WOW! I can’t believe the resistance this article brings to attention.
We are forced to buy auto insurance but when it comes to health ins looks like people don’t like that idea.
My feeling is that government shouldn’t be allowed to force anyone to buy any kind of insurance!
Clinton is like a fish of water right now.She has her millions that both she and her husband stole from the american people and she stands to loose and I hope she does.
Hillary is just as much if not more a hypocrit as her husband.
That reminds me who is running for president Hillary or Bill?
My question is what happens to those of us with private health care? If the government takes over health care and mandates it for everyone, does that mean those of us who are currently covered would have to switch to government health care?
(I apologize if that’s a dumb question…but one of my biggest fears is if the government takes over health care, the conservatives will leap at the chance to diminish the services directed at women…)
Off the top of my head I can’t think of a single administration (democratic or republican) that has kept its hands of Social Security. Since, up until recently, that budget usually ran into surplus it was ripe for raiding.
And that whole “if we don’t fight them there we’ll fight them here” thing is a crock. Fighting a preemptive war in Iraq does nothing to stop people from commiting heinous acts on American soil. If somebody truly wanted to hurt us here they still could. What we’ve done in Iraq is breed more terrorists – al Quaida was not in Iraq before we invaded.
And you can’t blame budgeting that increases spending while decreasing income on a stock market slide. It is impossible to balance a budget while spending more and taking in less. That’s why just about every other war in history has come with a tax hike – to pay for the thing.
One should also not connect the recession from the dot.com bubble bursting and the recession from post-9/11 fears. They are not connected. Clinton did not cause the recession after 9/11, people’s fears caused that recession.
If you recall the only time in the past few decades the budget was balanced was under a democrat – Clinton. It wasn’t balanced under Reagan, or Bush I, just under Clinton. I don’t say I agree with all of Clinton’s fiscal policies, but I do agree with a balanced budget. It allows us to see what we are spending our money on, and if we don’t like how much is being spent we know exactly where to cut. You can’t do that when you always run in the red. You don’t have the same options.
As for “No Child Left Behind” that was a campaign promise. If we remember our recent history Bush ran partially as the “Education President”.
The recent economic stimulus is also being touted by Bush. Both sides have taken it up, but Bush isn’t conceding anything on this one; he wants to give people money.
And the tax cuts were passed under a Congress controlled by Republicans – remember. There didn’t have to be any Democrats voting for it as the Republicans had a larger majority then than the Democrats have now.
If you recall the last president to give amnesty to illegals was Reagan – a Republican. Conservatives everywhere are looking at how they’ll get cheap labor if we truly crack down on illegals.
Sorry Al, there’s not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. But it takes people who are not party-fanatics to see it.
Nebraskan, I haven’t heard anyone talking about a single-payer system in a while. The plans I’ve heard about lately have all been about creating a government run backdrop; meaning if you’re currently insured you wouldn’t be affected (supposedly) but if you aren’t insured you’d have coverage through the government.
My take is we need to go one way or the other. We either need to completely socialize medicine or we need to make it a capitalistic market. From what I know, as little as that may be, the biggest problem with healthcare right now is that it is a partially socialized system. We have not allowed the market to determine the cost of healthcare in decades. Socialized medicine works as has been proven in many countries; and it doesn’t cost more than privatized medicine. I think we could drive costs even lower, and stimulate some advancements, by letting the market do its job.
I don’t think any plan put forth in recent memory (the last 10 years or so) has a chance of doing anything more than messing up the system. The plans I have heard simply introduce more government meddling in ways almost guaranteed to mess up the system. How many problems are caused by the government interfering in certain areas of healthcare? It’s one thing to regulate the industry for safety and health, and another to regulate pricing – however indirectly.
So, yes and no. I support government meddling if they want to go to a completely socialized system. Otherwise they need to get out.
You can do more research too. There’s a lot of information out there debunking your theory.
I read recently that the Brits skip treating people that are obese (who determines this), that drink too much, are too old (who determines), etc., because they cannot treat them. Not enough resources. They cannot get enough doctors. Dental care is almost non-existent (and this is very important in good health). I will try to locate this recent, enlightening article.
All socialized medicine does is gives good care to the very wealthy. This is only if doctors are motivated, which they won’t be for lack of income/reward for their hard work in medical school.
Ah, but ask almost any Canadian or Frenchman and they wouldn’t trade their system for ours. Socialized medicine has been proven to work. I don’t prefer it over a completely capitalistic system, but I’d take it over what we have now if a compeletely capitalistic system were not an option.
I doubt socialized medicine in France and Canada and France is worth a wooden nickle. I will do more research because I believe you are wrong.
That being said, why do you personally want it changed? Do you have health insurance? If not, why? Aren’t you in the insurance industry? If so, why do you not place this as important, and YOUR RESPONSIBILITY?
Do you know anyone who has gone to the emergency room with an emergency and not been treated?
I’ve got so much more to write, but I’m heading home. It’s going on 6:00 pm here. I will put more information on line tomorrow, if I have the time. I have no doubt you are wrong. You’ve not given any supporting information to your theory that France and Canada are living in happy socialized medicine land.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
WOW! I can’t believe the resistance this article brings to attention.
We are forced to buy auto insurance but when it comes to health ins looks like people don’t like that idea.
My feeling is that government shouldn’t be allowed to force anyone to buy any kind of insurance!
Clinton is like a fish of water right now.She has her millions that both she and her husband stole from the american people and she stands to loose and I hope she does.
Hillary is just as much if not more a hypocrit as her husband.
That reminds me who is running for president Hillary or Bill?
My question is what happens to those of us with private health care? If the government takes over health care and mandates it for everyone, does that mean those of us who are currently covered would have to switch to government health care?
(I apologize if that’s a dumb question…but one of my biggest fears is if the government takes over health care, the conservatives will leap at the chance to diminish the services directed at women…)
Off the top of my head I can’t think of a single administration (democratic or republican) that has kept its hands of Social Security. Since, up until recently, that budget usually ran into surplus it was ripe for raiding.
And that whole “if we don’t fight them there we’ll fight them here” thing is a crock. Fighting a preemptive war in Iraq does nothing to stop people from commiting heinous acts on American soil. If somebody truly wanted to hurt us here they still could. What we’ve done in Iraq is breed more terrorists – al Quaida was not in Iraq before we invaded.
And you can’t blame budgeting that increases spending while decreasing income on a stock market slide. It is impossible to balance a budget while spending more and taking in less. That’s why just about every other war in history has come with a tax hike – to pay for the thing.
One should also not connect the recession from the dot.com bubble bursting and the recession from post-9/11 fears. They are not connected. Clinton did not cause the recession after 9/11, people’s fears caused that recession.
If you recall the only time in the past few decades the budget was balanced was under a democrat – Clinton. It wasn’t balanced under Reagan, or Bush I, just under Clinton. I don’t say I agree with all of Clinton’s fiscal policies, but I do agree with a balanced budget. It allows us to see what we are spending our money on, and if we don’t like how much is being spent we know exactly where to cut. You can’t do that when you always run in the red. You don’t have the same options.
As for “No Child Left Behind” that was a campaign promise. If we remember our recent history Bush ran partially as the “Education President”.
The recent economic stimulus is also being touted by Bush. Both sides have taken it up, but Bush isn’t conceding anything on this one; he wants to give people money.
And the tax cuts were passed under a Congress controlled by Republicans – remember. There didn’t have to be any Democrats voting for it as the Republicans had a larger majority then than the Democrats have now.
If you recall the last president to give amnesty to illegals was Reagan – a Republican. Conservatives everywhere are looking at how they’ll get cheap labor if we truly crack down on illegals.
Sorry Al, there’s not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. But it takes people who are not party-fanatics to see it.
Nebraskan, I haven’t heard anyone talking about a single-payer system in a while. The plans I’ve heard about lately have all been about creating a government run backdrop; meaning if you’re currently insured you wouldn’t be affected (supposedly) but if you aren’t insured you’d have coverage through the government.
Just curious, are you supporting the feds meddle into the private healthcare system?
My take is we need to go one way or the other. We either need to completely socialize medicine or we need to make it a capitalistic market. From what I know, as little as that may be, the biggest problem with healthcare right now is that it is a partially socialized system. We have not allowed the market to determine the cost of healthcare in decades. Socialized medicine works as has been proven in many countries; and it doesn’t cost more than privatized medicine. I think we could drive costs even lower, and stimulate some advancements, by letting the market do its job.
I don’t think any plan put forth in recent memory (the last 10 years or so) has a chance of doing anything more than messing up the system. The plans I have heard simply introduce more government meddling in ways almost guaranteed to mess up the system. How many problems are caused by the government interfering in certain areas of healthcare? It’s one thing to regulate the industry for safety and health, and another to regulate pricing – however indirectly.
So, yes and no. I support government meddling if they want to go to a completely socialized system. Otherwise they need to get out.
And I’d prefer they get out.
Re, your statement: “Socialized medicine works as has been proven in many countries;…”
You might want to do a little research. You are soooooo…. wrong here.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/13/Hernando/Socialized_medicine_i.shtml
You can do more research too. There’s a lot of information out there debunking your theory.
I read recently that the Brits skip treating people that are obese (who determines this), that drink too much, are too old (who determines), etc., because they cannot treat them. Not enough resources. They cannot get enough doctors. Dental care is almost non-existent (and this is very important in good health). I will try to locate this recent, enlightening article.
All socialized medicine does is gives good care to the very wealthy. This is only if doctors are motivated, which they won’t be for lack of income/reward for their hard work in medical school.
You are way off the mark on this.
Ah, but ask almost any Canadian or Frenchman and they wouldn’t trade their system for ours. Socialized medicine has been proven to work. I don’t prefer it over a completely capitalistic system, but I’d take it over what we have now if a compeletely capitalistic system were not an option.
I doubt socialized medicine in France and Canada and France is worth a wooden nickle. I will do more research because I believe you are wrong.
That being said, why do you personally want it changed? Do you have health insurance? If not, why? Aren’t you in the insurance industry? If so, why do you not place this as important, and YOUR RESPONSIBILITY?
Do you know anyone who has gone to the emergency room with an emergency and not been treated?
I’ve got so much more to write, but I’m heading home. It’s going on 6:00 pm here. I will put more information on line tomorrow, if I have the time. I have no doubt you are wrong. You’ve not given any supporting information to your theory that France and Canada are living in happy socialized medicine land.
http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,13/category_id,10/blog_id,994/type,33/