Socialistic health care goal of the traitors in power

[turkeycall]

Obama's proposal is a complete failure...why? It doesn't accomplish the self described primary objective for one thing.

A proposal cannot be a complete failure until it has been acted upon, passed, and signed into existence.

[oladub]

Firstandten, Thanks for the presidential quotes.

"I've set down a rule for my staff, for my team -- and I've said this to Congress -- health care reform must be, and will be, deficit-neutral in the next decade."

Then the President goes about describing how it will become deficit-neutral by having voted to spend another $635B over the next decade. The President wants to tax people as they were taxed whan Reagan left office. If the President doesn't apply the CPI to his application he will be lying and raising middle class taxes because the official CPI has increased 73% since Reagan left office. I don't see any mention of taking account of government created inflation in the President's proposal. Maybe it's there. I just haven't seen it.

What is meant by introducing generic biologic drugs into the marketplace.? What are 'biologic drugs" as opposed to drugs? If he just meant drugs, the President should have given Walmart a call. Walmart has already made hundreds of drugs available for $10/90 day supply. Walmart did more to make medicine more affordable in one swoop than the federal government. Why is that? http://www.walmart.com/4prescriptions

No one can argue with saving $1B by reducing fraud. Since this is a trillion dollar plan, $1B/$1T= .001%. Any government program that only has .001% fraud is to be commended.

Deficit-neutral means spending an extra $1T over 10 years. That is if the administration's statistics aren't too rosy as were those of the Medicare program. Whatever happened to Senator Obama's campaign promise that his proposed health care program was going to save the average American family $2,400 per year? If there are 80M US families x $2,400/year x 10 years = $1.93T.

Senator Obama promised to cut medical expenses about $1.93T and now President Obama is talking about spending $1T. That is $2.93T different from his campaign promise. Am I seeing a trend here?

[firstandten]

Firstandten, Thanks for the presidential quotes.

"I've set down a rule for my staff, for my team -- and I've said this to Congress -- health care reform must be, and will be, deficit-neutral in the next decade."

Then the President goes about describing how it will become deficit-neutral by having voted to spend another $635B over the next decade. The President wants to tax people as they were taxed whan Reagan left office. If the President doesn't apply the CPI to his application he will be lying and raising middle class taxes because the official CPI has increased 73% since Reagan left office. I don't see any mention of taking account of government created inflation in the President's proposal. Maybe it's there. I just haven't seen it.

As usual Oladub you make excellent points. Let me go back to the presidents words on this

" we put aside $635 billion over 10 years in what we're calling a Health Reserve Fund. Over half of that amount -- more than $300 billion -- will come from raising revenue by doing things like modestly limiting the tax deductions the wealthiest Americans can take to the same level that it was at the end of the Reagan years -- same level that it was under Ronald Reagan."

I don't think the middle class need worry

The rest will come from spending cuts and increased efficiencies

What is meant by introducing generic biologic drugs into the marketplace.? What are 'biologic drugs" as opposed to drugs? If he just meant drugs, the President should have given Walmart a call. Walmart has already made hundreds of drugs available for $10/90 day supply. Walmart did more to make medicine more affordable in one swoop than the federal government. Why is that? http://www.walmart.com/4prescriptions .

I also wasn't sure about biologic drugs but here is what I found

"The budget, which will be released today, will remove barriers to creating generic biologics, said an administration official. The money the federal government would save from biogenerics would help pay for a major overhaul of the nation's healthcare system the president has promised to enact this year.
The Food and Drug Administration currently has no process for approving biogenerics, also called "follow-on biologics" and "biosimilars." Such drugs are made from living organisms, not chemicals, and are extremely difficult to duplicate precisely. Congress in the last few years has haggled over how to create regulations to approve generic versions of biologics" Boston Globe

The problem is that the biotech companies especially in the Northeast wants to be able to make a return on its investment and generics would cut into their profits

Deficit-neutral means spending an extra $1T over 10 years. That is if the administration's statistics aren't too rosy as were those of the Medicare program. Whatever happened to Senator Obama's campaign promise that his proposed health care program was going to save the average American family $2,400 per year? If there are 80M US families x $2,400/year x 10 years = $1.93T.

Senator Obama promised to cut medical expenses about $1.93T and now President Obama is talking about spending $1T. That is $2.93T different from his campaign promise. Am I seeing a trend here?

Remember even though Obama is spending he feels there are enough offsets in savings and efficiencies as well as increased taxes to cover the cost . Granted these offsets are hard to quantify it depends on if you believe the numbers. However as the President said to do nothing will eventually bust the budget.

[mjs]

Lets talk at a ten year old level which is a much more intelligent and ethical level than a politician level. Its their job to find ways for government programs to cost less. If you're about to lose your house and you tell you wife you'll spend $50 a week less at the bar if she lets you buy $50 more in Starbucks each week, she'll kick your ass. If you're company is going bankrupt and you tell you're boss you'll spend $100 less a month on golf if he'll approve $100 more on dinners, he'll also kick your ass.

Only a politician would say that fucking you only as hard as he did yesterday is an example of a budget neutral proposal. That savings is our savings! How are people expectations of their employees so damned low? We are entitled to an efficient government. The bastard owes that savings to us regardless of whether or not he gets what he wants. If Obama says I'll continue to waste money unless we pay for other people's health care, I'm going to go down there myself and kick his ass. I'm not giving him a bonus for doing his job! Our health insurance is twice that of other nations. They're not doing they're job! Implement the damned savings and add nothing. Just like Bush, he can't comprhend that as long as we're in debt, I don't want to hear about tax cuts or ways to not overspend at an even higher rate, I want a plan to live within our means. That means spend less or develop a plan to bring in more.

Welcome to the Real World DC. Where people quit being nice and start being real.

[mjs]

Remember even though Obama is spending he feels there are enough offsets in savings and efficiencies as well as increased taxes to cover the cost . Granted these offsets are hard to quantify it depends on if you believe the numbers. However as the President said to do nothing will eventually bust the budget.

We are spending well beyond our means and going bankrupt. Tell him his job is to implement the savings and efficiencies and until he learns what a ROCE is, he should shut the fuck up about initiatives that require additional spending.

[firstandten]

Lets talk at a ten year old level which is a much more intelligent and ethical level than a politician level. Its their job to find ways for government programs to cost less. If you're about to lose your house and you tell you wife you'll spend $50 a week less at the bar if she lets you buy $50 more in Starbucks each week, she'll kick your ass. If you're company is going bankrupt and you tell you're boss you'll spend $100 less a month on golf if he'll approve $100 more on dinners, he'll also kick your ass.

Only a politician would say that fucking you only as hard as he did yesterday is an example of a budget neutral proposal. That savings is our savings! How are people expectations of their employees so damned low? We are entitled to an efficient government. The bastard owes that savings to us regardless of whether or not he gets what he wants. If Obama says I'll continue to waste money unless we pay for other people's health care, I'm going to go down there myself and kick his ass. I'm not giving him a bonus for doing his job! Our health insurance is twice that of other nations. They're not doing they're job! Implement the damned savings and add nothing. Just like Bush, he can't comprhend that as long as we're in debt, I don't want to hear about tax cuts or ways to not overspend at an even higher rate, I want a plan to live within our means. That means spend less or develop a plan to bring in more.

Welcome to the Real World DC. Where people quit being nice and start being real.

Don't forget , we are for the most part dealing with free market employer based health care. The various players in the health care industry have no motivation to cut costs or make it efficient. To carve out a universal public option where there has been none before will take up front money. Are you willing to pay more in taxes for a universal public plan ? How can Obama make free market companies implement savings without the leverage of a competitive public plan.

You can put a public plan out there thats cheap and half-assed but what would that accomplish ? Its best to do it right even if it takes more money up front.

[ccbatson]

Step back for a moment to analyse this. Obama is not stupid, therefore he is not doing what appears to be a very stupid [[suicidal actually) thing without a reason. So, what is the reason? He must intend all of this spending to grow government [[radical liberal) power and influence. Once accomplished in the extreme, to whom does it matter that the economy is bankrupt? It will be miserable for the populace to be sure, but what will the impact be in the short and long run for the socialists in power? Likely, they will lose their elected positions in the short run, however, a large portion of what they accomplish in furthering socialism will be difficult, or impossible to reverse and take a long time to do so. So, in the long run, socialism takes a hold of our society and individual liberty is suppressed.

I believe, as an optimist, that we will, in fact, reverse socialism vigorously following Obama, but this is not in any way a guarantee, and, if history is a lesson, reversing entitlements has been very difficult, possibly unprecedented. What Obama may onbe counting on is that these entitlements, in a sense will reverse themselves if/when they completely melt down giving way to a new free market system to address the services formerly supplied by the entitlements [[ie black market tiered health care, private retirements in place of social security, etc). All well and good, right?? Not so fast, what about the funding of these programs [[even when utterly bankrupt)...this comes from taxes, good luck in getting rid of those.

[oladub]

Are you willing to pay more in taxes for a universal public plan ? How can Obama make free market companies implement savings without the leverage of a competitive public plan.

Nope, If I had to choose a government health care plan, I would opt for one like Ontario's which costs less per capita than what governments are already paying per capita here. Like mjs, I sure don't want a health care system more expensive than the one we already have. "How"? By adopting Ontario's plan lock, stock, and barrel. Some politicians will just have to do without their medical instusry campaign contributions. The will have to learn to compete with candidates who don't receive pharmaceutical company kickbacks.

[ccbatson]

Or...go total free market, disconnect from intermediaries as purchasers [[ie employers, or government) and point out the virtues and savings of HSA style plans.

[firstandten]

We are spending well beyond our means and going bankrupt. Tell him his job is to implement the savings and efficiencies and until he learns what a ROCE is, he should shut the fuck up about initiatives that require additional spending.

In the long run isn't this statement the bottom line in which we should hold him to and if he doesn't do it then go after him


" President Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term, mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government, an administration official said Saturday as the president worked to finalize his first budget request.
Obama's proposal for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 projects that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit he has inherited from President Bush will be halved to $533 billion by 2013. That's a difference of 9.2% of the overall economy now vs. 3% in four years."

[firstandten]

Or...go total free market, disconnect from intermediaries as purchasers [[ie employers, or government) and point out the virtues and savings of HSA style plans.

Thats assuming people have a job or enough of a job to pay for HSA and savings plans

[ccbatson]

"Wants to cut the deficit" does he? Like he doesn't want to own car companies [[he has 2 now), or socialize medicine, or, take your pick regarding the innumerable obfuscation's, misdirection's, and deceptions he spews every day.

[firstandten]

Nope, If I had to choose a government health care plan, I would opt for one like Ontario's which costs less per capita than what governments are already paying per capita here. Like mjs, I sure don't want a health care system more expensive than the one we already have. "How"? By adopting Ontario's plan lock, stock, and barrel. Some politicians will just have to do without their medical instusry campaign contributions. The will have to learn to compete with candidates who don't receive pharmaceutical company kickbacks.

Agreed, but for some reason the American public has problems with Canada as it relates to its universal health care plan. I would rather not see him re-invent the wheel. It seems he has to come up with a unique American plan just because his opponents will throw that dreaded " S" word in his face.

[mjs]

Don't forget, we are for the most part dealing with free market employer based health care. The various players in the health care industry have no motivation to cut costs or make it efficient.

You are an excuse maker and your President is an excuse maker and your party is a bunch of excuse makers. Don't tell me why it can't be done, just do it. I know it can be done because every other indutrialized nation is providing more coverage for a lower percent of the GDP. The motivation is to gain market share by becoming the low cost provider. Your attitude will get you fired where I'm from.

To carve out a universal public option where there has been none before will take up front money. Are you willing to pay more in taxes for a universal public plan?

Budget neutral and up front money are completely different things. I can respect a decision to pay more taxes for more service, but Obama promises more service for the same cost. Two plus two is four regardless of what the government in "1984" or 2009 says it is. At least I know he's pissing on my back when it smells like piss. Why do you believe him over you owns senses when he tells you its simply raining?

Its highly improbable chance that those manipulators in DC will acknowledge spending more money requires a tax increase. Government involvement is not necessary when what is best for my wallet is best for a hobo's wallet. Be upfront and say that insuring the hobo is the right thing to do despite raising my costs, but please don't tell me insuring the hobo will save me money over not insuring him.

How can Obama make free market companies implement savings without the leverage of a competitive public plan?

Do you hear what you're saying? Competitive government plan? Its is an oxymoron. How can I win the Kentucky Derby without a flying unicorn? How can I travel through time without a flux capacitor?

He can do it the way every other leader in the industrialized world does. Where I work, if you don't provide a a detailed problem description, there's zero chance they'll approve your solution. Good for me because I'm an expert problem solver and data analyst. I suck at alot of things, but mining data to solve "unsolvable" problems is my thing. I'm telling you that as long as the government doesn't analyze the data, they'll never ever understand the problem so they'll never ever solve it.

[firstandten]

You are an excuse maker and your President is an excuse maker and your party is a bunch of excuse makers. Don't tell me why it can't be done, just do it. I know it can be done because every other indutrialized nation is providing more coverage for a lower percent of the GDP. The motivation is to gain market share by becoming the low cost provider. Your attitude will get you fired where I'm from..

You may say its an excuse, but you don't factor in the political realities involved. Why do you think health care reform has been stalled for 50 years and presidents from both parties has failed to get reform.? Its because politicans on both sides are in the pocketbook of the major players that health reform would affect. If we lived in a society in which people weren't uninformed and didn't vote against there best interest we would have health care like you are talking about. This fear against gov run health care that our society has is the problem.

Budget neutral and up front money are completely different things. I can respect a decision to pay more taxes for more service, but Obama promises more service for the same cost. Two plus two is four regardless of what the government in "1984" or 2009 says it is. At least I know he's pissing on my back when it smells like piss. Why do you believe him over you owns senses when he tells you its simply raining?..

Doesn't have to be. You can spend upfront money and offset that with savings and efficiencies and be deficit neutral. I'm sure your company does that all the time with capital expenditures.

Its highly improbable chance that those manipulators in DC will acknowledge spending more money requires a tax increase. Government involvement is not necessary when what is best for my wallet is best for a hobo's wallet. Be upfront and say that insuring the hobo is the right thing to do despite raising my costs, but please don't tell me insuring the hobo will save me money over not insuring him

Somebody going to pay when that hobo and millions others like him walk into ER for treatment. You just think it won't affect you directly. Or if you want people like that to die in the streets then you won't need to worry about your costs.

Do you hear what you're saying? Competitive government plan? Its is an oxymoron. How can I win the Kentucky Derby without a flying unicorn? How can I travel through time without a flux capacitor?.

Then why is the TPON [[ the party of no) jumping up and down saying the for profit businesses will be driven from the marketplace and crying unfair competition with a gov run option.

Were not dealing in absolutes here. Its more like pick your poison.
You can either have insurance companies deny you coverages based on "pre-existing conditions and other cherry picking reasons, raise your premiums etc.
Or deal with the inefficiencies a gov run option is sure to bring.

[Lorax]

A good dose of nationalization would be the right medicine for healthcare.

If Chavez can do it with oil companies, we should too. Any industry which is critical to the nation functioning properly should be nationalized.

Any and all oil and natural gas taken from public lands in America should belong to us.

How would you like to pay 35 cents a gallon for gas.

I though so.

Same is true for healthcare. If all other industrialized nations can do it, and do it well, contrary to what the rethugnicans will tell you, we can do it too.

A single payer system, such as Medicare is the model we need to go by, and get after it. Corporate America should be thrilled to not have to pay for health care, so it's a win/win for them as well.

We're debating whether or not to even have a public option right now, which is the least of what we should be doing, and is barely acceptable as an alternative to what we have now.

We prop up failing banks, which are doomed to fail anyway, but continue to support fascist run health care corporations which only seek to deny coverage, even after you've faithfully paid them.

[oladub]

Lorax, I would love to buy gasoline for 35 cents. I didn't know that if government drilled, lifted, refined, transported, and distributed petroleum products that we would have 35 cent gasoline. Gee, just the taxes on gasoline are higher than that now. Governments, at all levels, must have been holding back in New Orleans. That aside, 35 cent gas offers new hope that some Obama /Kennedy plan will resolve healthcare affordability. Corporate greed, and those same corporations reciprical relationships with certain politicians, unfortunately have been holding back both private and public initiatives that would reduce the cost of health care. My suggestion is for advocates of both private and public health care affordability initiatives to first focus on initiatives they both agree on and get that dead wood out of the way. Then we can argue about whether e.g. $50 cash only medical clinics and $4 Walmart prescriptions vs. one payer Ontario like government plans are the way to go. Either would be more affordable than the corporatist health care system we now have or its expansion under an Obama/Kennedy plan.

[firstandten]

Krugman hits the nail on the head. The people need to shake up their senators. If there not on board then they need to get voted out. Then they can go work for the special interest groups that are lining there pockets now.

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 22, 2009
America’s political scene has changed immensely since the last time a Democratic president tried to reform health care. So has the health care picture: with costs soaring and insurance dwindling, nobody can now say with a straight face that the U.S. health care system is O.K. And if surveys like the New York Times/CBS News poll released last weekend are any indication, voters are ready for major change.
The question now is whether we will nonetheless fail to get that change, because a handful of Democratic senators are still determined to party like it’s 1993.

And yes, I mean Democratic senators. The Republicans, with a few possible exceptions, have decided to do all they can to make the Obama administration a failure. Their role in the health care debate is purely that of spoilers who keep shouting the old slogans — Government-run health care! Socialism! Europe! — hoping that someone still cares.
The polls suggest that hardly anyone does. Voters, it seems, strongly favor a universal guarantee of coverage, and they mostly accept the idea that higher taxes may be needed to achieve that guarantee. What’s more, they overwhelmingly favor precisely the feature of Democratic plans that Republicans denounce most fiercely as “socialized medicine� — the creation of a public health insurance option that competes with private insurers.
Or to put it another way, in effect voters support the health care plan jointly released by three House committees last week, which relies on a combination of subsidies and regulation to achieve universal coverage, and introduces a public plan to compete with insurers and hold down costs.
Yet it remains all too possible that health care reform will fail, as it has so many times before.
I’m not that worried about the issue of costs. Yes, the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost estimates for Senate plans were higher than expected, and caused considerable consternation last week. But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance — even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore, Democratic leaders know that they have to pass a health care bill for the sake of their own survival. One way or another, the numbers will be brought in line.
The real risk is that health care reform will be undermined by “centrist� Democratic senators who either prevent the passage of a bill or insist on watering down key elements of reform. I use scare quotes around “centrist,� by the way, because if the center means the position held by most Americans, the self-proclaimed centrists are in fact way out in right field.
What the balking Democrats seem most determined to do is to kill the public option, either by eliminating it or by carrying out a bait-and-switch, replacing a true public option with something meaningless. For the record, neither regional health cooperatives nor state-level public plans, both of which have been proposed as alternatives, would have the financial stability and bargaining power needed to bring down health care costs.
Whatever may be motivating these Democrats, they don’t seem able to explain their reasons in public.
Thus Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska initially declared that the public option — which, remember, has overwhelming popular support — was a “deal-breaker.� Why? Because he didn’t think private insurers could compete: “At the end of the day, the public plan wins the day.� Um, isn’t the purpose of health care reform to protect American citizens, not insurance companies?
Mr. Nelson softened his stand after reform advocates began a public campaign targeting him for his position on the public option.
And Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota offers a perfectly circular argument: we can’t have the public option, because if we do, health care reform won’t get the votes of senators like him. “In a 60-vote environment,� he says [[implicitly rejecting the idea, embraced by President Obama, of bypassing the filibuster if necessary), “you’ve got to attract some Republicans as well as holding virtually all the Democrats together, and that, I don’t believe, is possible with a pure public option.�
Honestly, I don’t know what these Democrats are trying to achieve. Yes, some of the balking senators receive large campaign contributions from the medical-industrial complex — but who in politics doesn’t? If I had to guess, I’d say that what’s really going on is that relatively conservative Democrats still cling to the old dream of becoming kingmakers, of recreating the bipartisan center that used to run America.
But this fantasy can’t be allowed to stand in the way of giving America the health care reform it needs. This time, the alleged center must not hold

[ccbatson]

Costs soaring and quality/availability dwindling....where have we seen this before?? That's right, with every socialistic program in the known history of mankind.

[Lorax]

Costs soaring and quality/availability dwindling....where have we seen this before?? That's right, with every socialistic program in the known history of mankind.

More appropriately, with every right wing fascist private health insurer out there.

[mjs]

You may say its an excuse, but you don't factor in the political realities involved. . . politicans on both sides are in the pocketbook of the major players that health reform would affect. If we lived in a society in which people weren't uninformed and didn't vote against there best interest we would have health care like you are talking about.

I'm with you 100%. The solution is that people become informed and learn to read the bills. If I read the bill and saw what my Senator voted, a trillion dollars in campaign money can't convince me he stands for the opposite of how he voted. In a democracy, the government is always going to be as good as the voters. My bill tracking and background means I can generally avoid the jacked end of most legislation. I have great insurance. I worry about others.

Doesn't have to be. [[a situation without savings opportunities). You can spend upfront money and offset that with savings and efficiencies and be deficit neutral. I'm sure your company does that all the time with capital expenditures.

Not only do they do it. I'm one of the people telling them when and how to do it. Like I've said, my advice is derived at least in part, often in full, by breaking down the data. I haven't seen them do this. I know it can be done and if they have a bill that does it, I can vote for it. My question was whether this bill does that and you seem too smart to be satisfied with the answer you passed on.

[firstandten]

Not only do they do it. I'm one of the people telling them when and how to do it. Like I've said, my advice is derived at least in part, often in full, by breaking down the data. I haven't seen them do this. I know it can be done and if they have a bill that does it, I can vote for it. My question was whether this bill does that and you seem too smart to be satisfied with the answer you passed on.

I guess my position is I'll accept the POTUS word on this. He's telling us essentially he has 950B of a 1T program covered. He's saying that those numbers the CBO will account for. He then says he has other long term savings in efficiencies that he feels is real but the CBO won't account for or in their jargon not scoreable.

So essentially he will not increase the debt with the gov't option, and his budget should reflect reducing the debt by half by the end of his first term.

I then read Paul Krugman's op-ed and was surprised he made this statement;
I’m not that worried about the issue of costs. Yes, the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost estimates for Senate plans were higher than expected, and caused considerable consternation last week. But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance — even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore, Democratic leaders know that they have to pass a health care bill for the sake of their own survival. One way or another, the numbers will be brought in line.

I realized then that campaign finance reform is needed as much as health care reform. The issue to me is getting the lobblyist out of our elected officials pocket so they can start to do the will of the people. This seems to be more of a problem in the senate than in the house, and this seems to be the real problem in getting universal health care passed.

[oladub]

Paul Krugman wrote "One way or another, the numbers will be brought in line."

Uh-huh. But which POTUS words do you choose to believe. In campaign mode, Senator Obama promised a health care plan that would reduce the health care costs of the average American family by $2,400/year. This was before he passed a bill including $650B of new health spending over the next ten years as a 'down-payment' on his new health care program. Now he is scrambling around trying to line up new taxes to pay for it and explaining that the CBO simply can't fathom his savings. I suppose that if taxes are raised enough, the budget will start to balance. That is unless some unforeseen thing like rising borrowing rates devastate rosy budget predictions

Not every financial writer is as sanguine as free-trade and globalization advocate Paul Krugman. From Wikipedia- Krugman argued that the large deficits generated by the Bush administration—generated by decreasing taxes, increasing public spending, and fighting a war in Iraq — were in the long run unsustainable, and would eventually generate a major economic crisis. I agree. Too bad President Obama is throwing more fuel on the fire.

"Who’s the biggest borrower today? The United States of America. At 12% of GDP, its deficit is more than twice as large as that of France. It already owes Japan and China as much as Germany owed its former enemies in reparations – adjusted to today’s money. But America’s debts are far grander than those of Germany in 1923 – even relative to the size of the US economy. Where Germany owed a little over $1 trillion; America – if you include private debt, official government debt, off-budget obligations and internal commitments – owes 100 times as much. And the United States keeps borrowing more. In a single year – 2009 – it will borrow $1.3 trillion, again, just shy of the debt that sank the Weimar Republic."
DéjÃ[ Vu All Over Again. Once More. by Bill Bonner

"Harry Browne, the former Libertarian Party candidate for president, used to say: "the government is great at breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and saying 'You see, without me you couldn't walk.'" That maxim is clearly illustrated by the financial industry regulatory reforms proposed this week by the Obama Administration.
In seeking to undo the damage inflicted over the past decade by misguided government policies, the new regulatory regime would ensure that the problems underlying our financial system will only get worse."
Back in the U.S.S.A. by Peter Schiff

"I mean, it just sounds so stupid that you wonder what these people are drinking, smoking, inhaling or eating, because whatever it is, I desperately want some, too! It apparently puts the user into some kind of pleasant mental fantasy-land where the problems caused by an excess of pleasure-seeking are solved with much more pleasure-seeking and the problems of too much debt and too much government are solved by much more debt and much more government, but they somehow retain the ability to act straight and sober so they can say this kind of insane crap with a straight face! Wow!"
The Euphoric High of Government Spending by The Mogambo Guru

[Omaha]

There is another thing to look at as we piece through health care reform.

The whole idea of insurance is communistic! It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The very nature of insurance is that if you get a large enough pool of people you can share risks and benefits across that diverse pool. This is the kind of “working toward the common good;� “we’re stronger when we’re together;� “we can do more together than we can apart� kind of stuff that you find in unions, the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s, the Womens' Movement of the 70s and 80s and in Socialist and Communist countries.

The only thing good about insurance companies is that they are “for profit� entities. They make money by denying coverage to their policy holders. Unfortunately the government is not talking about the reform of health insurance policies [[that are commodities which can be bought and sold for a profit) but health care reform.

I want to be very cautious of calling this “health care reform.� Health care reform [[which emphasizes having something that works for everyone and removes barriers to quality affordable care) is very different than health care insurance [[which emphasizes the individual and ability to pay).

I can hear those liberals crying that "we are better off/stronger as a nation if everyone has access to the health care they need." Weeping about insurance reform is not enough. It leaves too many people vulnerable. It will lead to people suffering from bad health, bankruptcy, and early death. It will limit future opportunities for children to grow up and be “all they can be� and to participate fully in society. The libs might even twist this argument by throwing in disadvantages accruing to some because they are low income, or people of color or women.

Hell if Obama can become POTUS, there is no need for reform of anything. All the barriers that limit anybody's access to the oppotunities required to become all you can be are already gone.

SO LIBS, GET OVER IT. We ration health care as it should be rationed…by ability to pay. That is what every Social Darwinist believes, and that is what is best for the rich and well-born.

This “we all do better, when we all do better� kind of pie in the sky worldview of the libs is just that...pie in the sky. Get a grip on reality and just buy insurance coverage...if you are able.

[firstandten]

Omaha after reading thru your brilliant post, I realize you just solved one of most pressing problems of this or any decade. Instead of treating health care as part of the commons like police, fire, schools etc. Lets make health care dependent on ability to pay. Hey, that way people will die off leaving scarce resources to those strong people who deserve it. Overpopulation will be a thing of the past , nobody should starve because those folks who would take up our precious food supply will be gone When I ride down the interstate seeing acres and acres of farm land I know that if we follow your principals we won't ever have to worry about too many people bumping up against me and taking whats rightfully mine.We might need to build a few more hospice centers...... no lets not do that, just let them die on the sidewalk, or better yet drop them off at the doorstep of the funeral home it will save on the budget. We can make oil and other fossil fuels last a few more generations with a reduced population.

Just think the people who are left can be even more wealthy since there's less people to share in that pie of wealth.

Wow, you really hit on something, I think this Colbert Conservative thing could grow into a third party. Where do I sign up?