Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Well I found a discussion I like. After reading so many of the post, I seem to forget what was said, so I will just add my little bit. Some one said the right does not have to feared, your right. If we can bring down the size of Government, they will by proxy have less to do with state law, and so leaving most things in the hands of the state. As the constitution has made clear it should be. The people have the right to govern them-selves. Some thing long forgotten by DC. Most folks don't know it any more, but in your county the Sheriff has the upper hand in all matters of law. Or should have by the constitution. Just as the left has set asaid the fact the the will of the people is what should make laws not them and what they alone want.
I also seen a list of nations that have Socialized Health-care. Of them almost every one is looking at it being a burden they can not keep up. I work in Health care, and I can tell you that what I see them doing to be ready for Obummer care is not a good thing. Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good. The elderly in this nation will be forced out long term care and sent home, this is not a good thing. You see the care they get in long turm care is meant to give them a little more time on this earth. I work in long term care, and most of the family members I talk with simply can not give the care that is needed. Obummercare does have some good points don't get me wrong. Nothing in this world is with out them. Yet if you look at the cuts that will be made in medicare and medacade just to pay for all the people that will be added to them, it simply adds up to less coverage, and lower quality of care. If any thinks this is wrong, ask any one that lives in Canada why they would rather come to the USA for care.
Now lets talk about taxes. The only way to ever gt the rich to pay their share is go to a flat tax. this will do many thing for this nation. First off every one will be paying in the same. If you make 100 that year you would pay in 15. (assuming a 15% flat tax) if you make a mil you pay in 150,000, I think the math is right any how. Next, we would not have to pay out what ever it is to keep IRS working. Big savings there I bet. Cap and Tax will only drive this nation further into debt. How? With the passing of that bill you will see your house hold bills double if not more. If their is less disposable cash, then we don't spend as much. if we don't spend, we also do not produce. You see if it cost more to make, then we have one of 2 things happen. Bissness closes, we import more to make up for that. Or they move over seas. Ether way jobs are lost. With that comes less income, and more unemployment going out.
Sorry for all the misspelled words, I am dyslexic and my spell check does not work on this sight for some reason. It was earlier.
Ok got it working, Hope I fixed all the misspelled words, if not forgive me.

People should be very careful generalizing their personal experiences. There are far too many serious issues at stake to be saying ridiculous, unproven, and likely false things such as "Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good."

Facile solutions are pablum.

And how about some respect? "Obummer"? How can you be taken seriously when you belittle serious discourse.

[randolph]

There is talk of changing Federal law to allow states to go into bankruptcy and restructure their finances. In view of the dire situation here in California, this may be the way to go. After years of handing out plush salaries and generous retirements and borrowing money to cover operating costs, the state is frozen in a political stalemate. No one is willing to give up anything, the legislature is a farce. Jerry Brown sincerely wants to do something but his power is very limited by the initiative process that has locked expenses into the Constitution.
Bankruptcy would allow the state to break down all the special interests and start from scratch. Sounds good to me.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by smc

People should be very careful generalizing their personal experiences. There are far too many serious issues at stake to be saying ridiculous, unproven, and likely false things such as "Most of the Docs, are looking to relocate in a nation that does not have government controlled health care. It has nothing to with their pay, they are looking to find a place they can do some good."

Facile solutions are pablum.

And how about some respect? "Obummer"? How can you be taken seriously when you belittle serious discourse.

Well to start when I say most docs, I am talking of the ones I work with and talk to daily. Like I say I work in health care, you don't think a topic as big as health care would not be talked about. Give me a brake.
Also it is not the discourse I belittle, it the idiot that wishes to impose a law on the people that he has set up so he does not have to take part in it.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Well to start when I say most docs, I am talking of the ones I work with and talk to daily.

Of course you are. My point is that to extrapolate from that to make a political point is ridiculous. I have a primary care physician and three specialists I see regularly. Each and every one of them thinks something quite different from you have posted. The physicians I know in the healthcare program at my university think otherwise, too.

As Mark Twain once wrote, "All generalizations are false, including this one."

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Like I say I work in health care, you don't think a topic as big as health care would not be talked about. Give me a brake.

I never wrote anything that remotely corresponds to your quote above, so don't put words in my mouth ... even if by inference.

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Also it is not the discourse I belittle, it the idiot that wishes to impose a law on the people that he has set up so he does not have to take part in it.

Of course it's the discourse that you belittle, denigrate, etc. By calling names and making facile generalizations, you diminish the quality of the discourse. Instead of discussing healthcare reform and the legislation on its merits, or exclusively on its merits, you resort to "Obummercare" and now, calling someone an idiot. Do you mean Obama? How do you suppose you would fare in a test against Obama using some of the standardized tests to measure if one is an "idiot" -- e.g., the standard IQ test that rates one who scores below 20 as an "idiot"?

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by smc

Of course you are. My point is that to extrapolate from that to make a political point is ridiculous. I have a primary care physician and three specialists I see regularly. Each and every one of them thinks something quite different from you have posted. The physicians I know in the healthcare program at my university think otherwise, too.

You must live in the North east.

As Mark Twain once wrote, "All generalizations are false, including this one."



I never wrote anything that remotely corresponds to your quote above, so don't put words in my mouth ... even if by inference.

Why not you seem be rather doing that.



Of course it's the discourse that you belittle, denigrate, etc. By calling names and making facile generalizations, you diminish the quality of the discourse. Instead of discussing healthcare reform and the legislation on its merits, or exclusively on its merits, you resort to "Obummercare" and now, calling someone an idiot. Do you mean Obama? How do you suppose you would fare in a test against Obama using some of the standardized tests to measure if one is an "idiot" -- e.g., the standard IQ test that rates one who scores below 20 as an "idiot"?

Yet it is Obama I am calling an idiot. Any one willing to push on the people any thing they know is not going to work is an Idiot. Besides all that, as I posted above, find a way to mesher comincents and I know I would out shine Obumer. Or as folks to point out, His name is an acronym for One Big Ass mistake America.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Yet it is Obama I am calling an idiot. Any one willing to push on the people any thing they know is not going to work is an Idiot. Besides all that, as I posted above, find a way to mesher comincents and I know I would out shine Obumer. Or as folks to point out, His name is an acronym for One Big Ass mistake America.

Your responses don't even warrant rebuttal, since you write idiotic things suggesting that Obama is pushing something on the people that he knows is not going to work.

Truly, ignorance is bliss.

I would bet anything that you couldn't articulate an alternative to the healthcare legislation that would make any sense.

[ila]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Well to start when I say most docs, I am talking of the ones I work with and talk to daily. Like I say I work in health care, you don't think a topic as big as health care would not be talked about. Give me a brake...

Being a doctor does not necessarly make one knowledgeable about the intricacies of socialised medicine. It has never been done in the US so I rather doubt there are many doctors that have enough knowledge of the subject to speak intimately of it. One should actually examine how other countries with socialised healthcare operate before making blanket statements such as what you have posted.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by ila

Being a doctor does not necessarly make one knowledgeable about the intricacies of socialised medicine. It has never been done in the US so I rather doubt there are many doctors that have enough knowledge of the subject to speak intimately of it. One should actually examine how other countries with socialised healthcare operate before making blanket statements such as what you have posted.

Will to truly understand thing one must have at lest some first hand knowledge of how it works. You know as well as I do that should I tell you how an 18 wheel works it would seem Greek to you. (Well if you never had to deal with one that is) Yet for some one that has spent better than 1/2 his life in or under one, it would be clear as a bell. I made this statement at work, that was when we found and printed a copy of the bill, before it was passed, and gave it real close look.
Now keep in mind I have said before I am dyslexic, so rather than take the week it would have taken me to really read it, I had some one read it to me, then I went back to the parts I wanted to really look at. So what I have to say about the parts of the bill I did study, come from my understanding of the thing.
The thing I find sad about the who thing though, if it could be made to work, why is it that Canada and England, are now looking for a way to replace it. They both clam they can not keep it going. The cost is to high, and there some other reason that I can not call to mind right off.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

The thing I find sad about the who thing though, if it could be made to work, why is it that Canada and England, are now looking for a way to replace it. They both clam they can not keep it going. The cost is to high, and there some other reason that I can not call to mind right off.

I don?t know and doubt that Canada and England are looking to replace their whole health system, but they are still significant cheaper than the old US health system.

If you have knowledge about it you possible can explain me [B]rational[\B] how it gets more expensive with a system that is cheaper in every other country. I have no interest what you think of single persons, only about what is financial wrong about the health reform? What is different to other countries where a social health care with comparable quality works?

Originally Posted by Tread

I don?t know what is made with Obama care, but how can it be more expensive to your insurance payments? What are they doing wrong with the Obama care that it doesn?t get closer to other countries in price?
The cost to start this should be taken by the government, the trillion you (Tracy) mentioned. There is no surprise that this cost much at the beginning, but this should be amortized over time.

[randolph]

A Federal judge has struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional, based on the stipulation that everyone must have healthcare or be fined. Since that requirement cannot be modified, the entire bill is struck down. He stated Congress does not have the authority to require people to have health insurance.
A single payer system, like Canada's would have avoided this problem.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

A Federal judge has struck down Obamacare as unconstitutional, based on the stipulation that everyone must have healthcare or be fined. Since that requirement cannot be modified, the entire bill is struck down. He stated Congress does not have the authority to require people to have health insurance.
A single payer system, like Canada's would have avoided this problem.

Any objective person knew that Obamacare violated the Constitution. Yet Obama and the House & Senate all charged ahead with passing Obamacare anyway. Why? Are they really that out of touch with the Constitution and the American people? Isn't Egypt looking for a new dictator? Let's send them all there.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

I don’t know and doubt that Canada and England are looking to replace their whole health system, but they are still significant cheaper than the old US health system.

If you have knowledge about it you possible can explain me [B]rational[\B] how it gets more expensive with a system that is cheaper in every other country. I have no interest what you think of single persons, only about what is financial wrong about the health reform? What is different to other countries where a social health care with comparable quality works?

http://www.burtonreport.com/infhealt...healthserv.htm

Not the page I was looking for but it will do.

The cost is not in the price tag, it is in the budget. If a government can not find the funds to pay for something, ( and they are of the mind of the liberal left here in the USA, ) then the cost does not matter. If you have a piece tag of $20 but only have $5 on hand then it simply is not affordable.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

http://www.burtonreport.com/infhealt...healthserv.htm

Not the page I was looking for but it will do.

I assume the above was a reply to my first paragraph and not my question.

The Link doesn?t do it for me. It names flaws of mostly the British system. I could also say that a republic doesn?t work good, look at Egypt who are formal a republic (maybe a bit extreme as an example).
If I get it right the article is written by one doctor, Charles V. Burton, and all further Links go to the same site, and there are no references. Mr. Burton seems to me somewhat biased in that area:

Originally Posted by www.burtonreport.com

There are some indications (however slight) that the seemingly inexorable rise of the socialistic mentality (along with its more virulent cousins, fascism and communism) may have reached their "high tide."

There is not the perfect health system, and no one says you have to adopt the English system.
As example take Italy who have developed a system close to the British, and they are doing pretty well. Or take France as a different example. There are also systems with a basic health care and an extra private care for everyone who wants more.

Originally Posted by Rainrider

The cost is not in the price tag, it is in the budget. If a government can not find the funds to pay for something, ( and they are of the mind of the liberal left here in the USA, ) then the cost does not matter. If you have a piece tag of $20 but only have $5 on hand then it simply is not affordable.

That is a very bad analogy with the price tag. You totally forget the ongoing costs.
If you assume the USA exists more than 20 years, you could take a ?credit? and save/spent less money over the time.
Simplified you pay twice as much as countries with comparable health care, relative few people get health service or too late, and a lot of people get bankrupt to afford health care in your country.

But I want an answer to:
What did they wrong with the Obama care that it wouldn?t get closer to other countries in price? Why so many say you can not afford it, when your ongoing health costs eat a bigger hole in your budget over time.

[ila]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Will to truly understand thing one must have at lest some first hand knowledge of how it works. You know as well as I do that should I tell you how an 18 wheel works it would seem Greek to you. (Well if you never had to deal with one that is) Yet for some one that has spent better than 1/2 his life in or under one, it would be clear as a bell. I made this statement at work, that was when we found and printed a copy of the bill, before it was passed, and gave it real close look.
Now keep in mind I have said before I am dyslexic, so rather than take the week it would have taken me to really read it, I had some one read it to me, then I went back to the parts I wanted to really look at. So what I have to say about the parts of the bill I did study, come from my understanding of the thing.
The thing I find sad about the who thing though, if it could be made to work, why is it that Canada and England, are now looking for a way to replace it. They both clam they can not keep it going. The cost is to high, and there some other reason that I can not call to mind right off.

I can't speak for England, but Canada is not looking to replace the current healthcare system. Every government will always make minor changes and tweaks, but there is no movement to replace the system.

Now back to my original point in your quote and the first sentence of your quote. I wrote that just because one is a doctor in the US does not necessarily make that person an expert or even knowledgeable about socialized healthcare. One would actually have to work in socialized healthcare to be able to properly form an opinion and the majority of doctors in the US have not worked in socialized healthcare.

Next point; a great many countries in Europe also have socialized healthcare and it is functioning well in those countries.

Last point; There is a good chance that I know more about 18 wheel trucks than you do so don't start making assumptions about what I know and what I don't know.

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by ila

I can't speak for England, but Canada is not looking to replace the current healthcare system. Every government will always make minor changes and tweaks, but there is no movement to replace the system.

Now back to my original point in your quote and the first sentence of your quote. I wrote that just because one is a doctor in the US does not necessarily make that person an expert or even knowledgeable about socialized healthcare. One would actually have to work in socialized healthcare to be able to properly form an opinion and the majority of doctors in the US have not worked in socialized healthcare.

Next point; a great many countries in Europe also have socialized healthcare and it is functioning well in those countries.

Last point; There is a good chance that I know more about 18 wheel trucks than you do so don't start making assumptions about what I know and what I don't know.

Well to start with I did not make any assumption at all. If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that I said IF YOU HAD NEVER HAD TO DEAL WITH ONE> there for any assumption on that statement looks to be on your part not mine.

I will have to look for the web sight to be sure, though I do know that england is in fact looking for a way to one of 2 things, Cut cost, to make it more affordable, or find some way to raise the needed funds to pay for the health care as is. As it stands now, (should I find the web sight) you wil also see that many people in many of the places that do have socialized health care, can not get drugs they need, or in some cases the care they needed. The Government simply can not afford the cost.
This is why in Obumercare there is a close that gives the goverment the right to deny care. If you look up the text of the bill you will find this on page 380 lines 10and 11.