Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Clinton unveils mandatory health care insurance plan
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 251964" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>AV8,</p><p> </p><p>Oh I agree that people want good healthcare and the simple fact is that there is a problem in our healthcare system. Healthcare costs are going up, No arguement from me on that. You also made an interesting statement that from my POV seems rather odd. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>OK, you and I are in complete agreement there but it also sadly ends there as it appears to me you've abandoned that principle. You do say things here and there that we agree and I'm with ya, but then you turn around and champion poltical candidates that are in reality doing the exact opposite of what you extoll in belief. </p><p> </p><p>You say, take the Federal gov't out of it but here's the reality. Taking the Feds out would require a complete elimination of all federal healthcare programs including medicare, SCHIPS etc. On top of that you'd also have to eliminate the FDA and especially the drug oversight side of the FDA. There are many more areas (way to many to list) but you get the idea of what I'm suggesting and you know what, I totally agree that this is exactly what should happen. However, now you have the conditions in place for Diesel's nightmare scenario to come into play where the Fox doesn't guard the hen, he now owns it. Oh, am I all of a sudden against the Free Market? Oh no, I contend we never had one in the first place contary to popular American myth. </p><p> </p><p>Free Market is a market where anyone can bring a service or product into play and the consumer decides how important that product or service is and it's value. What we've had over the last century is a market where gov't has decided what is worthy of public consumption based on a public policy plan and then regulated that product or service into the marketplace or out of the marketplace. Some products even make the marketplace by special legislative edict and thus a market is created and even subsidized until it's footing is assured. Energy is one such area for example and trains are another. </p><p> </p><p>Sometimes tax policy itself drives the product as economists go before Congress and show the plus side gains in tax revs. outweigh the negatives. Tobacco was seen especially in the 60's having a link to cancer but Tobacco remained as the negatives of cancer were offset by the tax rev. positives to the federal treasury. As time went by the tobacco negatives built across the public strata and began to negatively impact the tax revs. and then new economists emerged to show over time, the health and time costs of tobacco usage and how the cost to gov't would be greater than the tax revs taken in. Now tobacco is not the favorite son it once was. Take you idea to Congress and if you can show them that they will gain more tax revs. for those porkbarrel projects, you've got a winner. How do you think the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska gained life? Some construction executive in Alaska who needed work sold the idea to Sen. Ted Stevens and then he took care of the rest until public overexposure killed it. What doesn't get killed that we never hear of?</p><p> </p><p>Not drug related but oil is in the same boat. The reason we don't have national focus to rid ourselves of oil is tax revs. For example, take oil out of the main propulsion of cars and replace it with solar. Sounds great right? Wrong. Now how do you tax the sun to pay for road costs? Why the push towards hydrogen? Because it takes large scale production to produce and then large scale distribution to the end user. In that case, there is an exchange mechanism that the gov't can piggyback for the purpose of taxation. The old adage of follow the money!</p><p> </p><p>For 100 years, the competing corp. health interests have controlled healthcare via the democrats and republicans in this country and trust me, contary to their public mutterings, they have it good. The ideas for the most part being floated for healthcare still have them in the catbird seat and here's where it gets even better. By law, whether it's Hillary's plan or Newt's (I've read both and Hillary was in bed with Newt on this in 05' and his is her plan basically) you are required to have insurance and to make sure you do comply, you either will if they determine by set formula that you can or if you can't, it will be federally subsidized. At this point no one is saying what happens if you refuse to comply.</p><p> </p><p>Newt's plan for example requires everyone own a private health insurance policy from a competing insuranced company licensed to do business by the gov't. (local, state and maybe under some conditions federal) Newt's plan also allows for federal subsidation for the folks who can afford so they to can purchase a private insurance policy. Hillary's is the same but the folks who can afford will be sudsidized to be included in the federal gov't insurance. Either way, the gov't is telling you how to conduct your life and setting the manner in which you will do so, the only difference in all this is that in one plan the private insurance get all the marbles in the pot and in the other they will only get a large portion that what hey have now. Either way, they score a nice increase to the total revs and thus to their bottomline via their shareholders. And from the conservative viewpoint, how does Newt's plan get the gov't out of healthcare? Or for that fact, show me any republican who has a total proposal to do just that? Medicare and Medicaid will still exist, SCHIPS will still exist. Right? or am I wrong again! Show me, I'll listen.</p><p> </p><p>As I said, from my POV I can go with the democrats and get the full blown social treatment so to speak or in beer drinking term, I get the Bud bottle with the red label. Or I can go the Republican route and get the social treatment only at the 50% level or again in beer terms, the Bud bottle with the blue label that sez "Light" meaning here not the full monty so to speak. </p><p> </p><p>From my perspective, no matter which way I vote I'm still getting socialism (in a true sense it's fascism under the Mussolini model, <strong>(not the Hilter model)</strong> that is called corporatism by others, I call it what it really is) it's just the 4th estate has us believing it's to a much lesser degree. not so IMO. You guys on the so-called conservative side agrue about keeping gov't out but then go and vote and support people who do the exact opposite. I know, many point to the war on terror as being all important as sometimes you do have to make choices that when all things are equal, you normally would not make. </p><p> </p><p>I'll assume we agree to some point or another that the gov't has screwed up welfare, has screwed up healthcare, has screwed up immigration, has screwed up education, has screwed up taxes, has screwed up having a balanced budget, has screwed up eliminating porkbarrel spending, has screwed up paying down the National Debt and has in fact increased it, has screwed up the post office <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/tongue_smilie.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":tongue_sm" title="Tongue Smilie :tongue_sm" data-shortname=":tongue_sm" /> OK being UPSers that's not fair to the gov't to throw that one out but the point is we all can list issue after issue domestically where the gov't has just blown it. And Bigtime too! Amazing in a lot of these both sides of the political isle will agree with one another too.</p><p> </p><p>I guess what I'm asking is that when they continuously screw up and make things worse even when they propose legislation tey claim will make it better, we continue to trust them and give them our vote. The definiton of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.</p><p> </p><p>Maybe we really are stupid! Do you think this might be why the islamists don't want us over there telling them how to run things? It's funny but it's also worth giving some thought to as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 251964, member: 2189"] AV8, Oh I agree that people want good healthcare and the simple fact is that there is a problem in our healthcare system. Healthcare costs are going up, No arguement from me on that. You also made an interesting statement that from my POV seems rather odd. OK, you and I are in complete agreement there but it also sadly ends there as it appears to me you've abandoned that principle. You do say things here and there that we agree and I'm with ya, but then you turn around and champion poltical candidates that are in reality doing the exact opposite of what you extoll in belief. You say, take the Federal gov't out of it but here's the reality. Taking the Feds out would require a complete elimination of all federal healthcare programs including medicare, SCHIPS etc. On top of that you'd also have to eliminate the FDA and especially the drug oversight side of the FDA. There are many more areas (way to many to list) but you get the idea of what I'm suggesting and you know what, I totally agree that this is exactly what should happen. However, now you have the conditions in place for Diesel's nightmare scenario to come into play where the Fox doesn't guard the hen, he now owns it. Oh, am I all of a sudden against the Free Market? Oh no, I contend we never had one in the first place contary to popular American myth. Free Market is a market where anyone can bring a service or product into play and the consumer decides how important that product or service is and it's value. What we've had over the last century is a market where gov't has decided what is worthy of public consumption based on a public policy plan and then regulated that product or service into the marketplace or out of the marketplace. Some products even make the marketplace by special legislative edict and thus a market is created and even subsidized until it's footing is assured. Energy is one such area for example and trains are another. Sometimes tax policy itself drives the product as economists go before Congress and show the plus side gains in tax revs. outweigh the negatives. Tobacco was seen especially in the 60's having a link to cancer but Tobacco remained as the negatives of cancer were offset by the tax rev. positives to the federal treasury. As time went by the tobacco negatives built across the public strata and began to negatively impact the tax revs. and then new economists emerged to show over time, the health and time costs of tobacco usage and how the cost to gov't would be greater than the tax revs taken in. Now tobacco is not the favorite son it once was. Take you idea to Congress and if you can show them that they will gain more tax revs. for those porkbarrel projects, you've got a winner. How do you think the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska gained life? Some construction executive in Alaska who needed work sold the idea to Sen. Ted Stevens and then he took care of the rest until public overexposure killed it. What doesn't get killed that we never hear of? Not drug related but oil is in the same boat. The reason we don't have national focus to rid ourselves of oil is tax revs. For example, take oil out of the main propulsion of cars and replace it with solar. Sounds great right? Wrong. Now how do you tax the sun to pay for road costs? Why the push towards hydrogen? Because it takes large scale production to produce and then large scale distribution to the end user. In that case, there is an exchange mechanism that the gov't can piggyback for the purpose of taxation. The old adage of follow the money! For 100 years, the competing corp. health interests have controlled healthcare via the democrats and republicans in this country and trust me, contary to their public mutterings, they have it good. The ideas for the most part being floated for healthcare still have them in the catbird seat and here's where it gets even better. By law, whether it's Hillary's plan or Newt's (I've read both and Hillary was in bed with Newt on this in 05' and his is her plan basically) you are required to have insurance and to make sure you do comply, you either will if they determine by set formula that you can or if you can't, it will be federally subsidized. At this point no one is saying what happens if you refuse to comply. Newt's plan for example requires everyone own a private health insurance policy from a competing insuranced company licensed to do business by the gov't. (local, state and maybe under some conditions federal) Newt's plan also allows for federal subsidation for the folks who can afford so they to can purchase a private insurance policy. Hillary's is the same but the folks who can afford will be sudsidized to be included in the federal gov't insurance. Either way, the gov't is telling you how to conduct your life and setting the manner in which you will do so, the only difference in all this is that in one plan the private insurance get all the marbles in the pot and in the other they will only get a large portion that what hey have now. Either way, they score a nice increase to the total revs and thus to their bottomline via their shareholders. And from the conservative viewpoint, how does Newt's plan get the gov't out of healthcare? Or for that fact, show me any republican who has a total proposal to do just that? Medicare and Medicaid will still exist, SCHIPS will still exist. Right? or am I wrong again! Show me, I'll listen. As I said, from my POV I can go with the democrats and get the full blown social treatment so to speak or in beer drinking term, I get the Bud bottle with the red label. Or I can go the Republican route and get the social treatment only at the 50% level or again in beer terms, the Bud bottle with the blue label that sez "Light" meaning here not the full monty so to speak. From my perspective, no matter which way I vote I'm still getting socialism (in a true sense it's fascism under the Mussolini model, [B](not the Hilter model)[/B] that is called corporatism by others, I call it what it really is) it's just the 4th estate has us believing it's to a much lesser degree. not so IMO. You guys on the so-called conservative side agrue about keeping gov't out but then go and vote and support people who do the exact opposite. I know, many point to the war on terror as being all important as sometimes you do have to make choices that when all things are equal, you normally would not make. I'll assume we agree to some point or another that the gov't has screwed up welfare, has screwed up healthcare, has screwed up immigration, has screwed up education, has screwed up taxes, has screwed up having a balanced budget, has screwed up eliminating porkbarrel spending, has screwed up paying down the National Debt and has in fact increased it, has screwed up the post office :tongue_sm OK being UPSers that's not fair to the gov't to throw that one out but the point is we all can list issue after issue domestically where the gov't has just blown it. And Bigtime too! Amazing in a lot of these both sides of the political isle will agree with one another too. I guess what I'm asking is that when they continuously screw up and make things worse even when they propose legislation tey claim will make it better, we continue to trust them and give them our vote. The definiton of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Maybe we really are stupid! Do you think this might be why the islamists don't want us over there telling them how to run things? It's funny but it's also worth giving some thought to as well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Clinton unveils mandatory health care insurance plan
Top