CPAPtalk.com

The reason some of us use the word Socialism to describe it is because the desire of many -- including the the expressed desire of many in the current White House -- is to (1) foster jealousy of those who have more wealth; (2) take an increasingly disproportionate amount from those with more wealth, and give it to those with less, while telling the latter that it is "just" to do so; and (3) take over key elements of our society that used to be left to the People, such as the entire bleeping auto industry (Ford declined the offer), the financial services industry, and now the healthcare and insurance industries. Next up: all energy production. And Energy Consumption (see: "Smart Grid." See also California).

All in the name of "fairness," exactly as Marx and Mao espoused. The "Joe the Plumber" incident was when the current president said "We just want to spread [your] wealth around." One now-gone White House staffer actually equated Mao and Mother Teresa.

That sure as heck ain't a capitalistic approach.

It seems to me to be textbook socialism -- actually, textbook fascism on route to Socialism. But I was being polite.

As for the Moral Courage of the 60, I note that the late Mr. Kennedy inserted a clause in the Senate version of the bill that exempts THEM from the deal they propose for ME.

TWW wrote:As for the Moral Courage of the 60, I note that the late Mr. Kennedy inserted a clause in the Senate version of the bill that exempts THEM from the deal they propose for ME.

What clause is that? I think if you insult the moral courage of a dead man you should be able to cite a section number.

I agree that somehow we need to revamp our healthcare--however I don't agree with this bill that's being pushed forward. It's going to cost too much, it's also going to eventually lead to a government controlled system. I'm fearful because right now we have good insurance (Oboma says he'll leave that alone but i don't beleive it) what's going to happen is the costs for those who have good insurance will skyrocket whether it be in premimums or reduced benefits or both--and higher deductibles etc. when the costs are driven up the middle class will not be able to aford their insurance anymore thus having to go to the government insurance and wella --we'll all be on government insurance! The costs have to be paid somehow which means higher taxes, higher insurance rates for those with private or company sponsored insurance, higher taxes, (oh i said that once already) government more in debt than we already are --How are we going to cover the cost?? It's SCARRRRYYY!

diboja wrote:...US has 31 million people not covered by any health plan...

The latest figure is 80 million; they used 45 million for about a decade, then recalculated. At the end of next month, if I haven't found a new job I will be joining the ranks of the uninsured.

so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods and services is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Let's see--Medicare--Socialism? Public police and fire protection? Socialism? Public Schools? Socialism? Public Highways? Socialism If we take your simplistic definition, then we've had "Socialism" for years and years, so why worry? LOLOL

What part of North Carolina are you from, Rooster? Let me guess--Jesse Helms country!

Autopapdude wrote:
If we take your simplistic definition, then we've had "Socialism" for years and years, so why worry? LOLOL

You are right about that. The battle is already lost. All we can argue about now is "to what extent" and "how fast down the path".

Anyone who has ever done any reading of U.S. history and economics knows we have a mixed system of capitalism and socialism.

If you don't like the dictionary definition of socialism that I quoted, then why don't you propose your own for discussion?

f you don't like the dictionary definition of socialism that I quoted, then why don't you propose your own for discussion?

I think you're confusing SOCIAL SERVICES, with SOCIALISM. Don't need a dictionary for that one. Our government provides essential SOCIAL SERVICES for us. Socialism is a political system, not an administrative means of servicing the public need and good.

First I have not had time to do much reading on this site but this thread attracted me for several reasons. First I keep finding myself agreeing with autopapdude which rarely happens. Second, as a fiscal conservative I have always found the term socialism used to conjure up fear for anything done by the federal government. As autopapdude said, there is a difference between social services such as police, fire, schools, etc and socialism as a system. Our founding fathers recognized the difference when they set up a federal system. Government is supposed to do those things that are either not cost effective to do through capitalism (the military is usually given as an example), or guarantees a right (education). Beyond this the people are supposed to trust the capitalist system to provide for all.

The debate could be is health care a right or not. As most hospitals are mandated to provide health care regardless of ability to pay I believe this falls into the category of a right. Is the national healthcare proposals the answer? Beats the hell out of me. I fear many of the provisions of the proposals coming out of Congress. I fear most the lack of time devoted to this fix. It takes years to design social programs with any degree of complexity and we get these proposals since the first of the year. Does anyone really know the repercussions of these plans? I say slow down and analyze each provision.

Just to give some examples that do not make sense to me:

This will raise the cost of healthcare. I do not understand how this is possible. If healthcare costs are calculated for one year but all but 45 million do not pay in then these cost are divided by the rest who pay. If 45 million are added but costs are what they always were then the premiums would go down as you would have 45 million more people putting money into the premium side of the equation. What am I missing? I know they want to eliminate the pre-existing condition but this cost now is part of what all rate payors pay so it can not be the reason for the increase.

I also do not understand why insurance companies do not want a government insurance alternative. They say that because the government insurance can mandate the allowables at an amount less than them that they will be out competed. This is hogwash as I know what will happen. People who migrate to the government plans will be the higher risk people who know the insurance companies will price them out of their plans. Insurance companies will insure the lesser risk people and the government will insure the higher risk people. This is how it is now. Why would this change?

Do you understand that the CBO has said the cost of the bill will wreck a country that is already a financial wreck?

rooster wrote:Do you understand that the CBO has said the cost of the bill will wreck a country that is already a financial wreck?

I don't understand that the CBO has said anything like that. The CBO has estimated that the Senate bill would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $130 billion over the 2010-2019 period. http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=426. Its current estimate of the effect of the House bill is a net reduction in federal deficits of $138 billion over the same 10-year period. http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=428.

The bill is a financial wreck for a country in bad shape already. Look at some decent analysis of what the bill does financially, particularly with regard to increased taxes: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/19/the ... arry-reid/ and http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/20/nfi ... usinesses/ .

You can't throw a massive bill like that together in such a short time and get decent results.

The bill will destroyed a huge number of private sector jobs and end innovation in medicine.

We need a strong economy to pay for healthcare (that is how anything is paid for) and this bill works against a strong economy.

It is certainly not healthcare reform.

And no, the sorry Republicans could not do any better.

rooster wrote:Look at some decent analysis of what the bill does financially

You mean, instead of a politically motivated blog, that's pushing an agenda? I could quote a left-wing blog and prove the exact opposite, but why bother? I'd be just as likely to get facts quoting The Onion.

I think I'll take the CBO over the Heritage Foundation for a non-biased opinion.

rooster wrote:The bill will destroyed a huge number of private sector jobs and end innovation in medicine.

According to this article, the "Wizards Of Washington" (WOW) are already wiping out many small DMEs (HMEs), too.

http://www.hmenews.com/?p=article&id=hm200911UxlgQO

In my opinion, there are probably enough "poison pills" in this legislation to keep either side from voting it into law.
The other thing you have to consider is that IF they do vote it into law, you can count on your pockets getting picked some more......(think "PORK" or "earmarks"). They're planning to start collecting taxes and other fees immediately, but the "benefits" of the legislation wouldn't take effect until 2013.
They already took several hundred BILLION off the table (didn't count it in the total cost), so that the total would be under $1 trillion.
This is like Enron to the Nth degree.

Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

Now, I'm gonna (try to) refrain from commenting any further on this subject.


Den

I had great insurance until I retired late last year; I had no choice but to go to Medicare. It remains to be seen what amount will be taken from Medicare and Medicaid to help pay the proposed Health Insurance Plan. My Congressman, Jim Matheson told me Medicare is running out of money. I believe it. I had to have a Capsule Endoscopy, which Medicare excluded from payment, along with most of the tests I have had this year. The Capsule Endoscopy cost me $2,350.01. It would have been paid for under my previous University Insurance. I am attempting to get my secondary insurance pay it - so far without success.

The fee schedule for Medicare Doctors is so low, that few doctors will take Medicare Patients in our city. If Medicare is decimated to help pay for the proposed Health Insurance Bill, what will those over 65 do?

Jan