February 22, 2006
Kos Expanded
I was over at Kos yesterday. No, I have NO IDEA why. I think perhaps I was feeling too good after the weekend and needed to read some crap. Perhaps it was because I was feeling rather intelligent and needed to erase and eliminate some brain cells. I don't know why I felt like peeking in a den of total and utter contempt and hatred, but I did. The main post was rather typical of the left (and yes, Daily Kos IS the Democrat party today in America, whether you want to admit it or not).
Slight correction:
Democrats: We should fix the environment because man, and only man, has completely and utterly destroyed it. And the only possible way that we can ever hope to fix it is to increase taxes and completely control all manufacturing of all products in this country. We must raise taxes by at least 50% and pass regulations that will make it so expensive to do anything that only government will be able to provide for any needs of citizens. Only then can we have utopia here on Earth.
Addition:
D: We should make the Medicare prescription drug program better by raising taxes on everyone in the country and making all prescription drugs free for everyone on the planet. Only by crushing the evil, capitalist pharmaceutical companies can we truly be free. Only by making health care the sole province of government can we be good. When government is the only provider of medicine in America, we will have utopia here on Earth.
Translation: D: Okay, since you won't let us completely nationalize all facets of all health care in the world today, will you at least let us attempt to put all manufacturers of drugs out of business like we did with the flu vaccines? We can "negotiate" with the evil companies until they simply cannot afford to do business, and when they shut down, government can step in and meet the needs of our people by providing them with universal health care coverage. Only then can we have utopia here on Earth.
The rest of the D statement: ... raising taxes by at least 50%. There is no way that we can reduce spending anywhere in the government at any time, since any spending by a government agency is better than the ill-informed and stupid people being able to make their own decisions on how they can spend money, so we have to increase spending AND increase taxes, and then we can reduce the deficit. Only when government has total control over everyone's money and the deficit is reduced while spending is dramatically increased can we have utopia here on Earth.
Continuing the D thought: ... because we're spending money on defense and on evil defense contractors when we could be spending it on health care. Any dollar you spend on fighting terrorists is a dollar that you took out of a senior citizen's mouth, forcing them to eat dog food just to survive. Why do you evil people want to kill senior citizens? Only when we completely retract into our own country and ignore the entire rest of the world will be have utopia here in Earth.
D (continued): ... because with the help of Kyoto, we can destroy capitalism! Only with this treaty in place will we be able to reduce productive people to nothing. It is required that we destroy American businesses -- so that the government can take over the production of everything. Those regulations will not apply when government has taken over the businesses, because that will be an "emergency" situation. Only when we approve that treaty so we can federalize production will we obtain utopia here on Earth.
Expanding the D: meaning those people who have two televisions and a car and a cell phone and air conditioning but do not have a job, nor even make an attempt at getting a job because the government will provide them with everything they need, including shelter, food, and education, even if they're not citizens of this country. Yes, we know the war on poverty is a complete and total failure, but it will work if we just get a few more billion. After all, when we (that's the royal "we" of government) can provide housing, food, and what we determine to be the essentials for everyone in the country, whether they want it or not, we will reach utopia here on Earth!
The next sentences from D: Because we've got some. All of them require government to raise taxes and spending, of course, because only government can truly provide "real" jobs with "real" wages. It is, after all, government's job to provide jobs -- without government, there would be absolutely no jobs in this country at all! Don't you understand that only when government controls the number of jobs and who can have those jobs will we have utopia here on Earth.
D: With increased taxes and increased benefits so that government can control all aspects of everyone's retirement -- only then will we have utopia here on Earth.
D Meaning: including special privileges and rights and extra special things for them because the Democrat idea is to pit everyone against everyone else so that the Royal Democrat Saviors can save the world. Only then will we have utopia here on Earth.
Rare, of course, meaning rare among people with last names that begin with QZ and have more than 27 letters in their first name. Only when we have total abortion on demand will we have utopia here on Earth.
So there you have it, in the Democrat's words, their position on this country. Only when you give total control of everything -- taxes, money, personal health, freedom, any business, all healthcare, everything -- will the Democrats be happy with their utopia here on Earth.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
For some reason, I decided to fix and add a few details and facts to the post. It's kind of long and really annoying, so I'll put it in the extended entry.
And now, a brief history of George W. Bush and his Republican Congress's record of "bipartisanship" over the past 5 years:Democrats (D): We should fix the environment.
Republicans (R): Shut up!
Slight correction:
Democrats: We should fix the environment because man, and only man, has completely and utterly destroyed it. And the only possible way that we can ever hope to fix it is to increase taxes and completely control all manufacturing of all products in this country. We must raise taxes by at least 50% and pass regulations that will make it so expensive to do anything that only government will be able to provide for any needs of citizens. Only then can we have utopia here on Earth.
D: We should make the Medicare prescription drug program better...
R: Sit down!
Addition:
D: We should make the Medicare prescription drug program better by raising taxes on everyone in the country and making all prescription drugs free for everyone on the planet. Only by crushing the evil, capitalist pharmaceutical companies can we truly be free. Only by making health care the sole province of government can we be good. When government is the only provider of medicine in America, we will have utopia here on Earth.
D: Can we at least let the federal government negotiate with drug companies to get lower prices?
R: Sit on my face and wriggle, ***munch!
Translation: D: Okay, since you won't let us completely nationalize all facets of all health care in the world today, will you at least let us attempt to put all manufacturers of drugs out of business like we did with the flu vaccines? We can "negotiate" with the evil companies until they simply cannot afford to do business, and when they shut down, government can step in and meet the needs of our people by providing them with universal health care coverage. Only then can we have utopia here on Earth.
D: Perhaps the deficit is getting a bit high and we should consider...
R: Considering is for losers!
The rest of the D statement: ... raising taxes by at least 50%. There is no way that we can reduce spending anywhere in the government at any time, since any spending by a government agency is better than the ill-informed and stupid people being able to make their own decisions on how they can spend money, so we have to increase spending AND increase taxes, and then we can reduce the deficit. Only when government has total control over everyone's money and the deficit is reduced while spending is dramatically increased can we have utopia here on Earth.
D: But certainly we can agree that war-profiteering in Iraq must be stopped...
R: You know what needs to be stopped? Your mouth!
Continuing the D thought: ... because we're spending money on defense and on evil defense contractors when we could be spending it on health care. Any dollar you spend on fighting terrorists is a dollar that you took out of a senior citizen's mouth, forcing them to eat dog food just to survive. Why do you evil people want to kill senior citizens? Only when we completely retract into our own country and ignore the entire rest of the world will be have utopia here in Earth.
D: You know global warming is real. Can we at least discuss the Kyoto...
R: Kyo-NO!
D (continued): ... because with the help of Kyoto, we can destroy capitalism! Only with this treaty in place will we be able to reduce productive people to nothing. It is required that we destroy American businesses -- so that the government can take over the production of everything. Those regulations will not apply when government has taken over the businesses, because that will be an "emergency" situation. Only when we approve that treaty so we can federalize production will we obtain utopia here on Earth.
D: Poverty?
R: [Snort!] Poor people make lousy campaign contributors. Deeee-nied.
Expanding the D: meaning those people who have two televisions and a car and a cell phone and air conditioning but do not have a job, nor even make an attempt at getting a job because the government will provide them with everything they need, including shelter, food, and education, even if they're not citizens of this country. Yes, we know the war on poverty is a complete and total failure, but it will work if we just get a few more billion. After all, when we (that's the royal "we" of government) can provide housing, food, and what we determine to be the essentials for everyone in the country, whether they want it or not, we will reach utopia here on Earth!
D: Would you like to see our ideas on job-creation?
R: Would you like to see our ideas on sticking your head in a toilet?
The next sentences from D: Because we've got some. All of them require government to raise taxes and spending, of course, because only government can truly provide "real" jobs with "real" wages. It is, after all, government's job to provide jobs -- without government, there would be absolutely no jobs in this country at all! Don't you understand that only when government controls the number of jobs and who can have those jobs will we have utopia here on Earth.
D: Real Social Security reform?
R: Knee to the groin?
D: With increased taxes and increased benefits so that government can control all aspects of everyone's retirement -- only then will we have utopia here on Earth.
D: Basic equality for gays?
R: Fairy lovers.
D Meaning: including special privileges and rights and extra special things for them because the Democrat idea is to pit everyone against everyone else so that the Royal Democrat Saviors can save the world. Only then will we have utopia here on Earth.
D: Making abortion safe, legal and, most important, rare?
R: Women...can't live with `em, can't imagine a threesome without `em!! Par-tay!!!!!!!
Rare, of course, meaning rare among people with last names that begin with QZ and have more than 27 letters in their first name. Only when we have total abortion on demand will we have utopia here on Earth.
And so it goes. As palpable as my frustration is with the Democratic leadership, I save my deepest contempt for the Republican leadership and the way they've destroyed any sense of equality, fairness and compassion for Americans. They lie, they cheat, they steal. They bamboozle, they spin, they obfuscate. They deceive, they stonewall, they bully. They're uncivil, unethical and unresponsive. It's in their DNA. All in the name of "drowning the federal government in the bathtub."
So there you have it, in the Democrat's words, their position on this country. Only when you give total control of everything -- taxes, money, personal health, freedom, any business, all healthcare, everything -- will the Democrats be happy with their utopia here on Earth.
Think about that next time you want to vote Democrat -- they despise everything that is not a government solution.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:03 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1312 words, total size 8 kb.
1
Delved into Liberal World, eh? I am always amazed how they always put idealism over reality. Heck, I'm not sure if they even know what reality is.
Consider Kyoto. They have CONVINCED themselves that Bush pulled us out of Kyoto, completely ignoring that the Senate voted 95-0 against it, and Clinton refused to sign it. But, those facts do not exist in the Loon mind.
And making abortion rare? Baa. They cannot even write what they really believe, re, that they want abortion on demand.
Posted by: William Teach at February 22, 2006 01:10 PM (V5vwb)
2
I guess it would be stupid to add that I hope the drug companies never have to make deals with the government or are forced to sell drugs cheaper.
The drug companies spend billions of dollars in research for just one drug to bring it to market, the prices they charge are to re-coup their costs. If they are forced to sell the drugs cheaper, they might not do research to bring new and life saving drugs to market.
I fear this very much as some of the new arthritis drugs that have been brought to market recently are truely life savers and eventually I will be on them. Without them alot of peoples lives would have ended.
Also, every, every, every drug company have programs that if you can not afford their drugs they will qualify you for a discount program. All anyone has to do is call the drug manufacturer for the details.
Posted by: Machelle at February 22, 2006 01:29 PM (ZAyoW)
3
Do Republicans ever get tired of spouting theology instead of facts?
1. Environment. Please don't tell me you believe Michael Crichton, author, over thousands of scientists that have actual data on global warming? How about this?
2. Medicare. Republicans made their bed, time to lay down. Remember the $11 Trillion budget surplus that Democrats handed over to you? I'm pretty sure that could have been used to fix Medicare and provide a reasonable prescription plan without raising taxes by 50%. BTW, what a misleading stat. The "I'm living off Daddy's money" tax is now 17%, where it used to be 33%. So, firefighters and policemen dying in the line of duty pay more taxes than Paris Hilton - nice moral take there Neocons. Increasing this tax by 50% would raise 17% to about 25%. Still less than a lot of blue collar workers. But, you're a neocon. You don't care about workers, only the aristocracy.
Also - Machelle - each and every large pharm company spend more on overhead (advertising, accounting, admin) than they do on research. Advertising is nearly equal to R&D in many companies. Look it up. If you take away the misleading TV commercials and magazine ads, your drugs would be a lot cheaper.
3. Deficit. This is ALL YOUR BABY. You guys slashed taxes on Donald Trump and Paris Hilton while giving $400 a year back to working people. Our deficit is huge and your solution is to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and food programs for the elderly. I am so glad the Republicans are the moral party in America. Let me see, where is that passage...Luke, Mark, ah here it is Bush 11:16
And the poor shall pay for the vacations of the wealthy with their health and very lives.
4. Iraq. Once again you'd rather be loud than right. There is war profiteering going on in Iraq. Hallilburton is sending truckers down death alley with empty tankers and charging the U.S. for "Sailboat Fuel". They are providing rotten food, charging for soldier meals that don't exist, and the list goes on and on. But, you would rather ignore that reality and pretend that we don't want to fight the war on terror. b.s. With the money saved by investigating war profiteering we could provide armor for the troops - why do you hate the troops Ogre?
5. Abortion. Let's be perfectly clear.
* Under President Clinton abortions were decreasing FASTER than under President Bush. President Bush stopped the Clinton plan to decrease abortions. Thus, President Bush is DIRECTLY responsible for MORE abortions being performed in the U.S. every year.
* Republicans want every baby to be born, even if it kills the mother, but then cut the funding to take care of those children. *Republicans are pro-birth, you could care less about life*.
Feel free to spout your right-wing b.s. response, absent any hard data or facts, because after all, you are the "faith" party, so why have data to back up what you believe?
Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 01:49 PM (V/N23)
4
Okay, I'm not sure why links no longer work. Did you disable that because I was able to send your readers to actual facts? I'm surprised you have comments at all, given most Republican sites do not allow "citizens" to provide input - kind of like our isolationist President. Don't you find it hippocritical that you push against isolationism at the International level, yet you support a Party that only meets with each other?
Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 01:51 PM (V/N23)
5
Pat, there are also tons of scientists who think otherwise, regarding global warming. There is also tons of scientific data, not conjecture and computer models, that shows that the earth is not experiencing global warming.
If global warming is so real, then why are the alarmists now using the term "global climate change?" Could it be because the facts do not fit the hypothesis?
Posted by: William Teach at February 22, 2006 02:06 PM (V5vwb)
6
Teach, I usually leave venturing into the liberal lunatic land up to you. I feel dirty and dumber after visiting them.
Machelle, Democrats/Liberals do not like drug companies making money, plain and simple. I'm not sure if it's just jealousy, or it's more than that. They want to be the sole provider of medicine, and as you point out, if that is the case, people will die.
Robert P, I think you missed the point of the post -- it was describing what Democrats believe, not Republicans. I haven't made any adjustments, as your fantasy-land mind seems to think -- links work now exactly as they have always worked here.
Feel free to speak away, I have no problem letting Democrats show their position and their ignorance of reality. I LIKE it when Democrats are actually honest about their positions -- which almost never happens.
But do, please, watch the language. If you cannot converse in a civil tone, I will just start deleting or more heavily editing your posts.
Now, if you really want them (and you don't), I'll respond, in-kind, to your "statements."
1. Environment. Don't tell me you believe thousands of scientists over thousands of scientists? There is clearly NOT a consensus, even among learned scientists, about the CAUSE of global warming. None. You can believe some, and others can believe others, but someday the fact might have to be faced that we simply cannot know everything.
2. Thank you for making the point of the position of the Democrats -- the only solution is to raise taxes. I don't know if it's jealous here, too, or not. Why do you want to take Paris Hilton's money? By what right?
3. Again, thank you for making the point. The only solution from the left, no matter the problem (real or imagined) is more taxes.
4. Since you are perfect, perhaps you can run the war without any waste at all. No, really, feel free to make your own bid on providing any service you want. And you don't even want to investigate if there is waste! Why do you support wasting money on rotten food in Iraq?
5. I'll have to check on that one, I'm not sure of the actual numbers. I'm pretty sure, however, that Bush hasn't actually performed any abortions, personally, much to the chagrin of Democrats everywhere. I'm sure that Clinton, the first black president, did because you say so.
And that last comment is just typical Democrat -- "the Party that only meets with itself." I know, you'd prefer that Democrats were in power and you think that they should be able to tell Republicans what to do.
Oh, and by the way? Did I ever say that I was a Republican?
Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 02:11 PM (/k+l4)
7
I love Roberts (who I referred to as Pat, my Bad) part about: Republicans want every baby to be born, even if it kills the mother, but then cut the funding to take care of those children.
Maybe liberals shouldn't have babies if they cannot get a job to take care of them. It's not the governments job to pay for the child care, but the parents. But, since most liberals are lazy slugabeds, and expect handouts paid for with tax money from Republicans who actually work....
Posted by: William Teach at February 22, 2006 02:30 PM (V5vwb)
8
But that IS their position, Teach! They honestly WANT to take care of every man, woman, and child in the country. They WANT people to be dependent on them. They measure success by how many people are dependent on government!
And, of course, the only way they can get money to actually support everyone is by taking it from "the rich." So their plan is simple and their war cry is simple. If you oppose them, you want to kill people.
Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 02:34 PM (/k+l4)
9
Ogre: Did I ever say that I was a Republican?
But Ogre, it's obvious that you are a Republican. everyone knows that a vote for anyone but the Republicans is a vote for the Democrats, and since you are obviously NOT a Democrat, you HAVE TO BE a Republican!
Ok, I'll end the sarcasm. Sorry!
Posted by: Echo Zoe at February 22, 2006 02:37 PM (K+h36)
10
so, if I weigh the same as a duck...? 
Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 02:46 PM (/k+l4)
11
At least here on this site you are finally speaking the truth. You don't care about the downtrodden, you don't care about those who are down on their luck - It's their own fault.
Now, please have your leaders admit this the next time they are courting the Christian vote, because your point of view is so unChristian it's unfathomable.
Sorry about the language, I'm ticked. What about our Seniors Teach? What about our few remaining WWII vets? Do they deserve to eat? Do they deserve to have health care? If so, why do you support cutting services to them?
Where do you draw the line, just for clarification - who deserves help and who doesn't?
Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 02:50 PM (V/N23)
12
Ogre,
When Clinton was in office, VP Gore met with Republican Senators every week. As soon as Bush was elected, Cheney made all trips to the Hill one-sided, Democrats were not allowed to attend. Because of that, every single problem in America can be laid entirely at the feet of Republicans. The Democrats have been blocked from helping.
An unpopular war.
Corruption in Washington.
Poor healthcare.
Medicaid/Medicare cuts.
Veteran's Healthcare cuts.
More arsenic, mercury and other toxins in our water.
The list goes on and on. If you cut the other party out of government, then you have to take sole responsibility for the outcome.
Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 02:55 PM (V/N23)
13
You have drawn the line, and it is, I believe the one true difference between Conservative and Liberals -- both groups of people want seniors to eat, health care for anyone who wants it, and other good things.
However, liberals believe all and everything can ONLY be provided by government, while conservatives believe in the free market and freedom of choice. If *I* don't WANT insurance, why am I forced to have it? It's not because I don't care about kids.
As for the Republican/Democrat split, well, Democrats are very reliably liberal -- they will almost always take up the liberal position and support it. Republicans, today, are taking up more and more liberal position.
In my mind, if you support government expanding ANYTHING, you're taking the liberal position. Now where's my chart showing my view on the political spectrum...
Oh yeah, here it is:
http://ogresview.mu.nu/archives/133862.php
(For Robert, if you're interested)
Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 02:56 PM (/k+l4)
14
Each and every one of us with insurance pays $922 a year in extra premiums to cover those without.
Each and every one of us pays extra in taxes for those without insurnace.
Each and every one of us that goes to the hospital pays extra for services given to those without insurance.
The free market system works if it is monitored. If EVERY employer had to provide decent BASIC health care, then it wouldn't be an issue. If Wal-Mart gave their workers healthcare, instead of a PACKET ON HOW TO GET MEDICAID when they went to work there - then maybe we wouldn't be having these conversations.
A recent study in NC showed that something like 60% of Medicaid patients at one hospital were Wal-Mart employees. The free market system works with regulation.
Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 03:01 PM (V/N23)
15
BTW,
I'm out of here for the next couple hours, however, I have enjoyed the tail end of our discussion.
Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 03:02 PM (V/N23)
16
"What about our Seniors Teach?"
What about them? It is an obvious deflection.
Posted by: William Teach at February 22, 2006 03:47 PM (IRsCk)
17
I would modify your statements, Robert --
Each and every one of us with insurance is forced to pay, against our will, $922 a year in extra premiums, much of which is wasted in bureaucracies, to cover those who may not want insurance. If *I* were giving that $922, I would likely VOLUNTARILY give it to help people, and the entire $922 would reach the person, NOT the bureaucracy.
That's my problem. *I* want to help people, NOT be forced at gunpoint to help them and support useless bureaucracies at the same time.
Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 03:58 PM (/k+l4)
18
Testing, one two three....
I just had a long post disappear.
Posted by: Robert P at February 22, 2006 04:28 PM (V/N23)
19
No idea why -- nothing was done on this end. Sorry about that.
Posted by: Ogre at February 22, 2006 08:25 PM (2IrwV)
20
Robert and Ogre - I want you both to go to the web site of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and read some of the charts that compare benefits state to state.
Robert, I don't know where you are, but I bet it's someplace like here in Massachusetts with mandated benefits up the wazoo. For MILLIONS of seniors, the Medicare Part D is a Godsend - I mena think about it - for FOURTY YEARS prescription drugs weren't covered for seniors? The only reason it isn't a bigger 'success' is that AARP Dem lobbyists SAY it's not, and produce phony statistics.
Oh, btw, I AM a Republican - Ogre is not.
HE is a force of nature.
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at February 23, 2006 05:16 AM (NprS0)
21
That's why one of the biggest bills last year in Congress that I REALLY supported (and my Congressman told me was sure to pass, but didn't) was the Health Insurance Act that would have completely removed state mandates! I LOVED that bill!
It was something the federal government actually had the jurisdiction to do, and it was good -- so that pretty much doomed it.
In a nutshell, that bill would have said that if any insurance company met the requirements for one state, no other state could bar it from doing business in their state. My monthly insurance cost estimates would drop from about $780 a month to about $112 per month.
Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 11:09 AM (2IrwV)
22
Peter,
If it is such a success, how come only 5 million people have signed up, but the government keeps saying 25 million?
Remember, that prescription drugs 45 years ago, well, didn't exist. Also remember that most prescription drugs are post-facto band-aids for conditions that could have been avoided if the country had a health plan that made preventive care available. Type2 Diabetes is one that comes to mind. My sister has great insurance at a company called NewPig and she found out at her yearly physical she was heading towards Type2 land. She changed her lifestyle and now her numbers are looking better. So, no meds for the rest of her life thanks to preventive care. A loss for the Pharm companies, who would much rather she have lousy insurance and end up on their meds for life.
Posted by: Robert P at February 23, 2006 02:18 PM (7X7vQ)
23
Again, that horrible view of people! What makes you think that people really, honestly want other people to be sick and in pain to earn money? Sure, there's some, but there's an exception to nearly every rule.
Is there anyone on the planet that wants people sick and dying? Sure. Is it all, most, or even a few evil corporations? Not likely.
You see, corporations understand the basic rules of economics -- if people die, they will not be able to purchase their product!
As for your sister and preventative care, that's absolutely wonderful! It's a great story and I am honestly happy that she's changed and may have avoided Type 2 Diabetes!
Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 02:25 PM (/k+l4)
24
ALL LARGE PHARM COMPANIES have avoided making new antibiotics because the profit margin is not big enough. Profits over people.
Look, I've interviewed with a number of small biotech firms, they are good people trying to create novel treatments. But, I don't for a minute believe that big PHARM does anything that is not in their own profit interest. This is nothing new, it's capitalism. The problem is that many short-sighted companies don't see how good business practices are good for business.
Take Costco. They pay an average of $16/hour and have full healthcare for their workers. They are ranked 29 on Fortune 500. WalMart pays $9/hour and gives their new workers paperwork to sign up for Medicaid. The difference?
The Waltons have pocketed $75 Billion in wealth, while their employees have healthcare paid by....wait for it....YOUR TAXES!!!
Posted by: Robert P at February 23, 2006 02:40 PM (7X7vQ)
25
BTW, if it's good enough for Wal-Mart, Veterans, Senators, Congressmen, the President, VP, White House staff, Congressional staff, the poor, the handicapped, the blind, the elderly, the very young, pregnant mothers, and the mentally ill - why is it not good enough for everyone?
Posted by: Robert P at February 23, 2006 02:46 PM (7X7vQ)
26
No, that's not profits over people, that's practical reality.
Can we cure cancer? Maybe. How about if we spend $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 tomorrow? I bet we can cure it! Now, since we haven't already spent that money, it must be because we want people dead, not because we simply don't have the money!
If a company doesn't make some money, it doesn't exist. So a company cannot produce a product, even if it might save lives, if they don't exist!
As for the health care problem, that's government creating the problem. Did you know that health care, when provided for employees, was introduced as an INCENTIVE? That's right! Once upon a time health care wasn't DEMANDED as a right!
As a citizen, I have zero obligation to be forced to pay for anything for anyone else. That doesn't mean I don't care, it means I don't want to be FORCED to care -- that's not caring.
When government provides sometimes -- anything -- to someone else, they can ONLY get it by taking it from someone. Government produces nothing -- it can ONLY take.
Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 02:47 PM (/k+l4)
27
Who says you have to have it? I'm just saying Medicare should be available for anyone who wants to pay the premiums and get the top flight service without paying 25% for administration fees and executive salaries. The best plan for the future is Medicare available to everyone as BASIC HEALTHCARE, with the option to buy private plans overtop for more specific coverages. But, if you decide not to invest in healthcare, then there shouldn't be any medical bankruptcy. Low cost Medicare for all would eliminate medical bankrupty, thereby saving hospitals HUGE boluses of money from lost income and lowering the cost of services.
No matter how much money we spend, we will never cure cancer. Period. We can only fight cancer.
My whole point was that many businesses don't see how you can have good business practices and still make money. Costco is the perfect example, they are 10 times smaller than Sam's Club, but actually MADE more last year - with higher pay and better benefits.
The government produces the military, the roads, safe transportation, safe jobs, safe drugs, best research in the world, and the best medical plan in the world.
Posted by: Robert P at February 23, 2006 02:58 PM (7X7vQ)
28
I completely agree -- well, with one exception -- why should government run Medicare? Government is totally incompetent in running ANYTHING. Get government out of it, and it's a wonderful idea.
And the big reason I oppose government from providing basic healthcare to everyone is the same reason that McDonalds doesn't give away Big Macs -- as soon as they started to do it, everyone would want one. Demand would rise. Then McDonalds would run out of Big Macs. They'd be forced to ration them and there would be long waits in line. Those that could afford them, even those who were starving, would have to wait in line...just like everywhere socialized medicine provided by government is tried.
Posted by: Ogre at February 23, 2006 11:02 PM (2IrwV)
29
Medicare spends 3% of its total costs on overhead, private insurance companies spend 25%. TWENTY-FIVE percent. That doesn't take into account advertising. THAT is why government should run the insurance industry.
Imagine a world where roads were privatized. You spend $400 a month for a driving "premium", then extra every time you leave the state. Extra if you drive an SUV. Extra if you drive a truck.
Along come the Democrats saying we can make the roads public. Republicans go bananas. Oh, if the Democrats make roads private the world will end. Businesses will go broke with the taxes!
It's all bull - don't believe it without reading it. The 3%/25% ratio should be enough for you to agree that the government doesn't waste money.
Socialized medicine is not what I am proposing
Posted by: Robert P at February 24, 2006 01:24 AM (V/N23)
30
If government runs it, it IS socialized -- because they cannot lose money, it's impossible. If government needs more money, they just take it.
If your numbers are correct, then Medicare also spends 50% on waste. There is no oversight. No one questions that Medicare is rampant with huge amounts of fraud and waste -- and no one cares.
And in NC, I wouldn't mind seeing roads privatized. The government here is utterly incapable of building roads that are useful (they'd rather build trolleys, museums, and professional sports stadiums), nor can they even spend the money they raise to maintain the roads (over $100 million diverted from gas taxes to the general fund). Yes, private roads would be a boon here.
Posted by: Ogre at February 24, 2006 10:48 AM (CyQ4M)
49kb generated in CPU 0.0192, elapsed 0.1056 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.0945 seconds, 219 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
88 queries taking 0.0945 seconds, 219 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
