[nolidad]

Originally Posted by jengoesup

I have a few more conclusions to draw.

Since we proved that PolitiFact is a reputable source of information, this means that Sarah Palin is full of it when it comes to death panels. As are all the people who agree with her; Newt Gingrich is often cited as being one of the more visible supporters of Palin's death panel theory.

It's not as though Gingrich or Palin are stupid: Gingrich holds an undergraduate (Emory), masters (Tulane), and P.h.D (Tulane) and has taught as a professor himself, so he is clearly capable of some form of critical analysis and thought.

Palin earned a B.S. from from the University of Idaho, and that is as far as her academic qualifications go. However, being able to graduate from University says to me that on some level you know how to read and repeat verbatim in an essay and/or exam format.

If there is any kind of conspiracy here, it is motivated from the right, given the fact that two degree holding, right-wing people are able to read a document and willfully misinterpret it. Or maybe the administrators of Tulane, Emory, and U Idaho were persuaded into granting Gingrich and Palin their degrees. Maybe someone else stood in for them at university and wrote their names on the tests. Or someone poisoned their food, or they knocked their heads on Capitol Hill in the same location where Clinton broke her arm.

Either way, the death panel theory is just ludicrous. It disturbs me that such statements by both Palin and Gingrich don't undermine their credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of their peers, and especially the American public, more. (Not that Palin really has a lot more credibility to lose, but SOMEONE believed her...)

Just a quick question fo ryou on the integrity of politifact check. Did they report on the integrity of Obamas claims that pediaricians do tonsilectomies on repeated sore throat cases because they make more money?

Or how about Obamas claim that endocrinologists routiinely amputate the feet of diabetics because the they cab charge 30-40K for the surgery and line their pockets?

If they did, is it backed up witht he sources? Do they explain that very very few pediatricians do tonislectom ies and that no PCP's and endocrinologists do orthopedic surgery?

They railed on Beck when he qoutes a book co authored by Holdren as liar liar pants on fire, and skewer him because he missed how many countries do anchorbabies (oh wait I remember campaign Obama visiting all 57 United States) Obamas comment made no difference to me ( I knew he was tired) and Becks made no difference either.

The alternative here was to let these companies collapse, and thus, allow millions of people to lose their jobs. As far as I know this was the only option. I feel as though these people by and large fit into the Republican demographic, though I can't necessarily prove that.

You seem to forget that 70% of all private industry jobs are worked in small businesses and Obama lets hundreds of thousands of these folks go unemployed. and fopr the record, if GM, Chrysler, and their suppliers went bankrupt and folded it would have been less than 250,000 jobs. At the beginning of 2009 GM emnployed only about 90K people down from their high of 500,000 in the 60's

Because Republicans are generally in favor of de-regulation, which businesses love. They are less accountable to anyone and are free to make a profit in whichever way they choose.

not de-regulation but limited regulation. Just to remind you the housing and banking crises that came with it was due to the govt. meddling in the banking indistry. Obamas cronies in ACORN in the 70's-80's and 90's kept putting so much pressure on teh banks to give mortgages to teh uncredit worthy that finally Pres. Clinton assured the basnks freddie mae and Fannie mac would guarentte the loans. That started the downward spiral with all sorts of exotic mortgagfe instruments, even no credit verification mortgages. Banks sold these things because they knew they would go belly up (especially the ARMS) and they did. It was the conservatives who resisted this forewarning of the crises it would create. Even Pres. Bush II warned in 2003 of the dangers only to rebuffed by Reid and Barney Frank.

And by the way what is wrong with making a profit? Unles it is done illegally of course.

And then Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin MAKE UP stuff about the health plan that WOULD HELP PEOPLE. That would help them. What the hell?? Ms. Palin, what the heck are you doing in public office if you are not there to serve your constituents in their best interests?

Jen-- Social security is gojng bankrupt, medicare is banjrupt medicaid is going bankrupt, vet care is deplorable, cash for klunkers- they are weeks behind paying the dealers the money they promised them within 10 days! Th edollar is being devalued, our debt is stratospheric (over $100,000,000,000,000 and counting), foreign nations are becoming more hesitant about buying more of our debt because the national debt is over $12,000,000,000,000 and increasing by almot $5,000,000,000 a day or $347,222 a minute. R U really confident that these people will be able to assume control of most of this nations health care????

And don't let anyone kid you -- Obams if he gets what he wants will within 15 years nationalize the health system - he repeatedly said as much on the campaign trail. And as soon as our economy crumbles under the weight of the national debt we will either have to tax people to the point of personal insolvency or ration health care because there simply won't be enough m0oney to pay for all the needs. National health care hasn't been succesful in any country-- why do we think it will be here?

Liberal politicians cry fairness in th etax system and that the rich always get the best tax breaks. But yet they don't tell you that the top 1% of taxpayers pay as much as the bottom 90% of th etax payers. So who shoulders an unfair burden of the taxes ? The bottom 90% or the top 1%??

And? I'm not advocating for Dem infallibility here, though I feel as though the Republican party line better serves business interests. Which businesses pulled out for Obama? How much did they contribute? Which businesses pulled out for McCain, and how much did they contribute?

This shows 527 org. campaign contributions the first GOP 527 comes in 6th.

http://flutemandy.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/527s.jpg


2008 Presidential Election - Top Retail Companies and CEOs Reveal Politics and Openly Support Republicans and Decmocrats Like Obama and McCain

This above shows that big business is suppoorting both candidates in about equal numbers. The line you said above is left rhetoric and basically untrue. What is true is that conservatives beleive that the less you burden big and small businesses the more they are able to pursue their business, make money and employ more people. Liberals generally beleive that stricter govt. oversight will do the same. It is a difference in ideology in how to get things done.

Conservatives are more atrict constitutionally minded (meaning minimalist govt. intrusion)
Liberals are more governemetn activist- big govt. proiduces better results.

Seeing as how Obama has been pretty transparent on wanting to both push a green and a health care initiative, I hardly see the problem with GE being the one who makes this money. GE making money would be a good thing, I think, seeing as they are one of the largest employers in America. If Obama follows up with his plan to increase taxes for the wealthy and enforce government regulation, that's awesome

Actually they are a multinational corp. and a big employer but far from the biggest. They are the 3rd or 4th largest American based corp. So this big business is OKAY? Oil is bad. Insurers are bad, bankers are bad, investors are bad (well most of them are IMHO), th elist oges on-but GE is good! HMMM???? Could it also be that GE owns NBC and MSNBC and these networks openly campaigned for OBAMA?? So the billions GE tends to make through no bid or rigged bid contracts are OK?

Haliburton Bad- but they are the only company already able to do the services that the govt. contracteds out ot hem in Iraq and AFghanistasn.

See you are just as biased as a conservative, you have your big businesses that are your Alist. I just want ot see the govt. get out of the way. Pretty much everything it gets involved in other than those things that they specifically alloowed to do in the constitution they mess up or make more expensive for everybody.

If y9u don't believe that last statement- just google health spending and education costs since the 60's. These have been the 2 highest rising segments of our economy. They also ar ethe 2 venues that the govt. has gotten intricately involved more and more in since the 60's

Medicare? overspenind exponentially than projected.
prescription drug option under Bush? way over budget and in trouble.

Education - we spend more to educaste less than any other country. Obama has been talking about choice and competition in health care. I wish he felt the same in education. Give parents vouchers to spend on any bona fide school and watch test scores skyroicket. Th elibs wanted to shut down (and did for a short while till the outroar forced thewm to undo) the voucher program for disadvanted D.C. kids. They were vastly outperforming their public school counter parts and going on t o college in vastly greater numbers. But teh NEA squaked and howled so much that th elibs voted to defund the vouchers . How is that for compassionate liberalism.

And if you want to tax the wealthy more-- how much more? The IRS has shown the top 1% pay more than the bottom 90% how much more of their wealth do you wish to confiscate?

[nolidad]

If there is any kind of conspiracy here, it is motivated from the right, given the fact that two degree holding, right-wing people are able to read a document and willfully misinterpret it. Or maybe the administrators of Tulane, Emory, and U Idaho were persuaded into granting Gingrich and Palin their degrees. Maybe someone else stood in for them at university and wrote their names on the tests. Or someone poisoned their food, or they knocked their heads on Capitol Hill in the same location where Clinton broke her arm.

Either way, the death panel theory is just ludicrous. It disturbs me that such statements by both Palin and Gingrich don't undermine their credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of their peers, and especially the American public, more. (Not that Palin really has a lot more credibility to lose, but SOMEONE believed her...)

Well Britain has death panels called NICE. Canada rations health care and people die in Canada because the beuracracy intervens in govt. decisions. And when America socializes our health care and the profligate spending of the past 2 decades catches up with us and the govt starts runnign out of money- because health care is already one of the biggest portions of the fed budget, the US will start rationing health care as well. And with what Obamas health advisers have advocated in teh past and the present-- it is a very chilling scenario.

As for conspiracies

the majority of major newspapers are liberal
the majority of tv broadcasters are liberal
the super majority of college professors espousing a preference are libersl (pew/gallup poll put it near 85%)
Clinton created the "war room" to disseminate info quickly
Obama has ACORN the largest govt. funded community activist org. they are nationwide
the UN is a socialist leaning org. so isn't UNICEF, UNESCO et al.
the CFRR, the trilateralists, and the Bildeburgs are all socialist leaning think tanks.

Both sides have their "conspiracies" but the lefts is far more organized. Conservatives are accused of getting talking points form heritage- but that is just untrue. Heritage is a source but just think this administration opened up websites and email addresses for people to get talking points. Obama called the dems to tell them what to say at the town hall meetings.. Which side gets more talking points??????

[nolidad]

BTW here are a few charts showing that the wealthy are carrying the nation ALREADY in taxes.

Top 1% Pay More (Income) Taxes Than Bottom 95%

CARPE DIEM: How Much Does Top 1% Pay of All Income Taxes?

this chart is from 2006 data. Notice that the top 5% pay 60% of all fed taxes leaving the bottom 95% paying only 40% of taxes So you tell me do the wealthy have great tax breaks as the left constantly cries out??

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by nolidad

BTW here are a few charts showing that the wealthy are carrying the nation ALREADY in taxes.

Top 1% Pay More (Income) Taxes Than Bottom 95%

CARPE DIEM: How Much Does Top 1% Pay of All Income Taxes?

this chart is from 2006 data. Notice that the top 5% pay 60% of all fed taxes leaving the bottom 95% paying only 40% of taxes So you tell me do the wealthy have great tax breaks as the left constantly cries out??

Mathematically, the wealthy carrying the bulk of the tax burden makes sense. If two people both pay 20% of their income in taxes, a person making $100K will pay $20K. A person making $40K will pay $8K. Now I realize we don't have a flat tax system. I don't remember exactly how the percentages work out, but conceptually, a person making $100K would have to have their tax rate reduced to 8% in order for it to be comparable to a person making $40K being taxed at 20%. Realistically, the poor pay less in taxes because they need that money more for day-to-day purposes, but functionally even if we all paid the same percentage of our incomes in taxes, the wealthy would still carry the bulk of the debt.

[nolidad]

Just another comment or two. I have now watched vidoe from about 15 town hall meetings where dems were "attacked" by the "thugs" "brownshirts". "Nazis" "unamericans" "violent mobs"
among some of the names liberals have been calling these folks. I find it amazing that the vastr majority of the peopel were middle age and elderly. Many women, handicapped and yes some well dressed folk. Unruly and loud?? Absolutely-- but then again Madame Pelosi said being disruptive is patriotic so maybe they were just followeing her advice.

Here is a wiki link to Saul alinskis liberal handbook- rules for radicals. read through abd about 1/2 way down you see Obama is a big proponent of this play book the left uses to attack. The other link is the 12 rules he taught th eleft to use to bring down th eright.

Saul Alinsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

[nolidad]

Sorry for hogging asll the space; but one more link showing the vast left lean in college acedemia.

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds (washingtonpost.com)

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by nolidad

. And when America socializes our health care

well it is a good thing that will never happen. Nobody is really advocating socialized medicine. No one is supporting the government employing doctors and owning hospitals and such. They just want to add a public insurance option that would be available to people along side the sea of private options.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by jengoesup

Nooo. Cities usually tend to be Democrat, as demographically they compose the poor and/or minorities such as blacks and Hispanics.

Basically, Democrats tend to be coastal dwellers, the young, the urban poor, ethnic and racial minorities, socially liberal people, the college educated, scientists, urban dwellers, and now increasingly, suburban AND white working class.

Republicans tend to be the wealthy, Southerners, Midwesterners, (big) business, brokers, bankers, the rural white poor, military, evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, and social conservatives.

I agree with your first statement - Democrats have typically won the large metro areas because of those demographics. However, that flies in the face of this comment: "I'm not going to lie: I look at the Republican base and they seem far less educated. Statistically speaking they constitute a certain demographic of the population. They vote against their own economic interests in favor of their prejudices/values." I always felt that the lack of education plays a large part of those who are poor and are on welfare. If you've ever been in a Social Security/unemployment office, you will hear people talk about their welfare check as their "paycheck". Historically, maintaining and even increasing welfare benefits have been an anchor of the democrats platform. Seems to me that any group that would "vote against their own economic interests in favor of their prejudices/values" would be this group. And since you mentioned prejudices/values, how many people voted for Obama based more on his color rather than the issues?

I'll get on my soapbox here. I know that 30 years ago, I would be arguing against myself here because I used to be a Democrat and an admitted liberal. Heck, I was young and had great confidence in politicians. The biggest lie I believed was that the Republicans held all the money. Then I thought, if that is true, why do the Democrats consistently win in the largest populated States and cities where all the money is? During that time, I got married and had kids. The world started looking different to me, I was no longer just looking out for myself. I also found that decisions being made by politicians were going to have a profound impact on those I loved most. This factor alone was a huge part of my 180 degree turn in my political affiliations. I realized that political promises were typically mostly empty (except when those Republicans who signed the Contract with America in '94 gave up their seats, living up to their promise to limit their terms of service). How many politicians today would have the conviction to do that?

Having said all that, I used to think that with my college education and my intelligence made me better than those with lesser social status and opportunity in life. That was the elitist in me and I have been humbled by that attitude. I hope I never do that again. Some of you think the only things that drive conservatives is fear mongering and hysteria. That is far from the truth, but makes for good press.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Sorry for hogging asll the space; but one more link showing the vast left lean in college acedemia.

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds (washingtonpost.com)

This is somewhat misleading. The article--rather, the researcher himself--says there is "possible discrimination," but that is a world away from a conspiracy in the upper strata of these institutions. More importantly it says "The study did not attempt to examine whether the political views of faculty members affect the content of their courses." That would be more germane I think. Or at least more interesting.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well Britain has death panels called NICE.

From anything I can read about that organization, it doesn't seem so much a "death panel" (whatever that is supposed to mean) as it is a body that regulates the disbursement of insurance funds. Seems normal to me.

All insurers (public or private) have limits on what they will pay. You will not find a single insurer (public, private, or even personal [rich uncle]) who will be able to pay for every single conceivable potentially life-saving treatment.

Insurers cannot possibly cover all possible treatment. It's just not feasible. Private insurers have copays, deductibles, restrictions (even for things that are not the much-hated "pre-existing conditions"... like experimental drugs).

Don't think for a minute that private insurers don't make similar "threshhold" calls (like comparing the benefit to quality of life vs the cost of the treatment) when determing their guidelines for what they will and will not cover.

Yes, it seems quite harsh to put a monetary value on a human life, but you are forced to unless you plan to run all insurance out of business. Private and public and even personal insurers all eventually reach a point at which they can't pay more.

"Rationing" is not a scary concept, it's simple economics. All resources (even money to pay for healthcare, even healthcare itself) are scarce. They have to be rationed because we don't have an unlimited supply. Prices are how we do it.

Everything has a price. Everything costs something. You can't just make up a system in which all healthcare procedures are covered by insurance, because insurers (any insurers) have limited (even if large) resources to pay claims.

If you want to make a reasonable argument, argue that insurers (public and private) have ridiculous inefficiences that cause them to incur unnecessary costs that limit the amount of reasonable coverage they can pay for.

If you want to talk about "death panels," talk about places like North Korea that intentionally limit basic care (food, shelter, vaccines, etc) to their citizens. Don't talk about countries that have legitimately functioning systems.

I am a strong opponent of all things public, but at least I'm rational about it and don't fearmonger. Public healthcare isn't bad because it seeks to destroy life (c'mon, come off it!), but because it is inefficient in its pursuit to protect it.

The argument for public healthcare isn't that it is more efficient, but that it is more equitable. Most things (shoes, cars, even houses) seem fair to ration strictly on individual ability to pay. If you're rich, you can drive a BMW. If not, hello Honda.

It seems unfair, however, to limit a person's access to life-saving emergency treatment because they cannot afford to pay the necessary price rationed to that care. It seems somehow beneficial to society that we all shoulder that burden.

That's the real issue: Social burden vs Public inefficiency. Does the benefit of providing healthcare to all on reasonably equitable cost terms (so that the poor and the wealthy can both obtain similar basic care) outweigh the public cost inefficiencies?

You can't reasonably claim there is no social benefit to public healthcare. A healthy society is better than a sick one. You also can't reasonably claim public healthcare would be as efficient. There are, at least, additional transaction costs in collecting taxes.

The question isn't whether Obama or other so-called "socialists" want to kill people (c'mon... stop being stupid! They're not really pre-antichrists), but whether their pie-in-the-sky plans will really help people as much as they think they will.

Your conspiracy theories (I'm not even sure what the "conspiracy" would be... that they want to remain in power? Duh. So do the Republicans. That's just politics.) do absolutely nothing to further discussion of the real issues at hand.

p.s. It is kind of ironic to me, as a huge C. S. Lewis fan, that Britain would name [consciously or unconsciously, I can't say] their public healthcare regulation body after Lewis' real death panel (though not for healthcare) in That Hideous Strength.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by thesteve

Mathematically, the wealthy carrying the bulk of the tax burden makes sense. If two people both pay 20% of their income in taxes, a person making $100K will pay $20K. A person making $40K will pay $8K. Now I realize we don't have a flat tax system. I don't remember exactly how the percentages work out, but conceptually, a person making $100K would have to have their tax rate reduced to 8% in order for it to be comparable to a person making $40K being taxed at 20%. Realistically, the poor pay less in taxes because they need that money more for day-to-day purposes, but functionally even if we all paid the same percentage of our incomes in taxes, the wealthy would still carry the bulk of the debt.

A flat system would be fair. I am not in the upper class, nor the upper middle class, probably not even in the middle of the middle class, but taxing the wealthy at %ages as much as 4X higher than the rest is inherently unfair. I like yor example. At 20% someone making $1,000,000 pays $200,000 in taxes, someone making $100,000 pays $20,000, and someone making $10,000 pays $2,000 (of course this is beofre deductions and exemptions.) As it is now the millionaire pays $395,000, the next pays Approx $30,000 and the one making $10,000 not only pays nothing but if they have a dependent get about $1,800 more because of the EIC.

You will find very very few people saying we as a society should not do things to help the poor, but to qoute a tired old cliche most people want it to be a "hand up" not a long term "hand out" unless their are extraordinary reasons someone needs to be n the public dole.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by slap_j

This is somewhat misleading. The article--rather, the researcher himself--says there is "possible discrimination," but that is a world away from a conspiracy in the upper strata of these institutions. More importantly it says "The study did not attempt to examine whether the political views of faculty members affect the content of their courses." That would be more germane I think. Or at least more interesting.

Well I would encourage you to watch th evideo --"expelled" no intelligence allowed". by Ben Stein. This is a man who is far from a radical, is not a creationist, is not even Christian, but documents the liberal discrimination that goes on on campuses and with professors. Also if you wish I can give you the email addresses of the Christina Law Association and the UCLJ and they will gladly send you info that documetns how the vast liberal philosophy of professors also spills into their teachings (and textbooks- ecoscience being an example). It is natural that your philosophy colors your presentation of info- whether liberal or conservative. Churchill Ward is just an extreme publicized example of htis happening all the time on a less radical scale.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by nolidad

A flat system would be fair. I am not in the upper class, nor the upper middle class, probably not even in the middle of the middle class, but taxing the wealthy at %ages as much as 4X higher than the rest is inherently unfair. I like yor example. At 20% someone making $1,000,000 pays $200,000 in taxes, someone making $100,000 pays $20,000, and someone making $10,000 pays $2,000 (of course this is beofre deductions and exemptions.) As it is now the millionaire pays $395,000, the next pays Approx $30,000 and the one making $10,000 not only pays nothing but if they have a dependent get about $1,800 more because of the EIC.

You will find very very few people saying we as a society should not do things to help the poor, but to qoute a tired old cliche most people want it to be a "hand up" not a long term "hand out" unless their are extraordinary reasons someone needs to be n the public dole.

Even a flat tax, while more fair, leaves the upper class shouldering the bulk of the tax burden. Something I'd be interested in seeing (I don't know if the data is out there), is how much money the upper class deducts from their taxable income based on charitable donations and what their average tax rate becomes after said adjustments.

[nolidad]

The question isn't whether Obama or other so-called "socialists" want to kill people (c'mon... stop being stupid! They're not really pre-antichrists), but whether their pie-in-the-sky plans will really help people as much as they think they will.

NAte I already said I don't beleive Obama wants to kill people. Even the extreme rhetoric of death panels I have heard on shows like Beck have been careful to say that they don't beleive Obama wants to kill people. It is about will nationalizing health care will help people or WHEN the suffocating debt we continue to grow finally hits us- how deep will rationing have to go because of lack of funds. With the advisers Obama has surrounded himself with and their public pronouncements, it si chilling. And I am a cycnic when it comes to confirmation hearing conversions be they liberal or conservative.

All insurers (public or private) have limits on what they will pay. You will not find a single insurer (public, private, or even personal [rich uncle]) who will be able to pay for every single conceivable potentially life-saving treatment.

Once again I cannot speak for all 1300 private insurers, but of the 50 or so I see every year- I know that all treatments are covered withth eexception of "experimental" therapies, and these may be covered on review by the panel of physicians the insurer uses.

"

Rationing" is not a scary concept, it's simple economics. All resources (even money to pay for healthcare, even healthcare itself) are scarce. They have to be rationed because we don't have an unlimited supply. Prices are how we do it.

Yes but under a govt. plan with our govt. as bankrupt as it is-- they will not ration care by price but curtail services because they have less money. Private insurers spend money on the sick not ht ehealthy.

Everything has a price. Everything costs something. You can't just make up a system in which all healthcare procedures are covered by insurance, because insurers (any insurers) have limited (even if large) resources to pay claims.

Agreed. But the private insurers plan ahead carefully to insure reserves cover expected expenditures. The govt. has shown they do not do that! Yeah health care costs go up- but other than not having a hip replacement done on a terminal ill person or other non essential care to ease the pain of the terminal- insurers are not rationing care except according to the terms of th econtract the insured and insurer signed. It is a truism that the more money you have the better coverage you can obtain. That has been since someone became wealthier than somneone else.

Don't think for a minute that private insurers don't make similar "threshhold" calls (like comparing the benefit to quality of life vs the cost of the treatment) when determing their guidelines for what they will and will not cover.

yeah they will not perform nonessential therapies to the terminally ill. They will do all they can to insure comfort whilke they are dying. But I do know that if your policy covers pacemakers, they will pay for an 80 yr. old to have on einstalled if they are able to endure the surgery and are not terminally ill.

I am a strong opponent of all things public, but at least I'm rational about it and don't fearmonger. Public healthcare isn't bad because it seeks to destroy life (c'mon, come off it!), but because it is inefficient in its pursuit to protect it.

No one - Even Sarah Palin on her facebook qoute is accusing public care of seeking to destroy life. It is because of its enormous inefficiency that lives are deswtroyed. Also once again with the advisors Obama has for health and their "CBA" policies and "whole lives systems" The very young and very old will be left out of many benefits for they are "less beneficial" to society as those from 15-40. That is DR. Emmanuels position in print as of this year!! Do yo uunderstand why people are concerned?

It seems unfair, however, to limit a person's access to life-saving emergency treatment because they cannot afford to pay the necessary price rationed to that care. It seems somehow beneficial to society that we all shoulder that burden.

Well in America it is already a very well received LAW that NOONE (emphases mine) will be denied life saving or even critical emergency care based on their inability to pay. Every hospital will safe a life and stabilize for free if the person cannot pay. This has been in place for many many years. That is a throwback to our Judeo-Christina heritage.

You can't reasonably claim there is no social benefit to public healthcare. A healthy society is better than a sick one. You also can't reasonably claim public healthcare would be as efficient. There are, at least, additional transaction costs in collecting taxes.

Without a doubt a healthy society is better than a sick one. So should we ban tobacco (I would), reduce the number of bars and package stores, reduce the output of all distillers, ban trans fats, limit sodium in food, getrid of twinkies and hershey bars, get rid of bread, rice and potatoes cause theiur cartbs and carbs toend ot be bad?? Most of our societies health ills are not because our system is bad but because we as a society live unhealthy lifestyles. This is the largest reason for the expense of our health system-- fixing what we intentionally do to ourselves.

Your conspiracy theories (I'm not even sure what the "conspiracy" would be... that they want to remain in power? Duh. So do the Republicans. That's just politics.) do absolutely nothing to further discussion of the real issues at hand.

Well I did start this thread to talk about teh conspiracy of the left- not just to have even another thread to do health care on.

If you want to make a reasonable argument, argue that insurers (public and private) have ridiculous inefficiences that cause them to incur unnecessary costs that limit the amount of reasonable coverage they can pay for.

But if I had to choose, I choose the smaller inefficiencies of private insurers over th eproven huge inefficiency of public. Private businesses (even insurers) are forced to compete for business . IN this case wiht hundreds of others. Just by the nature of the free market, they are forced to be as efficient as possible of face going outof business. The govt. has no such compulsion on it. Our politicians (both sides of the aisle) just have the mindset of rasing taxes and selling m ore debt.

Yes, it seems quite harsh to put a monetary value on a human life, but you are forced to unless you plan to run all insurance out of business. Private and public and even personal insurers all eventually reach a point at which they can't pay more.

But private insureres have yet to approach the armegeddon scenarios we are facing with public care like medicare and medicaid. They are a business and have to run it well or go outof business. Tehy set aside expected reserves and then a cushion for reasonable emergencies. It would take a disaster we as a nation has yet to face for an insurer to start rationing care.

Govt. plans left being efficient a long time ago. They robbed the reserves to mask the real deficits our governemtn have been running and now there are no reserves but teh promise of a govt. that is racking up ever larger debt to pay that debt. If a CEO did thisd they would go to jail-- Oh wait one did --Bernie Madoff! Now her should be joined by almost 536 fed politicians for running an ever bigger ponzi scheme. See Blue Cross isn't tied into thousands of other interests. They are a business that deals with insurance. They focus on it- work at it, study and study it to be prifitable in it. the govt. does no such thing.

INteresting article in my hometown paper today on America and Canada health care and how candian physicians and hospital administraters rate Americas health care far better than ours. It was written by Mona Charen from "Creators Syndicate" (whatever that is). You may want ot look it up and see the stats and polls conducted.

Also remember that our newighbor to the north has national health care and Obama has praised it as a model for us to do. Many of our citizens will flock to Canadian Rx's for "cheaper" drugs but many canadians flock to America for essential and non essential treatment because of being refused by the govt. health panels or having to wait too long to get treatment. You tell me who gets a higher vote of confidence Americas system with the problems we have withit or Canadas system which even their president of the Canadian Med. Assoc. Dr. Anne Doig, said is in deep crisis and is unsustainable. They are now opening private clinics and allowing privaste insurance again.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by thesteve

Even a flat tax, while more fair, leaves the upper class shouldering the bulk of the tax burden. Something I'd be interested in seeing (I don't know if the data is out there), is how much money the upper class deducts from their taxable income based on charitable donations and what their average tax rate becomes after said adjustments.

the upper class SHOULD pay a bigger percentage towards taxes. I totally support a progressive income tax. I'd also like to see the tax code become more simple. Get rid of deductions, credits, etc. The tax code should be shorter than 50 pages.