I'm not, I'm asking ManusJustus to explain me.

The best way to keep someone poor, is to give them money. The best way to "reach higher social conditions", is to give them the opportunity to work there way to it.

Also, when the "social condition" scale slides, everyone is effected, even the poor. When GDP goes up, the poor benefit. When it goes down, they suffer, even if it's not the poor making the additional GDP.

Socializing, makes GDP go down, every time. 

We had a long thread on this once. And it came down to people thought was best for the poor. Would you rather they have an absolute improvement in living standard (meaning vs how they would be compared to themselves under a different government system), or would you prefer then have a better relative standard of living (compared to the rich). 

It's amazing how it fell. The Republicans thought it would be better that there life improve absolutely, and the democrats thought it better that there lived improve relatively, even if it meant they had a lower standard of living (meaning if they only slightly lost standard of living, but the rich lost a lot, the world would be better).

So, in the end, both sides want a better life for the poor. They just disagree on what's better.

Of course, that is the key of the problem. But I do believe that helping is necessary at some point.

The (cliché) example is the grameen bank, it is working where years of (classical) charity models failed.

I'm also again'st giving money (...) but you have to do something ..

Here in Belgium, we have families with multiple generations who never worked... and the socialist party is maintaining them into a mid-poor (assisted) condition so that they keep voting for them... but I don't see that happening in the US.

Once again I will re-iterate an important secret ... Everyone who can passes increased costs onto anyone they can in order to maintain their standard of living, so the end result is that the "rich" really don't pay the taxes the poorest and most vulnerable pay them through increased costs and lower income (in real terms). About the only way to prevent this is to forceably take wealth away from people and re-distribute it which generally results in capital flight, and few people with the knowledge or experience to run a successful company would risk starting a company in your country; and the end result is dramatically lower taxes, employment and an awful standard of living.

Regardless of how the government sells it, the people they claim are too poor to pay for healthcare will be the ones who pay for the largest part of the new healthcare system because they have the least control over their income level or expenses; and will bear the brunt of people passing on the costs associated to tax increases.

Ok so what do you guys think Obama should do ?

I saw this tv broadcast about poor US people who never saw a doctor or a dentist in their live.

They had to queue for 10 hours into a sport complex to have a chance to see a (free) specialist ...

What do we do with that ? Is this kind of things acceptable ?

Why do you (and everyone it seems) assume that this problem will be instantly resolved by switching who pays for healthcare?

The number one reason why healthcare has become so expensive over the past (roughly) 100 years is that technology has increased giving us an ability to treat far more things, and to be far more successful with what we do treat; and because we're treating more things and the cost of everything we treat is going up we are seeing exponential growth in the cost of delivering healthcare. To make matters worse people are living less healthy lives then they ever did, and this is adding strain to an already stressed system.

We should be focusing on reducing the 90% of illnesses and injuries that are preventable, and reducing the (over) 50% of costs that are associated with overhead in the system.

Changing who pays for the system won't make a difference.

Health insurance reform and free market.   Get the government out of it (they started the damn HMO's in the first place).

Our government fails at providing services...plain and simple.  Why in the world would I want them trying to provide me with healthcare?

This is totally true... AND totally utopistic.

My next question is : Who pays for what now ? edited

Ok so private insurrances (I'm with that).

Regulated or not ?

I'd prefer as little regulation as possible.    Overregulating is part of our current problem.  Too much control and not enough freedom for the companies or consumer.