[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm not a socialist. I do support the government providing services.

Aha! There's the answer. I thought you were a socialist.

[JerryLove]

It isn't anarchy now.

No there is government. I support there being government... At least one of us has lost track of your point.

It isn't great, but the systems we have now are, as you said, better than the alternative, which is bigger government, more taxes, and all my services with the reliability of the post office. My gosh, look at medicare.

A straw-man. One could also have a smaller government with less taxes.

But yes, please do look at medicare... and see that the government-run medicare is *more efficient* than privateely run medicare.

What's truly funny is your reasoning that anarchy will rain if we don't surrender to big government. I assume you have the typical liberal thought process that the state is never wrong and people can't think for themselves.

Is this your first post on CGR? I'm pretty sure you trying to describe me that way has some old posters blowing milk out of their nose with laughter.

There's a difference between offering services, and taking control. It is interesting that the thing the left fears the most from the current administration is the one thing they want for themselves. More power, more control.

Could you give me an example of where I am adcovating more control or more power?

Since you brought up rhetoric, you have yet to convince me of your better-cheaper-available argument.

Well. I've shown you more than a dozen such government-run programs taht are better and cheaper. I've even shown you that right here in the US, and with the exact same program (Medicare), the government does it better than private companies.

What would it take to convince you?

There is a big difference in meeting the demands of 40 million and 300 million, and I'm sure you know it. And if you go back and reread, you'll see that I also noted differences in demographics, culture, economy, etc. Comparing it to any country in Europe (a common liberal argument) is invalid; our numbers are bigger, and our health needs are different.

Actually, our numbers are smaller than Europe, and state numbers are generally far smaller in the US than Europe (compare Kansas to Germany sometime).

What health needs are different, exactly?

That's pretty suspect. 70 days? I'm not buying that without knowing the facts of those statistics. A quick search of ihi did not yield the statistics in question.

Then find some of your own.

From personal experience, the last time I went to the ER, before I had insurance, I spent 30 minutes waiting at a crowded ER in Miami.

That's far faster than any of the last three visits I was involved in.

In another example, my brother in law, who has cancer, was prepped for a bone marrow transplant within a week of the doctors deciding he needed it (and he doesn't have insurance, how's that for the kicker)

It seems to make my case for me. The provider of insurance, or lack thereof, does not affect the fascets of healthcare you worry will change.

What statistics? What organizations? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the wait times are getting better considering the government just spent 6 billion dollars at addressing the problem. Imagine the cost of funneling that up to cover 300 million people.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/...e/index_e.html

I was speaking to the mess (although, not horrible mess) that is the FAA.

I never made such comparisons. Any comparison is yours, not mine. I'm only pointing out how inefficient those services and agencys are with meeting our needs.

OK. How are they inefficient, and on what do we base the belief that a private company would be more efficient?

It is expensive, yes, but that doesn't make me wish I could through my money at, in your own words, an untrustworthy government. No, not at all.

You already are. You posit a hypothetical that requires anarchy, which you've already said you oppose.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Is this your first post on CGR? I'm pretty sure you trying to describe me that way has some old posters blowing milk out of their nose with laughter.

Ha...oh, I'm sorry, I just assumed from the rhetoric you keep throwing around that you get all your talking points from George Soros.

You keep trying to prove your point by telling me about Europe, apparently without a clear understanding of demographics, social systems, economics, and culture, and then you claim victory using both sides of the argument. After reading thru your FAQ, it's easy to see that you're truly indoctrinated.

I will give you props for being on point, but it makes no difference. You are advocating big government, and that will lead to more taxes and, in the case of health care, a less efficient system(you are talking about a country of 300 million people with vastly growing and diverse medical needs).

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

Ha...oh, I'm sorry, I just assumed from the rhetoric you keep throwing around that you get all your talking points from George Soros.

You keep trying to prove your point by telling me about Europe, apparently without a clear understanding of demographics, social systems, economics, and culture, and then you claim victory using both sides of the argument. After reading thru your FAQ, it's easy to see that you're truly indoctrinated.

This is entirely rhetorical and not on-topic. The result seems evasive. Plus I'm reasonably offended at the accustion that I'm miming an opinion... another thing I have little to no history of.

I will give you props for being on point, but it makes no difference. You are advocating big government, and that will lead to more taxes and, in the case of health care, a less efficient system(you are talking about a country of 300 million people with vastly growing and diverse medical needs).

Of course, I addressed every one of these points, for which you had no response.

- "You support a millitary, therefore big government". Of course, since both you and I advocate the government providing services, your assertion is at best unsupported and at worst hipocritical. I suspect I want a smaller government than you do, but we'd have to look at more issues than just healthcare to tell.

- More taxes: This requires more cost, which I've shown repeatedly is not true. With a 40% reduction in individual care offset by a 12% increase in the number of people covered, my plan is cheaper. It is true that some burden may move from the line on your paycheck that subtracts for medical coverage to the line that subtracts for taxes.. or would except for my other cost-savings idea; but the net effect will be a lower number and, therefore more money in your pocket.

- Government healthcare is less efficient: I've disproven that lie even just within the US healthcare system (where government medicare is cheaper than private medicare).

- There's more people: Another simple lie. It requires me to look at the US as one entity and Europe as a collection of smaller entities. Neither of which is neccessairily true, and even one of which not being done makes Europe as large or larger.

- Different economics, cluture, biology?!?. Other than the fact that they are (generally) practicing a universal healthcare wihch is cheaper and more efficient than our lack of it, *how* are they different.

I've shown with real data that it works, and works better than the existing system. You've speculated that it would not, but offered no acutal support..

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

Ha...oh, I'm sorry, I just assumed from the rhetoric you keep throwing around that you get all your talking points from George Soros.

You keep trying to prove your point by telling me about Europe, apparently without a clear understanding of demographics, social systems, economics, and culture, and then you claim victory using both sides of the argument. After reading thru your FAQ, it's easy to see that you're truly indoctrinated.

you seem to be just as indoctrinated as anybody else, just for the opposite side.

I will give you props for being on point, but it makes no difference. You are advocating big government, and that will lead to more taxes and, in the case of health care, a less efficient system(you are talking about a country of 300 million people with vastly growing and diverse medical needs).

i'm still waiting to see how our medical needs are more diverse than any other 1st world country (Germany, France, Denmark, etc).

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

This is entirely rhetorical and not on-topic.

Its a thread about Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and the PatAct. Almost everything has been off topic.

Protest all you want, but your only answer to my points is "Well, look at Europe." That is not a valid argument. I only chose Canada because it would have the most similar systems, but it's still a far way off. Want more focus?

(cut from balancedpolitics.org, simply because I didn't want to take 20 minutes to type out all my thoughts)

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
12. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

(there are pros on the same site, go check it out)

And I'll add a point 13: If you're visiting another country, your insurance may be worthless. Some Canadians have come to America to have surgery (because of the lack of wait times and better in house medical care, just to have to pay for it out of pocket.

Originally Posted by Bryan

you seem to be just as indoctrinated as anybody else, just for the opposite side.

Probably, I'm just glad I wasn't the only one that noticed.
No, really, you're right. Jerry, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have taken it there.

Originally Posted by Bryan

i'm still waiting to see how our medical needs are more diverse than any other 1st world country (Germany, France, Denmark, etc).

Actually, it's true. Just one example would be the food we eat which has ( IN PART) put a huge burden of diabetes on America. 20.8 million, according to the ADA. Obesity in America claims that nearly 2 out of 3 adults are overweight, which will cause concerns down the road. (Now, this is an important point I won't be accused of not mentioning later: These problems happen in other countries as well) But, not at the levels we have. A Forbes study listed the fattest countries, with America coming in at #9. Europeans countries on the list: Greece (16), UK (28), Germany (43), France (128), among others (none before Greece). Canada is number 35. Nauru is number 1...who knew? (95% of 13,500 people are overweight)

Basically, my point is that approx two hundred million people right now in America are overweight, and that can cause a massive burden down the line. What other country touts that number?

There is also something to be said about the diversity of the population as well. Any doctor will tell you that different ethnic groups can be affected by illnesses and treatment differently. (of course, not all illnesses and treatments, I am generalizing a bit here)

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?

that doesn't mean we can't change this and create a government agency that does run efficiently. Actually, the SEC is a government agency that is quite efficient.

4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.

not necissarily

5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.

I must agree with you here. People go to the doctor far more often now compared to use to, at least that is what my parents tell me.

6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.

but it is not illegal to refuse a heart transplant or cancer treatment if they can't pay.

7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

healthy people already pay for the burden of those show smoke, are obese, etc. that's the way insurance works. whether it's health insurance or car insurance.

9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.

I don't think this is valid reason for making changes. I strongly support a drastic change in the tax code even though it would put many CPAs and people who rely on the complex tax code for work.

11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.

the government can simply claim sovereign immunity and not let you sue them.

12. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

agreed.

[Ax]

Ahem!

Back on topic. Do it.

[bradguitarbeast]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

Ahem!

Back on topic. Do it.

hey i just found this thread.what was the original topic any way?




I love Fred Thompson!

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by bradguitarbeast

hey i just found this thread.what was the original topic any way?




I love Fred Thompson!

this is the original topic

The other day I saw Fred Thompson criticize Ron Paul for wanting to overturn the patriot act and let the prisoners in Gitmo have court dates... I was wondering how many people on CGR actually support this position.

[bradguitarbeast]

well I support fred in this area.they are not US citizens.the right to a trial is a right for citizens.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by bradguitarbeast

well I support fred in this area.they are not US citizens.the right to a trial is a right for citizens.

No... it isn't. Read the constitution.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

You will notice, it does NOT say "the accused citizen."

[bradguitarbeast]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

No... it isn't. Read the constitution.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

You will notice, it does NOT say "the accused citizen."

the constitution was for US citizens.not criminals from another country.that is why it is called the US constitution and bill of rights.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by bradguitarbeast

the constitution was for US citizens.not criminals from another country.that is why it is called the US constitution and bill of rights.

Your reading simply does not hold up to the actual text of the constitution. When citizens alone are being referenced, it is made clear:

"Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "

Only citizens have the right to vote. All people, however, have the right to a speedy and public trial.

[S.B.Nichols]

The constitution covers citizens, residents, and visitors on US soil. It does not cover foreign nationals on Cuban soil (Gitmo is leased, not owned)