WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — Over angry Republican objections, the House on Wednesday passed a sweeping expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, financed with increases in tobacco taxes and cuts in subsidies to private Medicare insurance plans for older Americans.

. . . By a vote of 225 to 204, the bill passed, with support from 220 Democrats and 5 Republicans. Ten Democrats joined 194 Republicans in voting against it. The bill would provide coverage for more than four million uninsured children in low-income families, prevent cuts in doctors’ Medicare payments scheduled for Jan. 1 and raise the federal cigarette tax 45 cents a pack, to 84 cents.

The greatest President of our lifetime saw this coming and warned us WAAAYYY before he was even President.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/415EE6E634A14E2F828ED104CE605929/ronald-reagan-speaks-out-again.aspx

Kinda long - but it's amazing the accuracy he could see the forthcoming of our own downfall.


Scares the hell out of me, but I don't know how to stop it - the GOP has certainly let us down in a major league sort of way, but damn these Dems aren't even trying to conceal their Socialist agendas.

Would love to see Libertarians gain more traction, but I'm afraid it won't happen in time to stop this crap.

Ronald Reagan was a great American.

I wrote my senator asking them to vote against it- I'm guessing they did. If everyone did the same, it would have more effect than comparing democrats to republicans, because I really can't see much difference anymore.

I'm going to vote Democrat, and I certainly hope it make us more of a Socialist Nation. I'd be proud to live in a nation that thought basic health care for every citizen of the richest nation on earth was a basic right. The Europeans get it, and I hope we can some how equal their compassion for each other in the future.

It would beat the Fascist nation that we are becoming under the current administration.

It would beat the cutthroat-me first and screw everyone else nation that we are becoming.

It might even resemble the Christian Nation that so many Republicans say that they want, except that they don't really want a nation in which we all take responsibility for our fellow man (you know what I mean, that socialistic shit preached by Christ, that rabble rouser).

a nation in which we all take responsibility for our fellow man (you know what I mean, that socialistic shit preached by Christ, that rabble rouser).


Believe alot of Christian organizations already do this w/o dipping into the people's pockets.Hell, every check you write 'for the magic show' in the memo section probably ends up partly going towards charities.And in Ok.,the Baptist Children's homes do alot for the welfare of children.

I try to stay out of these political arguments simply because they all end the same way, but I have to ask one thing. How is insurance for millions of low income kids a bad thing?

I try to stay out of these political arguments simply because they all end the same way, but I have to ask one thing. How is insurance for millions of low income kids a bad thing?

It's not nec. a bad thing, however, amd we have all seen it; their are alot of abuses in the welfare system as it is. If the gov. were to curtail that,then I might be somewhat more supportive.

I agree that the welfare system is abused, but it is still a good program that helps a lot of people. There are always going to be people that take advantage of somebody trying to help them, but does that mean we shouldn't try to help? I say help those in need and f*ck those that don't want to help. If someone thinks they are too good to help out their neighbor then my opinion is get out of our country. And I am in no way attacking anybody here, I don't know any of you and I don't know how you believe. Please don't take a dumb kids opinion personal.

I'm going to vote Democrat, and I certainly hope it make us more of a Socialist Nation. I'd be proud to live in a nation that thought basic health care for every citizen of the richest nation on earth was a basic right. The Europeans get it, and I hope we can some how equal their compassion for each other in the future.

It would beat the Fascist nation that we are becoming under the current administration.

It would beat the cutthroat-me first and screw everyone else nation that we are becoming.

It might even resemble the Christian Nation that so many Republicans say that they want, except that they don't really want a nation in which we all take responsibility for our fellow man (you know what I mean, that socialistic shit preached by Christ, that rabble rouser).

:iagree:
Bill you have a way w/ words.

How is insurance for millions of low income kids a bad thing?

Because it raises taxes.

We can fund everything- we can put a pony under every kid's holiday tree too- but someone has to pay for it.

If you can find a way to fund something without raising taxes, that sounds good to me. The better solution is to put money somewhere that raises kids out of poverty- if we have millions of kids in that situation (we don't), then how about not sending $3 billion a year to Israel- or untold billions to Iraq?

as is often the case, the devil's in the details. It is NOT about bringing insurance to millions of kids, it's a means to implement Hillarycare one step at a time without admitting that's what they're doing.

While they talk a good game about "covering poor kids" this is an attempt to expand the program to also cover adults making as much as 3 times the poverty level.

If you want socialized medicine controlled by the federal govt, fine. Let's have that argument. But this sort of shit is nothing less than a bunch of people telling a pack of lies to slide something in on us, because they want to, without being open & honest about what they're doing.

I think maybe we can reach a little bit of common ground in understanding my aversion, as well as many others, to having the govt in control of our health care:

I do not want the Hildabeast, or Ted Kennedy, of Harry Reid, or any number of scumbags dems to be calling the shots on my health care. Now you dems may think this to be unreasonable on my part, so think of it this way:

Do you want Tom Delay, GW Bush, Cheney, Newt, or any of many GOP scumbags to be calling the shots for your healthcare?

After all, W managed to get a new entitlement in the form of a prescription drug program passed into law a few years ago, and I don't think I've ever heard a democrat do anything but bitch about that program, never any praise.

If they can't do a comparatively simply RX program well enough to please you, are you really ready to put all the eggs in the same basket?

I'm not.

Why you have to be such a hater, Wayward?? Hildabeast this, Hildabeast that....here I'll send you a book for you to read. This will change your mind and soon you too will be touting Hillaryism...just open your mind. You can't see anything with your head up the elephant's ass.

http://www.giltroy.com/hillaryclintonbook/HRCindex.jpg


:biggrinangelA:

I'm not a hater, but I really can't stand her.

But do try to pull your head outa the donkeys ass & think about my point:

Do you want the elephant in charge of your health care?

and for the record, I do not want the GOP to be in control of my health care any more than I want the dems to be.

Why you have to be such a hater, Wayward?? Hildabeast this, Hildabeast that....here I'll send you a book for you to read. This will change your mind and soon you too will be touting Hillaryism...just open your mind. You can't see anything with your head up the elephant's ass.

http://www.giltroy.com/hillaryclintonbook/HRCindex.jpg


:biggrinangelA:



Mmmmmmmmm...Hilary is beautiful:liar:

I'm a hater - I HATE HER!!!

But do try to pull your head outa the donkeys ass & think about my point:



Maybe you didn't catch my suttle sarcasm. I don't like the Reps or Dems stance on issues. If I had to vote now, it would be Ron Paul. I was just giving you a hard time because you seem so repulsed by Hillary and are always the staunch Republican.

Sorry, I'm not a staunch republican. But that's OK, most people on the left seem to have trouble figuring that out, too.

The one thing you can safely say about me politically is that I'm utterly repelled by the democratic party. That may cause me to vote mostly republican, but it does not make me a republican.

we need new ideas there must be a way, to use the ridiculous amounts of money spent already to provide preventive care, maybe basic services provided by a a branch somewhat like the military you join to get your education paid for put in 10 years and your out. Of course with our victim society people would bitch about not having the best doctors for free. Whatever good answers there are I'm not sure they'll be found in a debate between dem.s and repub.s .

Because it raises taxes.

We can fund everything- we can put a pony under every kid's holiday tree too- but someone has to pay for it.

If you can find a way to fund something without raising taxes, that sounds good to me. The better solution is to put money somewhere that raises kids out of poverty- if we have millions of kids in that situation (we don't), then how about not sending $3 billion a year to Israel- or untold billions to Iraq?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty05/pov05hi.html

17.6 percent of children live under the federal poverty rate. I agree with you why spend the money in Iraq when we can spend it on our own people in need.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn0807bd.jpg

Okay, I can't stand it anymore. Bill, first with you. (you know what I mean, that socialistic shit preached by Christ, that rabble rouser)
No where, and I mean absolutely no where is there any place where Jesus preached "socialism." He most certainly told his followers, then and now, that we should be compassionate, that we should feed the hungry, that we should clothe the naked, etc., but he never mentioned any mechanism resembling the mandatory forfeiture of assets to a government authority (or any other for that matter, including the church) for redistribution as they would see fit.
Second, those of us who are opposed to socialistic entities are not, by default, opposed to helping and/or giving to the less fortunate. We do; however, understand the principles of economics which, beyond any doubt whatsoever, indicate that free market economics provide far more goods and services of higher quality than any mandated system and do so at far less cost. There is no place on earth, at any time on earth, where you can give an example of a socialistic or communist nation that had better health care than this country although I'm sure that it won't last much longer as we continue to slide the slippery slope that the Republican party has put us on the last few years. It seems the Democrats want to put us on a steeper slope and grease it up a bit more, but it doesn't matter because it is a disaster either way. A few well informed, and economically sound thinkers on the subject :
(all from slightly different angles)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sandstrom/sandstrom9.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli7.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/rhamey1.html

Mikerotch, Provider Of Economic Truth, And Voting For A Doctor
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

I don't want the government anywhere near my healthcare. I'm for private sector insurance for everyone. If we remove the burden of govt(and ambulance chasers) we may be suprised at what could be done for for the so called impoverished here. Maybe they could lift themselves up and provide for themselves instead of relying on the govt nanny state.

I fail to see why people are so convinced that things are better in Europe and other socialist places. Everyone has an opportunity to excel here. You can take the opportunity or live with your choices. Our society so frequently labeled as greedy always seems to insure that those incapable of caring for themselves(elderly, sick, neglected(kids)disabled, etc.) are covered. When our poor drive caddies and have big screen TV's they really aren't poor. Go to Haiti if you want to see poor(or some of the other fine socialist third world countries).

Like Wayward, I see no redeeming qualities in the Democrat party but also see the Republicans slipping into their mold. We really don't have conservative representation. Voting has become the lesser of two evils.

I know how I'm voting
Stewart - Colbert '08:D

There is no place on earth, at any time on earth, where you can give an example of a socialistic or communist nation that had better health care than this country

You must be shitting me. Surely you have read about most of the countries of Western Europe having better public health numbers in such things as infant mortality, life expectancy, neo-natal mortality, while paying a much smaller portion of national income.

Of do you just not call them socialist? There is no pure socialist economy and there is no pure free market economy. All are a mix, and its just a matter of where they fall on a continuum, but I seem to hear many Americans deriding those damn socialists in Europe and their "socialized medicine."

Here is an article that touches on the subject.


July 5, 2007

Guest Columnist

A National Gut-Check: Who Lives Better?
By TIMOTHY EGAN

One of the memorable scenes in “Sicko,” Michael Moore’s latest cinematic
provocation, comes from France, where he shows doctors in their little
white cars making house calls — for free.

But it’s not just France. When we lived in Italy some time ago, a doctor
came to our farmhouse rental on Easter Sunday morning to diagnose a
stomach ailment. He charged nothing.

Let’s stipulate that Moore is a one-sided pamphleteer, with a bit of Mark
Twain and Pat Robertson in his schtick. But like all propagandists, his
job is not to find some objective truth, but to anger, challenge, ask
hard questions.

With Independence Day just passed, a good nationalist shouldn’t be afraid
to answer those questions. So, who lives better, us or them?

In Italy, this was a regular parlor game when friends came to visit.
Inevitably, after a few days of taking in our new world — a village
public school for the kids, neighbors who opened the doors of their
ancient homes to us, a lengthy siesta every afternoon — our houseguests
would side with the Italians. I would counter for the U.S.A., to keep the
argument alive.

The Italians won on health, family and food. The United States was better
on race and opportunity.

With health care, the anecdotal often carried the argument. One day, a
tenant farmer named Sergio, our neighbor, woke with a terrible eye
infection. He was full of pain, unable to see. Sergio got world-class
care in Florence. After three days of attentive fussing in the hospital,
he came home entirely well and without a bill.

Had he showed up at any American hospital — poor, no insurance — well,
good luck. Especially in a place like Texas, where 30 percent of adults
lack health insurance and what can pass for medical care is a get-in-line
form of triage.

But even with insurance, Americans are stuck with what may be the worst
of all systems: one that lets a handful of corporations make
life-and-death decisions, with incentive to dump and deny.

Little wonder that the United States ranks 37th in effectiveness of
health care. Italy ranks 2nd. This is a country that can’t form a
government to last longer than the soccer season, and yet, they make our
medical system look barbaric.

If our system doesn’t kill you — see the infant mortality and life
expectancy rates, bringing up the rear — it can put you in the poorhouse.
Medical catastrophes are the leading cause of bankruptcy, and most of
those are people who have some insurance, clinging to the frayed edge of
the middle class.

O.K., so what about leisure? Americans spend nearly a third of their
disposable income on good times, baby. But we can’t relax. Sorry — no
time. Lunch averages 31 minutes. And the U.S. ranks dead last among 21 of
the world’s richest countries when it comes to guaranteed days off,
according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Most Americans don’t even use their allotted days of leisure. The
Italians take 42 vacation days a year — No. 1 in the world. The average
American takes 13.

A quarter of Americans receive no vacation at all. And it’s not like we
don’t need it: one in three are chronically overworked. We even work 100
hours a year more than the Japanese.

President Bush has it figured out, with his month off at the ranch. But
for a profile in clueless, Bush set the mark when he lauded as truly
American some citizen who told him she had to work three jobs. Ain’t that
something?

Ah, but what about taxes? Europeans pay more than we do, to fund that
free health care. Take that, Euro-trash, while lying on the beach. And
yet, our tax system is approaching Gilded Age disparity. Listen to Warren
Buffett, the third richest man in the world. Last year, he was taxed at
17 percent of his taxable income, he said last month. His receptionist
paid nearly twice that, at 30 percent.

Where America shines is with our multiracial society and the easy access
to opportunity. It was jarring to listen to otherwise thoughtful Tuscans
denigrate Ethiopian immigrants or even their Sicilian countrymen.

By contrast, nothing made me prouder than telling Italians that I came
from a place with an African-American mayor and a Chinese-American
governor. Or that I grew up in a big Irish-American family with little
money.

A patriot should not be afraid to have this debate, vigorously — after a
nap.

Timothy Egan, a former Seattle correspondent for The Times and the author
of “The Worst Hard Time,” is a guest columnist.

Bill, I would not shit you.... After all, you are my favorite turd. Now, with regard to that crap you posted, allow me to clarify something. I am not advocating our current system, as the overwhelming amount of government involvement with health care, coupled with no "loser pays" attached to ambulance chasing lawyers is killing what would be a very effective service. (Not to mention all the arbitrary links of employment and health insurance, brought on by Statist R. M. Nixon with his "wage and price controls) You are right about the continuum, but that does not negate the fact that free markets 100 % of the time provide a better combination of quantity, quality, and price (or cost to be more specific). You obviously did not read link # 3 which clearly identifies some of the subjective spin that is necessary to make state run systems appear to be more desirable. Again, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/rhamey1.html .

Mikerotch, Off To Work My Ass Off To Pay For More Socialist Waste

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

I will be voting Mikerotch for president, who's your running mate?:awink:

I know the debate is whether you pay your own way or force others to cover you but I have heard many on the left condemn our doctors and medical care in general. When I hear this, I always wonder why so many foreign leaders and other wealthy foreigners come here to our Mayo clinics when they get sick. After all they could go anywhere in the world.

Thank you, Schoolie, but I won't be running this time around. I would; however, appreciate your considering Dr. Ron Paul as a candidate who supremely values our constitution and its accompanying Liberty and Prosperity.

Mikerotch, Honored By The Thought
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Normally, I wouldn't even consider sliding to the side of socialist ideals.

But, I'm one of those guys who works for a big company with excellent benefits, and had doctor-recommended anesthesia for my children denied.

How is having private insurance a good thing? All it is is one more hand to skim money off paying the actual care bills. The doctor still gets paid because I'm forced to pay him, my company still pays thousands to the insurance company, but because some admin and pet doctor say they don't think it was necessary- never having met my children or know anything about the procedure, *I'm* the one who loses.

This is a good thing? I haven't seen sicko yet, but my understanding is that this is the basis for it- people *with* insurance who aren't covered.

Has any health insurance company lost money? Heck no, they're guaranteed a profit. Being an engineer, I look for inefficiencies and seeing between patient and healthcare a huge consumer of profit and inefficiency, I want to eliminate it.

If health-insurance companies were non-profit, I might forgive some of their mistakes, because they're not making some executive rich and could be a check on unscrupulous doctors (there are plenty- read up on medical marijuana in California).

Actually, there is one- Blue Cross Blue Shield. http://www.consumersunion.org/conv/bcbs.html

They're trying to convert to FOR PROFIT because they make such much fricking money, they don't know what to do with it.

This is a *better* system? Where companies make so much money- not by providing healthcare, but skimming off it, they have billions in surplus?

No.

How is insurance for millions of low income kids a bad thing?

I'm responding to this twice, sorry. You've got to read more than the title to understand what's in a bill (reference: "Patriot Act" :banghead:)

Wall Street Journal:
Who's A Child, And Who's Poor? In an editorial this morning, the Wall Street Journal pans the House SCHIP bill. The bill, it writes, "goes so far as to offer increasing 'bonus payments' to states as they enroll more people in their Schip programs. To grease the way, the bill re-labels 'children' as anyone under 25, and 'low income' as up to 400% above the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four." It also "includes a new tax on private insurance policies." And to "finance its Schip largesse, the House would eviscerate Medicare Advantage, an innovative 2003 program that allows seniors to choose among various private health plans."

On my job and like most all others we are subject to drug testing. If you fail your drug test you will lose your job as well as your paycheck. We'll, why is it that the that the goverment takes my money (taxes) and redistributes my weath to people who don't want to work. Why is it that those people are not subjected to the same drug tesingt that I'm subject to. The idiots sit around all day smoking crack and pot bought with welfare money (our hard earned money). I think they should be tested and if they fail then they lose their free ride in life.
If the blue team gets in expect a lot more of the free programs on our dime.

Just my thoughts......

Being an engineer, I look for inefficiencies

No.

Well then you should have a blast when the gov't takes control of yet another facet of our lives. Tell me even one program they have ever run efficiently.:slap:

Toecheese, the majority of everything you say is, in fact, a problem. The problems associated with today's health care are all a result of government meddling and insurance lobbies that make true competition non-existent. There is an unnatural union between insurance and employment and the average insured person could care less what something costs because somebody else is paying for it. Since they don't pay the premium and they don't pay the doctor bill, the natural relationship between perceived value and price is destroyed. Meanwhile, the demand for services is overheated by the uninsured who show up and get full service at no cost whatsoever. Check out the emergency room next time you go and see how many are there for routine care. It all relates to the fundamental breakdown of the supply/demand relationship. Basic economic law provides that if you reduce the price of something (partially or completely) the demand will go up. Once this happens, providers raise their price as shortages always lead to price increases. (See spiraling costs) Then assuming the all knowing bureaucrats do their thing, they limit what providers can charge thereby driving down their desire to work more to meet the artificially high demand. Then you end up with a Canada situation where it takes months or years to get something done. The only somewhat plausible part of the socialist argument would be the idea of helping the indigent, but there is absolutely no doubt that if Big Brother wasn't taking in excess of 50% of most of our earnings, the charity hospitals like the Shriners and Danny Thomas' organization would be everywhere and thriving. It is simply a matter of the best method of delivery and I am overwhelmingly certain that free people operating with free markets provide the best delivery.

Mikerotch, Free Market Zealot
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[QUOTE= I think they should be tested and if they fail then they lose their free ride in life.
Just my thoughts......[/QUOTE]

I think the whole drug test thing for employment is a severe infraction on ones privacy. Granted, I think it is appropriate for certain jobs, like operating heavy machinery, or anything that involves driving a vehicle, but why do I have to prove to you I don't smoke a joint on the weekend or at night when working my 9-5 desk job...

If my productivity is on the decline, my general work ethic is suffering and my employer suspects it is due to drugs, OK again, I can see a drug test might be appropriate, but not otherwise... The whole proving your innocence without even being accused is just plain wrong.

I think the whole drug test thing for employment is a severe infraction on ones privacy. Granted, I think it is appropriate for certain jobs, like operating heavy machinery, or anything that involves driving a vehicle, but why do I have to prove to you I don't smoke a joint on the weekend or at night when working my 9-5 desk job...

If my productivity is on the decline, my general work ethic is suffering and my employer suspects it is due to drugs, OK again, I can see a drug test might be appropriate, but not otherwise... The whole proving your innocence without even being accused is just plain wrong.

Way to stay on topic:moon:

I apologize in advance for referencing a thread on the "other" board, but since this thread has focused on heath care so much, this one is pertinent.

So much of what I'd like to say here on the subject has already been said by me and others, and I'm just too lazy to repeat all of it.

http://www.spearboard.com/showthread.php?t=48665

Way to stay on topic:moon:

It all runs together and is a slippery slope.

Why didn't you moon the guy that I quoted, who was ranting about the whole drug testing thing?

Anyways, having lived in Europe, more specifically, the Netherlands, for a good part of my life, let me tell you it is not so bad. I have a few friends that are doctors there at the moment and they for the most part can actually do their jobs the way they are supposed to, unlike here.

I don't expect that everyone will go read that Spearboard thread that I mentioned, so I just have to quote the last post to it. It seem rather timely in that Mikerotch thinks the problem with our system is too much government interference.

My job everyday is to battle health insurance companies for the seven doctors i work for. The largest problem in this country is that insurance companies are not regulated. They are out of control from denying claims, saying that they never received them, or giving the doctors a low contracted rate so they only pay 70% of the charges that are billed (that is if they approve to pay). If someone was responsible for monitoring there unethical behavior, then Healthcare in the U.S. would improve drastically. If your insurance policy has a precertification clause, who do you think is going to make the decison if they are going to cover your procedure? It is some person that is thinking of the almighty dollar and if it is cost effective for them.

And here is a quote from one of my own posts to that thread. As deepdown says, its not so bad in Europe. Those countries spend a smaller percentage of national income on health care and get better results.

By the way, we have disussed France and Italy, but I'll mention one more country that uses the dread "socialized medicine" simply because I have some anecdotal evidence from a member of my family.

My daughter is married to a German and has lived there 8 years and given birth to 2 children. While she and her husband would eventually like to move back to the states if his business interests permit, one thing that makes her want to stay in Germany is the health care system. She has been very happy with it.

Everyone apparently is covered for basic care, and then they can elect to pay a premium for a higher level of care if they wish to and can afford it. She and her husband pay for that extra level of care. Without it, when she had her babies, I think she would not have been in a private room, but all the costs would have been covered. With the extra care, she had a private room, was able to stay an extra day or so before going home, and then had followup home visits by a midwife.

She also had an ultrasound exam at every pre-birth visit to her doctor, and without the extra level of care, I think she would have had more like what is standard in the states.

Its nice that she and her husband can elect to pay a bit more and get the gold-plated care, but the bottom line is that everyone gets basic care without having to worry about paying for it. She likes living where everyone is guaranteed basic care, and in a country that seems to be so much more concerned for its children.

There are plenty of countries making national health insurance work, and with better results than we have. Are any of them perfect? Hell no. Are there abuses? Hell yes. But if we insist on perfection, we can remain stuck with the most expensive heath care system on earth, but without getting our money's worth.

One more thing regarding that comment that people without health insurance are without it because of personal bad choices. I suppose its useless to ask some of you to believe anything in a film by the fat guy, but one example there was a woman who wanted to buy insurance but was denied because of a pre-existing condition. The condition was a vaginal yeast infection years ago. How many women have had a yeast infection? Should they be denied health insurance for life.

The main point of the film was that the very wealthy and the very poor were being handled reasonably well, but it was the middle class that was being screwed by being denied coverage or having their claims denied when they had though they were adequately insured.

One more time for those who didn't read the entire thread before it was brought back to life- private insurance companies increase profits by avoiding paying claims. That is the reality of the wonderful free enterprise system that some of you seem to worship without reservation.

I'm sure glad that during my 20 years in the Marine Corps, my family was cared for by a system that had no financial incentive to deny us care. It wasn't perfect, but when I needed it, I was sent to Bethesda Naval Hospital, where Presidents get treated. When my kids needed the attention of a specialist, they were sent to one without regard to the bottom line. Its too bad everyone doesn't have access to that sort of care.
__________________

My job everyday is to battle health insurance companies for the seven doctors i work for. The largest problem in this country is that insurance companies are not regulated. They are out of control from denying claims, saying that they never received them, or giving the doctors a low contracted rate so they only pay 70% of the charges that are billed (that is if they approve to pay). If someone was responsible for monitoring there unethical behavior, then Healthcare in the U.S. would improve drastically. If your insurance policy has a precertification clause, who do you think is going to make the decison if they are going to cover your procedure? It is some person that is thinking of the almighty dollar and if it is cost effective for them.

I do not, for one minute argue the insanity of our current insurance system, nor the unethical way in which they operate. I will argue that they are able to get away with it because there is no longer a transaction between two willing parties (Patient and Doctor) whereby both provide a commodity or service that the other values more. And that, my friend, is all brought about by the myriad of unconstitutional entrapments of our behemoth big brother. The insurance lobby has paid for the legal "right" to screw the public's eyes out and we are paying dearly. And Bill, I won't try and convince you anymore that socialism isn't great, but I would appreciate it if you would not compel the rest of us to participate via legislation and I'll do my best to make sure no legislation is passed making church attendance mandatory because I value your liberty as well.

Mikerotch, And Liberty And Justice For All (And Hopefully Nothing Else)
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Mikerotch you sound if you may be a fellow member of the John Birch Society.
I'm with you on the Ron Paul for President.

Mikerotch you sound if you may be a fellow member of the John Birch Society.

Not a member, but I can't right off hand think of anything I disagree with the JBS on. Glad to know there's another liberty loving steel slinger.

Mikerotch, Trying To Promote Liberty One Spearfisherman At The Time
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

I don't expect that everyone will go read that Spearboard thread that I mentioned, so I just have to quote the last post to it. It seem rather timely in that Mikerotch thinks the problem with our system is too much government interference.

"My job everyday is to battle health insurance companies for the seven doctors i work for. The largest problem in this country is that insurance companies are not regulated. They are out of control from denying claims, saying that they never received them, or giving the doctors a low contracted rate so they only pay 70% of the charges that are billed (that is if they approve to pay). If someone was responsible for monitoring there unethical behavior, then Healthcare in the U.S. would improve drastically. If your insurance policy has a precertification clause, who do you think is going to make the decison if they are going to cover your procedure? It is some person that is thinking of the almighty dollar and if it is cost effective for them. "

Where does the insurance companies not being regulated come from? I work for a large insurer that used to be big in healthcare but is out of it now. The insurance industry is regulated at the state level by all 50 states. Every change we make requires approval by every state in which we operate (all 50). We have dozens of lawyers and 100's of employees dedicated to navigating the govt. regulation bureaucracy. Simple wording changes to our documents require 6 months of state review.

Imagine all the cost loaded into the price of insurance just to deal with all this. even though dealing with 50 states is cumbersome, I don't want it to go Federal. A little more state reciprocity would be nice though. :D

I do think our system needs to be overhauled but not socialized. Unfortunately I think lawsuits are a major part of the problem which is more difficult to resolve. We live in a litigious society much more so than the Europeans. Australia is similarly litigious. I wonder how their healthcare prices are? It's hard to compare though because we have such a large population. A better comparison would be to Indonesia or to a smaller extent, Brazil. I doubt they have the litigation though.

I guess it was stupid to try to bring arguments from two different boards together, but this latest one from the Spearboard thread seems to be a response to the latest one here.

You are spot-on about the insurance industry.... I am paying for COBRA coverage and they have been terrible about updating my "current" status and are behind thousands on our medical (my wifes) bills... That has got to be illegal... COBRA shouldnt be any different than when I was with the same company thru my employer.. It needs to become regulated and controlled... My sis-in-law works for BC/BS and she gets bonus's all the time and has gone to Mexico and Puerto Rico with several in her office as performance perks paid for by BC/BS.... Trust me, I have no problem telling her what I think of that, as I paid into that system for years with real lousy performance by them...

They are out of control.. But of course, it again ends up with the middle class (the ones with insurance) that are getting shafted...
__________________

A timely article from today's paper. Here are the highlights. It looks like those damn socialists may be on to something.


WASHINGTON -- Americans are living longer than ever, but not as long as people in 41 other countries.

For decades, the United States has been slipping in rankings of life expectancy, as other countries improve healthcare, nutrition and lifestyles.

Countries that surpass the United States include Japan and most of Europe, as well as Jordan, Guam and the Cayman Islands.

"Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on healthcare, is not able to keep up with other countries," said Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

and


* A relatively high percentage of babies born in the United States die before their first birthday, compared with other industrialized nations: 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe, had lower infant mortality rates in 2004.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation

I blame that not on healthcare, but americans' lifestyles. Other countries are far more active and eat better than we do. If we didn't spend as much as we do, we'd slip farther behind. After all, there's an 'epidemic' of obesity here.

:bsflag:Yeah Right, Just what I want the government making decidions on my health Care. They are so good at all the other things they do. They can't even get the the borders controlled, the infrastructure maintained, or a hundred other things right. What makes you think they will do better with health care.:banghead:

They're already doing a good job with my health care. Its called Medicare, and it has far lower overhead than any private health insurance program. And then my Medicare deductibles and copays are handled by TriCare for Life, a program for retired military. And during my Marine Corps career, the government provided excellent health care for me and my family.

I only wish everyone could have such good care.

Bill,

I don't exactly know how to say this; because I do appreciate you’re military service. I think you are so far left of reality and what our Country's Founders had envisioned and what would keep or Country great and in the forefront of what this world could be and should be if given the opportunity, I'd really just want to punch you in the face! Sorry.

Socialism never will create what Capitalism is capable of. Stealing from those who will create and giving those ill-gotten goods to those who won't, will only steal the drive to create in first place.

I seem to believe that you have lived off this Country’s teat since somewhere in your mid forties. And maybe that’s OK since you were one of her warrior defenders. It just seems odd to me that we are willing to let our best take leave and suck that teat at a time in which the rest of us are just hitting our stride and at our most potential.

I think this living off of that Gov’t teat has given you a slanted view of reality. The drive and desire of those of us providing that teat: to get ahead without the gov’t obstruction and penalties of being successful in this socialist paradise you envision, are derailing our desire for success. This will result ultimately in not only our personal lack of success, but also for that of our country.

It is proven time and again, cut taxes (gov’t stealing) and gov’t income rises – because our personal drive is driven due to the increased incentive.

Help me out here Mikrotch – you are much more eleoquent.

irnndn,

Its hard for me to address all that nebulous hatred that you seem to have for me because you are short on specifics. However, I'll address a couple of points where you were specific.

I'm sorry that it seems to make you so bitter that I have had a pension since my 40s. All I can say is that its a matter of supply and demand. If you want people to put their asses on the line, then you have to offer them a carrot. You may think patriotism is all it takes, but most people are driven by those principles of capitalism that you hold so dear. If they survive the career defending noble patriots like you, then they want some help in their remaining years.

But if you still feel that you have to have a crack at punching me in the face, send me a PM and I'll give you my address and we can set up an appointment.

If it makes you feel slightly better, the pension is a relative pittance and I still needed to work as a banker, a stock broker, and then a college economics teacher for 20 years, and really didn't quit work until I was 65.

It should also make you feel better that the teat was pretty dry, and that my wife's state teacher pension exceeds the total of my social security and military pension combined.

It is proven time and again, cut taxes (gov’t stealing) and gov’t income rises – because our personal drive is driven due to the increased incentive.

You are not only a simplistic thinker, but historically inaccurate.

Reagan cut taxes a bunch, and we had record deficits.

Clinton raised taxes, and the economy boomed and we had fiscal surpluses.

Bush cut taxes again, and the deficits beat the Reagan records.

Could something else besides tax rates explain these deficits and surpluses? Certainly, but then that might require more rigorous analysis, and you seem to be a one-trick pony.

And BTW, we already have dread socialism. Social Security is one example. Of course you probably think it should be abolished so that the elderly can return to abject poverty as before Social Security.

I think this living off of that Gov’t teat has given you a slanted view of reality. The drive and desire of those of us providing that teat: to get ahead without the gov’t obstruction and penalties of being successful in this socialist paradise you envision, are derailing our desire for success. This will result ultimately in not only our personal lack of success, but also for that of our country.



Before you come punch me out, I want to address your narrow perspective. All those countries that have a national health care system have one because they made the collective choice. They are every bit as democratic as we are. They just chose to care for everyone at some basic level of health care.

But beyond the subject of health care, you may be surprised to learn that most of them are happy with their country as a whole, and don't think we are doing all that well. The French and Germans like being French and German, and are not at all sorry that they didn't get sucked into our disastrous war. And with the notable exception of the weather, my daughter even enjoys living in Germany in spite of having been raised an American, and she likes the German health care system.

You can wave your socialism banner all you wish, but the fact remains that we are getting much poorer results out of our health care system while paying much more. Being 40th in life expectancy and 41st in infant mortality is nothing to brag about.

My German son-in-law in very entrepreneurial in spite of living in a country with health care. Americans could still be entrepreneurial too, and might even benefit from a healthier work force of drones doing the bidding of those capitalists.

Thank you for the compliment, Irnndn, but to be quite honest, I have probably not got the ability and I certainly don't have the time to convert Bill Mc's way of thinking when it comes to socialism. Even though there are nuggets tucked away here and there in his own writings that, in effect, acknowledge the forces at work in human decision making regarding supply and demand, his sense of "fairness" with regard to the poor and underprivileged will not allow him to consider the fact that capitalism does a better job of providing goods and services to everyone, poor included. With regard to the "tax" issue, allow me to interject a third opinion, one that indicates Reagan and Clinton both sucked. It is certainly true that government revenues rose after the Reagan tax cuts, but it is also true that deficits soared as a result of his ineptness at cutting spending. The increased incentive to the producers (non-government workers) created a huge boost in economic activity. I would argue that a large part of the economic growth under Bill I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, Clinton was a result of, not his tax increases, but the restraint in government spending that occurred in large part due to Republicans in congress acting like conservatives. In addition, many of the restrictions on retirees earnings were lifted as well as some meaningful welfare reform, all of which increased productivity. Bottom line is that neither were really worth a damn with regard to economic policy, but the nation as a whole faired fairly well in spite of them. The price we are going to pay for the current clown and his big spending republican cronies of the past 6 years is going to be enormous. In fact, we may be now seeing cracks in our financial foundations the likes of which we haven't seen in 4 generations. Deficit spending, frivolous wars, unimaginable borrowing, and totally frivolous fiat money can only go so far before there is a day of reckoning. I hope that we can right our ship before the storm, but I'm certainly not betting on it.

Mikerotch, Sounding The Constitutional Government Horn

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Thank you for the compliment, Irnndn, but to be quite honest, I have probably not got the ability and I certainly don't have the time to convert Bill Mc's way of thinking when it comes to socialism. Even though there are nuggets tucked away here and there in his own writings that, in effect, acknowledge the forces at work in human decision making regarding supply and demand, his sense of "fairness" with regard to the poor and underprivileged will not allow him to consider the fact that capitalism does a better job of providing goods and services to everyone, poor included.

You must have intended to include a smiley. You can't really say with a straight face that unbridled capitalism provides more goods and services to the poor. In the Gilded Age, income inequality got so wide that government intervened with health and safety standards, limits on child labor, and other curbs on the market that greatly increased the provision of good and services and the welfare of those on the low end of the ladder. Were it not for government interference, plants would still be locking exits so that labor burned to death in the case of fire in the plant.

And while I know its hard for you to make a point without overstating it, I really object to the allegation that I want a pure socialist economy. None has ever existed, and I don't want one for us. There are no pure free market economies, and no pure socialist economies, and government attention to the health of its citizens does not bring Wall Street tumbling down on our heads.

Here is one brief definition of socialism.
As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.

We have socialism throughout our economy. The state provides police protection, a court system, national defense, an air traffic control system, and many other goods and services, and I doubt that these services could be provided as effectively by the free market. Fyerfyterx seems to thing that government has failed at everything it tries. If I'm correct in guessing that his user name gives us a hint to his job, I wonder if he thinks government-provided fire protection is a total failure. I don't.

We have socialism throughout our economy. The state provides police protection, a court system, national defense, an air traffic control system, and many other goods and services, and I doubt that these services could be provided as effectively by the free market. Fyerfyterx seems to thing that government has failed at everything it tries. If I'm correct in guessing that his user name gives us a hint to his job, I wonder if he thinks government-provided fire protection is a total failure. I don't.

Bill,

The Government is not providing anything for free, they take money from the citizens and use it to pay for things such as police, the court system and fire protection, and they waste a lot of money on pet projects.

The Democrats attached all kinds of bullshit pork projects to the spending bill on supporting the troops overseas.

BTW have you heard what is happening with the Marines charged with Murder in Hadifa lately?

So far 2 of them have had the charges (unfounded, lack of evidence) dropped, where is Murtha (D) on that?

It sure is nice how the Democrats like Kerry, Murtha, Obama and others rush to criticize the military, yet like to use them when it is politically advantageous or they can squeeze a dollar out of supporting them, then they think they are great.

Nobody said it was free Bret. I think we all realized that government programs were paid for with taxes, even before you broke the news.

The question is, are functions such as police, courts, and fire protection provided more efficiently by the government or by the private sector. I don't think we could rely on the private sector to provide these services, and I think government could organize a national health care system that would get better results at lower cost than the present system in which big insurance companies tell doctors what care can be provided and do their best to deny care in order to boost profits. After all, Medicare operates with far lower overhead than any private insurance plan. The national health care systems of other countries operate at lower cost than our system while producing better results.

Pet projects, aka earmarks, are a sad mess, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the question of national health insurance or any other benefit controlled by government. The Republican Senator from Alaska managed to get those huge sums of money for the bridge to no where under our current system, but that has nothing to do with the question of health care.

I'm afraid I don't get your point on the charges against the Marines being dropped. Kerry, Murtha, or other Senators didn't bring those charges- the Marine Corp brought those charges, and its the Marine Corps that is dropping the charges after further examination. That's the way the system works.

The national health care systems of other countries operate at lower cost than our system while producing better results.

That is categorically untrue. Although there are certainly points in which claims to this effect can be partially substantiated, when the entire picture is taken there is no possible way any bureaucrat can possibly have enough data to distribute goods and services as effectively as individuals making local decisions. Many of the talking points used to exalt the virtues of socialized medicine or socialized anything else for that matter, only look at the partial picture. As Walter Williams so often states, the only difference between a good economist and a bad economist is that the good one takes into account the unseen. Again, it is difficult in some cases to argue the free market case with regard to health care as what we have here is nothing close to "free market." I would argue; however, that health care is exactly like other goods and services and that one need only look at a few examples where the market was allowed to work and see the wonderful results. A few to consider: Televisions, 19" color when I was a kid, $ 450.00 semi-real dollars, today a 27" can be bought for $ 99.00, fiat. Computers, early 1980's Commodore 64, $ 2,000.00 +, today 1 gig laptops for $799.00. Long distance phone calls in the seventies, a few dollars for a few minutes, today unlimited for a few cents. The same can be said for many other essential items, including outboard motors, dive gear, spear guns, GPS's, and depth finders. Igloo coolers cost less today than 30 years ago and hold ice better. The whole socialized medicine concept, as I have said before, is only loved because of how it "looks out for" the poor and those who support it are of the belief that those innocent poor will die unless we pull a Robinhood and save them. It is absolute B. S. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Mikerotch, Maker Of Irrefutable Arguments, No Smiley's Expressed Or Implied

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Mikerotch, you keep using wonderful examples like computers, televisions, etc. produced by the free market, and they are indisputable successes. I don't question the success of the market at producing products like that at low cost and high quality.

But every economics text I used in 20 years of teaching has a section on "market failures," situations in which the market didn't produce optimal quantities at proper prices, so government intervention was required. Long ago I've laid out those cases so I won't repeat them for you now unless you want me to. But instead of generalities and principles, let's talk specifics.

Forget TV and computers- explain to me why you think the free market should provide police protection, fire protection, light houses, air traffic control systems, and justice systems.

When someone who can not or does not have health insurance waits until they are basically on death's doorstep to see a doctor (ie keels over from a fat ass heart attack) who ends up paying for their emergency treatment if they can not? If twenty $100 yearly check ups and $3000 worth of blood pressure medicine could have prevented their premature demise is it not better for society to spend the $5000 instead of leaving the rest of us the $50,000 bill (or more) and a useless (unproductive) corpse? I don't have the answers to many questions but my intuition tells me the costs to society seem higher under the current system. How about if part of accepting "free" healthcare puts severe limits on any malpractice claims that those people accepting it can file? What about the idea that for a additional fee you can get a higher level of care if you desire it? I have multiple degrees in Economics and while I understand what you say Mike none of it sells me on the idea that the current system could not be improved on with some level of socialization. Apex.....bleeding heart "liberal" Economics graduate.

PS What I really don't understand is how the people who stand to benefit the most from universal health care are being suckered into believing that this approach would be taking something away from them instead of giving them something they may never have otherwise.

What about the idea that for a additional fee you can get a higher level of care if you desire it?

Exactly how it work in the Netherlands. There is good health care for all available, but if you want even more/better care, you can get private health insurance... If you can't afford this, you just use "the system"...

Exactly how it work in the Netherlands. There is good health care for all available, but if you want even more/better care, you can get private health insurance... If you can't afford this, you just use "the system"...

And the way it works in Germany too. Everyone has basic care. My daughter and her husband pay a little more for the gold plated version, but others just use the system.

BTW Apex- thanks for making my case so much more clearly than I was able to. You done good.

But every economics text I used in 20 years of teaching has a section on "market failures," situations in which the market didn't produce optimal quantities at proper prices, so government intervention was required.

Bill, I do not doubt for one moment that you have used such texts, but I guess my argument should be more along the lines that those books, in spite of the intelligence involved in their writing, are, in fact, wrong. The statement quoted above, in my estimation, is proof. "The market didn't produce optimal quantities at proper prices" is a completely subjective statement. Who determined the quantities and who determined the prices? We know that if demand exceeds supply, a corresponding price increase will naturally occur, stimulating increased production and decreased demand, bringing the two into equilibrium and minimizing resources and efforts required. The problem begins when someone, for sake of argument let's say a politician, looks at a problem and determines that he is better suited to determine the distribution of goods and services via force than the market is. If such reasoning was sound, then it would be a logical conclusion that all transactions should be government dictated. Some societies have attempted such, or almost such, and the resulting economic chaos has been deadly. Please see the Former Soviet Union, Red China until a few years ago, Eastern Europe, North Korea, Cuba, etc., etc., for examples. As Thomas Sowell so aptly puts it : ""The first lesson in economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson on economics." The bottom line is this; we can never fully meet all the wants and needs of man, but the free market does the next best thing, or more specifically, the best possible thing. Bill, I'm quite sure that convincing you of such is a formidable task, but I would ask a favor. Most of my thoughts on economics have been concluded after studying at length many Austrian school economists, chief among them Ludwig Von Mises. If you have time, and surely you do because I'm working my ass off to pay your retirement, (just kidding) please read some of Mises and tell me where he is wrong. Specifically, not where he disagrees with most modern economists, but where he is logically wrong. I have not yet found an instance.
http://www.mises.org/
I've got to get back to work for the department now.

Mikerotch, Liberty And Free Market Advocate
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

but if you want even more/better care, you can get private health insurance

Mikerotch, Case Made, Again.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Bill, I do not doubt for one moment that you have used such texts, but I guess my argument should be more along the lines that those books, in spite of the intelligence involved in their writing, are, in fact, wrong. The statement quoted above, in my estimation, is proof. "The market didn't produce optimal quantities at proper prices" is a completely subjective statement. Who determined the quantities and who determined the prices?

OK, if I must, I'll mention the problem of externalitles, external costs or benefits of a market action not borne by the participants in the market transaction.

The simple example I always lead off with was that of a factory, lets say a car producing factory, standing on the bank of a stream in the middle of the prairie.

It has to buy steel, aluminum, plastic, glass, labor, and other inputs to produce its output, a car. The costs of those inputs are private costs. The firm adds up the private costs, throws on a bit for normal profit, and sells that car to a consumer.

But there were other external costs of production to the society.

The car maker, trying to compete in the unregulated market place, used the very cheapest means of production possible. Those low cost production methods may have caused hot water and chemicals to be dumped in the stream, killing fish, poisoning those who ate the fish, ruining the livelihood of fishing guides, and depriving the public of recreational opportunities.

The factory took in clean air and emitted noxious gasses and particulates from a smokestack, causing cancer and birth defects for a 100 miles downwind.

None of these people affected by the pollution bought the car, and none of the costs they bore were reflected in the price of the car. So the free market produced too many cars at prices that were too low, because those prices did not reflect the total costs to society of car production.

Government steps in and forces the car maker to use cleaner and more expensive production techniques to reduce external costs. In effect, it forces the car maker to internalize the externalities. These higher private costs of production force the car maker to raise his price, and those higher prices more closely reflect total cost to society of car production. At the higher price, fewer cars are sold.

Over.

The above was an example of external costs. Here is an example of external benefits.

When kids get educated, they receive a private benefit. They are likely to get better jobs, understand how to manage their finances better, etc.

But there is also an external benefit to the rest of society. Those educated people are less likely to rob and commit other crimes, are likely to be better informed voters, and likely to be more productive at their jobs and produce more goods and services for the rest of us to use, etc.

The problem is that other individuals receiving external benefits because I paid to get my kids an education are unlikely to show their gratitude by sending me checks. They are happy to be freeloaders, benefitting from my expenditure on education without helping my pay.

So if each of us chooses how much education to consume, the free market will result in less than the optimal amount of education. Some of us will choose to pay and get education for our kids, while others will opt out, saying its just not worth it.

So government intervenes and mandates that all kids receive a K-12 education, paid for by taxpayers. You can quibble about vouchers and school choice, but that is beside the point here. The fact that all kids receive an education at public expense is one of the greatest contributors to the success of our society and our economy.

"The first lesson in economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson on economics."
If the general well being of humanity is a worthy goal for society then it can not be measured in just dollars and cents. Whats to keep drug companies from say limiting insulin production and then auctioning off the limited supply to the highest bidder? (Not a perfect example since doing this would soon "constrict" demand for insulin but you get the picture) What is supposed to temper the free market system's desire to maximize profit? Companies operating in a free market can not be expected to invest in endeavors that do not directly benefit them no matter how much these things benefit society as a whole. In the name of efficiency why don't we just start deporting or otherwise disposing of the poor.....(but who will collect my trash, pick my vegetables and flip my burgers)?

BTW I guess I should apologize since the idea of marginalizing the poor and disenfranchised is not very original.

PS how do people feel about Ron Paul's stance on abortion rights?

Bill, the pollution thing is a red herring. In a true free market economy wherein the government did perform its constitutional responsibility to protect private property rights, pollution and similar issues would be dealt with much more efficiently than it currently is by sweeping, intrusive government regulations. In each example you gave the manufacturer violated another's property rights and should therefor be held liable. The way it currently plays out, i.e. some builder has an unsafe workplace and a worker gets hurt, OSHA comes in and fines the builder and says "Look What We're Doing To Protect Workers" and yet the worker is still hurt and the bureaucracy gets paid anyway. Now the industry pays double but the worker only gets compensated by the private entity's insurance. Once again, on the educational front, the "how much" education is optimal is completely subjective and is worthwhile only in arguing for theft from one to benefit another. On to your point Apex.
Whats to keep drug companies from say limiting insulin production and then auctioning off the limited supply to the highest bidder?
As an insulin dependent diabetic, I have a very keen interest in such a scenario. In a free market, which the insulin is in to some degree, that is exactly what they are doing and I am tickled pink that they do. Because they do so, insulin production and insulin usage are always in balance, meaning I can always go to Kroger and get a high quality, fresh product to inject myself with. The thought of leaving that production and distribution process in the hands of something similar to the US Post Office is terrifying to me.
What is supposed to temper the free market system's desire to maximize profit?
Nothing, and that's a good thing because the only way they can make a profit is to provide you and I with a product or service that we value greater than our money. Of course with today's government on the constant dole, that is no longer necessary, they simply must lobby and buy handouts from 534 of the 535 elected "representatives" of the people.
In the name of efficiency why don't we just start deporting or otherwise disposing of the poor
That is not a free market, liberty issue at all. I would note, however, that it is standard operating procedure for governments who have attained, via consent or force, a state of totalitarianism, i.e. USSR, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amen sp?, ad nauseum. It is the principle reason government must be restrained, even more so that economics.
PS how do people feel about Ron Paul's stance on abortion rights?
If you are asking how I "feel" (and I prefer to think), I am in complete support of his position that all those issues are, constitutionally speaking, left to the states. But, he is also completely pro-life, believing that it is a given that life must be preserved as a precursor to liberty. Politically speaking, I believe he is in the right position as well because I do not believe, right or wrong, that the republican base will support a "pro-choice" candidate.
Enjoyed chatting with you guys, gotta go home and re-plumb my insulin pump.

Mikerotch, I Shall Return

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Bill, the pollution thing is a red herring. In a true free market economy wherein the government did perform its constitutional responsibility to protect private property rights, pollution and similar issues would be dealt with much more efficiently than it currently is by sweeping, intrusive government regulations. In each example you gave the manufacturer violated another's property rights and should therefor be held liable. The way it currently plays out, i.e. some builder has an unsafe workplace and a worker gets hurt, OSHA comes in and fines the builder and says "Look What We're Doing To Protect Workers" and yet the worker is still hurt and the bureaucracy gets paid anyway.

If I read you correctly, pollution would be dealt with when the injured parties sued the factory. Of course the injured parties would already have cancer and birth defects, and their stream would already be ruined.

For those of you who want state sponsored health care or health insurance one question? Who is it you want to cut the check to pay for this, each American tax payer, or employers? Bottom line who pays the bill?

For those of you who want state sponsored health care or health insurance one question? Who is it you want to cut the check to pay for this, each American tax payer, or employers? Bottom line who pays the bill?

The government pays the bill, and of course it gets the money from tax payers.

It seems like no one knows this, but that is exactly the way my Medicare works. The doctor sends his bill to Medicare, which is a government agency, just like he sends his bill to a private insurance company like Blue Cross. And just like Blue Cross, Medicare pays the amount that it allows for the specific procedure. And then in my case, Medicare automatically send it on to TriCare, a program for military retirees over 65, and TriCare picks up the deductibles and copays. It all works very smoothly. The only paper I see is the final EOB from Tricare showing the amount paid by Medicare, the amount paid by TriCare, and the amount which is my responsibility, which is zero.

Of course its not entirely free for me, as I have to pay the Medicare Part B premium of $93.50 per month, and so does my wife, but that is very reasonable compared to private insurance premiums.

And I know I've said it before, but Medicare is widely acknowledged to have the lowest overhead expense of any plan.

If its a hangup for you that tax dollars pay for a plan, please note that we pay one way or another, and presently we are paying a far higher percentage of our GDP than any other country. If it somehow makes you feel better to pay more to fatten the pockets of insurance company executives rather than paying less in taxes, then you are a real ideologue.

And BTW MIkerotch, I'm still waiting for your explanation of why police, fire, court systems, air traffic control, and lighthouses would be better handled by the private sector. And how about national defense while you are at it.

I find it very amusing that the people who don't trust the government somehow find faith that the insurance companies are looking out for their best interest.

Mikerotch- Your example of the worker hurt and the employer fined by OSHA is flawed in that you fail to mention the the employer would only get fined by OSHA if they had failed to abide by OSHA regulations regarding work place safety. If the accident occurred through negligence of the employee and not by something the employer had failed to do, then there would be no fine. I learned this first hand when I sent a 16 penny nail through the length of my finger with a framing gun. My fault, not the boss at the time, and no OSHA fine.

Steve, owner of a small construction business regulated by OSHA

Bill, Medicare , that's your shining example? do you realize by most estimates medicare is taken for about 33 billion a year in fraud. Take a hard look at FEMA and tell me truly you want governmental bureaucrats responsible for your health care. And for those who look to Western Europe as a model, the socialist policies is why it cost $10.00 for a beer, and industry has all but abandon the continent.

And Bill as for your bashing Christians and their charity at the beginning of this thread. After Katrina it was Christians almost solely that were anywhere close to bringing relief to those who were suffering. Government didn't work, left wing pising and moaning groups didn't work, but damn if those Christian types didn't get the job done.

If I read you correctly, pollution would be dealt with when the injured parties sued the factory. Of course the injured parties would already have cancer and birth defects, and their stream would already be ruined.
This is in all likelihood the most difficult of issues for free market advocates to garner support. If I may, allow me to defer this to a previously written piece by Tibor Machan, a fellow left coaster. He covers a few of the issues that are generally the hardest sells.
http://www.mises.org/story/1844

Mikerotch, Ludwig Von Mises Institute Supporter

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

This is in all likelihood the most difficult of issues for free market advocates to garner support. If I may, allow me to defer this to a previously written piece by Tibor Machan, a fellow left coaster. He covers a few of the issues that are generally the hardest sells.
http://www.mises.org/story/1844

Mikerotch, Ludwig Von Mises Institute Supporter

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

I don't know if its really fair that you expect me to read things that reinforce your case on my own, while I state my case in my own words. Why can't you just give me the executive summary?

But I did quickly skim through your reference and saw that it alledged that environmental concerns would be addressed properly if all land and natural resources were owned privately.

As much as you seem to suspect that any text used in a university, even a private university operating in one of the most conservative areas in the country, the birthplace of the John Birch Society, must be written by Communist sympathizers, I do recall such a case being made in texts that I used.

I recall that one example was salmon streams in Scotland. It was stated that fishing rights in the streams were privately owned, so that if you wanted to fish there, you had to pay what the owner demanded. Since the owner of the fishing rights owned a valuable resource, he could successfully sue someone up stream who polluted and damaged the value of his private property right.

See, we actually discussed that shit in class. Are you relieved?

But I confess- I did mention to my students that I used to read Field and Steam and Outdoor Life magazines when I was a kid, and that as a simplistic kid with latent Communist genetic material that would only later be fully revealed, it did bother me that only rich people got to fish for salmon in Scotland. People like me and the kids I played with didn't seem to have a snowball's chance in hell of ever fishing in a Scottish stream, but we could go down to the lake in town and fish for bass and bluegills. I don't know what value you put on public access, but I was glad that as a kid, I didn't have to pay to fish. If I had not been able to fish, I might have turned out even worse than I am.

Other examples were given, but alas, there were also mentions of situations in which it was hard to use private property rights to conserve resources. Fish in the open ocean were used as one example. Its hard to assign the rights to fish that swim around at sea to any individual or country. So, in an illustration of the "tragedy of the commons" principle, since no one owns them, then no one has an incentive to preserve them. Each individual or country might as well get the last one before someone else does, because someone is going to get the last one anyway.

So how can we handle that? Maybe treaties, aka government intererence with the market, are the only hope. Granted, they have not been very successful, but the private market doesn't seem to work so well either.

And how about police, fire, courts, lighthouses, air traffic control, and defense? When are you going to explain why the private sector can provide them more effeciently and effectively than can government?

Surely there can be no exceptions to the Libertarian Gospel.

Here I go again. I stole this from a Spearboard post (but Tony didn't write it).
********************************
France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007

MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.

Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.

Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?

National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.

Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.

French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.

The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?

Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.

American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.

Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine.

Paul V. Dutton is associate professor of history at Northern Arizona University and author of "Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France," which will be published in September.

I don't know if its really fair that you expect me to read things that reinforce your case on my own, while I state my case in my own words. Why can't you just give me the executive summary?

My apologies, Bill. I am a slow typer and time has been very tight. With regard to the police, firefighters, etc., we had lengthy discussions about those some months back at the OS, but my thoughts are essentially the same. In the scheme of things, those would be low priority to "privatize" and to be quite honest are probably some of the items where the case for privatization is somewhat weaker. On the other hand, there are many people whom I believe are much smarter than me who buy into the notion that all of the above would be better and more efficiently served by the private sector as well. I tend to agree. The other aspect of those issues I wonder about is where would the market have taken us had government not jumped in. We may never know. Meanwhile, I am firmly in the corner of privatization of all land and waters as well. I realize that puts me on the "fringe" particularly when one speaks of private ownership of the oceans, but I staunchly believe that all the mismanagement of fisheries is due to lack of a vested interest. Here in the south, the constant battles between commercial and recreational fisherman would be ended if it were managed the same way hunting land and farming land were. We have no shortage of whitetails or cows. Just a thought.

Mikerotch, Busy Again
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Mikerotch-Its time to accept the fact that your views are far from mainstream, even within the conservative movement. Public land is just that, public. The 200 mile federal limit on the oceans doesnt beling to the government, it belings to the collective people of the US. So in a way it is already privatized. I for one would resist any attempt to take what is mine, i.e. public lands, and have them transfered into the hands of corporations. Thats not democracy.

Sremsen, I have news for you. I accepted the fact that my views are not mainstream a long time ago. I also arrived at some of those views by backing away from my preconceived ideas and analyzing certain facts as objectively as humanly possible. When I first heard of ideas like privatizing the ocean, my initial reaction was "that's insane." Then I looked at how species that are/were under primarily public domain fared as compared to species that are privately held. Buffaloes, Dodo birds, Cod, etc. haven't fared very well. The Gulf of Mexico has suffered terribly at the hands of shrimpers and long liners who have no vested interest in the "public" waters they rape, their thinking is get what you can when you can because if not, somebody else will. Meanwhile, hogs and cows and goats are doing quite well. Here in Georgia, with a large chunk of land privately held and implementation of "Quality Herd Programs" by hunting clubs and landowners we have more trophy deer than at anytime in our known history. Even if it were not all privatized, we would all reap the benefits as do people here who hunt on "public" lands. By the way, we are not a "democracy" and "corporations" are an entity of the state, the same state that many hold so dear. I choose to view the state as what they are, to varying degrees, which is nothing more than thugs stealing from the productive to do with what they will. By the way, if those public lands are in fact yours and mine, as you state, then it would stand to reason that we would reap the bounty which would transfer from the purchasers, whoever they may be. The fact that we would never see a penny of it personally, proves that we the public do not, in fact, own it. I can reassure you of one thing though, and I hope it brings you comfort. We won't see any of the ideas that myself and other Libertarians promote in our lifetimes. We may again, but it will be after the great economic and freedom disaster that is headed our way, because there aren't enough intelligent people left in this once great country to "dance with the date that brung us." That date was a Constitutional Republic that cherished private property rights, free enterprise, and liberty.

Mikerotch, Advocate Of Not More Than One Date Per Dance.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

That date was a Constitutional Republic that cherished private property rights, free enterprise, and liberty.



And slavery.

Those guys were infallible, as are those trying to interpret them to suit their own modern agendas.

Bill, I'm the one that is supposed to be the "overstater." Please, respect my territory. By the way, those of us on the libertarian side of things are the most "anti-slavery" of them all. It is those on the economic and political "left" that are trying to impose semi-slavery on the population, but it is justified because it is the all knowing "state" that is the task master.

Mikerotch, Opposed To All Forms Of Involuntary Servitude, Including Political.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Bill, I'm the one that is supposed to be the "overstater." Please, respect my territory.

I think my comment was a fair response to "the date that brung us." When someone wants to hark back to those halcyon days at the beginning of our Republic, it fair to say that the date had genital warts.

I agree your response was fair, I was making reference to the "infallible" part. Have a great day, Bill. Look up Monday morning and you might see Mikerotch flying over. You will be in charge of political discussions for the next week and a half since I won't be around, so please emphasize those things we agree on, like the current administration's disdain for our constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights. Please refrain from bashing free enterprise and Austrian School economics as I won't be available for scathing rebuttals of your leftist lunacy. May you all have a great week and kill a lot of innocent fish.

Mikerotch, Retreating To Alaska For A Week To Enjoy A Small Portion Of The Fruits Of My Labor Left By The Leviathan Government Which Oppresses Us.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

I'll have to say, this is one of the most interesting/entertaining threads I have ever followed. I can't wait to see what the next post/comment will be! I'll keep my political predjudices to myself for now though! :biggrinangelA:

May you all have a great week and kill a lot of innocent fish.



None of the fish I shoot are innocent. They all have it coming.

Damn, Bill, It seems as though you may need some sensitivity training. Especially if you are going to be an ambassador for the left.

Mikerotch, Sensitive Enough

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

So, if being a slave to an individual was bad -and I utterly agree that it was, IMHO it's one of the most loathsome things in human history- then why is being a slave to the state good?

I fail to see the attraction of simply changing owners.

And slavery.

Those guys were infallible, as are those trying to interpret them to suit their own modern agendas.

Bill,

What political party did more to abolish slavery and pass the civil rights bill?

Hint, it wasn't the Democrats.

Anyone here work in public health? Go sit in the public health department for a few hours and just see what kind of poverty walks in for their free checkups. then go outside and see them drive off in their Denalli talking on their cell phone.

I dont believe we have as much poverty as believed. I think a majority of them know how to use the system to their advantage. They work for cash and dont report the earnings, but expect to get taken care of by the system. Just listen to what is said to the health clerks when there is a problem or the person missed their appointment and cant get scheduled. They are outright abusive to the clerks. I go to many health departments across the US and see more and more armed gaurds at the facilities.

I think widespread drug and alcohol abuse is a large part of our infant and child mortality, not the health care system. Does the report say they die in the hospital, or after they are released to parents that dont really care about the child. The parents just want that extra money on the check and the free food. I could never fathom this with any of my children but I have seen it over and over many times.

Middle aged mortality comes down to eating habits of our society.

Just a rant, sorry...

Anyone here work in public health? Go sit in the public health department for a few hours and just see what kind of poverty walks in for their free checkups. then go outside and see them drive off in their Denalli talking on their cell phone.

I dont believe we have as much poverty as believed. I think a majority of them know how to use the system to their advantage. They work for cash and dont report the earnings, but expect to get taken care of by the system. Just listen to what is said to the health clerks when there is a problem or the person missed their appointment and cant get scheduled. They are outright abusive to the clerks. I go to many health departments across the US and see more and more armed gaurds at the facilities.



The United States has the richest "Poor" people in the world.

Go to the projects and see what kind of cars are parked there, do you know how much those 20" spinners cost?

Look at the kids that live in Public Housing (Free) with $100+ Nike shoes, gold chains and gold Grilles, yet their parents (actually the Mother who doesn't work and dad is usually nowhere to be found) gets free housing and welfare.

I remember during Hurricane Andrew people were lined up hundreds deep, and were bitching about not having money to buy food and their kids were hungry, yet most of them were smoking, had cell phones and were fat, they had enough money for cigarettes, yet they didn't have money to feed their kids and it was the governments fault.

This is one of those discussions that ends in an intellectual cul-desac.

Yep - these damned liberals are too hard headed to see the truth and the errors in their misguided way of thinking.:crazy::banghead:

:ezpi_wink1:

<rant>

:cussing:

I'm all for spreading the wealth of America out (55% of the wealth is owned by less than 1.5% of the population) but I disagree with it going to more public health care. The problem, which has been stated above, is that the government does not actively check up on these people who get the health care.. IF they even TRIED to look into it they'd notice that the cars they drive, clothes they wear, ect are probably much nicer than the ones they're currently wearing.

It pisses me off to know that my mother raised three children by herself making around $9.00/hr and wouldn't accept help because of the stigma attached to it now.... So all those nights that she sat crying her eyes out trying to juggle payments, feed her kids, and make ends meet are all because of some wannabe gangsters that hang out on the streets all day selling drugs won't work a 9 to 5 or get some education.

You have to admit though it works out perfectly for the rich.... All the riff-raff are holed up in basically shanty town projects that are just out of reach of them so they never have to deal with any of the crap.. Why not keep them uneducated so that they'll run and buy all of this expensive stuff that guess who makes? THE RICH. It's a vicious cycle that will never improve until we stop giving money and idolizing these pre-madonna entertainers, sports players, and idiots like Donald Trump... The real world would eat these people alive, let it do so.

Only in America can the government drop 6 billion on ONE F*#%ing plane and my little brother has to go door to door selling fund raiser items just so his class can go visit an Aquarium in South Florida..

Only in America can the person responsible for teaching your child get paid 30,000 a year (if lucky), while some idiot who can jump high can get paid 30 million a year because it's ENTERTAINING.

Only in America can you have GROSSLY rich Actors screaming and crying to help rid the world of hunger while they dine on their $1000 lunch and cocktails that could feed 5000 kids in some 3rd world country.

Society has shaped the projects and such into exactly what they want... They fill it full of uneducated idiots who spend money like water, spread disease, proliferate the place with drugs, give them guns, and let them all just kill themselves one way or another.. It doesn't bother them as long as they stay contained, they're still sipping Mai Tai's on their private Island somewhere.. Isn't life WONDERFUL?!

</rant>

Yeah, I pretty much hate what this place has become.

<rant>

:cussing:

I'm all for spreading the wealth of America out (55% of the wealth is owned by less than 1.5% of the population) but I disagree with it going to more public health care. The problem, which has been stated above, is that the government does not actively check up on these people who get the health care.. IF they even TRIED to look into it they'd notice that the cars they drive, clothes they wear, ect are probably much nicer than the ones they're currently wearing.

It pisses me off to know that my mother raised three children by herself making around $9.00/hr and wouldn't accept help because of the stigma attached to it now.... So all those nights that she sat crying her eyes out trying to juggle payments, feed her kids, and make ends meet are all because of some wannabe gangsters that hang out on the streets all day selling drugs won't work a 9 to 5 or get some education.

You have to admit though it works out perfectly for the rich.... All the riff-raff are holed up in basically shanty town projects that are just out of reach of them so they never have to deal with any of the crap.. Why not keep them uneducated so that they'll run and buy all of this expensive stuff that guess who makes? THE RICH. It's a vicious cycle that will never improve until we stop giving money and idolizing these pre-madonna entertainers, sports players, and idiots like Donald Trump... The real world would eat these people alive, let it do so.

Only in America can the government drop 6 billion on ONE F*#%ing plane and my little brother has to go door to door selling fund raiser items just so his class can go visit an Aquarium in South Florida..

Only in America can the person responsible for teaching your child get paid 30,000 a year (if lucky), while some idiot who can jump high can get paid 30 million a year because it's ENTERTAINING.

Only in America can you have GROSSLY rich Actors screaming and crying to help rid the world of hunger while they dine on their $1000 lunch and cocktails that could feed 5000 kids in some 3rd world country.

Society has shaped the projects and such into exactly what they want... They fill it full of uneducated idiots who spend money like water, spread disease, proliferate the place with drugs, give them guns, and let them all just kill themselves one way or another.. It doesn't bother them as long as they stay contained, they're still sipping Mai Tai's on their private Island somewhere.. Isn't life WONDERFUL?!

</rant>

Yeah, I pretty much hate what this place has become.


Wow, I hardly know where to begin - so Ill stat on a positive.

You should be VERY proud of your mother. Unlike the too many liberal socialist that share this county, she understood that having children is a personal choice and a personal responsibility.

Nobody is ever forced to have children, despite the many incentives our government dangles out there to do so. It is my belief that the mother who requires social assistance to raise children she cannot afford should be penalized rather than rewarded for her failure as she is in our entitlement driven system we now have in place.

I think this is especially true for those who have additional children while they are subsisting on Gov't handouts stolen from productive citizens. Take their damn kids and penalize them harshly. WTF are they thinking??? Why am I and other productive people obligated to work and pay for someone else's kids, they didn't ask me if I wanted more kids, why am I forced to raise them?

Now onto some seriously misguided points in your rant. Not sure of the exact figures -but I think it's something like the top 2% of the wealthy pay 80% of the taxes. How is that fair? Are the receiving 80% of the gov't benefits? Not even close - don't envy the wealthy, try to become wealthy yourself - then you'll really have something to bitch about....the legal theft by the gov't.


Now onto the Sports Figures and Entertainers. My God you are right; they do make a lot of money. But Jesus, no one is forcing us to pay them. All of their money is EARNED!!! If we didn't pay for the tickets, buy their Albums, see or rent their movies, or buy the clothes or products they endorsed, guess what? They wouldn’t be making that kind of money, in fact, they wouldn't be making anything.

That is what is known as free market, or Capitalism. It is all based on supply and demand.

How does this compare the government theft of our tax dollars? Guess what - It doesn't. We can't pick and choose our services - the Elitist sitting in Washington, in our State Capitals an in our municipal governments decide what we need and then dictate that the productive citizens will fund these endeavors as they see fit.

Bottom Line it is legalized theft - It is estimated that more than 60% of what our national government is financing is unconstitutional. They have no business taking our tax dollars and funding unconstitutional projects - most of which are entitlement programs.

I for one am sick and damned tired of it and you and anyone else who believes in "spreading the wealth" by government force - are welcome to leave this county which was founded on principals of individualism and minimized government interference.

There are plenty of socialist societies in the world and since that whole system is basically built in a Pyramid Scheme - I am sure they would be more than happy to bring in and accept the new blood. In fact they depend on it.
:soapbox:

And to end this rant on a more postive tone of agreement - I pretty much hate what we are becoming also. Though in truth, that statement has nothing to do with agreement, even though it is the the same stateent.

Wow, I hardly know where to begin - so Ill stat on a positive.

You should be VERY proud of your mother. Unlike the too many liberal socialist that share this county, she understood that having children is a personal choice and a personal responsibility.

Nobody is ever forced to have children, despite the many incentives our government dangles out there to do so. It is my belief that the mother who requires social assistance to raise children she cannot afford should be penalized rather than rewarded for her failure as she is in our entitlement driven system we now have in place.

I think this is especially true for those who have additional children while they are subsisting on Gov't handouts stolen from productive citizens. Take their damn kids and penalize them harshly. WTF are they thinking??? Why am I and other productive people obligated to work and pay for someone else's kids, they didn't ask me if I wanted more kids, why am I forced to raise them?

Now onto some seriously misguided points in your rant. Not sure of the exact figures -but I think it's something like the top 2% of the wealthy pay 80% of the taxes. How is that fair? Are the receiving 80% of the gov't benefits? Not even close - don't envy the wealthy, try to become wealthy yourself - then you'll really have something to bitch about....the legal theft by the gov't.


Now onto the Sports Figures and Entertainers. My God you are right; they do make a lot of money. But Jesus, no one is forcing us to pay them. All of their money is EARNED!!! If we didn't pay for the tickets, buy their Albums, see or rent their movies, or buy the clothes or products they endorsed, guess what? They wouldn’t be making that kind of money, in fact, they wouldn't be making anything.

That is what is known as free market, or Capitalism. It is all based on supply and demand.

How does this compare the government theft of our tax dollars? Guess what - It doesn't. We can't pick and choose our services - the Elitist sitting in Washington, in our State Capitals an in our municipal governments decide what we need and then dictate that the productive citizens will fund these endeavors as they see fit.

Bottom Line it is legalized theft - It is estimated that more than 60% of what our national government is financing is unconstitutional. They have no business taking our tax dollars and funding unconstitutional projects - most of which are entitlement programs.

I for one am sick and damned tired of it and you and anyone else who believes in "spreading the wealth" by government force - are welcome to leave this county which was founded on principals of individualism and minimized government interference.

There are plenty of socialist societies in the world and since that whole system is basically built in a Pyramid Scheme - I am sure they would be more than happy to bring in and accept the new blood. In fact they depend on it.
:soapbox:

And to end this rant on a more postive tone of agreement - I pretty much hate what we are becoming also. Though in truth, that statement has nothing to do with agreement, even though it is the the same stateent.

Curious where you get the figure of the amount of taxes that is unconstitutional. Either all taxes are or none are, the constitution doesnt pick and choose which taxes the government is allowed to levy not does it mention which sevices the government should provide. Rather the framers left that murky and open to interpretation which was either very lazy of them or very insightful, knowing very well that the nation will constantly change. Also there is nothing that says this nation has to be a free enterprise, capitalist economy. As for the tax that the wealthy pay, well do you believe that they made all that money by their own abilities or do you think that the structure of our government and society is such that people are able to prosper within it? Having an educated and healthy workforce has as much to do with creating wealth as a novel idea or product.

Yeah, I pretty much hate what this place has become.

Nobody is forcing you to stay if you hate it so much.

I have read it in numerous text and heard it in numerous formats .... it is late and I am tired (have to get up and workto pay for the teat sucking sorrowful folk living of the the good will of the all-loving bloodsucking government)

Definitly did not however hear it on PBS or NPR who use my taxes to promote their liberal socialist agendas without my permission or acceptance.

Did not hear on ABC, NBC, CBS. CNN. or MSNBC - All extemely liberal biased formats.

I must have heard it on FOX News or Talk Radio - the current target of the "Fairness Doctrine" The only truly opposing voice to the socialist agenda is talk radio, and our socialst congressional representatives want to quelch this lone voice of opposition to gain total control. Wake the F Up - Every time in history a Gov't makes a grap for complete power over the people - the media is their first target of attack. Control the minds and you control the people.

Look at what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela, its not the first time (might want to look up some of Hitler's tactics)

Do I sound extemest - yes even to me - but it is because I see so many people sitting so idley by while our rights are eroded and we keep succoming to the temptation of the nanny state, a path that if we continue to follow will destroy this country, just like it has all others in history.

Socialism DOES NOT WORK! PERIOD! We have to somehow once again find a way to value individual responsibility and quit giving more and more power to the government. This has got to start turning around soon or there won't be any turning back.

I'll try to find the documents you want to be spoon fed - but it might be a week or so- I have to get back to earning a living. Unlike most, I haven't developed a taste for that cream from the allmighty teat dangling out there so alluringly.

Yeah, I pretty much hate what this place has become.

I do too, but there is hope. Bush will be gone before too long. Then maybe we won't have a President who tries to reverse the constitutional separation of powers and reserve all for the executive branch.

Maybe we will have some one who won't spy on our own citizens without warrants.

Maybe we will have someone who won't use lies to get us into wars against the wrong enemies and then let his political supporters use the war as a piggy band for profiteering to the tune of billions of dollars.

Maybe we will have someone who won't use fear as a weapon to make people go along with infringements of th