Congress Passes Socialized Medicine & Mandates

[NightMonkey]

I am hoping you are not including me in that comment? as I was using that as an example, that many people dont feel is a problem. Personally if someone wants to pay them whatever they should get that.

Oops! Sorry dave for any collateral damage!

You have to hit Slinky hard and it still doesn't hurt her.

[idamtnboy]

....A free market eliminates conflict.

A totally, absolutely, free market eventually ends up with one winner, known as a monopoly. That is how conflict is eliminated.

We don't have conflict over which brand of, say, televisions is best for society. That is because the market allows individuals to choose which brand to buy.

True, but that does not always result in what is best for society. E.g., cribs that, because of design, allowed infants to strangle to death.

At the moment I am free to use which doctor or hospital I choose as long as I pay. There is no conflict. No one argues about my choice, protests my choice, or tries to stop me from exercising my choice. I am using the market to choose.

As long as you want to pay the entire charge out of your own pocket. If you use insurance to pay the provider your choice is sometimes drastically limited by the rules of the insurance company. A true free market has not existed in the health care industry for years.

Once Obamacare is implemented many, many medical care choices will be made for us through the promulgation of tens of thousand of rules (which become law). Then will come a huge conflict and you will soon find all sides are more unhappy with the system that today.

That's already the case with insurance company rules.

....Do you know our Federal debt is over $14 trillion and growing rapidly? Our Federal deficit is $1.3 trillion and growing? Our total U.S. debt is over $55 trillion.

The total debt per family is $681,000 while savings per family is $7,800?

That many states will be bankrupt in the next five years?

That the growth in entitlement spending over the next ten years will overshadow the serious problems we have today?

Both parties are exceedingly loathe to face up to the problem. You know why? Think about it for a bit. How is the current deficit being financed? By money borrowed from lenders who are not an integral part of American society. That money provides jobs for millions of Americans when it is put into the US economy. Stop borrowing that money and putting it into the economy, and those jobs will be lost. Only if the money currently being borrowed is diverted into purchases of American products and services will those jobs be replaced. China is not inclined to do that. They would rather loan us the money so we can buy more of their stuff than buy our stuff. The whole issue of deficits in Government spending and American foreign trade ain't near as simplistic as the Tea Party mind think would make it.

That we have more than 50,000 soldiers in Germany, 30,000 in Japan, 9,000 in Britain. Do you know why they cannot pay for their own defense?

I doubt ability to pay is the core issue any more. It was after WWII. It's American control over defense policy. Pay a big chunk of the defense of Europe and Asia and we have the say in how it will be executed. No pay, no say. Right, wrong? Good question.

Do you know that Obamacare will accelerate the cost of medical insurance and medical care? Do you know that it does nothing to address the shortage of doctors (besides running many of them into retirement)? Do you know if makes deep cuts in Medicare and many doctors and hospitals will be dropping Medicare patients?

That's the situation now, long before OC came on the scene.

Do you know your generation and you have lived well and continue to live well off borrowed money that you will never pay back? Do you know that my generation will be the first one in the history of the country to be less prosperous because you stole the money from us by borrowing? Do you know that my generation is paying $3.5 trillion of interest on the debt you irresponsible and selfishly created? This is interest alone.

Do you know that a society does not get something just because it wants it? Do you know it has to earn it?

Do you know none of us will live to see good medical care for everyone because of our country’s extremely poor financial condition?

Yes, I do. This is recognized by many, many, thinking people on all locations of the political spectrum. But the people who are really in the position to do something about it, the super rich of the world, have no concern about the problem because it doesn't affect them. Also, globalization has changed the American playing field forever. We no longer are in competition with only other Americans. We are in competition with the whole world. As the standard of living in the rest of the world goes up, ours will come down. I believe there are not enough natural resources in the world to productively employ worldwide every person who wants, or will want, to be employed. It's another whole subject, but I would argue that wealth, in real terms, only comes from converting natural resources into tangible goods. Money is not wealth.

Do you know that our President gave a state-of-the-Union speech this week in which there was not one mention of the Federal debt or the unemployment rate? Do you know that I consider that speech a criminal act of negligence against our nation?

That should give you some idea how much of a political hot potato both are, and how seriously non-simplistic the solution is.

[Slinky]

Actually, I'm a pretty tough, crusty, opinionated ole broad.

[dave01978]

....A free market eliminates conflict.

A totally, absolutely, free market eventually ends up with one winner, known as a monopoly. That is how conflict is eliminated.

In a free market a monopoly is not going to happen, government regulations cause more of a monopoly, large companies actually would like to see more regulations as they have the funds to absorb it, and causes barriers of entry to new startups, Free market will allow more startups with better products, or ideas.

We don't have conflict over which brand of, say, televisions is best for society. That is because the market allows individuals to choose which brand to buy.

True, but that does not always result in what is best for society. E.g., cribs that, because of design, allowed infants to strangle to death.

Again free market, people dont want to sell cribs like that, because if they did the market would not purchase them.

At the moment I am free to use which doctor or hospital I choose as long as I pay. There is no conflict. No one argues about my choice, protests my choice, or tries to stop me from exercising my choice. I am using the market to choose.

As long as you want to pay the entire charge out of your own pocket. If you use insurance to pay the provider your choice is sometimes drastically limited by the rules of the insurance company. A true free market has not existed in the health care industry for years.

I can choose my insurance based on my needs want, or choose to have it if I want to bet against myself.

Once Obamacare is implemented many, many medical care choices will be made for us through the promulgation of tens of thousand of rules (which become law). Then will come a huge conflict and you will soon find all sides are more unhappy with the system that today.

That's already the case with insurance company rules.

I can choose another insurance company, also if they violate the rules they can be sued.

....Do you know our Federal debt is over $14 trillion and growing rapidly? Our Federal deficit is $1.3 trillion and growing? Our total U.S. debt is over $55 trillion.

The total debt per family is $681,000 while savings per family is $7,800?

That many states will be bankrupt in the next five years?

That the growth in entitlement spending over the next ten years will overshadow the serious problems we have today?

Both parties are exceedingly loathe to face up to the problem. You know why? Think about it for a bit. How is the current deficit being financed? By money borrowed from lenders who are not an integral part of American society. That money provides jobs for millions of Americans when it is put into the US economy. Stop borrowing that money and putting it into the economy, and those jobs will be lost. Only if the money currently being borrowed is diverted into purchases of American products and services will those jobs be replaced. China is not inclined to do that. They would rather loan us the money so we can buy more of their stuff than buy our stuff. The whole issue of deficits in Government spending and American foreign trade ain't near as simplistic as the Tea Party mind think would make it.

Both parties spend to much money, make to much regulations, and stunt business as much as they can.

That we have more than 50,000 soldiers in Germany, 30,000 in Japan, 9,000 in Britain. Do you know why they cannot pay for their own defense?

I doubt ability to pay is the core issue any more. It was after WWII. It's American control over defense policy. Pay a big chunk of the defense of Europe and Asia and we have the say in how it will be executed. No pay, no say. Right, wrong? Good question.

That is insane, we should not be policing the world, The armed forces should be used to protect the country and thats it.

Do you know that Obamacare will accelerate the cost of medical insurance and medical care? Do you know that it does nothing to address the shortage of doctors (besides running many of them into retirement)? Do you know if makes deep cuts in Medicare and many doctors and hospitals will be dropping Medicare patients?

That's the situation now, long before OC came on the scene.

True, but it will get worse

[cpapdisco]

I personally believe that a person's right to live in good health is irrelevant of their ability to pay for it.

I am assuming you did not really mean what you typed. Babies are born every day with horrible genetic conditions and will never live in good health. Many of them live short tortured lives and die without having lived one minute in good health. Many children develop incurable diseases and never live another healthy day regardless of their families' ability to pay.

May I assume you meant to type,

"I personally believe that every person has a right to good medical care regardless of their ability to pay for it."

If you did mean this, have you thought it through to logical consequences? Have you thought that if people do have this "right" then rights must be taken away from others? For instance, some people must become doctors, nurses, medical technicians, medical researchers, pharmacists, hospital operators, etc. These people must then work for no financial reward on behalf of those who have the "right" to good medical care but can't pay.

Or to pay these in the medical field you must deny others who have earned money their right to keep it for their own use.

What do you say to these people? Do you say I will take away your God-given right to choose what occupation you want and to seek what salary you can achieve? Do you say I will tax you and take part of your money to help someone else? Or do you pour your own earned money into charities offering medical care for people who cannot pay?

You can say that good medical care for every person is something you would like to achieve and I will say this also. But it is not logical to say it is a right.

I pay more in taxes than most families in this country make, but I do so with a smile on my face and am thankful for what I have. I am thankful for living in a society that takes care of those who are less fortunate. I am thankful that I do not have to do the dirty jobs. I work hard for my money, but I don't for one second claim to be better or DESERVE more than those who were not fortunate enough to be able to do my job or get the education that I have.

I have not always been so fortunate though. I know first hand how scary it can be to have a problem that you cannot get diagnosed due to fear of "pre existing conditions." I had multiple transient ischemic attacks and was unable to even get it looked at because I was uninsured. I was honestly in fear of my life.

I know I cannot convince you, I can only ask you that you live your life with a little more compassion. If that is my flaw, I can live with that.

[ResmedUser]

But it is not logical to say it is a right.

In many countries, access to good healthcare for all citizens is regarded as an essential hallmark of being a civilised society, and as such is effectively a basic right of that society.

Cheers,

Bill

Bill, I understand what you are saying and basically, agree with you.

But you have to understand that here in the USA, individual freedoms and individual rights are everything. That and the ability to make lots of money. That is what America is all about, individualism and making lots of $$$$$. There are a lot of Americans upset these days that things are trying to be changed here, that there are people like obama and george soros types who are trying to take away American's individualism, individual freedoms and rights and also to restrain our ability to make lots of money. People here are very angry about all of this.

America is a Western country true, but its just totally wide open. Or is supposed to be. Some are trying to keep it that way. And some are trying to make it like a European nation with socialism and dramatically reduced individualism and reduced individual freedoms.

How it turns out is going to be very interesting.

Mikey

[idamtnboy]

dave01978, Because of the way the quoting is formatted in your post above I just now clearly saw where you responded item by item, and not just the one comment at the end. I can't resist coming back at you.

A totally, absolutely, free market eventually ends up with one winner, known as a monopoly. That is how conflict is eliminated.

In a free market a monopoly is not going to happen, government regulations cause more of a monopoly, large companies actually would like to see more regulations as they have the funds to absorb it, and causes barriers of entry to new startups, Free market will allow more startups with better products, or ideas.

Monopoly not going to happen? That's a pipe dream. Look at the history of Microsoft and Windows vs IBM and OS/2. The free market allowed MS to put the strangle hold on computer makers to the point that OS/2, even though a technically superior product, got squeezed out. And the classic of recent history is Betamax vs. VHS. The free market promoted VHS to the point that Betamax couldn't survive even though it was the superior technology. In this case the technology became the monopoly although a specific manufacturer did not. Going farther back to when the free market of the US was much more free, you have Rockefeller and Standard Oil becoming a monopoly. That alone is what brought on the anti-monopoly policy of the US Government. I agree a free market does generally allow startups of all sorts, including those with bad ideas or products. But it provides no guarantee of success.

E.g., cribs that, because of design, allowed infants to strangle to death.

Again free market, people dont want to sell cribs like that, because if they did the market would not purchase them.

Really? Then why did the Consumer Product Safety Commission have to order the recall of 1.2 million cribs in 2009 because infants were dying in them? And including several years prior they forced the recall of something like 5 million cribs because of infant deaths.

I can choose my insurance based on my needs want, or choose to have it if I want to bet against myself.

Only if you are superbly independently wealthy, which about 98% of Americans are not.

That's already the case with insurance company rules.

I can choose another insurance company, also if they violate the rules they can be sued.

Again, only if you are wealthy. What rules would they violate, Federal? But Federal rules are what you are railing against. And if you are referring to their own rules, what insurance company is going to violate its own rules, especially when those rules are geared toward increasing profits?

Both parties spend to much money, make to much regulations, and stunt business as much as they can.

Agree on money. Regulations - matter of opinion. Stunt business - no bona fide Republican would ever buy that notion, except as to what they think the Dems want to do.

That is insane, we should not be policing the world, The armed forces should be used to protect the country and thats it.

Bush II even argued that we had to be in Afghanistan to protect this country from Bin Laden's gang.

That's the situation now, long before OC came on the scene.

True, but it will get worse

That is the opinion that separates the pro- and anti- health care reform groups.

Fairness has been one of the guiding principles of this country since the beginning. A free market is not synonymous with a fair market. The health care reform act is an attempt to make the health care market fair, not free. In an ideal world populated with non-greedy humans your concepts of how a free market operates would be reasonably accurate. But that's not what we have to work with.