Universal Healthcare: What a crock of shit!

[The Conquistador]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...jZThiZDQ=#more


*The government is the reason that health-care costs are spiraling out of control. Government now covers 100 million Americans. Medicare dominates the market, stifles competition, and sets arbitrary and unfair pricing standards that force Americans with private health insurance to pay more and more of the costs. Yet the plan favored by President Obama and the Democrats purports to control health-care costs by doubling the size of government health-care programs.*

Amen, I couldn't have said it better. Universal health care for all is diluted health care for all. Go buy or earn your health care or have the decency to wander off and die.

[transjen]

Jeez like chill first off it will never happen here the DR'S and Drug companies and Health ins has way to much say to make sure there gravey train never ends, The fear ads have already started and the Dems can not stop the GOP or the ins companies lap dogs will fillabuster any bill that will end there gravey train, The DR's here don't believe in curing anybody they just push you alongf till there's no more money for them to take from you, Perhaps to help cut the debt load the goverment should tell all there goverment job holders no more healthcare ins and then you can buy your own then everyone will be happy. I always love people who have the goverment pay for there health care ie seanters house members and gov works tell people no you'll hate if the goverment takes care of all you health care which they enjoy so everyone just go to the ER and then just throw the bills in the trash and let those who have ins pick up the tab that's a much better system Jennifer

[The Conquistador]

If the health care sector didn't have alot of the restrictions that they have now, we wouldn't have to worry about expensive ass health care. It's not about who is in with who; it is about control over your well being. If the market was allowed to function without interference(i.e. crappy mandated company healthcare plans, medical workers unions, govt. restrictions on research, etc.) we wouldn't have to worry about who's footing the bill; healthcare would be so cheap, it wouldn't matter. Just look at the electronics industry from the 80's till now. They had minimal interference and it was allowed to boom. CD players cost an ungodly amount back then but now you can get a CD player for 10-15 bucks. The market was allowed to expand and grow, and research new ways to make more efficient technology and at a cheaper price.

When you start limiting what can be done, the industries are going to be less concerned with quality products and more concerned with putting out something that barely meets standards so they can still profit off of it. That is what is going to be happening if Zero gets his way and socializes the medical industry. And with the massive gathering that he has, he will have no problem convincing people that this must be done in the "interest of the public".

The only thing I think holding this back(for now) is the extravagant cost of trying to accomplish such an undertaking. However, I do forsee this as part of our future with Zero and his kung-fu grip on everything.

[The Conquistador]

If Zero gets his way, how long before people are being told they can't see a doctor because they don't qualify? Or that the procedure that will save their life just isn't worth it to the tax payers?

[transjen]

First off Zero is no longer president W is gone and i see no difference if you told sorry you can't have that done because the goverment says no or as thing stand now no ins no funds out the door you go, I've seen thisscare tactic before and if you think ending malpracyice suits will lower cost then i have some ocen front propty in Iowa for sale, The biggest cost is uninsured patients who don't pay or pay a small part or nothing at all not lawsuits. So what's you answer everything is fine just buy your own? Nice idea unless you work for low pay or laid off or have an existing health problem, Like it or not the system is broken and needs a major repair and saying no leave it be ain't going to help, Not everybody has a over paid job or gets outlandish bennies some need to live in the real world and work a real job and before you ask yes i have a half way decent health care ins from where i work but i know others not so lucky, A friend of mine went to the ER because his blood sugars were way off scale because he can't afford to see his DR like he should so he has a hosptial for 20k which will never be paid by him. Because he works a so so job and no ins. So sould he just roll over a die? Jennifer

[racquel]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

If the market was allowed to function without interference(i.e. crappy mandated company healthcare plans, medical workers unions, govt. restrictions on research, etc.) we wouldn't have to worry about who's footing the bill; healthcare would be so cheap, it wouldn't matter.

Oh stop already.

The reason the US market is in the tragic situation it is currently in is because politicians are all in the pocket of corporate America, and they let them do whatever they want. Do you really believe that the best thing for everybody is for politicians to totally bankrupt the country by giving trillions to corrupt companies with absolutely no stipulations? Do you really think the solution is less regulation? Less regulation for companies that don't care about outsourcing every job they have if the shareholders think it's a good idea? Less regulation for companies that are spending hundreds of millions on executive parties while laying off their entire workforce and asking the government for handouts?

I will agree that universal health care won't solve anything, but the reason is because all government health care does is hide the costs. American companies like to rape America. Even when I did have health insurance it was cheaper for me to get American drugs from Canada and from New Zealand because Pfizer, Bayer, Pharmacia and GlaxoSmithKline all want to break their cocks off in my ass.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

The US spends the most per-person on health care out of all major countires, (only the Marshall Islands beats it to the number 1 spot) with 15% of GDP spent on healthcare.

Yet the WHO ranked it 37th last time it assessed worldwide healthcare systems.


Contrast that the UK, which is only 41st in spending with only 8% of GDP spent, but come 18th in the ranking, well ahead of hte US.

The top ranking goes to France, which spends 11% of GDP (10th highest), giving it the top spot.

The number 2 spot is held by Italy, which is 27th in spending, at about 9% of GDP.


If Universal healthcare is so inefficient, and private healthcare so efficient, why is it that the WHO ranks the US so shit compared to it's spending, but countries with universal healthcare do far better than their amount of spending is?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Universal health care for all is diluted health care for all.
Go buy or earn your health care or have the decency to wander off and die.

Interesting sentiment since the NUMBER ONE THING that all doctors swear to is the Hippocratic Oath, which specifically states:


I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.


So, I think your basic attitude of "go fuck off and die" if someone has trouble either buying their health care (in those instances where their employer won't supply a company plan) or they have trouble keeping up with modern costs is a bit out of touch with the basic duties that doctors are charged with doing and even swear to uphold -- namely helping ALL that are sick or in pain or in need.

[aa2239]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Interesting sentiment since the NUMBER ONE THING that all doctors swear to is the Hippocratic Oath, which specifically states:


I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.


So, I think your basic attitude of "go fuck off and die" if someone has trouble either buying their health care (in those instances where their employer won't supply a company plan) or they have trouble keeping up with modern costs is a bit out of touch with the basic duties that doctors are charged with doing and even swear to uphold -- namely helping ALL that are sick or in pain or in need.

Never mind all that, what about BASIC HUMAN DECENCY?!?!?! The principal that says: "I have more than you, but you're in greater need than me, so I will help you"... such a simple notion, and one that would revolutionize society for the better, if people weren't so stupid and selfish....

Having grown up with a universal healthcare system, I honestly find it incredulous that a country like the US can't take the British NHS model, and make it better... oh, but then that would make a dent in the profit margins of insurance, medical and pharmaceutical companies... what a shame. When you sit down and think about it for a minute, you see that some aspects of capitalist society are ludicrous.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

The US spends the most per-person on health care out of all major countires, (only the Marshall Islands beats it to the number 1 spot) with 15% of GDP spent on health care....

If Universal health care is so inefficient, and private health care so efficient, why is it that the WHO ranks the US so shit compared to it's spending, but countries with universal health care do far better than their amount of spending is?

The problem with your argument is that you're basically breaking it down to a purely ECONOMIC argument -- essentially you're ranking GDP costs versus the amount of people covered. The problem with that argument is it TOTALLY leaves out the most important factor of all: QUALITY of care.

Frankly, organizations like WHO go purely for numbers. That's just a fact. As an organization and given its political and social beliefs -- and don't kid yourself, WHO certainly has some very strong political and social beliefs it then tries to act on -- WHO would rather see as many people as possible put under a health care umbrella because then they feel that a "greater good" is being served. In short, to them quantity DOES equality quality. I mean, the more the merrier, right?

The problem is that goes completely against AngryPostman's counter-argument that "universal health care for all is diluted health care for all." And he DOES have a point there that CANNOT be disputed.

Case in point: look at the UK system. Recently a decision was made that was picked up and covered over here in the States on the news. Long story short, the UK health care system had to make a choice to stabilize the financial health of the OVERALL system...in other words, to keep the system spread out and covering as many people as possible. As a result, it was decided that women with breast cancer would now have to be cut off from certain drugs and treatments that they needed. In short, the universal system couldn't bear the ever-growing costs, so the UK basically said "Okay, you women with breast cancer, you're on your own. If you've got the money, you can get your cancer drugs. Otherwise...well, too bad. We wish you luck. But hey! Look on the bright side! Now we can keep young kids on the universal plan and given them annual check-ups! So we're making a decision that the older must stay sick or possibly even die, so we can still afford to give younger people preventative treatments...which means that down the road we'll save some coin."

And let's face it -- THAT'S what freaks Americans out. We're used to our system and we DON'T want anyone...no organization like WHO or not even a President like Obama...telling us "Hey, sorry, you have to keep your cancer because we've decided it's better to give health care to all then to treat YOU." The problem with universal health care -- at least in terms of the European versions as viewed by the average American -- is that they are all summed up by the phrase: "Hey, too bad that you're sick and might die. But we need to cover everyone...it's for the greater good...so if you're really sick and might die, suck it up and take one for the team."

And if you want to debate this, no prob. I can pull statistics for this out of my ass all day long. Trust me, I've been down this road with family members, some of whom have passed on recently. As a result, this is a topic near and dear to me -- namely, the need for affordable health care while NOT seeing a massive decline in the QUALITY that is available to the average person.

And the bottom line fact is that the United States is STILL regarded as the NUMBER ONE place for QUALITY of care....as having the most ADVANCED treatments available...and for having the most TECHNICALLY PROFICIENT physicians in the world. And that's why Americans, at their core, get very, very, VERY squeamish and twitchy and nervous when people start talking about changing things on a truly massive scale. Sometimes the most basic things in life are true and those on the ultra-Left (like a Michael Moore) can point to countries like Cuba or Canada or the UK for having universal health care plans...that they cover so many people and that's a good thing...

...But the REAL truth is the people who live in those countries (or at least those with financial resources) do whatever the hell they can to come here -- to the United States -- for serious procedures because they know they will get BETTER treatment. The number of visiting foreign nationalists coming to the U.S. in order to seek treatment HERE rather than back home under their so-called universal plan has reached all-new record highs. And that's just a statistical fact.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

Originally Posted by aa2239

Never mind all that, what about BASIC HUMAN DECENCY?!?!?! The principal that says: "I have more than you, but you're in greater need than me, so I will help you"... such a simple notion, and one that would revolutionize society for the better, if people weren't so stupid and selfish...

Well, I was addressing that same notion, aa2239 -- that's why I put that one section in BOLD. That's the whole POINT of that line in the Hippocratic Oath -- namely, that regardless of a patient's "economic stability", a doctor's first and foremost duty is to HELP that person. Hence the next line in the oath that clearly states: "I will prevent disease wherever I can."

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by racquel

Oh stop already. The reason the US market is in the tragic situation it is currently in is because politicians are all in the pocket of corporate America, and they let them do whatever they want....

I will agree that universal health care won't solve anything, but the reason is because all government health care does is hide the costs. American companies like to rape America. Even when I did have health insurance it was cheaper for me to get American drugs from Canada and from New Zealand because Pfizer, Bayer, Pharmacia and GlaxoSmithKline all want to break their cocks off in my ass.

And the prize for hitting the nail on the head and cutting to the chase goes to Racquel because she's absolutely, positively right.

The REAL problem we have isn't a need for LESS regulation and more of a free market solution like AngryPostman was advocating in a post above. And I don't think the answer lies with the government taking things over because frankly -- and no offense to AngryPostman if that's really his occupation -- but the fucking government can't even run something like the post office properly. So give me a break. If the government can't even manage to deliver a fucking letter to me on time, I have NO faith in them creating a system that's going to manage my health care.

On the other hand...where I wouldn't mind seeing more government oversight and regulations is over the pharmaceutcal companies AND insurance providers and the way that they currently business. Because Racquel is right -- those fuckers absolutely want only one thing in life: to bend you over and rape your ass for their own financial gain. And THAT'S where the fight has to occur to see REAL change at last.

[racquel]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Contrast that the UK, which is only 41st in spending with only 8% of GDP spent, but come 18th in the ranking, well ahead of hte US.
...
If Universal healthcare is so inefficient, and private healthcare so efficient, why is it that the WHO ranks the US so shit compared to it's spending, but countries with universal healthcare do far better than their amount of spending is?

And what criteria did the WHO use to rank countries? Obviously the US system is corrupt and inefficient. This does not, however, mean that you're better off going to a hospital in Romania than the US.

You really can't refute the fact that the US has most of the best doctors, most of the best hospitals, and is the world leader in medical research. This only makes sense because US drug companies get all the money for selling all the Viagra to the world. And obviously good doctors are going to be more likely go practice where they are better compensated for their skills. I spent a lot of time in Florida with my grandparents when I was younger. They have many friends who live in Canada during the summer and Florida during the winter. These people all get all their doctors' visits taken care of before going back to Canada because the care they get is vastly superior in the US. Why wouldn't they go to the doctor in Canada where it's free for them? Because US healthcare is better if you can afford it.

Universal healthcare is better if you're poor -- which I happen to be at this point, so it would be nice, but regardless, lack of universal healthcare does not make the US healthcare system itself inferior. US healthcare is both superior and incredibly inefficient.

[aa2239]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Well, I was addressing that same notion, aa2239 -- that's why I put that one section in BOLD. That's the whole POINT of that line in the Hippocratic Oath -- namely, that regardless of a patient's "economic stability", a doctor's first and foremost duty is to HELP that person. Hence the next line in the oath that clearly states: "I will prevent disease wherever I can."

Yes, I was pretty much seconding your opinion, vis a vis Angry Postman's sentiments.

But I believe that the good of the many should outweigh the good of the few... the point you make about breast cancer treatment is a fair one, but the drugs in question were brand new at the time, and as a consequence were extremely expensive... a few years from now, this situation will probably change, the drugs will become affordable, and at that point everyone in the country will have access to them. At least with our system, the most vulnerable or unfortunate people in society stand a chance.... thankfully that's not me, but I would hate to be a disadvantaged person in need of significant medical care in the US.

[The Conquistador]

Pop Quiz:

1. Does anybody who actually has a health care plan now think that that plan's coverage will improve?

2. Do you think I need share my health care with you?

3. Will I think you are a schmuck if you answer "Yes" to #1 and #2? Should you care?

Answers below:



















1. No.

2. No.

3. Yes, No.







BTW Creative Mind, I'm not offended by what you said. This is a forum intended for open discussion. We will have duelling opinions and if I did take offense to your comment it would only prove how much of a wiener I am. And yes I do work for the "Man" and no I do not use the healthcare that they provide nor do I use the VA benefits that I am entitled to because I have seen the Govt. and its "lowest bidder" mentality towards peoples health. I pave my own way. And no I make very little a year at my job(less than $15,000)

[transjen]

[QUOTE=TheAngryPostman;84016]Pop Quiz:

1. Does anybody who actually has a health care plan now think that that plan's coverage will improve?

2. Do you think I need share my health care with you?

3. Will I think you are a schmuck if you answer "Yes" to #1 and #2? Should you care?

Answers below:
1. probaly not, but not everyone is as lucky as me
2. In a way you all ready are, you are paying for the uninsured right now via higher DR and hospital fees
3. believe me i've been called worse

[Amy]

I really pity anyone living in one of those backwards countries without socialised healthcare systems. It's utterly inhuman, completely wrong, and totally unworkable to have a system which most harms those in greatest need of help.

Anyone who advocates privatised healthcare systems anywhere in the civilised world needs to be shot. I'm deadly serous.

I've always had treatment available on the spot to me, anywhere in the country, and this is paid for by a MINISCULE amount of the taxes I pay. Not only that but it has been available to me irrespective of my financial situation at the time. My medication is all provided to me by the state, my surgery when it has been needed was carried out promptly and at no cost, and best of all I know this standard of healthcare is available to EVERYONE in this country because of my taxes, just as I am guaranteed it when I am unemployed/etc. because of theirs.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Amy

I really pity anyone living in one of those backwards countries without socialised healthcare systems. It's utterly inhuman, completely wrong, and totally unworkable to have a system which most harms those in greatest need of help.

Anyone who advocates privatised healthcare systems anywhere in the civilised world needs to be shot. I'm deadly serous.

That's the spirit Amy! Civilize 'em with a Martini-Henry!!! Or an Enfield if you choose so.

[Amy]

Hehe. I do get a little overzealous when I've ben out all night drinking, but I stand by my statements.

However the NHS is a godsend to many trans individuals in this country who could never manage to fund the medical aspects of their transitioning otherwise.

[aa2239]

Originally Posted by Amy

The NHS is a godsend to many trans individuals in this country who could never manage to fund the medical aspects of their transitioning otherwise.

Ah, that's worth an extra 2 points for Universal Healthcare Systems! After all, this is a TG forum lol :D

[ARIES666]

It's ok to leave the upkeep of roads and highways, collection of garbage, etc, etc to municipal or state or federal governments...god forbid they also have universal healthcare.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by ARIES666

It's ok to leave the upkeep of roads and highways, collection of garbage, etc, etc to municipal or state or federal governments...god forbid they also have universal healthcare.

Except here's the problem with your analogy, Aries -- when has the state or federal government ever handled those things both efficiently AND in a true cost-conscious manner? Where it worked in a good, clean, trouble-free manner AND it was actually economically sound? And take note of what I just said. I didn't say cost-CUTTING manner, as if I want everything to be bare bones and run completely low end, where you're trying to pinch every penny. I have no problem with throwing SOME government resources or money at the problem, in particular to help the truly, truly, truly poor. After all, that would be the humane thing to do.

But here's where I laugh at the idea of government sponsored, universal healthcare actually working: The post office.

For crying out loud, the government can't even deliver a fucking letter on time. Seriously, it can't. Forget about how long a standard postage stamp or standard package will take. That's just a total crap shoot. But even more laughable, even if I PAY for an enhanced service such as Express Mail (overnight delivery) it STILL shows up late...and even if I PAY for an enhanced service like Priority mail (guaranteed 2-3 days), it can still take as long as 10 or more days.

And think about it. Going all the way back to the Pony Express and running the clock all the way up to today, if EVER there was a government program that the American people actually came together on and said "Sure, I'm willing to see some of my tax dollars spent on establishing a good, reliable mail service. I think we ALL benefit from that" -- it's the fucking Post Office. And yet for all the BILLIONS spent on it across the decades, what did you get? A government service bogged down in rules, regulations, up and down budget cuts and continually hampered services...and in the end, shoddy service that even became a universally recognized joke.

Yet along comes something like Fed Ex as a PRIVATE business company, that says "Hey, pay us a few bucks more and we'll get your letter there overnight. Or we'll refund your money" -- and BOOM. Suddenly you've got a company that blossoms and actually DOES the job is says it will do. Why? Because unlike a Federal government operation...which supports itself with a never-ending supply of tax dollars, so it really has nothing to gain or lose by being in operation...in the case of Fed Ex it HAS to do it's job and do it reliably, otherwise it goes under.

[CreativeMind]

Oh, and to use your other analogy, don't even get me started on the concept of the Federal and State governments efficiently handling road upkeep. I'm still laughing about a story regarding a highway near me, where the government wanted to patch a quarter mile path of an interstate. For those of you not good with numbers, let me give you a visual. You ever see the running track at one of your local schools? You know, where kids go out running for gym class? Well, a quarter mile is the SAME distance as running around the track ONCE. So it's not a big distance at all.

So, the Feds and the state decide they're going to repave this stretch of road because the winter weather tore it up a bit. And they price it out and they determine it's going to cost taxpayers $250,000 and the job will take about 60 days to do. Doesn't seem too bad, right?

Well, not till the construction unions stepped in and not till State and Federal agencies wanted to tweak this and then that, etc, etc, etc...

...At which point the simple $250,000 and 60 day job ended up costing and taking,
yes, wait for it because this is government "efficiency" at it's best...

...$5 MILLION and 2 YEARS to finish.

So, as I said before, I'm down with the idea of doing "something" to help the truly, truly, truly poor in the country, so they can get some kind of health assistance. Because even on a religious Christian level, I think that's the right thing to do -- to help those in true, true, true need. On the other hand, the notion that the Federal government can step in and efficiently run a universal healthcare system for all is SO laughable to me that it actually makes me want to cry. Simply because I can't believe...given ALL the historical precedents of ANY government run program OR after looking at the results of foreign national healthcare systems....that anyone would actually think a Federal bureaucracy can run ANYTHING right.

[randolph]

This is like comparing apples and oranges. The post office delivers millions of letters to anywhere every day. FedEx delivers packages in far fewer numbers and is wildly innefficient. A package sent from San Diego to Los Angeles is flown to Atlanta and back to LA, this is nuts from an energy standpoint. Granted the Post office is innefficient but it keeps a lot of people employed at good salaries, isnt that the American way?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Oh, and to use your other analogy, don't even get me started on the concept of the Federal and State governments efficiently handling road upkeep. I'm still laughing about a story regarding a highway near me, where the government wanted to patch a quarter mile path of an interstate. For those of you not good with numbers, let me give you a visual. You ever see the running track at one of your local schools? You know, where kids go out running for gym class? Well, a quarter mile is the SAME distance as running around the track ONCE. So it's not a big distance at all.

So, the Feds and the state decide they're going to repave this stretch of road because the winter weather tore it up a bit. And they price it out and they determine it's going to cost taxpayers $250,000 and the job will take about 60 days to do. Doesn't seem too bad, right?

Well, not till the construction unions stepped in and not till State and Federal agencies wanted to tweak this and then that, etc, etc, etc...

...At which point the simple $250,000 and 60 day job ended up costing and taking,
yes, wait for it because this is government "efficiency" at it's best...

...$5 MILLION and 2 YEARS to finish.

So, as I said before, I'm down with the idea of doing "something" to help the truly, truly, truly poor in the country, so they can get some kind of health assistance. Because even on a religious Christian level, I think that's the right thing to do -- to help those in true, true, true need. On the other hand, the notion that the Federal government can step in and efficiently run a universal healthcare system for all is SO laughable to me that it actually makes me want to cry. Simply because I can't believe...given ALL the historical precedents of ANY government run program OR after looking at the results of foreign national healthcare systems....that anyone would actually think a Federal bureaucracy can run ANYTHING right.

Okay! We all know government run programs are inefficient. Think of it this way, look at all of the businesses employed to do the work and the employees retained to do the work. After all, what about all the military contracts that keep thousands of workers employed building military stuff that has little or no value (i.e. Osprey). A capitalist society "needs" to be inefficient to remain stable. Inefficiency is the way the society absorbs excess capital.
Sure a gov. healthcare system will be inefficient, but so what, as long as everybody gets a reasonable amount of healthcare.

[transjen]

Jeez just relax CM, Because it will never happen because from the get go the US had a for profit health care system and it will never change the GOP will never allow that gravey train to end so i guess things will go back to normal those who have no health insuence will just go to the ER and never pay a dime so in away we already have universal heath care Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

This is like comparing apples and oranges. The post office delivers millions of letters to anywhere every day. FedEx delivers packages in far fewer numbers and is wildly inefficient. A package sent from San Diego to Los Angeles is flown to Atlanta and back to LA, this is nuts from an energy standpoint.

Well, in terms of "how" the operation worked, that was more true of the OLD days when Fed Ex was getting itself up-and-running and still in the process of creating more package separation depots. That's back in the days when Atlanta was practically their sole package hub, which is no longer true. For example -- now that Fed Ex has become a larger scale, more successful operation -- it DOES run routes directly between LA and San Diego. But it took a bit of time to develop the profitability to establish that, which again goes to my core point. As a PRIVATE business they had to figure out ways to do things that made economic, cost-saving sense unlike a government operation which simply says "Ah, we'll just throw more taxpayer money at it. Who cares what it costs?"

And keep something in mind. Even in the old days, while it may have seemed nuts from an energy standpoint, it actually made sense economically to transport packages that way. Simply because you have to break it down as a cost analysis and realize the FAR GREATER number of packages that you're collecting in San Diego or LA are THEN going eastward to other parts of the country versus to each other. So, it actually did make sense to fly everything out of LA and San Diego...get them to Atlanta or Dallas...and then sort whatever few packages you had (for each other) right back to them instead of having the high cost of having to operate and maintain several planes (not to mention the support personnel that you'd also need) just to send mail back and forth between those two cities.

Originally Posted by randolph

Granted the Post office is innefficient but it keeps a lot of people employed at good salaries, isnt that the American way?

LMAO! Well, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement, now is it? So let me get this straight. You're saying that even though we KNOW something is inefficient and not working right, we should keep it going just to keep some people employed? Congratulations -- you just summed up why companies like GM became bloated and ultimately imploded on themselves economically, not to mention you just gave the perfect definition of everything that's wrong with government work.

We don't do it because it works or it's too expensive!
We do it because it created a paycheck for someone!

Sorry, but in these troubled economic times THOSE DAYS need to be over...

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

Jeez just relax CM, Because it will never happen because from the get go the US had a for profit health care system and it will never change the GOP will never allow that gravey train to end so i guess things will go back to normal those who have no health insuence will just go to the ER and never pay a dime so in away we already have universal heath care Jennifer

First of all, there's no reason to take a sort of condescending tone in telling me to just relax. I was a nice guy. I said I believed in helping the truly, truly, truly poor and doing something to help those people out. I said it was the right thing to do, on even a basic human level.

On the other hand, when I say I have no faith in what Congress is already trying to put into place, I'm simply expressing a view that pretty much EVERY poll shows a vast majority of Americans likewise agree with. Sure, people agree there could be SOME kinds of reform, but overall they feel that the government stepping in and taking over and running things usually ends up as a really BAD idea. And why? Simply because the government SUCKS at actually keeping things small, manageable and cost-conscious versus turning anything they touch into a colossal behemoth that quickly becomes a giant mess.

Mind you, I'm not letting the Insurance Companies off the hook. I DO think there needs to be certain levels of reform. But I'd rather we looked at our existing system and going after established companies and fixing things that they do wrong...so that so many people fall through the cracks...as opposed to creating an all-new bureaucracy that will only hurt people in the long run.

Or worst of all, bankrupt the country by trying to do too much, too soon.

Not to mention, if you're admitting that poor people just go to the ER and get totally free healthcare anyway, then I guess they've got nothing to bitch about, now do they?

[brutusbum]

The problem is that I have been hearing about how we are better at health care than "most of the world", under our present capitalist system of medical care.

25 years ago I would have agreed. After having lived outside the US for extended periods of time, I know better.

Doctors are forced into substandard care for those lucky enough to have some kind of medical plan, want to bet what kind of care those that have none get?

After a lifetime of employment, I am now layed off and unable to find a job with health care benefits. My doctor used to charge $20.00 copay and insurance paid him $85.00 for a certain shot I have to get every month. Now, when I am forced to pay cash for it, he is charging me $165.00, $60.00 more than before.

Why?

I tell you why, because our system is broke, that's why.

And before anyone goes on about what a pinko commy liberal that I am, I am a lifelong republican that feels betrayed by the failure of our system. I see it know, I was wrong all along, the rich get richer and the poor get screwed.

Capitalism at work...

Go figure.

B

[brutusbum]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

If the market was allowed to function without interference(i.e. crappy mandated company healthcare plans, medical workers unions, govt. restrictions on research, etc.) we wouldn't have to worry about who's footing the bill; healthcare would be so cheap, it wouldn't matter.

I must respectfully disagree. All that would happen is that corporations would offer even less medical benefits that they do now.

B

[brutusbum]

Originally Posted by racquel

The reason the US market is in the tragic situation it is currently in is because politicians are all in the pocket of corporate America, and they let them do whatever they want.

Outstanding!, someone else here must have seen the light!

I could not agree with you more. That is exactly the problem.

Remember that movie (I think it was Wall Street?), where Mr Gecko says:

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good!", but only if someone reins in that greed to prevent self destruction, which I believe is what happening to this country now.

Greed in Washington with the politicians,

Greed in the Health care industry,

Greed at the Union halls,

Greed by the truckloads at Wall Street

greed, greed, unrestrained greed everywhere and not one sane soul to prevent madness

Welcome to the 21st century.

B

[jdawg]

The national review? Real objective there.