Canada's ObamaCare Precedent

Well, if it isnt a business...a government run anything is a sad sight.especially rationed health care with committees deciding how and when you might get treated...there are no guarantees in life...even for your health. You have to work hard and focus on whats important up front. In the US like europe the current under 40s think Uncle Sam or the equivalent will take care of them.

Under socialism eventually you run out of other peoples money and /or bankrupt your currency which the US is well on the way to doing

Bottom line: take care of yourself...no one else will

 

Sorry, you know not what you're talking about. Socialism is more of a way of thinking which defend that there are certain sectors in the economy that maybe shouldn't be profitable. For example, Health, water, Education and Energy. People pay taxes which in turn helps to maintain these social structures. Big companies CEOs Golden chutes (those huge bonuses they receive under several excuses other than their salaries) would be taxed heavily (over 70%) which means a good sum of money from those who have a lot. Kinda like Robin Hood . Oh and of course, exportations would help to balance the check book. That and pursuing other needed changes in some core industries which don't work too well (curruption, tax evasion, etc...).
So, from what I see, this form of mad unregulated chaotic Capitalism makes other people's money run out first. I men, Reagan in the 70's with his "modernization of economy" which finished in the Clinton era made people loose money (find some charts online if you don't trust me) except for the 5% richer of the 20% very rich part. If you compare to the economy growth based on accumulated capital other than profit of the 50's, you'll see just that. Everyone lost money, hence the expression "where's my trickle?!".

That attitude is wrong. I agree you have to take care of yourself but you should try to help others who don't have a voice. If all people did that, then we'd be helping eachother which is much more pleasent for me at least. It means I don't have to do all the work by myself and if I can change the attitude of some people along the way, then I'd be glad. I can't change the world by myself, no one can; however, if I can leave small changes behind me and other people do the same, the world will eventually change.




Cheers...

 

I am always willing to be charitable..Americans give to charities at an astounding rate. But having a government force me to be "charitable" with the over head a government brings along to "help" is a very severe restriction of my freedom...since Europeans and others have always been told how and what to do, it doesn't surprise me socialists just dont get it...the concept of freedom!

 

Using the government to "help" each other is like putting a fire out with Kerosene...there is absolutely no reason to strive for excellence or better yourself with any socialism stigma in society.

Why work when the government will "take care" of everything? You become more like a bee in a hive (a lazy drone at that) than a man standing on his own two feet beholding to none and free to rule his destiny and not bow to the government.

If socialism works for you in that part of the Iberian peninsular, great! Keep it! Just dont try to sell that socialist crap to me.

 

JR, you obviously have a set attitude towards this issue that won't change regardless of what the rest of us post. Please don't label it as "socialist crap" and demean our opinion or experience. You have your opinion about the issue, and while I believe you are willfully ignoring any positive factors, it doesn't mean that I disrespect you or your opinion.

Social safety nets are something that has evolved due to the nature of our modern living conditions Most of us live in urban areas, where our options for self-sufficiency are reduced. While a cycle of poverty can be broken, it is not easy to do. Sometimes it takes the assistance of others - and sometimes those people who give their assistance are strangers - the people who pay taxes, but would never go to those poorer areas to personally give assistance. If you look at the living conditions of the 19th century and earlier, it was pretty rough for most of the people. Health and Education were only available to those fortunate enough to be born to wealth, or had the fortune to live in a location in which they could be entrepreneurs (industry, commerce, or agribusiness) based on their own determination and sweat. Education was one of the earliest social reforms, and we know it helped improve our societies and the standards of living. An educated man/woman is less likely to be in trouble with the law. Someone who is well-fed and healthy is more likely to attend educational institutions and be able to work to look after themselves and their families. In the end, sometimes helping those others, does help ourselves.

I'm a staunch believer in fighting for my freedom. I don't like people telling me what to do; but I also understand the commonsense that comes from having certain organizational rules that assist us to live with each other. Ironically, I'm also a bureaucrat who works for the government - which by the way works for the people, not itself, its the reason its called the public service. I actually pay towards my own wages with my taxes. I earned my job, and I deliver excellence and integrity daily in the performance of my duty, so I guess I'm not afraid of the government when it is directed by an educated populace. I am afraid of any rationale that has a government peeking under rocks for boogie men (post-Sept 11), a government directed by either elected officials only looking out for themselves or their supporter or elected by an ignorant populace. I don't believe personal Safety comes at the expense of Freedom, but I don't believer Freedom should come at the expense of abandoning my fellow citizens who may have not had the same breaks as me. I think we should assist others up to the point they can reasonably be able to help themselves.

As always, everything comes down to Balance.

My opinion of course......

 

More opinion on Obama care from the WSJ - Resident BO sounds very callous to me...

Obama's Health Future

Rationing, and not only withholding care from the elderly


President Obama's TV health-care forum on Wednesday evening was useful, because revealing. Namely, Mr. Obama shared more than he probably intended about the kind of rationing that his health plan will inevitably impose.


At one point in the town hall, broadcast from the East Room by ABC news, a woman named Jane Sturm told the story of her 105-year-old mother, who, at 100, was told by an arrhythmia specialist that she was too old for a pacemaker. She ended up getting a second option, and the operation, for which Ms. Sturm credits her survival.
"Look, the first thing for all of us to understand that is we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care," Mr. Obama replied. After discussing ways "we as a culture and as a society [can start] to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves," he continued that in general "at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."


What Mr. Obama is describing is his preferred health-care future. If or when the Administration's speculative cost-cutting measures under universal health care fail to produce savings, government will start explicitly limiting patient access to treatments and services regarded as too expensive. Democrats deny this eventuality, but health planners will have no choice, given that the current entitlement system is already barreling toward insolvency without adding millions of new people to the federal balance sheet.


Earlier, a physician asked Mr. Obama if he would subject his own family to the restrictions of a national health plan, even if specialists recommended treatments that weren't covered. The President was noncommittal: "And you're absolutely right that, if it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care." We suspect most Americans would agree.

 

The congress critters tend to stay away from the great unwashed...remember they wanted the new Capitol visitors center a/c so the congressional critters wouldnt have to SMELL the crowds of the little people?

Use commercial air? Well, Nancy P is fond of using the AF planes to fly directly to the Left Coast. Not to mention BO flys them to NYC on a date with his wife.

And health care for the masses for the Congressional critters....NO WAY!

Personally, I am so fed up with either party, I will never vote for an incumbent again...ever. One term and your done. THROW THE BUMS OUT!

 

I meant the 80's not 70's. Sorry for my mistake. Still, let's take a closer look on the real Reagan economy shall we?

First, the US national debt under Reagan:



As you can see, all that Reagan "accomplished" had a price. In order for him to pay that price without extra revenue, he had to "pawn" the next generation. Never balancing a budget has it's costs... Just saying.

This next table compares your national debt with the growth of the GDP.


Your GDP did grew (albeit at a smaller rate than it could in theory) however, what happened to your external debt? So reagan managed to make the GDP grow out of, well to put it simply, loans? Not such a great thing...


Now, the next chart takes a little explaining. This chart shows the increase in financial and non financial profits regarding the GDP.



Now, non financial profits are production profits or, what your country produces. Financial profits are those based on market speculation and hi-risk investment (money returning without production). So, what you get is an increase in the GDP without actual increase in available assets making the value of money ficticious (in the actual words of Magdoff and Sweezy in 1987 after the stockmarket crash, "the underlying growth of surplus value falls increasingly short of the rate of accumulation of money capital. In the absence of a base in surplus value, the money capital amassed becomes more and more nominal, indeed fictitious."). Oh the increase of financial profits in the 90's was when Clinton approved the "modernization of the economy act" which lifted the barriers between investment and deposit banks allowing banks to invest money which wasn't theirs to start with. It's ridiculous as for every dolar they owned, some banks had contracted a loan of 30. This was alright while the bonds and assets were escalating in price but when people couldn't afford this kind of economic debauchery, it collapsed. And we are now experiencing this collapse. Oh and this law was indeed approved by Clinton and not Reagan however, as some rogue here in the forums mentioned, it was a law formulated by who? That's right, the Reagan administration.
So, Reagan allowed a process which turned our economy into one where profits could outgrow total production. Good one...

Oh and check out the evolution in wages as a percentage of the GDP:



To put it simply, this was part of a massive redistribution of income and wealth to the top. Over the years 1950 to 1970, for each additional dollar made by those in the bottom 90 percent of income earners, those in the top 0.01 percent received an additional $162. In contrast, from 1990 to 2002, for each added dollar made by those in the bottom 90 percent, those in the uppermost 0.01 percent (today around 14,000 households) made an additional $18,000. Between 1983 and 2001, the top 1 percent grabbed 28 percent of the rise in national income, 33 percent of the total gain in net worth, and 52 percent of the overall growth in financial worth.

Seems capitalists are better than socialists in grabbing "other people's money"...

Anyway, the Reagan administration brought nothing good to your country in the long (actually any) run. You can mention that the household consumption rose from 60% in the 50s to a little over 70% in the 90s. This is not reflective however of an actual inccrease in people's wages and available money whereas more of an indicative from when women started to enter the labour force en masse creating twin household providers. However, since the housing bubble broke down, the household debt increased a lot... so, women working only postponed the inevitable I'm affraid...

Well, enjoy this light reading.
Rant end.



Cheers...

 

A link to Pat Oliphant's cartoon concerning American "Health Care":

Comics and Editorial Cartoons: Pat Oliphant on Yahoo! News

I see this as more truth than fiction, the big money health care insurers, pharmacological, and medical hardware providers not wanting their "profitable rice bowl" endangered.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself Clint. It's always the same thing. Those in power want more power and they have a huge propagandistic machine to support their claims. I for one understood what BO meant to say when he talked about that 100 year old lady. It's euthanasia. I think people should have the right to decide. Especially in those cases. There was a Portuguese guy who got cancer at 89. He decided not to treat himself. Why spend months in Quimo and years recovering? He'd probably die from the treatment... I don't think BO words were the best ones but I do agree with him. Not because of the "price" of the treatments but because of the life people can expect to lead after the treatments. It's controversial but this is my opinion and I'm sticking with it.



Cheers...