3200, or any other bill which forces US citizens to have health insurance. Yawn.

The government put dudes on the moon and wooped on some nazi ass. They dont suck all the time, just a lot of the time.

I think the choice between the government and the private sector is this.

Would you rather be served ineptly or robbed expertly?

GlennS wrote: The government put dudes on the moon and wooped on some nazi ass. They dont suck all the time, just a lot of the time. I think the choice between the government and the private sector is this. Would you rather be served ineptly or robbed expertly?

its like fast, light, durable only its crappy, expensive, and inefficient. lucky part is, uncle sam says you get all three!

Xceler8x wrote: Agree with this too. Look how screwed up all the Armed Forces are. Straight suck. All of them. Backwards, ineffective, and lazy. The Federal government can't run anything right. Right on Jensenman! Our military blows because it's run by the federal gub'ment!

would it be inaccurate to say that the armed forces propbably have the lowest amount of direct control from federal bureaucrats of all of the things "run" by gov't?

Dr. Hess wrote: Medicare is not the wonderful system you seem to think it is. The problems with it are so large, it's out of scope of this argument. Let's just say that there's a reason physicians put up signs that say they don't accept Medicare patients. Dumping that on the rest of the country as a "solution" to the health care problem created by our government in the first place is not the answer. I didn't like a lot of what the patriot act did either. I don't see The O changing any of that, though. Do you? I do have no problem with not providing Consititutional Rights to foreigners in foreign lands picked up on the battlefield trying to kill our soldiers. Not my problem if we give them a bath and ask them where the next attack is coming from. Now, if they are a US Citizen, that's different. Then they should be tried for Treason and dealt with accordingly. And Buzz, just because someone says that what is proposed is not the answer doesn't mean they like the current system. It just means that replacing it with another system that is most likely worse just to "do something" is stoopid. So stoopid that you should be running for Congress. There's going to be a lot of new openings there come 2010. All the ones there now think that doing something stoopid is much better than doing nothing at all while you think about the proper way to fix the problem. That's why they are losing their jobs.

Paragraph 1 - Coming from a Dr you've got more experience there than I do. I trust your viewpoint.

Paragraph 2 - No kidding. I was really hoping O would step in and stop domestic spying, extreme kidnapping..er...rendition, and reinstate the civil rights we lost. No luck so far.

Paragraph 3 - Good point. If the current "Fix" doesn't move us forward it's not much of a fix. We'll have to do something. Hopefully our torturous process will move us to something better, not just different.

Strizzo wrote: would it be inaccurate to say that the armed forces probably have the lowest amount of direct control from federal bureaucrats of all of the things "run" by gov't?

Yeah. I can give you that one.

I was really kidding a bit. Utmost respect for anyone in the Armed Services. Just rebutting the favorite argument I see against some sort of government healthcare option.

Socialism ain't all bad no matter what Joe McCarthy thought.

"Socialism ain't all bad no matter what Joe McCarthy thought." Yes...Yes it is It's a creeping insidious cancer. that's ruining whats best about this country.

4eyes wrote: "Socialism ain't all bad no matter what Joe McCarthy thought." Yes...Yes it is It's a creeping insidious cancer. that's ruining whats best about this country.

Come on man! You know I'll bite troll bait since I'm bored at work!

According to The Future of Freedom Society:

"any government-owned, -funded, or -subsidized operation is considered to be a socialist program."

Socialism in modern society:

• Medicare
• Medicaid
• Public school system
• Fire Department
• Police Department
• Airports
• Gov't funded Universities
• Tennessee Valley * Authority
• Social Security
• Eisenhower Interstate System

You can find your own.

Still think ALL Socialism is bad? I don't. I like a lot of those programs above. We probably should start a separate thread tho.

Can we maybe make the slightest effort to separate "publicly funded" services from "entitlement" programs? Because this continued semantic bickering over the word "socialist" is nothing but a highly annoying red herring.

Duke wrote: Can we maybe make the slightest effort to separate "publicly funded" services from "entitlement" programs? Because this continued semantic bickering over the word "socialist" is nothing but a highly annoying red herring.

I know that puts your blood pressure up but if it all falls under the definition of socialism are we being honest with ourselves by labelling them separately?

btw - I can read the self-restraint. You get mad points for typing civilly through a red haze.

So, you get your definition of socialism from "The Future of Freedom Society." Who are they? Maybe we should get the defiiniton of socialism from Move on.org and the rest of the Soros Foundation, which would be something like "Socialism is a happy land where nobody has to work and everyone has big screen TVs and butt berkeleys all day long to pass their wonderful extra time away."

Hess, I know! I was thinking "These guys are straight pinko Lefties."

Then I went to the site and read their mission:

Mission The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government.

They seem to be more libertarian than anything. Course, as of now Libertarians can mean anything from anarchists to fascists it would seem.

btw - I wouldn't post a link here from moveon.org. That as biased as posting Fox news links!

Socialism is simple: Anything funded by "public" funds (e.g. taxes) and administered by the "state" (Federal, state, city etc.), not sure how you can contort that definition much.

I am not sure you can differentiate Socialism from Entitlement Program. It really seems to be a matter of perspective. You could easily consider roads and road work an Entitlement Program (and certainly Socialized).

Live in a private community? Guess what, probably an even cleaner version of Socialism since the community (sounds a bit like communism eh?) is paying for it as a whole and it is administered by the community "board". Private communities are an interesting variation of socialism and in most cases they seem to be adding a completely unnecessary and ineffective layer of "socialism".

aircooled wrote: Socialism is simple: Anything funded by "public" funds (e.g. taxes) and administered by the "state" (Federal, state, city etc.), not sure how you can contort that definition much. I am not sure you can differentiate Socialism from Entitlement Program. It really seems to be a matter of perspective. You could easily consider roads and road work an Entitlement Program (and certainly Socialized).

I pay fuel and income taxes, I get to drive on the public roads on my way to the library to get a book for my public-school kid, and wave to the cops and firemen as I go by, since they are on the job protecting me and my family.

But I don't get free prescriptions and a welfare check because I make too much money - I'm not allowed to use those programs, even though I am helping pay for them.

That's the difference between "public service" and "entitlement".

Get it? Got it? GOOD. Can we move on now?

I'm way too far behind in this conversation to read all the comments and verify this hasn't already been said...but...my main contention with any plan out there is it doesn't solve my three basic concerns about how costs have gotten out of control

• No plan out there truly tackles the cost of doctor self-defense insurance against frivolous lawsuits. A jury of non-professionals picked at random can never be expected to understand medical ethics and why doctors make the choices they do. A medical tribunal should decide against doctors and bad doctors can be distinguished from good doctors to insurance companies, thus weeding out the expensive ones and reducing the cost of the profession

• Why do corporations get tax breaks on providing medical insurance whereas individuals don't? Does this make any sense at all to anyone?!?! This disparity is awful and should go away.

• Any sort of universal healthcare is going to have to be rationed, simple as that. If you want vaccines, drugs, simple tests, non-invasive procedures (bones setting, muscle immobilization), cool, we got you covered. If you are at risk of major diseases like cancer, HIV treatment and have repeated issues with getting shot, stabbed, mangled in personal machinery, you best find supplementary insurance because its not society's responsibility to keep you alive, we've got bigger problems. If people are going to yell and scream about rationing, they deserve to get nothing universal and we can all complain about our HMO's and insurers for ever and ever.

In any case, any government program is going to come with strings attached. If you want to eat whatever you want, send your cholesterol through the roof, become morbidly obese (I apologize to those with glandular conditions) and become completely sedentary, you probably will be rejected for certain things your current expensive insurance pays for. Its a fact of life. Once you give into the statistic approach, you WILL become a statistic and no bureaucrat is going to take the time to try and fit a square peg through a round hole.

In short, I find most of the discussion by the government's proponents and opponents to be hilariously rediculous. Nobody can get everything they want (maybe seniors will have to pay more for their meds or not get subsidized for their procedures as often) and not pay for it.

My belief is that the truth forever and a day will be "We can live as long as we can afford" and even in the US, billionaire Bill Gates could likely outlive a homeless man if struck by the same disease. Its a given and asking for equality among everyone will merely mean that we will cease to progress farther than we currently are. We need the rich to pay for expensive procedures for themselves so that we stay on the forefront of technology that can trickle down eventually.

Yes, I am a libertarian and therefore an "Unserious Man" to most people, but I believe our current system could cost less with less government oversight or we can accept less with more government oversight and less uncertainty. Just remember, the government aims for a percentile, so don't fall out of it.

GlennS wrote: The government put dudes on the moon and wooped on some nazi ass. They dont suck all the time, just a lot of the time. I think the choice between the government and the private sector is this. Would you rather be served ineptly or robbed expertly?

One could argue that going to the moon was a mind blowingly expensive, vain piece of PR that did very little to progress actual space science and that if after the invention of the rocket individuals were allowed to launch into space, we'd probably be alot farther along then where NASA's gotten us.

Killing NAZI's, well sometimes you have to fight one government program with another government program.

Buzz Killington said: this is a serious subject that deserves serious, measured debate. but there is no constructive feedback coming from the GOP. the problem is that the loudest voices are more concerned with "stopping Obama" than with addressing the problem and crafting a solution. they're preventing a serious conversation from taking place, necessitating the current bullrush approach. i would love to hear some constructive counter ideas, but none appear to be forthcoming.

Please see "John Mackey" from Whole Foods. He provides some interesting ideas that are being portrayed by the left as baby seal beating guidance.

"the problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money"

Margaret Thatcher

(or words to that effect )

I see it as a question of incentive. What is YOUR motivation, to get out of your comfey bed, and drive through the cold rain. in the wee hours of the morning to work your ass off all day? For ME it has always been to give my family BETTER house, car, clothes, food, health care, education etc. Where is the incentive to work if the gov't provides your housing, food, health care, education, and penalizes you for straying from the norm?

Duke wrote: But I don't get free prescriptions and a welfare check because I make too much money - I'm not allowed to use those programs, even though I am helping pay for them. That's the difference between "public service" and "entitlement". Get it? Got it? GOOD. Can we move on now?

Nice discussion technique, sort of a Fox News ish' in its anger / yelling approach.

The definition of an Entitlement Program it is defined as any government (social) program guaranteeing a benefit for a certain segment of the population. Just because you don't use them now, does not mean you will never use them (social security and unemployment come to mind)

The definition of of Socialism is not a red herring BTW. It would be if the word Socialism wasn't constantly used a definitive statement of something bad, and yet there are plenty of "Socialized" programs that almost everyone would agree with.

Even Mrs. Thatchers observation (above) is either a very obvious statement (pure socialism doesn't work) or the same ridiculous oversimplification that implies that anything that can be associated with socialism or socialized programs is bad.