This is the level we're now at

[David Rakoczy]

Rob that is HILARIOUS! :lol:

[Guest]

Kinda like 50 million? ;)

 

Ok David....since you refuse to show us even one shred of data to support any thing you say, here is a collection of third party sources that support my "50 million" un-insured claim. The numbers vary from site-to-site but you get the idea. Now if you have some data to support some thing else, then show it to us. Other wise you just embarrass your self by insisting that my 50 million claim is rubbish.

 

This site says 47.5 million:

 

http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/09/how-m...from-taxpayers/

 

This site says 45 million:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124579852347944191.html

 

This site says 45 million:

 

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/news/ap/fi...ns_to_grow.html

 

This site says 45 million:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/10/...in4790299.shtml

 

This site says 52 million by 2010:

 

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/06/02/5...ricans-by-2010/

 

I can go on and on. Do you have even one third party source to dispute this evidence?

 

The good news for you is that the top two links point out that the number could be reduced if many of the poor and elderly simply applied for existing programs, that would reduce the number.

 

Again, you have never produced a counter number or any data to support your number of un-insured. You simply call my number "misinformation."

 

R,

[David Rakoczy]

You just confirmed my point. It says 15% and I said 10%... when you consider those who simply won't apply for the offered insurance help plus those who (can) afford ins and choose to spend their money elsewhere plus the Illegals you'll get to roughly 10%. Some say that figure is as as low as 6%. I believe that is more accurate. Richard, there is a huge difference between not being insured and (choosing) not to be insured. Take out all those and you are at what I conservatively stated as 10%.

 

Enough of this silliness. :rolleyes:

[Guest]

Richard, there is a huge difference between not being insured and (choosing) not to be insured.

 

Ah, but from my perspective there isn't. The fact is these people are, un-insured. That's the bottom line.

 

Are there a ton of single guys on this board who work freelance and decide to roll dice and go without health insurance, yes of course there are. But, if they lived in Canada they would all have health insurance whether they want it or not. And they would pay the higher tax rate, whether they want to or not. ;)

 

And that's the only way to do it.

 

As I said earlier, I won't live to see the day when the USA adopts a Canadian style health care plan. Out of all this debate will come some weak legislation that will insure a few more people so that the gov't can claim some sort of victory. Taxes won't be raised to cover the extra costs, and millions will still be left without health insurance.

 

So you have nothing to fear David, the USA is not heading down the same path Canada has taken.

 

R,

[David Rakoczy]

Ah, but from my perspective there isn't. The fact is these people are, un-insured. That's the bottom line.R,

 

I see. Do you also plan on going around and feeding those who (choose) not to eat? Provide comfortable housing for those who don't (want) comfortable housing? Send people to higher education when they (don't) desire a higher education?.. Sounds a bit fascist to me. How can you possibly just look at the raw data of uninsured and say "STOP the press.. we need to revamp the entire system" while not taking into consideration the entire equation and personal responsibility? Perplexing. :huh:

 

Haste makes waste!.. as we have been seeing all too much of recently.

[Guest]

I see. Do you also plan on going around and feeding those who (choose) not to eat? Provide comfortable housing for those who don't (want) comfortable housing? Send people to higher education when they (don't) desire a higher education?.. Sounds a bit fascist to me. How can you possibly just look at the raw data of uninsured and say "STOP the press.. we need to revamp the entire system" while not taking into consideration the entire equation and personal responsibility? Perplexing. :huh:

 

Haste makes waste!.. as we have been seeing all too much of recently.

 

But I'm not sure your counter argument makes a whole lot of sense?

 

Americans are right now taxed, it's the law. That tax money is taken from you and used to support the public school system, the military, the police, the roads dept, these are all considered to be "essential services."

 

In Canada we class health care as an essential service, and fund it via tax dollars, in the USA you don't. Why Americans chose to leave off health care from the list of essential services you currently fund is a mystery to most of us outside of the USA. I lived in the USA for five years and never figured it out.

 

An American who railed against Canada's publicly funded health care system had no issue with sending his kids to a public school or driving on public roads? That's the part I will never understand, it simply doesn't make any sense?

 

R,

[David Rakoczy]

Many people die and leave their families with zero or heavily in debt. Should the Federal Government mandate that everyone pay into a system of Life Insurance they most often (choose) not to carry? Should the wealthy(er) have to pay for other's poor choices?

 

..as a note.. I never 'rallied' against your healthcare system.. Whatever you as Canadians choose to do is up to you. My only concern is what is happening here in the US right now. You also consistently misconstrue what the 'Fed' is supposed to do and what the individual 'States' are supposed to do.. not to mention the local 'Counties' that run the Fire Depts.,Policing, etc... You look to the Feds as a one stop shop for all our cares and woes and that is not what (this) Country was built on. This is what (most) Americans are extremely frustrated by.

[Guest]

Many people die and leave their families with zero or heavily in debt. Should the Federal Government mandate that everyone pay into a system of Life Insurance they most often (choose) not to carry? Should the wealthy(er) have to pay for other's poor choices?

 

No of course not. But healthcare should not be accessible only to those who are employed with companies that can provide the benefits, or to upper income people that can afford the premiums on their own. "IF" the USA adopted a single payer Canadian model...Yes as an upper income American you would be helping to pay for the health insurance of those who are not as well of as you, corret. I do it every quarter when I hand over my taxes to the feds here.

 

If I suddenly become a poor Canadian, I have the assurance that I will still have access to high quality health care.

 

..as a note.. I never 'rallied' against your healthcare system.. Whatever you as Canadians choose to do is up to you. My only concern is what is happening here in the US right now. You also consistently misconstrue what the 'Fed' is supposed to do and what the individual 'States' are supposed to do.. not to mention the local 'Counties' that run the Fire Depts.,Policing, etc... You look to the Feds as a one stop shop for all our cares and woes and that is not what (this) Country was built on. This is what (most) Americans are extremely frustrated by.

 

Ah yes the world famous, "rugged individualism" of the American people, Rush Limbaugh made that concept famous.

 

I'm not so sure I agree with you 100% on "what America was built on." I have studied US history quite in depth, and the federal government played a central and key role in the countries history from beginning to end. From winning The War Of Independence to the Civil War, and the opening of the West, the US central gov't was the key architect and designer of it all. I would argue that the federal gov'ts position though out US history has been that of the major shaper of US policy both at home and abroad.

 

I know you will disagree.

 

Now in 2009 the US central gov't once again has the opportunity to enact a major policy shift to ensure that all Americans have access to health care.

 

But for the third time.....you have nothing to worry about David, the US will never adopt a national health care plan in 1000 years.

 

R,

[Scott Fritzshall]

Out of curiosity, David, what would you propose as a solution to those who choose not to purchase health insurance?

[David Rakoczy]

Accept the consequences.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I see. Do you also plan on going around and feeding those who (choose) not to eat? Perplexing. :huh:

Hi David,

 

I don't understand you're comparison here. The vast majority of people who are uninsured either cannot afford to buy private insurance and pay their bills at the same time, or they have tried to buy insurance but are denied because of their pre-existing medical conditions. They don't "choose" not to insure themselves (or "go nekkid," as Congressman Zach Wamp of Tennessee put it) to any greater extent than starving people "choose" not to eat, or unemployed workers "choose" not to work.

 

To anyone who is interested, please check out these documentaries and interviews that examine how our heath care system and the health insurance industry actually functions:

 

"Money Driven Medicine": http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08282009/watch.html

"Critical Condition": http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08212009/watch.html

Bill Moyers interviews Wendell Potter, former head of corporate communications at CIGNA: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/watch.html

 

Again, I believe this argument basically boils down to whether you think health care is a right or a privilege. If it is a privilege, then we deserve only whatever care we are able to pay for. If we can't pay, then we don't get treatment, simple as that. However, if health care is a right, then we are obligated to provide care to the least among us as well as to those who are well off.

 

Lastly, I think the health care industry is unlike most other corporate industries. Profit motives and incentives are being applied directly to people's lives here. We're not talking about consumer goods or financial services. We're not talking about widgets or stock figures. In my mind, Health = Life. Are we not guaranteed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence (and in that order)? The fact that "life" comes first indicates to me that it is the most basic right we have.

 

This begs the question: why is such an important right now in the hands of corporations whose only legal mandate is to turn a profit for their shareholders? Why is our health care system a for-profit system in the first place? And does it really need to be? If our principles as a nation do really derive from the Declaration of the Independence and the Constitution, then I would argue "no."

[David Rakoczy]

That vast majority is not a s vast as we are lead to believe as demonstrated earlier in this thread. I went without ins until I was 36. That was a choice I made as well as a choice of many of my friends. We wanted to spend our money on 'other' things. We gambled. Stupid! But that is the reality and when I got injured and went to the ER I got slammed with a Bill! Deservedly so. I should have gotten health insurance.

 

Yes there needs to be changes and there needs to be help for those with preexisting conditions. How about offering the health ins companies a tax break to take these people in?.. oh no... we need to revamp and entire System. (That) is the goal. Healthcare is just one cog on the wheel of 'change'. And of course there will be rationing. Obama's people have already stated that will occur. We can hardly offer anyone within our borders any procedure they may need. :blink: Are you kidding? We are all but broke. Sunstein and Emmanual both stated that a 25 year old will receive services that a 65 year old won't (if it comes to rationing).. and of course it will. It has to! This is all about control and I'd rather entrust control to individuals.. not some unconfirmed Czars.

 

Are you aware that (our) children were supposed to write a letter regarding their 'Pledge to help Mr. Obama achieve his goals'... :o . This is real. Real creepy! Fortunately the White House has withdrawn that request but my children will not attend school on Tuesday nonetheless (we'll be at the beach B) ). Have you seen the TV Ads the National Endowment of the Arts so quickly churned out after a prod and wink from the White House? Isn't this an illegal use of tax payer funds... promoting propaganda? Imagine if Bush had done this? I would be equally appalled. We Pledge allegiance to our God.. then our Nation... not to a 'man'.

 

If you can't see that our current administration is driven to bankrupt this Country and then redesign a new 'System' as he calls it... well.. wake up!

 

Indoctrination

 

Propaganda

 

 

btw.. Satsuki.. if you don't believe that a large sector of the unemployed (choose) to be unemployed... you must have the rosiest colored glasses available. Go back in this thread and read about A.D.D.. Authority Defiance Disorder.

[Scott Fritzshall]

Accept the consequences.

So you're ok with the fact that you yourself are paying much more as a result?

[Guest]

Incidentally David....I'm quite sure there are a number of social issues that we would agree on. I'm pretty sure that you and I would be on the same page with regard to programs like, affirmative action, for instance.

 

So in the future don't be surprised if I am totally on your side regarding an issue other than health care :D

 

R,

[Satsuki Murashige]

That vast majority is not a s vast as we are lead to believe as demonstrated earlier in this thread. I went without ins until I was 36. That was a choice I made as well as a choice of many of my friends. We wanted to spend our money on 'other' things. We gambled. Stupid! But that is the reality and when I got injured and went to the ER I got slammed with a Bill! Deservedly so. I should have gotten health insurance.

I think you were lucky to be able to afford insurance in your 20s, even if you didn't choose to buy it. I'm assuming you were working your way up in the film industry at the time and not making a lot of money, but please let me know if I'm wrong. I know that's the case with me and many of my AC friends right now.

 

I do happen to be able to afford health insurance through Kaiser right now, in part because I have a day job in addition to my freelance work. Even so, to be able to afford to pay my current premiums, I had to switch from a $25 co-pay to a $50 co-pay plan several years ago. The $50 co-pay plan does not cover one medication that I need to take for the rest of my life. If I had to purchase more drugs for whatever reason, I might not be able to afford my current health insurance in the future. I think I'm being as responsible as I can afford to be right now, but like many (maybe even most) people with insurance, I'm probably one illness/injury/financial disaster away from losing my insurance. I don't think I deserve that.

 

But also, having health insurance doesn't necessarily mean you won't get slammed with a bill after an ER visit anyway. A friend of mine (employed at a film archive, but not provided insurance from her employer) who has private insurance got knocked down by a bicyclist as she was crossing the street a few months ago. Someone called the fire department and they took her in an ambulance to the ER. She stayed overnight and got slammed with a $1000 bill (which she can't afford to pay). Her health insurance won't cover it because of a technicality. I didn't ask her all the details so I'll try to find out more, but that's pretty messed up. She didn't deserve this. What is insurance for, if not for these kinds of things?

 

Yes there needs to be changes and there needs to be help for those with preexisting conditions. How about offering the health ins companies a tax break to take these people in?.. oh no... we need to revamp and entire System.

Well first of all, none of the bills in Congress are proposing changing the for-profit system as it exists now. Such a system, if it were being proposed, would bypass the health insurance companies entirely and provide insurance directly to the people. Something like "Medicare for all", a single payer system. This means that hospitals would be reimbursed for claims directly in one lump sum from the federal government instead of piecemeal, claim by claim, from each individual's provider, as happens now.

 

Single payer was taken off of the negotiating table by Obama before Congress even began debating, presumably in a deal brokered with the insurance lobby in exchange for them not rejecting any reform out of hand. What is being proposed, the public option, is a lower cost federal insurance plan that would compete with the insurance companies with lower premiums and cheaper negotiated drug prices. If enough Americans joined that program, the insurance companies would have to lower their own premiums and drug prices to be competitive.

 

But about the need for systemic change, I say yes. The current for-profit system doesn't work and is morally bankrupt. Health insurance companies are in the business of NOT providing care whenever possible - that is how they turn profits, by denying claims. If they paid out every claim by one of their customers, they would be out of business. I realize this is nature of capitalism, and for most industries that's perfectly acceptable, even desirable. I just don't believe it makes sense for a health care system to be a for-profit industry, at least on a huge corporate scale (I think primary care doctors starting small businesses is fine). If the main purpose of the system is to provide care, then does it make any sense for the system to incentivise not providing care?

 

Furthermore, the current system is not efficient - right now, 80 cents of every dollar we pay in our premiums actually goes to pay for our treatment. This is known as the "medical loss ratio" in the industry. Profit loss = paying claims. In the early 90s, the ratio was 95 cents of every dollar. The remainder goes into profits for shareholders and overhead. The higher the ratio, the greater the profit. We're not even getting what we pay for.

source: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/watch.html

 

And of course there will be rationing. Obama's people have already stated that will occur.

But there's rationing of care going on right now under the current system. Even if you have insurance, it can take weeks or even months just to get an appointment with a specialist. I'm sure most of us have all been there. So what's the difference?

 

We can hardly offer anyone within our borders any procedure they may need. :blink: Are you kidding? We are all but broke.

This is a great point. We certainly do need to figure out how we are going to pay for this. However, I'd much rather have this point being debated seriously from a policy point of view right now than having a shouting match about "death panels", "socialism/fascism/nazism", and other conspiracy theories. I think that's more helpful.

 

This is all about control and I'd rather entrust control to individuals.. not some unconfirmed Czars.

Which individuals have control over their own health care right now? Everyone who has insurance relies on a bureaucrat in their insurance company. Doctors certainly don't have control over the care they give their patients, they have to get approval from the insurance company before they can do tests or procedures. The only freedom you have as an individual right now is to choose NOT to buy health insurance. But as you said earlier, choosing to go without is just stupid. That's hardly any freedom at all.

 

Are you aware that (our) children were supposed to write a letter regarding their 'Pledge to help Mr. Obama achieve his goals'... :o .

From the AP article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...V9XVfQD9AG43GO0

Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online, originally recommended having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."

 

The White House revised the plans Wednesday to say students could "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."

 

"That was inartfully worded, and we corrected it," Higginbottom said.

I don't see anything written about "pledges", is the full original transcript up somewhere online? I read that it would go up on the White House website on Monday. Until then, from what I read in this article, nothing here strikes me as "creepy" or inappropriate. It sounds to me like many conservative parents who hate Obama's politics simply saw what they wanted to see. What clues me in to this is that the article mentions the largest outbursts have come from districts in Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, and Wisconsin. If this really was an attempt to indoctrinate children with a political message you would think the outbursts would be less localized in conservative districts, as I'm sure a greater spectrum of politically active parents would also object.

 

BTW, the elder Bush did make a similar speech, according to the article:

President George H.W. Bush made a similar address to schools in 1991. Like Obama, Bush drew criticism, with Democrats accusing the Republican president of making the event into a campaign commercial.

 

If you can't see that our current administration is driven to bankrupt this Country and then redesign a new 'System' as he calls it... well.. wake up!

That's an unfair judgment. If anyone tried to bankrupt the country, it was Bush. Obama inherited the largest deficit in U.S. history, the worst recession since the Great Depression, the first TARP bailout, the war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan. What exactly could any administration have done differently with regard to these problems? Deficit - Republican suggested spending freeze? Uh, no. TARP bailout - with no regulations attached to begin with, nothing. Iraq and Afghanistan - pull out immediately? Again, not an option. Could Obama have handled things differently since then? Of course, I can think of a number of things - not hire Tim Geitner, re-install real regulations into the banking industry and start full criminal investigations of what led to the collapse, attach strict conditions to the 2nd bailout, more transparency and accountability, etc. But I do think he's attempting (however halfheartedly) to make some real reforms that will help fix our current mess, and more importantly, I think he is doing so in an honest attempt to improve the lives of all Americans, even the ones who happened not to vote for him and don't agree with his policies.

 

btw.. Satsuki.. if you don't believe that a large sector of the unemployed (choose) to be unemployed... you must have the rosiest colored glasses available. Go back in this thread and read about A.D.D.. Authority Defiance Disorder.

Sure, I do think there are some among the unemployed who purposefully leach off the system to avoid making an effort. But do I think that group constitutes the majority, of course not and I hope you don't either. For example, look at this: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summa...286-7235316_ITM.

 

U.S. Unemployment Rate Drops to Thirty-Year Low in April.

Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL)

| May 06, 2000 | COPYRIGHT 2000 The Chicago Tribune.

 

Byline: Merrill Goozner

 

May 6--WASHINGTON--The U.S. unemployment rate fell to a thirty-year low in April, the government reported Friday, signaling the American steamroller economy is still moving ahead--and the Federal Reserve Board may step sharply on the brakes later this month to curb inflation.

 

Just 3.9 percent of the workforce is unemployed, down from 4.1 percent in March, the Labor Department said.

 

Here's a graph that shows unemployment from 1999 to 2009: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutp..._id=LNS14000000.

 

So less than 10 years ago, the unemployment rate was around 4%, the lowest it had been in 30 years. That concurs with this historical table: http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm#empstat. (click on "Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1940s to date"). It gives the actual number of unemployed in the year 2000 at 5.7 million people.

 

Today, as of August, the unemployment rate is 9.7%, or 14.9 million people: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm. That's a 9.2 million person difference in less than 10 years! Even accounting for population changes, retirees, and other variables, do you really think that more than 9 million people just decided to say "screw it, I'm gonna go on the dole and get rich, biatch!." Yeah right.

 

These are people who had jobs, were paying into Social Security and Medicare, probably owned homes, probably had health insurance through their employer, just like most Americans. They lost their jobs and had to fall back on the government safety net. And these people are still actively looking for jobs - remember the unemployment rate doesn't take into account people who have stopped looking for work. I think my glasses are quite clear, thank you.

[David Rakoczy]

Satsuki.. our current President has spent money in the amounts NEVER seen before surpassing Bush and every other president by ten fold and he has just begun. There is another stimulus plan in the works and then there is the 1.3 Trillion healthcare plan.. Bush was hardly conservative... but Obama is off the charts! :o ... This has been a goal of the 'Progressives' since the 60's. Get as many people on welfare, disability etc.. etc.. as you can and literally break the System. Break the Bank. These folks then started ACORN. An ACORN activist is now our President. Not to mention he has brought in a Czar (Van Jones) who is a devout Communist who, believes the 911 attack was an 'inside' job by the Bush Administration, believes the entire US System needs to be overhauled (which many view as treasonous).. 'We need a whole New System" he says, Says that whites are purposely poisoning minorities, Plans to redistribute the wealth, Says we should release cop killers and on and on. This guy should not be anywhere near the White House. Our President says "judge me by the company I keep".. well, we are Mr. President! These people want to dismantle the US and build their 'dream'... good luck! We have seen the fruits of Communism and Marxism.

 

On that cautionary note, have a great weekend Richard, Scott, Satsuki and the rest of the Members!

[Jason Debus]

I don't know what Kook Aid you are drinking but turn off the TV, radio, or web page because you are poisoned my friend.

[David Rakoczy]

Jason.. you are obviously uninformed and uneducated in these matters. Clueless would probably be a better term .

 

Get off your bong and watch the News, or wake up to the Country you will surely inherit which has no resemblance to anything you enjoy now...

 

I challenge anyone to watch the 'I Pledge' video and picture them saying 'I Pledge allegiance to George Bush"... and replace the final (Marxist) graphic of Obama with George Bush and tell me you would not be deeply disturbed......... I would be/ am, no matter (who) is in the White House!

[Satsuki Murashige]

Well David, I guess we're not going to see eye to eye on this issue anytime soon, so we might as well drop it and go back to talking about cinematography.

 

On that cautionary note, have a great weekend Richard, Scott, Satsuki and the rest of the Members!

Happy Labor Day guys. (Oh, the irony! :rolleyes:)

[Brian Dzyak]

FACTS:

 

Conservatives for the most part subscribe to the Milton Friedman ideology which seeks to turn the entire planet into an unfettered Free Market economy where EVERYTHING is a "for profit" enterprise. The "Strong" survive (literally) and the "weak" die (literally). Compassion for others is not in their DNA. Selfishness is what drives them.

 

Conservatives invented the "Starve the Beast" strategy, wherein Republican Administrations saddle the government with massive debt and deficits so that the inevitable Democratic Administrations cannot achieve the social caring goals that Conservative despise so much. No Republican Administration Nixon has balanced a budget. The Clinton Administration not only balanced the budget, but paid down the Reagan/Bush deficits, which Bush2 promptly brought back.

 

Republican strategy is to hoard money at the "top" via "tax breaks" to the Corporations and the wealthiest citizens. Further "profits" are being achieved via Globalization wherein economic policies enable US Corporations to ship manufacturing and other jobs to foreign lands where they can exploit workers for cheaper rates where they aren't saddled with safety issues or other 'irritating" rules that are designed to help workers and build a strong Middle Class.

[David Rakoczy]

Facts???? Your rhetoric Brian..... is astounding... again, no generalizations here? :rolleyes:

[Guest]

We can all go easier on David, he's a nice guy, I talked to him on the phone. And he's clearly a hard working entrepreneur.

 

We agree to disagree on healthcare, but he's a good guy. :D

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Nope, no generalizations! No rhetoric. Just facts that are hard to swallow if you happen to be on the guilty side of them. :)

 

A few more interesting notes: The similarities between our nation today and as it was in 1936 after a Democratic Administration cleaned up the economic disaster (The Great Depression) that was caused by Republican greed...are disturbing. Listen to FDR's Madison Square Garden 1936 speech concerning the state of things then and compare what we face today:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BksTHQo8Q78

 

 

Also, one of the erroneous arguments being made by Conservatives against Universal Healthcare is that "socialization" of healthcare would kill innovation since "most drugs come from private sector investment." That is a completely misleading idea, mostly in that it is completely wrong in its accuracy: http://counterecon.com/2009/08/24/efficien...tical-industry/

 

Almost all the drugs you see, such as Crestor or Flowmax are really just old drugs that have seen just minor enough alterations to get a new patent. However, they are the same chemical compound. They do this partially because the period of pharmaceutical discovery has mostly passed and no program such as the Human Genome project (which was mostly a boondoggle and giveaway to elite interests) is going to change that. So instead pharmaceutical companies are passing off the illusion of innovation for real innovation. They have so taken over the FDA that they willingly rubber stamp almost any new drug no matter how illusory the benefit. In fact the leadership of the FDA is primarily pharmaceutical executives, who have every incentive to get drugs approved for the companies that they go back to after their FDA stint and for which they hold stock options in.

 

The other major argument/fear that is being put out there is that the USA will suddenly be "Socialist" if it enacts Universal Healthcare for all. I don't think anyone... ANYONE... is asking for the United States to become a Socialist nation. That is a lie foisted out there by a Conservative machine that is deathly scared of losing out on unearned profits.

 

The truth is though that we ALREADY HAVE many Socialist POLICIES in this nation that keep us cohesive, safe, and functioning. Why haven't the Conservatives been complaining all these years about the EPA, the FDA, the NIH, the VA, the Military, the DOT, Medicare, Child Protective Services, the Police, Fire Departments... ALL examples of SOCIALIST entities that exist in our nation without complaint (mostly). So suddenly a public option of a gvnt managed health care system will make us Socialist? C'mon! What a joke! It's just a fear tactic that, unbelievably, works on too many people who only show their own willful ignorance by believing it.

 

With a public option, YOU can still pay lots of $$$ to your choice of for-profit insurance companies if you want to keep financing opulent lifestyles... or you could save money and buy into the gvnt managed program. Either way, this nation won't suddenly become any more or less "Socialist" than it already is.

 

So, basically all the opposition arguments coming from the Conservative Leadership fall into two categories: 1) blatant misinformation, twisting of facts, and intentional misleading. 2) McCarthy-style fear-mongering about the "evils of Socialism." This worked on the Soviet-era population because the "Russians were obviously evil and Communist, therefore Socialism must be evil too!"

 

Both tactics are based in disingenuous interpretations of reality. None of the financial or "incentive" arguments made by the Conservative Leadership are even remotely accurate. And this nation has lived with built-in Socialist POLICIES for years without anyone complaining this much as they do over Health Care. We are not Socialist, but we are also not entirely Free Market Capitalist either. We are both and we should be both. Nobody is whining for full Socialism, but the wealthy want full bore unfettered Free Market Capitalism. Why is that do you suppose? A LOT of money is going to DC from the Health Insurance Industry for the express reason of stopping any reform at all that will hurt it's bottom line

 

From OpenSecrets.org http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/di...sis-reform.html

 

Health providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies have taken multiple approaches to winning over the federal lawmakers shaping the legislation. The health sector boosted its campaign contributions compared to the last presidential cycle, to $167.7 million in 2008 from $123.7 million in 2004. The various health industries have also steadily increased their lobbying efforts, from $448.1 million in 2007 to $484.4 million in 2008. So far this year, the sector has paid lobbyists $126.8 million to do its bidding on Capitol Hill.

 

 

There are facts out there as long as the ADD citizenry of the US is willing to find them and LISTEN TO THEM. Others are just too lazy and take all Fox "News" Alerts to be Gospel Truth. Others truly don't care about anyone beyond themselves so facts are inconsequential to an ideology. Of course this is America and everyone is free to be educated or not. I really don't care if people wish to be ignorant or selfish as long as they stop taking the rest of the world down with them. The rest of us would appreciate a fair world where we are free to pursue the lives we dream of. But as long as Milton Friedmanists out there insist on taking the entire pie instead of acknowledging that there is indeed enough to go around, then our entire civilization will be doomed to collapse. We're all on an island in the vastness of a dark Universe and we have to all live together and take care of one another to the best of our abilities. A civilization or population that is left behind to rot while an elite class locks itself behind walls will eventually fail. Some people out there refuse to see the future and don't really care as long as "they get theirs."

[David Rakoczy]

We can all go easier on David, he's a nice guy, I talked to him on the phone. And he's clearly a hard working entrepreneur.We agree to disagree on healthcare, but he's a good guy. :D R,

 

Thanks Richard. ;) ... it was a pleasure to actually speak with you.

[Brian Dzyak]

Are you aware that (our) children were supposed to write a letter regarding their 'Pledge to help Mr. Obama achieve his goals'... :o . This is real. Real creepy! Fortunately the White House has withdrawn that request but my children will not attend school on Tuesday nonetheless (we'll be at the beach B) ). Have you seen the TV Ads the National Endowment of the Arts so quickly churned out after a prod and wink from the White House? Isn't this an illegal use of tax payer funds... promoting propaganda? Imagine if Bush had done this? I would be equally appalled. We Pledge allegiance to our God.. then our Nation... not to a 'man'.

 

 

Sort of like your hero Reagan did? http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909030020

 

Today, to a degree never before seen in human history, one nation, the United States, has become the model to be followed and imitated by the rest of the world. But America's world leadership goes well beyond the tide toward democracy. We also find that more countries than ever before are following America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade. These days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for reducing taxes, and other economic reforms that they are using, copying what we have done here in our country.

 

 

I wonder if they realize that this vision of economic freedom, the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use property without the interference of the state, was central to the American Revolution, when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic restrictions, taxes and barriers to free trade. The message at the Boston Tea Party -- have you studied yet in history about the Boston Tea Party, where because of a tax they went down and dumped the tea in the Harbor. Well, that was America's original tax revolt, and it was the fruits of our labor -- it belonged to us and not to the state. And that truth is fundamental to both liberty and prosperity.

 

Reagan failed to mention that the WTO and World Bank were FORCING those foreign leaders to accept the Milton Friedman Free Market ideology. It wasn't because they wanted to... it's because they HAD to in order to get the loans they needed to save their nations BECAUSE the Milton Friedmanists went in to destroy them in the first place.

 

 

Anyway, that's a moot argument because Obama's "speech" to students was to promote personal responsibility and to tell them to stay in school. Ironically (because Conservatives are masters at irony), Conservative parents will keep their kids out of school on a day that the President is asking them to be responsible. :blink: What's wrong with a parent or school that teaches kids to A) skip school whenever they want to for vacations, etc and B) ignore a strong message about personal responsibility and to stay in school?

 

That's Conservatives for you! Hypocrites and ideologues to the core, facts be-damned. <_<