Obama's In Trouble With Health Care

[Bangkoktraveler]

Well, you're right for once. :content: Congrats. :thumbup:

 

But it is still running out of money for the reason you noted; and for the fact that the aging population is placing more and more demand on these programs. Social Security is a scam for the most part. High wage earners will never get more than a fraction of their contributions and will pay taxes on the benefits as well. As I've noted before, if citizens invested their contributions to SS, rather than contributed to the program, they'd probably reap five to ten times the return.

 

And the above doesn't even touch the iceberg called Supplemental Social Security fraud. :onfire:

 

HH

 

 

 

 

Glad you finally acknowledge what I have been writing for over one year..

 

 

As for Social Security being a scam........ it was created with good intentions but as GWB said in a White House speach, [color:red]he claimed the government has no intentions of paying back the money the government took from Social Security and Medicare[/color].

 

In effect, Social Security and Medicare, for the most part, is just another tax which makes us the highest taxed country in the World.

 

When the USA had slavery, some masters allowed their slaves to have half and the master kept half. Today, the great master actually takes more then half, reducing us to the level of slave.

[Bangkoktraveler]

I'm also responsibility based on all aspects of behaviour. I'm very much of the opinion that if you can pay' date=' you should pay. So health insurance should exist for those that earn the wages....but for those in poverty or lower earnings there should be some sort reasonable quality alternative.

 

It's obscene that people should die or suffer in this day and age, in the richest country in the world, because their health insurance sucks or gets refused or they don't have any. Obscene, barbaric, ridiculous and backward.

 

Libertarian party? Tell me more!

[/quote']

 

I'm all for Libertarianism as an ideal, eg --> people having the greatest civil liberties possible without government intrusion or a nanny state. (Doesn't negate the need for laws).

 

But 'Libertarianism' as a political platform is still evolving and hard to pin down -- the right and the left both claim it at times, and not with the same values. Noam Chomsky has called himself libertarian, and for some strange reason I don't think the conservative libertarians are going to rally behind him.

 

Bottom line though, you hit it right ---> there's no reason why we (the US) don't have an adequate safety net. I don't know what the best answer is, but I do know the current situation is fucked up. And with all the boomers hitting a stage in life where they're going to need increased care, the tug on available resources is going to take off exponentially in the next decade.

 

Ehhhh. We shall see.

 

 

 

What is Libertianism to one, is not Libertianism to another.

 

Libertianism needs to define itself better.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Here are some links to get you started.

 

http://www.lp.org/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

 

http://www.tx.lp.org/Platform.html

 

Like most people, I find it impossible to support or reject ALL planks of a party platform. But this party suits me better than any other option here in the U.S.

 

HH

 

 

Your second source says [color:red]"The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects that group's particular brand of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets, strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, and non-interventionism in foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries."[/color]

 

[color:red]Strong civil liberties[/color] I believe in. Out goes the Patriotic Act.

[color:red]Minimally regulation across borders[/color] - I agree with also.

[color:red]Freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries[/color]. I agree with this one also. Always wanted to see Cuba and smoke a Cuba cigar without fear of prosecution.

 

 

Now tell me HH, do you really believe any of this?

[Hugh_Hoy]

Agreeable to some. Not sure what they mean about crossing borders. Like I said, I dont' think anybody, regardless of party affiliation or independence, finds all party values to reflect exactly their own. And we have all witnessed the changing values of the two major parties over the years. Those "ideals" are quite fluid.

 

HH

[Central Scrutinizer]

 

The past decade the media and government has cried about how few people are going into the health fields as doctors and nurses. Yet the gov wastes money in wars that are not necessary' date=' and on giving our hard earned tax dollars to non-US citizens around the globe. How easy to take that money to help our own it would be. Many, many citizens, young people, could use those wasted dollars to go to school to become the nurses and doctors we need. Plenty of smart American kids can't go to school/uni who could easily be trained to take these jobs rather than farm them out to immigrants we import to take these jobs. (Fuck, most of the doctors I have seen the past decade or more, my father was seeing when ill, and my mother sees now, are now Indians! Immigrants who got their green cards due to their having the skills and schooling they received overseas where they came from. Nothing against Indians, but where the hell are all the Americans that used to do these jobs?) A fraction of the money wasted on the Iraqi war could pay for it all and more.

 

If we must borrow trillions from the Chinese at least we could spend it on our own citizens on healthcare, schooling, and infrastructure, and on things that would benefit all American citizens, rather than the corporate elite and the other countries we spend it on, and the wars and police actions and all the other non-essential things it is wasted on. We do not spend it on promoting democracy around the globe. We spend it on helping the corporate hegemony that controls our government and country at the expense of our own citizens and the rest of the poor and disadvantaged of the world. It is disgusting. [/quote']

 

I don't disagree with you on the above. However, I can't fail to recognize there are sufficient left-wing/liberals who qualify as "rubes" who blindly follow their emotions to the point of balancing out the scene. (Except for here on Thai360 where they enjoy a decided majority.)

 

HH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hugh,

 

Both sides have their wingnuts and 'rubes'. Strident idiots lacking in any thinking skills, compassion, compromise, and actual patriotism. They care only for themselves and theirs (their party/politics) and would rather ruin the country, see a president fail, than actually help get things done through bi-partisan compromise, intelligent debate, and promote the laws and changes that any fool can see would be of benefit to the majority/all the citizens of our country. They want it all their way. Our country will fail one day soon if the moderates cannot control these radicals' influence on the debate on our problems and the search for real solutions.

 

Hey, Lou Dobbs is as big of a moron as O'Reilly and the drug addict is. These people do a serious disservice to the country with their biased rants, distortions, and out and out lies (and greatly influence the seemingly retarded wingnuts on both sides), and will say anything, no matter how harmful, to keep their ratings up. The moderate pundits don't get big numbers and ratings because they are not outrageously controversial.

 

I was just back in the states for a month. I was disgusted for the most part by what I saw on TV daily. How can anyone watch/listen to these fucknuts? And to actually believe what they say? Come on. It's a media circus show for the mindless masses, more on a par with the Roman colosseum shows than any true debate or information; a distraction and a blatantly obvious pandering to the wingnuts. Entertainment news? What the fuck is that?

 

The only one that actually impressed me was some dyke named Rachel Somethingoranother (Maddox is it? - had never seen her show before), and although she seemed to have facts and figures that made some sense and looked to be some actual truth being reported, her bias was so obvious that it made me question what was being said/shown.

 

A sad state of affairs over there these days. American TV has gone rancid with biased 'entertainment' news reporting, moronic reality TV shows, endless commercials for pharma companies and products, info-mercials, and slews of Oprah-like shows that only a braindead person can watch and enjoy. Thank christ for PBS and Turner Classic movies. A million cable channels and nothing much of interest to watch that won't melt your brain or make you want to buy a sniper rifle with infrared scope in a week's time.

 

Cent

[Steve]

With regards to HH's post about healthcare being trotted out slowly and a test case. I asked a question a long time ago with regards to that. Why can't each state have its own healthcare for its residents? There are states with specific needs. Arizona and Florida have a larger than usual elderly population. Hawaii, from what I recall has a young one. Each state can have a plan that meets the specific health needs of that state. So, why does it have to be national healthcare? If a person moves to another state, then some federal mandate that the prior state picks up partial or full coverage for some length of time till the person gets residency in the new state. If a person from Montana who goes to Disneyworld in Florida and gets ill, then a federal mandate that their state cover the bill. The states with the best programs can then be taken to a national level and we have the benefit of seeing what works and what doesn't 50 different ways. Or maybe less as maybe some states may wish to pool their resources. New England for example or the northwest (Oregon and Washington).

 

However, I will answer my own question. It won't work on the state level because the states are even worse than the federal government. The reason why people ask the national candidates what they will do about their child's education, crime in their area and health care, things that the states used to and no longer can perform is that the states are incompetent and impotent. They can no longer do much more then levy fees like the DMV and are viewed as a body that only exacts monies that offer no real benefit.

 

I've touted myself as a small L libertarian many times on this forum. I say small L because there are some things that I think would not work. For instance, a lassaiz faire business model for companies. I'm a capitalist. No doubt about that. However, companies complain of stifling government regulation and in some cases its true. There are some OSHA rules that don't make sense and/or are outdated, as well as other agencies. However, the agencies were created for a reason. When given a free reign (and even under a strict regulatory environment) American companies have shown repeatedly that will do anything that ranges from the unethical to the downright criminal up to and including actions that result in death. What we as Americans fail to see is that American corporations aren't U.S. people and don't have the same patriotic views. They are run by Americans, yes, but that doesn't necessarily make them patriotic and act in the best interest of the country. They are legally beholden to their stockholders to maximize profits. If that means lower costs moving a factory to China so be it. If that means no or little health care coverage for some, so be it. If that means harmful chemicals which has a lower cost than safer ones, so be it (if they could operate with out any rules). Libertarianism, with regards to corporate freedom will have disasterous ramifications.

 

Back to health care. I'm still not sure if the argument against the present proposal is a) its a major problem but the solution offered is not the way or healthcare is not a major problem and there is nothing major that needs fixing.

 

I can't imagine that there aren't millions of working republicans/conservatives that aren't as scared sh*tless about their coverage, their future or without adequate health coverage as there are democrats.

 

I would also be surprised if many of the protesters I've seen on t.v. who are vehementally against the proposal did not themselves have adequate coverage.

 

Maybe its a matter for some that they fear losing the already bad coverage they have for something worse.

 

I come from a large family. Several siblings. Some are liberal as they come and a couple are as conservatie as they come. My siblings and I have a group email at times to chat and I placed a few of the arguments and links here (5 myths, etc.) and one brother in particular who is very conservative just replied half jokingly 'commie stuff'. I know for a fact his coverage is sketchy. If god forbid he suffers something catostrophic, he would not be adequately covered. Maybe he feels we'll chip and take care of him. We have that type of family but I won't trust them to do it for me...lol. Love 'em but would never want to put myself (or them) to that test. There was a time that your family was your long term care but those days are gone for the most part.

 

As for the American media and the news reporting (if that's not a misnomer) is about money. Its not about news or specifically acurately reporting it. When ever any national debate is covered, the guests are almost always those who are 'strategists' or some other term from either party. There is no independent voice. Its someone with an agenda or a biased view.

 

I long for another Tim Russert who would ask the tough questions of both parties.

 

In the end its our fault collectively. Its no longer a republic.

[Hugh_Hoy]

Steve...your thoughts about individual states having their own plans are right on. To add to your list of reasons why that probably wouldn't work is a matter of "economics". Just like in the general population, we have "wealthy states" and "poor states". I can see massive migration to states that have better coverage than those which have lesser coverage...especially by folks who have serious pre-conditions. Also, it can not be overlooked that states are prohibited from coining their own currency--something that Congress is not prohibited from doing

 

But the idea of testing a program in certain locales, which we both seem to think would be a good idea, seems to have gone by the wayside if you listened to Borat Obama tonight. He did mention one southern state where competition by insurers is virtually non-existent. It's a poor state (as most southern states are). Why not try out the so-called "government option" there and see what kind of competition results? It was interesting that Obama only mentioned "testing" in the area of tort reform...and it was in a passing remark. Any coincidence that Obama and many legislators are lawyers and are in bed with lawyer lobby groups?

 

Carry on. I enjoy your perspectives.

 

HH

[Bangkoktraveler]

Agreeable to some. Not sure what they mean about crossing borders. Like I said, I dont' think anybody, regardless of party affiliation or independence, finds all party values to reflect exactly their own. And we have all witnessed the changing values of the two major parties over the years. Those "ideals" are quite fluid.

 

HH

 

 

Another point Libertarians like but Conservatives hate is making drugs legal.

 

 

I would say HH you are far from being a Libertarian but do fit in good with the Conservatives.

[Steve]

You are right about people moving to a state because of the benefits. My uncle in Inglewood told me he's seen cases where people have moved to California because of the better social welfare than their own state. He moved to LA from Oklahoma after serving in the Korean war and being stationed in Long Beach and ended up staying.

 

States offer certain residency requirements now. Not too strict. State colleges as well. I would imagine that the requirements for state residency would get a bit more difficult under the state by state health plan. I wouldn't be against that.

 

Also, why can't poor states like Mississippi and Alabama pool resources?

 

I wouldn't be opposed to a shared cost by the federal government under that scenario. Perhaps the feds chipping in a certain amount, not much. Certainly less than 50% or possibly as low as 25%. The states would need some incentive. Doing it this way the people would have more direct control since it would be their state legistlature and not the congress making the rules.

 

Also, perhaps the federal government can foot some of the bill for pre-existing conditions when a person moves. I would also make state residency exceptions if someone was relocated by their job. If you need to move from Georgia to California to get that promotion, you shouldn't be penalized for it.

 

Finally, I think history has shown us that any signfificant change sometimes comes from someone from the group that is against it.

 

Only a Republican could have went to China (Nixon)

Only a Democrat could have changed social welfare (Clinton)

Only a southerner could have pushed through the Civil Rights Act (Johnson)

 

If this health care bill fails, I think only a Republican president can pull it off eventually.

 

I also think the only way to save the country is for a group of existing Republicans and Democrats who really have the people's interest at heart is to form a third party.

 

It can't be one or two. It has to be a group of them and with a few that have national recognition and respect.

 

The various 3rd parties in existence now (Libertarian, Reform, Natural Law, etc.) simply have no cache. They have anyone with enough power to change things. They can't get a ticket to the big party like the debates, etc.

 

A hybrid group of Dems and Repubs would. They know where the bodies are buried, the political know how and the wherewithall to pull it off. It would shake up the place.

 

We falsely believe that the 'two party system' was by design. We evolved into a two party system. It was never the intent of the founders. They eventually did form alliances based on political beliefs that led to parties but it was NOT their original intention.

 

I have not seen the speech by the way (I'm a bad American ) I will try and catch it replayed

on the net somewhere. I know this though. It will be well delivered. Obama, like Reagan, is a great public speaker. I would caution folks that great public speaker does not mean the person has great ideas. Hitler delivered a great speech and Teddy Roosevelt was said to have a high pitched whiny voice. Not denigrating Obama, I like the guy, but I didn't vote for him because of his speech making. I wanted to see some thing happen that was substantive.

 

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

The problem with creating another party will be trying to get a large group to agree with something.

 

Currently nobody wants to agree but only disagree.

 

 

What would be the platform for a new party?

 

1. Legal drugs?

2. Restrict the reasons for going to war

3. Favor guns and a person's right to defend themself

4. Eliminate barriers at the border and reduce most of the Visa restrictions

5. Eliminate the Border Patrol

6. Dismantle Homeland Security

7. Education, even to the Doctorate level, should be free in public schools/ colleges

8. Increase tariff on foreign goods to 25%

9. Open trade with all countries including Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

10. Provide national health care so all citizens have a level of security in this area

11. Instill Patrionism for our country. Possibly have a moment of silence each day or a moment to say the Pledge of Alligance.