White House wants more power to set Medicare rates

[LinkC]

It is bizarre how Americans think anyone who suggests providing a service to disadvantaged citizens is some sort of socialist.

You left out a rather important concept. If you wish to provide such service voluntarily, more power to you. But the government providing a service "to each according to his needs" and paying for it "from each according to his ability" is the very definition of Socialism. So, yes, nearly every tax-supported welfare program is socialistic. Some more than others.

[DreamStalker]

Well let's see ... it is pretty commonly accepted that our military is the best in the world ... It is NOT privately owned and operated ... many of the fear mongering GOP fascist might call that socialism, but oddly, they pick and choose what they think is or isn't socialism.

Then there is our space agency, I think some might consider NASA a socialist agency/program ... perhaps the most advanced space program/agency in the world despite being gradually stripped of congressional funding over the past 40 years.

As for our health insurance system, a for-profit system that profits by denying the very services that they are in business to provide (ridiculous oxymoron here), it clearly does not work except for big Pharma, and other associated health care industry profiteers and wall street types … who by the way are not any less socialist by taking government tax dollars to get financially bailed out. Oh yea, the bailouts. Who exactly was that who started the corporate bailout trend that has become so popular?

I don’t think that a non-profit government run health insurance program (not health system) can be any worse than our national government run military or space program … perhaps not the most efficient or cheapest thing to spend our money on … but how much do you value your health and what else would you rather spend that money on? CEO bailout bonuses? Shoving democracy onto tribal peoples at the end of a gun (I mean smart bomb)? Or maybe to subsidize the corporate food industry to generate highly refined unhealthy processed foods that will kill us all sooner rather than later (there!, you want fear? … fear that!!)?

[LinkC]

Well let's see ... it is pretty commonly accepted that our military is the best in the world ... It is NOT privately owned and operated ...

It also defends ALL citizens equally. And it Consitutionally mandated.

Then there is our space agency, I think some might consider NASA a socialist agency/program ...

Only those who don't know what the term means... Once again, how does NASA benefit some more than others? (and it's an "administration", not an "agency".)

I don’t think that a non-profit government run health insurance program (not health system) can be any worse than our national government run military or space program …

Well, you're comparing apples to oranges...but you already knew that! And we all may find out just how much "worse" it can be...

[Slinky]

... You can't just magically switch everyone overnight, you have to introduce the new system and let the CSRSers flush thru. ...

Are you SURE of that? Seems like the government is pretty good at slipping all kinds of things thru when they want to - but, of course, it would have to benefit THEM to do so - which obviously throwing all the CSRS into FERS wouldn't do. And why FERS? Why not "just" plain ole Social Security?

There is SOMETHING in FERS somewhere that benefits Congress over "just" Social Security. That Thrift Savings Plan and the matching funds? I can't help but wonder if maybe Congress' TSP matching monies might not be higher than the lowly soldiers' and postal workers', etc. Of course, they wanted to bail out the financial industry! Their TSP lost w/the market "crash".

Gads! I am sooooo suspicious of the motives of our government anymore!!!!! Somewhere along the way here since Reagan and eventually BushBaby my rose colored glasses have been destroyed and I've become a cynic!!!!! *sigh*

[LinkC]

For $50 a month, I'll cure your cynicism.

Well, I'll 'treat" it, anyway; can't guarantee a "cure". After all, you went thru the traumatic Carter years.

Send me the first check and re-register as a Republican. You'll be well on your way to recovery.

[DreamStalker]

Well let's see ... it is pretty commonly accepted that our military is the best in the world ... It is NOT privately owned and operated ...

It also defends ALL citizens equally. And it Consitutionally mandated.

That is what I mean by picking and choosing constitutional "inalienable rights".

Then there is our space agency, I think some might consider NASA a socialist agency/program ...

Only those who don't know what the term means... Once again, how does NASA benefit some more than others? (and it's an "administration", not an "agency".)

Some may say that those who are employed by the current (ahemmm!) "administration" benefit a little more than the rest of us but I wouldn't hold that social benefit against them as I think they do a fine job as do many other government employees (local, state, and national).

I don’t think that a non-profit government run health insurance program (not health system) can be any worse than our national government run military or space program …

Well, you're comparing apples to oranges...but you already knew that!

I think of comparing it more in terms of dollars and sense ... health is a sensible cost to invest in and a national health insurance plan would benefit more citezens more equally than the current for-profit health insurance system.

And we all may find out just how much "worse" it can be...

Oooooo ... you are so scaring me.

[LinkC]

That is what I mean by picking and choosing constitutional "inalienable rights".

lol While you are rolling your eyes, you might want to glance toward the Declaration of Independence. THAT's where "inalienable rights" are mentioned. The Constitution, on the other hand, is where it says "in order to...provide for the common defense". It also says to "promote the general welfare"...It does NOT say "provide". There's a difference.

Some may say that those who are employed by...benefit a little more than the rest of us

How so? For professionals, salary studies show that compensation is usually lower than they could achieve in the private sector. That's why they call it Civil SERVICE. (For union trades, they are equitable, for the most part.)

Further, ANY citizen is welcome to apply for and, if qualified, gain employment with the government. The only preferential treatment is in "Equal Opportunity" programs. ("Equal", as used here, is pure liberalspeak.)

a national health insurance plan would benefit more citezens more equally than the current for-profit health insurance system.

Yet, you fail to cite just which part of any of the proposed bills supports that. In fact, what part of the rhetoric ABOUT the bills promises that?

And, you SHOULD be scared! (I note you roll your eyes a lot...is that an OSA-induced tic, or just a "tell" that you know what you just said is bull-funky?)

[DreamStalker]

That is what I mean by picking and choosing constitutional "inalienable rights".

lol While you are rolling your eyes, you might want to glance toward the Declaration of Independence. THAT's where "inalienable rights" are mentioned. The Constitution, on the other hand, is where it says "in order to...provide for the common defense". It also says to "promote the general welfare"...It does NOT say "provide". There's a difference.

Some may say that those who are employed by...benefit a little more than the rest of us

How so? For professionals, salary studies show that compensation is usually lower than they could achieve in the private sector. That's why they call it Civil SERVICE. (For union trades, they are equitable, for the most part.)

Further, ANY citizen is welcome to apply for and, if qualified, gain employment with the government. The only preferential treatment is in "Equal Opportunity" programs. ("Equal", as used here, is pure liberalspeak.)

a national health insurance plan would benefit more citezens more equally than the current for-profit health insurance system.

Yet, you fail to cite just which part of any of the proposed bills supports that. In fact, what part of the rhetoric ABOUT the bills promises that?

And, you SHOULD be scared! (I note you roll your eyes a lot...is that an OSA-induced tic, or just a "tell" that you know what you just said is bull-funky?)

Pick, choose, slice, and dice my words, spin'em, twist'em, and turn them inside-out and then dribble tics, correct grammer/spelling, and note eye rolls and anything else you want to divert attention from the subject matter ... but none of it supports your apples or oranges.

My point stands ... there is no reason that a national health insurance run by civil servants would be any worse or socialistic than a national military or national space program run by civil servants ... and attempting to scare people into thinking otherwise is what is called "bull crap"! I'm not citing any bills cuz I'm not supporting any bills and neither does the original post or thread topic ... I'm simply stating an opinion and if you don't like it, then spin and twist that up your dumb ass !!!

[jdm2857]

Can we agree to stop the name calling?

Argue and opine away, just be reasonably polite.

Please?

[LinkC]

Yeah...I'M the one who quotes language from the Dec of Ind as "constitutional"... lol Is that just your "opinion", too?

You are certainly entitled to whatever uninformed opinions you are fed. There's no arguing that.

My point stands ... there is no reason that a national health insurance run by civil servants would be any worse or socialistic than a national military or national space program run by civil servants

Using tax money to fund a program which benefits most those who pay the least tax IS, by definition, socialistic. Neither of the other mentioned programs are comparable in that regard. Apple. Oranges. Get it? Whether it's run better or worse is irrelevant.

up your dumb ass !!!

Why is it when libs come up on the wrong side of the facts, they always resort to profanity? That's the second time today...sigh. I can see that, no matter how hard we try, I'm not gonna change your mind and your not gonna change the facts, so let's agree to disagree and you can believe what you will.

[svenelven]

For anyone here to answer: Anyone had trouble getting 'good' equipment from their local (or 'in-network') DME?

Keep this in mind if you bought your gear from CPAP.Com for the savings... How can an internet provider be cheaper than your insurance if it is so great?

Please evaluate the proper arguments for health care reform and please take a look at HR 676 and S 703.

These are the real healthcare reform bills. I do not know what these other bills are but they are hundreds of pages of "compromises" that will end in favor of those that can afford most anything they want and the insurance compainies themselves.

We need reform for those who cannot do for themselves because if not then those folks will use indigent emergency room services for the flu. the cost of that visit is thousands and not to mention a bed is occupied by someone that could have had care days before in a doctors office for much less and now a trauma patient may have to be sent to a nearby hospital ten minutes further because there is no room in that ER.

PLEASE PLEASE ***THINK*** about the real issues not this culture war based on pseudoscience and biased thinking. Lack of healthcare reform sent the dems spinning in 1993 and 1994, the reps are simply trying to do the same again, they do not want ANY healthcare reform. Ask your local Republican or Conservative what their plan for reform is. They do not have one because they never did care and they want to scare you into saying no to reform not no to the plans presented.

Remember, if CPAP.com is cheaper than your deductible then you may want to reevaluate the above mentioned Senate and House reform bills.

Thanks from someone who has great healthcare yet cannot get his live in girlfriend even decent healthcare because she was perscribed a sleep aid a little over a year ago.

[svenelven]

That is what I mean by picking and choosing constitutional "inalienable rights".

lol While you are rolling your eyes, you might want to glance toward the Declaration of Independence. THAT's where "inalienable rights" are mentioned. The Constitution, on the other hand, is where it says "in order to...provide for the common defense". It also says to "promote the general welfare"...It does NOT say "provide". There's a difference.

Some may say that those who are employed by...benefit a little more than the rest of us

How so? For professionals, salary studies show that compensation is usually lower than they could achieve in the private sector. That's why they call it Civil SERVICE. (For union trades, they are equitable, for the most part.)

Further, ANY citizen is welcome to apply for and, if qualified, gain employment with the government. The only preferential treatment is in "Equal Opportunity" programs. ("Equal", as used here, is pure liberalspeak.)

a national health insurance plan would benefit more citezens more equally than the current for-profit health insurance system.

Yet, you fail to cite just which part of any of the proposed bills supports that. In fact, what part of the rhetoric ABOUT the bills promises that?

And, you SHOULD be scared! (I note you roll your eyes a lot...is that an OSA-induced tic, or just a "tell" that you know what you just said is bull-funky?)

One thing: if I remember correctly there are three, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". I ask you this, how is a guaranteed way to always have access to healthcare not the same as a constitutionally protected right to "WELFARE"? It is a fact that life needs help from a healthcare system that everyone has access to, it provides for living when no matter the amount of exercising and healthful living allows one to actually "LIVE".

Heathcare is an inalienable right, just as fundamental as life or liberty and access to if for EVERYONE is for the common welfare of the nation.

[LinkC]

[/quote="svenelven"] a constitutionally protected right to "WELFARE"? [/quote]

There is no such right in the Constitution (or anywhere else). The Constitution doesn't even grant rights. It defines the purpose and the structure of our government. Period.

One of the purposes of government, as stated in the Constitution, is to "PROMOTE the general welfare". As I said before, that's very different from PROVIDE, as in "provide for the common defense".

Don't they teach civics in public schools anymore? sigh

[DreamStalker]

Yeah...I'M the one who quotes language from the Dec of Ind as "constitutional"... lol Is that just your "opinion", too?

You are certainly entitled to whatever uninformed opinions you are fed. There's no arguing that.

My point stands ... there is no reason that a national health insurance run by civil servants would be any worse or socialistic than a national military or national space program run by civil servants

Using tax money to fund a program which benefits most those who pay the least tax IS, by definition, socialistic. Neither of the other mentioned programs are comparable in that regard. Apple. Oranges. Get it? Whether it's run better or worse is irrelevant.

up your dumb ass !!!

Why is it when libs come up on the wrong side of the facts, they always resort to profanity? That's the second time today...sigh. I can see that, no matter how hard we try, I'm not gonna change your mind and your not gonna change the facts, so let's agree to disagree and you can believe what you will.

Get over it man! The deeper you spin and twist it the better you will feel it.

Mixing the current progressive tax code with a national health insurance system is the same diversionary GOP tactic of mixing apples and oranges they always use (and/or they attempt to induce false fears). If you want to discuss the US tax code ... start another thread.

Why is it that when a dumb ass (one man's definition of a right wing nut case is the nut's definition of profanity) can't spin another's opinions into fear or taxes, they always resort to diversionary dribble? You knew we didn't agree but you entered the spin zone anyway so spin what you will .

[-SWS]

Howdy,

This should cause some fireworks.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Johnny

Yup.. It did.