Have you found someone who’s experienced both “sides” willing to give up their “big gub’mint beurocracy” plan for a US-Style private one yet?

Private, for-profit, healthcare serves its purpose (making rich white men richer) by DENYING YOU CARE!

Public, or otherwise non-profit, healthcare serves its purpose by PROVIDING YOU CARE!

I really just can’t understand how people don’t see the obvious wisdom in a public system…

But they do restrict… not everyone can get a ham radio license, and not everyone can take a 2000kwt transmitter and start broadcasting between 100 and 108 fm. Why is that ok, since it isnt explicitly mentioned in the original constitution?

You are correct, but look again at my wording. “FCC organizing but not restricting who can get a license and within a few moral standards what they can do is not a problem…” I am not and have never been calling for complete anarchy. You can’t keep arguing a point by taking that argument to a ridiculous extreme. Everyone who is in the broadcast arena or wants to be is aware of how small the RF spectrum is and without careful rationing it would be chaos and nobody wants to see that. It could also be made a case, of which I agree with it, that without proper regulation, the emergency communications and military communications we rely on are affected and thus this is an issue covered under the “provide the common defense” clause, but you have derailed me. We were not talking about justification for the FCC.

I can absolutely argue it. On both a macro and micro issue. On the macro side, his “trickle down” voodoo led to almost 15 years of economic policies that led to the greatest gap between the top 1% and bottom 1% that this nation (or any) has ever seen, homelessness doubled during his reign, the average wage (after adjustments for currency valuations) went down by almost 15% from 82 to 91 if my memory serves the last I read about it. On the micro level, my parents worked multiple minimum wage jobs (which we can thank reagan and his cronies for freezing at a wonderful level that didnt increase to adjust for inflation or cost of living) because the big industry in our town went under and we didnt have enough money to move, and even with both parents working they were barely able to pay for rent, water (which was a metered service), etc.

In terms of what your parents experienced, I cannot argue that. That is a major problem in our society today. My parents too worked 2-3 jobs at their peak, and while I was in college, I did 3 at one point. I know what it’s like to struggle to make ends meet. I am not saying I agreed with everything in his presidency, as I pointed out in those two specific things I have always disagreed with, but you cannot argue this point:

- Increase the taxes on businesses and they will cut costs to cover them or pass those costs onto the consumer. What business right now in MA isn’t increasing their cost of cigarettes and nicely eating that tax for the consumer? None… What business in their right mind wouldn’t do this in order to stay alive and many SMBs (small to medium sized businesses) are struggling to survive right now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY
– Microsoft threatens to move a significant portion of their work force out of the US if the Obama tax plan goes into effect. – 6/6/09

How many jobs will that cost Americans? We are already dealing with a flood of businesses moving their operations overseas because the labor rate is cheaper. How much more can we honestly stand to loose? With those businesses and “rich folk” as you put them moving away from doing business in this country, who will replace all that glorious tax revenue and pay for Obama care? Guess what… you and me…

I am not saying what happened to you or your parents was right, but what he is proposing and you are supporting is NOT the answer.

My grandmother is on medicare and gets new glasses when she needs them, and her arthritis meds always show up before the end of the month. No healthcare plan will cover 100% of people for 100% of needs 100% of the time. Medicare probably gets 95% for 95% 95% of the time, where as the private system gets less then 60% for as little as possible, as seldom as possible. Tell me why covering less people for less coverage less of the time is in ANY way desirable?

I am going to consult with my mother and others on this one and respond later about it. Your grandmother from what you’ve said would seem to be the exception and not the norm. My mother, from her experience and her job, would paint a very different picture of the bureaucracy associated with the current Medicare system as her job is to assist the elderly with covering hospital, nursing home, and other health related care.

There are a lot of options for funding, and it’s certainly an issue to discuss further. I’ve got no strong feelings at the moment, but you and I both agree there’s a LOT of pork that could be boiled off to make room.

Most certainly without question.

Now you’re just sounding like rush. If businesses leave the country because they don’t want to contribute (would they even be? unknown since the majority don’t pay their current level of taxation anywy) to a common medical system, then frankly – I dont want THOSE businesses around anyway. According to all the free-market theory, they’ll be replaced soon after they leave.

Ouch man. You just called me Rush. I am hurt… I have never resorted to name calling geeze.

Which companies haven’t paid their legally obligated taxes and why isn’t the DOJ going after them? OK, so let me get this straight from you. We have companies that are supposedly not paying their taxes. So instead of taking them to court or trying to solve that particular problem, the answer you support is the drive them away, and raise the taxes of the businesses remaining? Isn’t that like cutting your nose off to spite your face?

OK, let me tackle this from a business standpoint being that I have a decade of SMB experience. If you have a customer that is struggling to pay bills and owes you money. Another SMB for example. You see their business model is solid, it’s just hard times. Do you cancel their service? Walk away? Take them to collection? If you do, you will leave a lot of business on the floor with no guarantee you will ever get paid. On the other hand you can work with them, maybe take a loss in payments for a few months, but a recovery later on when their business picks up. You may not get all of the money owed to you, but some return is better than no return.

As mentioned before, the coast guard is a law enforcement entity. I’ll use your logic in the future and count programs like the FBI, and dare I say … ATF … as contributing to our common defense, and thus are totally OK to be funded and administered federally. Let’s not cherry-pick, right?

Yep, and law enforcement on the federal level (that which crosses state boundaries) is needed more in this country. I have never argued otherwise. We need to cancel the war on drugs, increase funding to law enforcement, and start enforcing the laws we have. Not adding new ones.

Also, the US Coast Guard is considered an Armed Forces branch, so they are technically a military organization. My problems with the ATF aren’t in that it exists, but rather it’s complete management nightmare, corrupt at too many levels, and there is a general lack of oversight with them. Ask Mr. Olfson or Mr Savage what they think about the ATF’s methods…

The UK and Canada both have superior healthcare systems to what we have here in the states. Now, before you go off the handle and try and link individual cases where someone had to wait in line for 20 minutes…

Whoa, what planet are you living on? I am not referring to any instance where someone waited 20 minutes for a drug in line. Another extremely ludicrious example… None of the links off the one that I posted had anything so petty. They dealt with the management problems of a socialized health care system in the UK specifically.

As for Canada? Great health care? How about this:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/5/776-a
- 22 month wait for an MRI

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?ei=5090&en=ad12dcee61e8b584&ex=1298782800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
- 2-3 yrs for a hip replacement. My mother which had to have this would LOVE their health care system.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070409/cda_doctors_070409/20070409?hub=Canada
- 1-9 doctors who trained in Canada are choosing to practice, right out, in the US due to cost/bureaucracy.

That is just a few… believe me there are many more where that came from, but I have to get back to work ATM…

But they do restrict… not everyone can get a ham radio license, and not everyone can take a 2000kwt transmitter and start broadcasting between 100 and 108 fm. Why is that ok, since it isnt explicitly mentioned in the original constitution?

“but in terms of economics, you cannot argue he did have a positive impact on this country’s growth.”

I can absolutely argue it. On both a macro and micro issue. On the macro side, his “trickle down” voodoo led to almost 15 years of economic policies that led to the greatest gap between the top 1% and bottom 1% that this nation (or any) has ever seen, homelessness doubled during his reign, the average wage (after adjustments for currency valuations) went down by almost 15% from 82 to 91 if my memory serves the last I read about it. On the micro level, my parents worked multiple minimum wage jobs (which we can thank reagan and his cronies for freezing at a wonderful level that didnt increase to adjust for inflation or cost of living) because the big industry in our town went under and we didnt have enough money to move, and even with both parents working they were barely able to pay for rent, water (which was a metered service), etc.

Simply put, Reagan’s economics did more to destroy the bottom 80% of this country then anyone back to the great depression, and since. Sure, if you were in the top 5% or so, you should go kiss reagan’s grave, since he made you WAY better off. The rest of us, not so much. The needs of the many outweigh the greed of the few, and reagan did -NOTHING- to serve the needs of the many.

“Ahhh too-shea… except a private company can’t take away your rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights.”

It can’t? What are you going to do if they try, sue them? You and what army of lawyers? You’re talking rhetorical when you should be talking practical.

“You can’t tell me the federal gov’t having your medical (including Psyc) records doesn’t give you pause. You sir, are way more trusting than me.”

They already have mine.

“As for medicare, where do we begin.”

With the most cost-effective healthcare apparatus in the world.

“You have an overly complicated system that doesn’t even come close to covering the people who are on it.”

My grandmother is on medicare and gets new glasses when she needs them, and her arthritis meds always show up before the end of the month. No healthcare plan will cover 100% of people for 100% of needs 100% of the time. Medicare probably gets 95% for 95% 95% of the time, where as the private system gets less then 60% for as little as possible, as seldom as possible. Tell me why covering less people for less coverage less of the time is in ANY way desirable?

“Where do you think the funding to bring it up to par is going to come from?”

There are a lot of options for funding, and it’s certainly an issue to discuss further. I’ve got no strong feelings at the moment, but you and I both agree there’s a LOT of pork that could be boiled off to make room.

“How much business will that drive out of this country…”

Now you’re just sounding like rush. If businesses leave the country because they don’t want to contribute (would they even be? unknown since the majority don’t pay their current level of taxation anywy) to a common medical system, then frankly – I dont want THOSE businesses around anyway. According to all the free-market theory, they’ll be replaced soon after they leave.

“Oh and hello, the coast guard ISN’T a relevant argument here since as I pointed out before that IS something that “provides for the common defense”. Mentioning that is kind of silly.”

As mentioned before, the coast guard is a law enforcement entity. I’ll use your logic in the future and count programs like the FBI, and dare I say … ATF … as contributing to our common defense, and thus are totally OK to be funded and administered federally. Let’s not cherry-pick, right?

“How do you expect anyone who’s made money in this country and any business to react to something like what you and this current gov’t are proposing?”

You just got a dodge, right? Would you trust a Honda ad as a valid source of information, philosophy, and rationale as to why your purchase of a dodge was good or bad? If so, I’ve got some beachfront property in Arizona for sale, real cheap.

“Their message is valid IMO, as the UK/Canada are great examples of this.”

The UK and Canada both have superior healthcare systems to what we have here in the states. Now, before you go off the handle and try and link individual cases where someone had to wait in line for 20 minutes, I;ll _AGAIN_ remind you that -EVERY- single complaint about UK/CA’s healthcare systems is ALSO applicable to what we have here in the states, and in most cases the problems mentioned are WORSE here! I’ve had to “wait in line” for some pretty basic healthcare services. There will always be more sick people then doctors, no matter where you go or what paradigm is used. Every single “complaint” about public healthcare is worse with a wholely private system.

In the end, it comes down to one simple thing. A public system cares for more people more of the time. There’s nothing that can morally, ethically, or rationally justify not pursuing such an option.

As for silly discussions about “a 200 year old constitution that couldnt possibly forsee future socioeconomic needs and scientific developments didnt explicitly mandate that funding for an organization to regulate the public radio airwaves, so it should be a wild-west free for all instead” .. well .. I’m not sure what to say. There are places in Africa right now with governmental models you might be more satisfied with, which also have a FAR higher social emphesis on private firarm ownership …

FCC organizing but not restricting who can get a license and within a few moral standards what they can do is not a problem and if this was Africa we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

As a closing thought, I find it amusing that you chose to use the words of an alzheimers patient to discuss health care – ignoring the fact that Reagan is arguably to blame for 90% of what’s “wrong” with our society for the last 20 years.

What exactly did he do poorly?
- He ended the Air Traffic Controller strike swiftly as he should have. I am not very pro-union.
- Comparing the Charter administration and his, we had inflation drop from 12% to 4% and unemployment drop from 7% to 5% thanks to his across the board tax cuts.
- GDP in this country rose in his second year in office out of that depression we were in and continued to rise at a rate of about 4% a yr afterward which many attribute to the Tax Reform act he push through.
- He ended price controls for domestic oil production thus increasing the amount of cheap crude avail and lowering the price of oil.

- I disagree with his escalation and military build up, but his outcome was OK.
- I completely disagree with “the war on drugs”.
- … and of course we have the Iran-Contra affair.

So yes, no presidency is perfect, but in terms of economics, you cannot argue he did have a positive impact on this country’s growth.

What planet are you talking about? We’re the ONLY first-world nation without some form of public health care, do you mean to say that people in every other first world nation are dying of scurvy in the streets?

Why don’t you look at the UK or Canada? As what their citizens think of their health care system. I linked articles describing the problems people have had with it.

As opposed to a private company without your best interest in mind, the same way your credit records are now kept? Cuz I mean… the credit union’s -never- fuck people over or lose data, right? …

Ahhh too-shea… except a private company can’t take away your rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights. You can’t tell me the federal gov’t having your medical (including Psyc) records doesn’t give you pause. You sir, are way more trusting than me.

So again, give me some details into what aspects of how medicare, the coast guard, or the NPS are run you object too?

As for medicare, where do we begin. You have an overly complicated system that doesn’t even come close to covering the people who are on it. Where do you think the funding to bring it up to par is going to come from? Are you going to just seize the income of anyone who makes more than x amount per year? What is that x amount? How many times during the campaign did Mr. Biden change that number himself? How much business will that drive out of this country…

Oh and hello, the coast guard ISN’T a relevant argument here since as I pointed out before that IS something that “provides for the common defense”. Mentioning that is kind of silly.

Almost forgot – that clip you linked from Reagan is from an old LP that was funded for by Dow Chemical, which at the time was the primary manufacturer of penicillin in the united states and making record profits off the backs of the private health care system.

How do you expect anyone who’s made money in this country and any business to react to something like what you and this current gov’t are proposing? Their message is valid IMO, as the UK/Canada are great examples of this.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/12/1817

That clip/segment/LP is one of -THE- most often, and most easily, discredited Reagan citations.

You can’t use Aaron Sorkin, funded by the teamsters, speaking against union busting as a serious argument against it ….

“I have zero confidence in their ability to do it efficiently based on they’re proven track record of not running anything well.”

So again, give me some details into what aspects of how medicare, the coast guard, or the NPS are run you object too?

“I have no desire to have my medical records anywhere near the gov’t in such form as a database, because we all know they have a proven track record of safe guarding that data and not violating my privacy.”

As opposed to a private company without your best interest in mind, the same way your credit records are now kept? Cuz I mean… the credit union’s -never- fuck people over or lose data, right? …

“Every other country (including this one) that has tried this, has failed because it’s just so expensive, it’s not feasible. Who in their right mind increases taxes in a depressed economy as a means to take care of people who’d can’t even afford food?”

What planet are you talking about? We’re the ONLY first-world nation without some form of public health care, do you mean to say that people in every other first world nation are dying of scurvy in the streets? Have you like, actually read anything (that wasnt written with the idea in mind to discredit) about public health care in other countries? I challenge you to find someone who’s live in Canada, France, or the UK -and- lived in the states (and actually needed healthcare services) who would prefer our 100% private system to their 10-90% public system. Please, try.

I would suggest doing some reading on life expectancy and other such info in nations with a public plan, or public option, before deciding it sucks. For every case of “someone had to wait in line” you can find 100 cases of “poor kid got the braces he needs” AND such silly arguments make the incorrect presupposition that “waiting in line” and such never happens in our 100% private system – which is total bullshit.

As a closing thought, I find it amusing that you chose to use the words of an alzheimers patient to discuss health care – ignoring the fact that Reagan is arguably to blame for 90% of what’s “wrong” with our society for the last 20 years.

As for silly discussions about “a 200 year old constitution that couldnt possibly forsee future socioeconomic needs and scientific developments didnt explicitly mandate that funding for an organization to regulate the public radio airwaves, so it should be a wild-west free for all instead” .. well .. I’m not sure what to say. There are places in Africa right now with governmental models you might be more satisfied with, which also have a FAR higher social emphesis on private firarm ownership …