The New Election, the World Situation, and the Result

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-19-2006, 01:23 PM

God forbid someone like Harvard ever makes it into office. The poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer with his way of thinking. That is all he cares about.

Parmigiano · 11-19-2006, 01:45 PM

Healthcare system AND school opportunity should be available to everyone.

This is not 'socialism', it is 'evolutionary civilization'

If it takes $20k/year to send a boy/girl to a decent college, in some time the ultimate result will be to have a Country splitted in 2 races: a dominant group who owns instruction and power and the 'low level' people doomed to manual work.

Men started to group in families, tribes and more evolute groups like 'nations' exactly for the purpose to protect the species, so to protect the weakest of the bunch and improve the overall probability to survive.
If 5000 years ago the basics were to share food and fire, today healthcare and school are the basics.

American system is very good in some aspect, but in this things has lots of room for improvement.

Public healthcare system and University have a lot of problems and are far from 'perfect', but it is still the best way to improve the quality of life of ALL the citizens.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-19-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parmigiano

Public healthcare system and University have a lot of problems and are far from 'perfect', but it is still the best way to improve the quality of life of ALL the citizens.

I agree completely Parmigiano. I have seen both the American and the European education and health care systems because I have lived under both. The US system is not bad, but could use some improvement, I agree.

Harvard · 11-19-2006, 02:13 PM

G.L.:

"And how do you propose that people that live below the poverty line pay for there insurance? I guess under your thinking these people should just die and live in pain for the rest of there lives because you feel that they should pay for it themselves because themselves even if they can not afford it."

You tell me. I didn't lay out a comprehensive plan for the U.S., but I did lay out some general guidelines to keep gov't as small as possible.

So let me turn this around, what do you do about the poor and oppressed who can't afford housing and didn't save for retirement? I think syscom is assuming that nothing will ever happen to him to make him homeless or unable to retire, or own a house. He only promotes healthcare. He better hope he is ok if he ever has any problems.

Let's just make it simple, and fair for everybody, let's have not only a universal healthcare system, but let's be fair and have a universal housing system and a universal retirement system. We can't just have housing, retirement, and medical care for the poor. No we have to be politically correct and fair, it goes to everybody. You know, universal, across the board, politically correct equalized, you know socialism.

All words you hear Democrats saying, listen carefully.

mkloby · 11-19-2006, 02:17 PM

I'm going to disagree w/ you on this one Chris

I definintely don't believe that America NEEDS gov't healthcare. That's definitely smacking of socialism - hands down. There are already programs such as medicare and medicaid to help those unable to procure their own insurance through an employer. This definitely does not mean they cannot be reformed, however.

About the malpractice - it's way out of control in this country. My wife works in healthcare also - and she rarely finds doctors applying for licenses that don't have malpractice suits against them. It's just an easy way to score big money. American law needs to be changed - and the answer isn't just nationalize healthcare and/or provide to all citizens.

I'm not a rich guy, didn't come from a rich family. However, I'm a believer in the capitalist system - especially restrained capitalism as we have in the US. Peoples are more than capable of procuring their own services and goods as needed w/o the gov't providing them. Circumstances such as a single mother w/ 6 kids are sad indeed - it's utter irresponsibility on the mother's part to bring more children into the world if she cannot properly care for them. Again - socialist policies dictate that the person cannot adequately procure for themselves the goods and services needed, so the gov't must provide them to create that equality among all peoples. If you fail in America, where there is AMPLE OPPORTUNITY to succeed, I fear by and large it may be your own doing. I know I sure as hell am not willing to pay taxes for others to have healthcare.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-19-2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkloby

There are already programs such as medicare and medicaid to help those unable to procure their own insurance through an employer. This definitely does not mean they cannot be reformed, however.

And that is fine. Those are programs to help these people. They deffinatly need to be reformed however.

What I dont agree with is Harvards ideas of forget the people that cant afford. He assumes that everyone who can not pay for there health care and affored private insurance is because they did not plan, they just screwed up there lives. That is not the case, people go through hard times...

Harvard does not understand this.

Harvard also does not understand the health care systems in place in other countries and therefore is scared of them. They are good programs, the people get what they need.

I agree that the US should not become a socialist state, however the purpose of the government should be to take care of there people.

Dont forget about the poor and the homeless as Harvard wishes too.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-19-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harvard

So let me turn this around, what do you do about the poor and oppressed who can't afford housing and didn't save for retirement? I think syscom is assuming that nothing will ever happen to him to make him homeless or unable to retire, or own a house. He only promotes healthcare. He better hope he is ok if he ever has any problems.

No I never said anything about implementing housing or retirement plans. If you did not plan for that then that is your own fault, I agree. However the poor still deserve health care. If you cant realize that there are people that cant afford health care and it is not because they did not plan, then I really dont know what else to say to you.

pbfoot · 11-19-2006, 02:50 PM

And General Motors and Ford and Chrysler are going tits up because the cost of health care is excessive the Big 3 Ceo's met with Pres Bush this week to address the costs of health care
“We're not going into this meeting seeking specific relief for our industry,” said GM spokesman Greg Martin. “We understand that we have to win in the marketplace but there are issues of national importance like health care and trade that affect the competitive balance.”

All three automakers spend more on health care per vehicle than steel, which adds about $1,000 to the cost of a car built by the Big Three. GM, the nation's largest private provider of health care, spent $5.3 billion on health care last year for 1.1 million employees, retirees and their dependents.

mkloby · 11-19-2006, 03:00 PM

It's more than a century old, this argument. What is the best system to provide equality to all of a country's citizens. Liberal democracy took a hands off approach to this, granted political suffrage (of course it wasn't always universal), bounded it in a capitalist system, and theory was that the people would be able to procure all they needed through the private markets. Socialism sought to not only provide political equaliity, but also social equality - believing that the capitalist system unfairly prevented this social equality. Gov't or Nationalized healthcare was one of the first major acheivements of socialist parties in many countries.

I don't agree with the hands off mentality of laizes faire capitalism - capitalism needs government REGULATION. How far you take the issue of regulation is up to debate. This is where the communist parties had sharp breaks with the socialist/social-democratic parties all throughout western europe.

Chris - you are definitely right about that - a nation cannot forget about her poor. You cannot close the door on them, yet many argue that programs of redistribution will harm the economy in total, hurting the well off along with the poor. Problem is that it's hard to argue how these impact, as you can only use speculation and "what ifs" as to guess how the economy would have performed otherwise. Caring for the less fortunate is a principle that has actually served to help bond some Catholic and Christian parties in european politics with socialist parties.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-19-2006, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkloby

It's more than a century old, this argument. What is the best system to provide equality to all of a country's citizens. Liberal democracy took a hands off approach to this, granted political suffrage (of course it wasn't always universal), bounded it in a capitalist system, and theory was that the people would be able to procure all they needed through the private markets. Socialism sought to not only provide political equaliity, but also social equality - believing that the capitalist system unfairly prevented this social equality. Gov't or Nationalized healthcare was one of the first major acheivements of socialist parties in many countries.

I don't agree with the hands off mentality of laizes faire capitalism - capitalism needs government REGULATION. How far you take the issue of regulation is up to debate. This is where the communist parties had sharp breaks with the socialist/social-democratic parties all throughout western europe.

Chris - you are definitely right about that - a nation cannot forget about her poor. You cannot close the door on them, yet many argue that programs of redistribution will harm the economy in total, hurting the well off along with the poor. Problem is that it's hard to argue how these impact, as you can only use speculation and "what ifs" as to guess how the economy would have performed otherwise. Caring for the less fortunate is a principle that has actually served to help bond some Catholic and Christian parties in european politics with socialist parties.

I think that you pretty much hit the nail on the head right there.

syscom3 · 11-19-2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

I think syscom is assuming that nothing will ever happen to him to make him homeless or unable to retire, or own a house. He only promotes healthcare. He better hope he is ok if he ever has any problems.

I never said that.

I support universal access to healthcare, whether its by private means or public means.

I'm also a realist to know that noone on a public care type system can expect to receive complete and comprehensive treatment for all that ails them.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-19-2006, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

I'm also a realist to know that noone on a public care type system can expect to receive complete and comprehensive treatment for all that ails them.

That is a down side, but it is better than no health care at all.

mkloby · 11-19-2006, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

That is a down side, but it is better than no health care at all.

But - it can also mean less effective and efficient healthcare for all... which is what a gov't sponsored healthcare system would likely cause. America is already acutely short of healthcare professionals. Anyhow, America is extremely unlikely to take that step towards socialism. It's going to remain a dream of hillary clinton and company.

pbfoot · 11-19-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkloby

But - it can also mean less effective and efficient healthcare for all... which is what a gov't sponsored healthcare system would likely cause. America is already acutely short of healthcare professionals. Anyhow, America is extremely unlikely to take that step towards socialism. It's going to remain a dream of hillary clinton and company.

how can you say worse healthcare when Cuba a 3rd world country has a lower infant mortality rate then the US. But for Harvard its the kids fault for not preparing properly for its future.

Harvard · 11-19-2006, 09:36 PM

Hi Fellas:

Mklobby, I agree w/ your line of thinking. Everybody else, you are thinking and that is good. The worst trap we can fall into is being a bunch of sheep at the mercy of whims of the republicrats, and demicans.

Keep in mind that the media brainwashes the public w/ the politicans special interest agendas, and they call this "mainstream". The mainstream of garbage that comes out of Pelosi, Hillary, and Bush's collective mouths.

With that said, we are leaders and we think about what our own blind leaders say w/ a grain of salt.

At any rate, I believe in three things when it comes to solving political problems. Pragmatism, practicality, and realism.

So as a pragmatic question, I ask you why do you want healthcare for the "poor"? (Keep in mind the spineless leadership just talks about healthcare, not for the poor)
Why do you want it when the poor need housing and retirement pay? Isn't healthcare of little use, when the homeless gather freezing in the cold? What good is healthcare when the homeless need to retire and enjoy their life somehow?

So why can't the poor use all of their spending money on health insurance and food? They don't need a house since they wouldn't be able to afford it anyway. My point is that healthcare will do little to solve any problem. It is a "mainstream" idea put forth by the demicrats. It is their idea, strictly to win your vote, w/ little or no thought of a realistic solution. It's a blanket generality. They don't even want it for the poor, they want it for everybody, and then they want to raise your taxes. After that, rest assured they will come up w/ more welfare payouts such as universal government housing. There is a more conservative, pragmatic solution to solve this problem. My question is if anyone knows what it is?

If there is a better solution, the dems don't want it. They want comprehensive healthcare, even for people who don't need it. It is wasteful, since the majority of people can get all the healthcare they need through work and planning. The democrats do not care about the poor, they only care about themselves and raising taxes. Make no mistake, don't kid yourselves.