By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do You Think Obama is a Socialist... Do You Care?

superchunk said:
@kas and viper

No. Parents are not choosing to not buy healthcare. Those who do not have it A) cannot afford the very expensive price of getting healthcare not through an employer and B) work at jobs that put them just above the levels of getting the current government paid options, yet the job itself doesn't offer healthcare.

Those are the specific, hardworking people that we should help.

You guys make it sound like parents are choosing luxury cars over healthcare. lol.

Every nation in the world that isn't deathly poor, has social programs to help out those in need regardless of their government style. It is simply immoral to not try to help those you can and based on they amount of money this nation creates, we can.

People who can not afford healthcare for their children qualify for SCHIP.

These parents are in fact not choosing healthcare for their children because they believe that money is better spent elsewhere.

Private insurance for children is actually pretty cheap by the way.

Also... with this being what this healthcare is based on... not too optimistic.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/


A scapel is needed to fix healthcare.  Not a hammer that will break and lead to fully accepted discrimination like europe.



Around the Network

Yeah the magical free market of fairies and unicorns. wtf.

I'm so sick of that line of bs to fix all economic problems. It won't work!

There must be regulation or you'll simply see the big guys rob and buy out the little guys, killiing off competition and raising prices to increase profits.

I agree wholeheartedly with reducing current costs. Insurance companies are robbed daily by hospitals and medical product suppliers. It shouldn't cost $100 for a roll of tape when I can buy it from Walmart for a buck.

However, that doesn't take away from the principle idea that as a nation of moral "civilized" people who should strive for the happiness of all people. Not just yourself.

On top of that, one of the best ways to reduce costs is to allow everyone access to preventative care.

So, I'd prefer a mixture of decreased costs by regulation of the medical supply market and changes in tax/group ins costs/etc.

Maybe instead of all those different free market insurance companies, we have one that all Americans pay into. If everyone is part of it, including the law makers, you can bet that it won't suck.



Kasz216 said:
superchunk said:
@kas and viper

No. Parents are not choosing to not buy healthcare. Those who do not have it A) cannot afford the very expensive price of getting healthcare not through an employer and B) work at jobs that put them just above the levels of getting the current government paid options, yet the job itself doesn't offer healthcare.

Those are the specific, hardworking people that we should help.

You guys make it sound like parents are choosing luxury cars over healthcare. lol.

Every nation in the world that isn't deathly poor, has social programs to help out those in need regardless of their government style. It is simply immoral to not try to help those you can and based on they amount of money this nation creates, we can.

People who can not afford healthcare for their children qualify for SCHIP.

These parents are in fact not choosing healthcare for their children because they believe that money is better spent elsewhere.

Private insurance for children is actually pretty cheap by the way.

That's funny, when I read the details of SCHIP it seems quite a large number of people don't qualify and for those small % that do and still don't buy it, I'm sure they are not buying luxury cars. (yes I know you didn't say they were)

Private insurance for families, kids only, etc, is not cheap to everyone.

The people is this boat simply have to choose food, electricity, water, heat, fix crappy car (if lucky to get crappy car), or insurance to cover something that may never happen.

I think you'd choose the former as well. I have a feeling you've never been without a home or no food for a couple of days. It would allow you to better see the point.



has anybody watched micheal moores sicko?



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

superchunk said:
Yeah the magical free market of fairies and unicorns. wtf.

I'm so sick of that line of bs to fix all economic problems. It won't work!

There must be regulation or you'll simply see the big guys rob and buy out the little guys, killiing off competition and raising prices to increase profits.

I agree wholeheartedly with reducing current costs. Insurance companies are robbed daily by hospitals and medical product suppliers. It shouldn't cost $100 for a roll of tape when I can buy it from Walmart for a buck.

However, that doesn't take away from the principle idea that as a nation of moral "civilized" people who should strive for the happiness of all people. Not just yourself.

On top of that, one of the best ways to reduce costs is to allow everyone access to preventative care.

So, I'd prefer a mixture of decreased costs by regulation of the medical supply market and changes in tax/group ins costs/etc.

Maybe instead of all those different free market insurance companies, we have one that all Americans pay into. If everyone is part of it, including the law makers, you can bet that it won't suck.

Well considering once upon a time we had free market health care and it worked quite well i don't see why it won't know especially when all indicators towards antionalized health care suggest failure.

Think about it.  We had free market priot to the mid 70's and it worked.  We have nationalized services right now like Medicare and it's failing.  We already know one path works and the other doesn't.

Also, I agree that some regulations may be necessary but regulations is hardly nationalizing something.  A free market doesn't mean some regulations can't be in place either.

1 national monopoly vs competitive markets?  We already know how well that works and it isn't pretty.

Finally, America is the most giving in the world.  More donations per capita than any other country.  We give because we can and have a desire to do so.  Not because our government forces us to do it.  People love to think of us as self centered yet why do we give more of our own free volition per capita than anyone if we're so selfish?

 

 



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network

The problem with you conservatives is that you can't expect to convert people to your way of thinking by spouting a bunch of buzzwords. Socialism might be the ultimate evil to you, but you must remember that this is no longer the 1950s. The USSR collapsed almost 20 years ago.. people no longer live in fear of socialism.

Get with the times.



1. I'm neither a Republican nor a Conservative.

2. I care not whether the USSR collapsed or it's no longer the 1950's. The definitions retain their meaning.


Public perception may change all it likes but it doesn't change facts.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Viper1 said:

Well considering once upon a time we had free market health care and it worked quite well i don't see why it won't know especially when all indicators towards antionalized health care suggest failure.

Think about it.  We had free market priot to the mid 70's and it worked.  We have nationalized services right now like Medicare and it's failing.  We already know one path works and the other doesn't.

Also, I agree that some regulations may be necessary but regulations is hardly nationalizing something.  A free market doesn't mean some regulations can't be in place either.

1 national monopoly vs competitive markets?  We already know how well that works and it isn't pretty.

Finally, America is the most giving in the world.  More donations per capita than any other country.  We give because we can and have a desire to do so.  Not because our government forces us to do it.  People love to think of us as self centered yet why do we give more of our own free volition per capita than anyone if we're so selfish?

 

 

It worked prior to the 70's, so the financial crashes before that didn't happen? Keep in mind the worst of them all, The GD, was fixed through regulation of the free market and many of the very same policies Bush started to do and Obama is currently doing.

The reason medicare has issues is due to costs. Fix the free market that has allowed tape to costs $100 in hospitals and medicare would be just fine.

Healthcare can't be like other markets. Its vital for survival and necessary for all. Not just those with plenty. Therefore a single system to pool everyone's contributions while reducing raw material cost would be successful, for everyone.

Yes, we are the most giving nation in the world. But, that has nothing to do with our discussion. I said those against universal healthcare and generally any social program are simply selfish. Not America as a whole or generic term.



superchunk said:
Viper1 said:

Well considering once upon a time we had free market health care and it worked quite well i don't see why it won't know especially when all indicators towards antionalized health care suggest failure.

Think about it.  We had free market priot to the mid 70's and it worked.  We have nationalized services right now like Medicare and it's failing.  We already know one path works and the other doesn't.

Also, I agree that some regulations may be necessary but regulations is hardly nationalizing something.  A free market doesn't mean some regulations can't be in place either.

1 national monopoly vs competitive markets?  We already know how well that works and it isn't pretty.

Finally, America is the most giving in the world.  More donations per capita than any other country.  We give because we can and have a desire to do so.  Not because our government forces us to do it.  People love to think of us as self centered yet why do we give more of our own free volition per capita than anyone if we're so selfish?

 

 

It worked prior to the 70's, so the financial crashes before that didn't happen? Keep in mind the worst of them all, The GD, was fixed through regulation of the free market and many of the very same policies Bush started to do and Obama is currently doing.

The reason medicare has issues is due to costs. Fix the free market that has allowed tape to costs $100 in hospitals and medicare would be just fine.

Healthcare can't be like other markets. Its vital for survival and necessary for all. Not just those with plenty. Therefore a single system to pool everyone's contributions while reducing raw material cost would be successful, for everyone.

Yes, we are the most giving nation in the world. But, that has nothing to do with our discussion. I said those against universal healthcare and generally any social program are simply selfish. Not America as a whole or generic term.

Well free market health care had nothing to do with the Great Depression so I don't get what you're getting at.  Also, it was government intervention that delayed the GD for so long.  Try the despression of 1921.  It was actually worse than the start of the GD but because we allowed the free amrket to fix itself, it ended in the same year it began.

Something about economics...a single pool resource will never reduce costs over what a competitive free market can do.  Ever.

Being against government social services doesn't mean they are selfish, it simply means they prefer an alternative provider for those services.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

superchunk said:
Kasz216 said:
superchunk said:
@kas and viper

No. Parents are not choosing to not buy healthcare. Those who do not have it A) cannot afford the very expensive price of getting healthcare not through an employer and B) work at jobs that put them just above the levels of getting the current government paid options, yet the job itself doesn't offer healthcare.

Those are the specific, hardworking people that we should help.

You guys make it sound like parents are choosing luxury cars over healthcare. lol.

Every nation in the world that isn't deathly poor, has social programs to help out those in need regardless of their government style. It is simply immoral to not try to help those you can and based on they amount of money this nation creates, we can.

People who can not afford healthcare for their children qualify for SCHIP.

These parents are in fact not choosing healthcare for their children because they believe that money is better spent elsewhere.

Private insurance for children is actually pretty cheap by the way.

That's funny, when I read the details of SCHIP it seems quite a large number of people don't qualify and for those small % that do and still don't buy it, I'm sure they are not buying luxury cars. (yes I know you didn't say they were)

Private insurance for families, kids only, etc, is not cheap to everyone.

The people is this boat simply have to choose food, electricity, water, heat, fix crappy car (if lucky to get crappy car), or insurance to cover something that may never happen.

I think you'd choose the former as well. I have a feeling you've never been without a home or no food for a couple of days. It would allow you to better see the point.

People who have to make those choices qualify for medicare... and i'd be money I know a hell of a lot more poor people then you do... and guess what.  They actually do get health treatment.  Despite living on near minimium wage jobs.

Socialied healthcare just doesn't work it leads to rationing and discrimination based on demographics.

People are forced to pay for healthcare all their lives and then are discriminated against once they reach a certain age.

Government run healthcare doesn't work.  The way to make healthcare insurance affordable is to regulate the ways private companies can offer rates... those who don't qualify for medicares biggest problem is prexisting conditions... or just not wanting it until they get a prexisting condition.

It's why non job related dental care is almost unheard of.