Printable View
The plan that was "floated" was not even close to what the libelous email claimed. It did not ask the vets themselves to pay any extra money. If Obama had said the things that he was accused of in the email, Fox would have beaten it to a pulp, and I doubt very much that other media outlets would ignore it (although some might)
It's bogus and doesn't prove anything regarding Obama's actions or character.
There was probably an email campaign behind that poll to get Republicans and Christians to vote. They have a leadership vacuum and few real solutions of their own to offer, so their strategy is to try and portray Obama as a failure any way they can.
[QUOTE=Esten]There was probably an email campaign behind that poll to get Republicans and Christians to vote. They have a leadership vacuum and few real solutions of their own to offer, so their strategy is to try and portray Obama as a failure any way they can.[/QUOTE]Hi,
Yes, and we all know that Liberals / Democrats would [I]never[/i] do such a thing themselves.
ROTFLMAO!
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson]Hi,
Yes, and we all know that Liberals / Democrats would [I]never[/i] do such a thing themselves.
ROTFLMAO!
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Mr. Jackson:
Do not believe the Democrats / liberals can take polls to the extremes the right wing element in this country can and have done. They have no sense of decency: Karl Rove. Case in point; John McCain, via a phony poll during the 2004 Republican Primary. Voters were asked, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain. If you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh. It takes a real first class dueschebag to stoop to that level to get elected or promote their agenda. The sad thing in all of this is, it worked and McCain lost the primaries and here we are. It is very difficult for me to give any credibility much of anything the Republicans have to say today after what we have experienced over the past 9 years. The record speaks for itself.
[QUOTE=Damman]Mr. Jackson:
Do not believe the Democrats / liberals can take polls to the extremes the right wing element in this country can and have done. They have no sense of decency: Karl Rove. Case in point; John McCain, via a phony poll during the 2004 Republican Primary. Voters were asked, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain. If you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh. It takes a real first class dueschebag to stoop to that level to get elected or promote their agenda. The sad thing in all of this is, it worked and McCain lost the primaries and here we are. It is very difficult for me to give any credibility much of anything the Republicans have to say today after what we have experienced over the past 9 years. The record speaks for itself.[/QUOTE]Hi Damman,
I did not suggest that professional pollsters could not and did not craft their polling questions to yield a desired outcome.
What I was responding to in my post was Esten's complaint that results in the open poll referred to by Sydney were distorted by a deliberate "email campaign" perpetrated by persons or organizations not related to the publisher of the poll, said campaign intended to distort the results of the poll by encouraging "Republicans and Christians to vote" in the poll.
All you need to do is visit the DailyKOSs, the HuffingtonPost or any other left wing website and you'll find that as a standard practice the participants in these websites routinely post links to "open polls" on other sites while encouraging like-minded persons to "vote left and vote often", the specific intent being to tilt the poll results in their favor.
Thanks,
Jackson
It is astounding that the economy of the United States appears to flourish when the economy of the United States has three strikes against it before it gets to bat.
1) The most attorney happy country with the most ridiculous injury awards in the known world.
2) A health care system that costs at least twice as much per capita as any other health care system. This without any indication that the health care system is twice as good, or even as good, as some other health care systems.
3) The highest military expenditures in the known world.
Perhaps the economy of the United States carries this weight because the economy of the United States is the T Rex of the known world.
However, it is more likely the wealth of the United States is an illusion. The United States has prospered on borrowed money.
The day will come when our debtors will demand a return of their money.
Maybe then the United States and Argentina will have a common bond. Neither country can service its debt.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_co/us_rove_prosecutors[/url]
Exon
Obama Says Grandmother's Hip Replacement Raises Cost Questions.
Share | Email | Print | A A A.
By Hans Nichols.
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother's hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a "sustainable model" for health care.
The president's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had a hip replaced after she was diagnosed with cancer, Obama said in an interview with the New York Times magazine that was published today. Dunham, who lived in Honolulu, died at the age of 86 on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before her grandson's election victory.
"I don't know how much that hip replacement cost," Obama said in the interview. "I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she's my grandmother."
Obama said "you just get into some very difficult moral issues" when considering whether "to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill.
"That's where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues," he said in the April 14 interview. "The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here."
Obama promised during his presidential campaign that a health-care overhaul would be a top priority, and he said at a Missouri town hall meeting today that he hopes Congress will pass health-care legislation this year.
The issue has been divisive, and finding an answer that will keep costs down while extending coverage to the estimated 46 million Americans without health insurance has eluded past presidents.
'Ruthless Pragmatism'
Obama also said his economic advisers aren't constrained by ideology or connections to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. "What I've been constantly searching for is a ruthless pragmatism when it comes to economic policy," he said, in the interview.
Obama also pointed to Canada as an example of a country that has effectively regulated commercial and investment banking without requiring legal separation of those activities.
"When it comes to something like investment banking versus commercial banking, the experience in a country like Canada would indicate that good, strong regulation that focuses less on the legal form of the institution and more on the functions that they're carrying out is probably the right approach to take," he said.
******The reason Obama's grandmother was given a hip replacement with just weeks to live is because under our present payment system the doctor doing the worthless hip replacement will be paid for doing it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that physcians would have given Obama's grandmother a facelift and tummy tuck with just weeks to live if they were going to be paid for doing it.
There is no easy answer to how to shape our medical payment system. However, I for one, think we are not going far enough. We should draw a line in the sand. Medical costs will be restricted to 10% of GNP.
If that means incorrigible alcoholics won't receive liver transplants, smokers won't receive surgery for their incurable lung cancers or Obama's grandmother won't receive a hip transplant - so be it.
There might be a method behind Obama's madness.
[QUOTE=Sidney]Existing Medicare and Medicaid have $38 billion in unfunded liabilities! There is nothing in this plan to address this severe problem![/QUOTE]A drop in the ocean compared to the 1000 billion increase of net federal debt every 6 month, 38% increase over a year.
[QUOTE=Esten]There was probably an email campaign behind that poll to get Republicans and Christians to vote. They have a leadership vacuum and few real solutions of their own to offer, so their strategy is to try and portray Obama as a failure any way they can.[/QUOTE]Hi Esten,
Actually, your contention that Republicans have "few real solutions of their own to offer" is [u]completely[/u] [u]inaccurate[/u].
Republicans and other conservatives have made and continue to offer a number of ideas, although these ideas are not even being considered by the Democrats who control Congress and who refuse to allow the Republicans to participate in the debates therein. In addition, the liberal-dominated media rarely, if ever, presents these Republican ideas because they are in bed with Obama and thus wish to perpetuate the idea that the Republicans are "out of ideas".
Anyway, a few of the ideas that I have heard espoused by conservatives include.
1. Create a national market for health insurance. For those of you who don't understand the issue, at the current time you can only buy health insurance from an insurer that is approved to sell insurance in your state, which of course restricts competition. A national marketplace would allow you to shop and purchase health insurance from insurers all over the country.
2. Medical tort reform, which would reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance, and which will reduce the expensive practice of "defensive medicine". This isn't even mentioned in any of the Democrat's plans, largely because the Democratic party is beholden to the country's litigation attorneys.
3. Allow individuals and businesses to form pools and buy insurance anywhere in the country, not just in the state where they live.
4. Allow employees to opt out of their employer-based insurance plan and get a $5,000-per-family tax credit to buy health insurance or pay medical bills.
5. Require insurance companies to offer insurance regardless of a person's pre-existing medical condition.
There are lots of other ideas, but this is just the short list I recall from memory.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson]Hi Esten,
Actually, your contention that Republicans have "few real solutions of their own to offer" is [u]completely[/u] [u]inaccurate[/u].
Republicans and other conservatives have made and continue to offer a number of ideas, although these ideas are not even being considered by the Democrats who control Congress and who refuse to allow the Republicans to participate in the debates therein. In addition, the liberal-dominated media rarely, if ever, presents these Republican ideas because they are in bed with Obama and thus wish to perpetuate the idea that the Republicans are "out of ideas".
Anyway, a few of the ideas that I have heard espoused by conservatives include.
1. Create a national market for health insurance. For those of you who don't understand the issue, at the current time you can only buy health insurance from an insurer that is approved to sell insurance in your state, which of course restricts competition. A national marketplace would allow you to shop and purchase health insurance from insurers all over the country.
2. Medical tort reform, which would reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance, and which will reduce the expensive practice of "defensive medicine". This isn't even mentioned in any of the Democrat's plans, largely because the Democratic party is beholden to the country's litigation attorneys.
3. Allow individuals and businesses to form pools and buy insurance anywhere in the country, not just in the state where they live.
4. Allow employees to opt out of their employer-based insurance plan and get a $5,000-per-family tax credit to buy health insurance or pay medical bills.
5. Require insurance companies to offer insurance regardless of a person's pre-existing medical condition.
There are lots of other ideas, but this is just the short list I recall from memory.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Not being a US citizen and not ordinarily wanting to take part in debates on US issues, health being this issue, I can't help but weigh-in. Am I wrong or am I wrong, in remembering that GWB and his father as well, were in positions during their presidencies where they could have made sense of the farcical and expensive medical insurance system that delivers the smallest bang for the buck as far as universal cover is concerned in the world. Yet they made no great efforts. It strikes me that the Republican policy developers are being reactive rather than proactive. Not the way to win future elections. The GOP must lead from the front and develope new proactive policies, apart from health, instead of carping and whining about policies that the Democrats went to the polls on and won as a consequence. I think that the system the Democrats want to bring in, is unworkable, but they have their mandate. Let them f-u-c-k it up and fix it later. Meanwhile there are a host of policy developement in other areas crying out for attention. And they could be election winners.
Argento
[QUOTE=Argento]Not being a US citizen and not ordinarily wanting to take part in debates on US issues, health being this issue, I can't help but weigh-in. Am I wrong or am I wrong, in remembering that GWB and his father as well, were in positions during their presidencies where they could have made sense of the farcical and expensive medical insurance system that delivers the smallest bang for the buck as far as universal cover is concerned in the world. Yet they made no great efforts. It strikes me that the Republican policy developers are being reactive rather than proactive. Not the way to win future elections. The GOP must lead from the front and develope new proactive policies, apart from health, instead of carping and whining about policies that the Democrats went to the polls on and won as a consequence. I think that the system the Democrats want to bring in, is unworkable, but they have their mandate. Let them f-u-c-k it up and fix it later. Meanwhile there are a host of policy developement in other areas crying out for attention. And they could be election winners.
Argento[/QUOTE]Hi Argento,
You are correct that the Republicans did not make health care an issue under the Bush Presidency, and for a very good reason that still holds true today.
The fact was and is that 90% of American [u][i]Citizens[/i][/u] actually have health insurance, and that 80% are "satisfied" with their current health insurance and with the quality of the services they receive.
In other words, there is no health care emergency!
The entire Health Care Reform (now repackaged as Health Insurance Reform) "emergency" is a completely fabricated issue being pushed by the Democrats at this time because the Dems, who have always coveted the idea of controlling the country's health care industry, see this precise moment in time as the best opportunity to push through said takeover.
When I say that they see "this precise moment in time as the best opportunity", I am referring to the fact that they believe that the fervor associated with the Obama election in conjunction with atmosphere of the current economic "emergency" as the opportune moment to ram-rod this through, especially given their sure and certain knowledge that their leader will soon be unveiled as the radical left wing extremist that he is, after which they will no longer be able to fool clear-thinking Americans.
Thanks,
Jackson
I want to know where those %'s come from. I know you to be an honest man, but your sourse is wrong. I hope that you don't trust the emails that Sid relies on for his info on issues outside of his expertise.
The current comsumer reports magazine has a special on this issue. I pay almost $10,000 us dolars per year for bad insurance which generally pays ZERO, but I must have it is case of catestrophic illness. The insurance industry lobbyists.
Have purchased the votes of most of the members of the congress--both republicans and democratics. The large drug companies have the same deal.
IN terms of poling data--discussed on cnbc special panel discussions on the health care crisis. Even the health insurance excutives did not challenge that the usa is ranked #37 is the world for quality of health care, yet it is the most expensive. The problem is very complex and there are no easy answers. France is ranked #!
I for one am ready for a public option. Walley's be-school analysis of the issues clearly convinced me that health care becomes a set of ethical dilemas about allocating resourse and the wealthy can buy whatever additional insurance they want, I don't want mba cash flow analysis deciding who lives and who dies. It is about time that the usa joins most of modern first world societies and has some sort of universal coverage.
Jackon, who I like and personally respect, has a very different view. I truly hope that those with his view do not prevail. The health care industry is spending 100's of millions of dollars on propaganda on Televisdon nowto scare people into not supporting reform. There is all sorts of misinformation on the internet and on television.
I actally read the famous page 425[sid discussed it below]--it says that counseling shall be, made avaiable to all senior citizens about end of life issues. Most health insurance in the usa does not cover or has very limited coverage for psychological counseling nor psychotherapy. My fancy policy has zero coverage for couseling about anything. We are talking about issues like--accetance that you will die from a terminal illness--I have zero coverage for this. Counseling about ordering that you are not to be kept artifically allive wheh your brain has stopped working and there is zero chance of you coming out of this state--I have zero coverage for this type of help.
80% 0f the health care dollars are spent on 20% of the patient population.
I cannot switch to another policy because age and pre-existing conditions even though I am healthy enough to fuck 10 times per week if pushed. I have Zero choice. If I ever lose my current shitty coverage, the only insurance that I could possibly buy will cost double and provide $250,000 in life time coverage---in the usa a major heart attack w / by-pass surgery, cancer or other catestrophic illness would wipe my life time coverage. My current policy is capped at us$5,000,000.
I am very upper middle class in terms of my income and assets and I can't locate decent coverage at any price.
Here are the problems as I see them with the current House of Representatives approach to healthcare insurance.
1. Neither the House nor the Senate cares to tackle the issue of medical tort reform, which plays a material roll in driving up healthcare insurance premiums. For any surgeon, his or her largest annual variable cost is their liability insurance premium. The reason neither chamber will pursue tort reform is because both Houses and Parties are so beholden to the legal fraternity.
2. The House's level premium approach for all person's regardless of age, health, or life style means that those of us who choose to pursue a healthy life style for whatever reasons, will be subsidizing the drug user, the alcoholic, and the obese.
3. No one reading this believes for one minute that a Federal Healthcare insurance program will be revenue neutral. The Federal Government has NEVER run a large program in a revenue neutral manner. The average tax payer, as in you and me, will end up paying more taxes to support a group of people that presently are not insured and not willing to work in many cases. I have zero desire to help these people out. What is in the present proposed legislation that will help a middle class person out who is currently insured [the vast majority of us], playing by the rules and does not want to see his or her taxes increase? Nothing.
4. I would encourage the Federal Government to start a program through a payroll deduction scheme for catastrophic care of all citizens to include those born with severe problems.
5. Make individual healthcare insurance premiums tax deductible just the way they are for companies.
6. Repeal all State laws that prevent medical insurance companies from competing across State lines.
7. Allow States to form drug purchasing cooperatives for their residents.
There is one question to be asked to wonder if the us american health system needs a reform:
Since the US have the global record on health spendings per head, why are health scores so low: one of the lowest life expectancies of western democracies and infantile death comparable to third world countries. Where do the inefficiencies come from? How to solve them?
Interesting take on this from The Telegraph, a right wing UK newspaper.
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6030211/Briton-providing-free-healthcare-to-thousands-of-Americans.html[/url]
Can someone tell me why all these people queue all day for a free clinic? Are they too mean or stupid to pay for their own care? I just can't understand why there's a need for something like this when the system is supposed to be so good.
MataHari,
"Since the US have the global record on health spendings per head, why are health scores so low: one of the lowest life expectancies of western democracies and infantile death comparable to third world countries."
I just checked this out on [url]http://www.who.int/whosis/en/[/url] the World Health Organisation site. Seems like what you say is true.
Our health care delivery system is a mess.
80% of health care costs are incured in the last year of life.
80% of health care costs are incured by 20% of the population.
If health care is a right the reverse is also true: if you smoke, eat yourself into a whale, drink until your liver is nonexistent, your right to health care for these conditions is questionable.
Whatever happens with Obama's health care proposals, it can't be worse than what we have now.
We are spending, per capita, twice what the next country is spending for health care. Yet countries spending one half, one quarter, or in the case of Cuba, 2% of what we spend on health care have, as far as I can tell, similar or better health care progarms.
P.S. one reason Cubans have admirable life expectancies might be that Cubans are starving to death ~~ no fatties in Cuba ~~ gracias a el bastardo Castro
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]I want to know where those %'s come from. I know you to be an honest man, but your source is wrong. I hope that you don't trust the emails that Sid relies on for his info on issues outside of his expertise.[/QUOTE]Hi MB,
A Google search yielded a number of articles, but here are links to some reports from what I believe are relatively neutral sources:
======================================================
From the CDC.
Lack of health insurance and type of coverage:
Released 9/2008
[url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/200809_01.pdf[/url]
Figure 1.1. Percentage of persons of all ages without health insurance coverage at the time of interview: United States
Data table for Figure 1.1. Percentage of persons of all ages without health insurance coverage at the time of interview: United States
And also...
Health Insurance Coverage Trends, 1959–2007:
Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey
July 1, 2009
[url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr017.pdf[/url]
======================================================
Regarding the percentage of insured persons who are satsfied with their current insurance...
ABC News/USA TODAY/Kaiser Family Foundation health care poll
[url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-10-15-health-poll1.htm[/url]
Poll Question #13 is specifically on subject.
======================================================
The CDC reports approximately 15% of the people surveyed did not have health insurance, but this number INCLUDES the 10+ million illegal aliens in the country, which if subtracted from their percentages total reduces the percentage of AMERICAN CITIZENS without health insurance to approximately 12%.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=MataHari]There is one question to be asked to wonder if the us american health system needs a reform:
Since the US have the global record on health spendings per head, why are health scores so low: one of the lowest life expectancies of western democracies and infantile death comparable to third world countries. Where do the inefficiencies come from? How to solve them?[/QUOTE]I suspect that part of the answer is that we are lazy and fat. I doubt that the statistics we are seeing take that into account.
Bob
The link you provides leads to a National Institue of Heath survey--most of which are done as telephone intervews. People without listed telephone numbers do not participate. The definition of "health insurance" includes all forms of accident insurance.
This would mean that a under this defination: all motor vehicles that are legally registerred have an form of health coverage attached. For purposes of this survey, you have a form of health insurance if you live in a household that has a legally registerred motor vehicle.
Most states to renew your plate you have to demonstrate Personal Injury Protection--many times the min is $10,000. With up to a $5,000 deductible.
This covers injuries only in motor vehicle accidents. This is included in the definition of health insurance for political reasons--not logical reasons so intelligent people like yourself might be mislead.
If this is what you mean by health insurance that people are statisfied with, we haved walked through the looking glass ==like Alice in Woderland. The Bushies commissioned many misleading studies like this one to prove how wonderful their "ownership society" was doing. You remember the "ownership society" wherein you could own a home with no income, no job and bad credit. What a wonderful idea! Write a mortgage for anyone breathing and we'll worry about it later.
Looking at the survey results further: chart 1.2 shows that, including "accident insurance" over 30% of the population aged 18-34 lacked any form of "health insurance". Chart 1.2 shows that over 30% of all hispanics lack any form of health insurance including any form of accident insurance.
I'M SURE THAT NO ONE IN THIS DISCUSSION CONSIDERS AUTOMOBILE PIP AS HEALTH INSURANCE IN THE CURRENT DEBATE.
You are calling car accident insurance health insurance. When I buy an airplane ticket I have included for free on my credit card "accident insurance". I would not count on accident insurance if you fall down the steps or have cancer.
In 2006 my current policy costs about us$600 per month. Less coverage with a higher deductible today is just over us$900 per month.
The survey [w / o comments on how it was designed ie statistcally random sample or readers of USA Today] says that 87% are satisfied with their healthcare coverage. I was satisfied at some point in time. Every year there is less coverage at a higher price and less comsumer friendly claims practices.
Under age 65 in 2007 running up from a stable 21% from 1968 to 1980 when the increase in uninsureds began rising. This is the abstract of a review of the National Heath Insurance Surveys from 1967 to 2007. These are random statistically sampled surveys which would not included households without telephones ie the poor or those who cannot afford a telephone.
I was turned down by 6 A rated or better carriers--they would not write me at any cost and accepted by one unrated company out of Bermuda owned by a Barbados company. The only thing offerred was $250,000. Liftime cap w / a 5,000 deductible hmo which only worked with substandard hospitals w / hi mortality rates---ie they kill an un usually large % of patients.
So I am staying with my bullshit group of one because I have zero choice. The private sector has failed me and the invisible hand of the market place has told me: fuck-you, you are not profitable--drop dead both figuratively and literally. My 6 other employees work for a different corp and get $250,000 liftime caps and services at hospuials that kills people--delightful.
The Republican talking points are great for the health care industry and will kill people like me and my employees. WE are not statistically average but this is our story.
[QUOTE=AllIWantisLove]I suspect that part of the answer is that we are lazy and fat. I doubt that the statistics we are seeing take that into account.
Bob[/QUOTE]That s another positive effect of a government in charge of citizens health insurance. The government becomes responsible for the costs and needs to act to offer preemptive solutions, rather than waiting to cure, which is always more expensive.
A federally coordinated preemptive war on the obesity pandemics in the USA with information campains on daily basis would actually save money and lives.
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]The link you provides leads to a National Institute of Heath survey--most of which are done as telephone interviews. People without listed telephone numbers do not participate. The definition of "health insurance" includes all forms of accident insurance.[/QUOTE]Okay, let me draw another conclusion from the same statistics: If they can afford to own a car and pay for auto insurance, then they can afford to pay for their own fucking health insurance.
Thanks,
Jackson
Obama's arguments must be pretty weak if he has to use a supporter's 11 year old daughter as a set piece to read a prepared question for him to field during his town hall meeting recently. After this little get together reporters found at least 20 major contradictions between what Obama said was in the bill and what was actually written. Even the great Obama doesn't know what is in his own legislation! Can you say "pig in a poke"?
Most folks are happy with the coverage they have and don't want the government to step in and take it over after such sterling examples as the US Postal Service, Welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare. In case you didn't know, Congress has a separate healthcare and retirement system in which we lowly taxpayers who fund it are not permitted to participate. Now if Congress were FORCED under the same healthcare plan they are trying to force upon us and Congress was also FORCED under Social Security you can bet the healthcare plans being floated now would change drastically and suddenly Social Security would become a gold plated plan.
Doesn't anybody snap to the fact Congress never participates in the great social planning experiments they force on the rest of the country? Don't you folks realize there is a two tier system at work here, one for those who govern and the second lower tier for those who are governed and forced to pay the bill for all?
You might convince me to go with nationalized healthcare if Congress and do mean all of them (including those retired and living off the fat of the land) had to come under it as well.
This an old speech by Hoover, way back when (1928): Rugged Individualism. Think it is a timely piece. Am an Obama guy, but the idea of government getting bigger does scare the hell out of me. No easy choices. Maybe it is worth a read for some.
[QUOTE]I intend to discuss some of those more fundamental principles upon which I believe the government of the United States should be conducted.
During one hundred and fifty years we have builded up a form of self government and a social system which is peculiarly our own. It differs essentially from all others in the world. It is the American system. It is founded upon the conception that only through ordered liberty, freedom and equal opportunity to the individual will his initiative and enterprise spur on the march of progress. And in our insistence upon equality of opportunity has our system advanced beyond all the world.
During [World War I] we necessarily turned to the government to solve every difficult economic problem. The government having absorbed every energy of our people for war, there was no other solution. For the preservation of the state the Federal Government became a centralized despotism which undertook unprecedented responsibilities, assumed autocratic powers, and took over the business of citizens. To a large degree, we regimented our whole people temporally into a socialistic state. However justified in war time, if continued in peace-time it would destroy not only our American system but with it our progress and freedom as well.
When the war closed, the most vital of issues both in our own country and around the world was whether government should continue their wartime ownership and operation of many [instruments] of production and distribution. We were challenged with a. Choice between the American system of rugged individualism and a European philosophy of diametrically opposed doctrines doctrines of paternalism and state socialism. The acceptance of these ideas would have meant the destruction of self-government through centralization. [and] the undermining of the individual initiative and enterprise through which our people have grown to unparalleled greatness.
The Republican Party [in the years after the war] resolutely turned its face away from these ideas and war practices. When the Republican Party came into full power it went at once resolutely back to our fundamental conception of the state and the rights and responsibility of the individual. Thereby it restored confidence and hope in the American people, it freed and stimulated enterprise, it restored the government to a position as an umpire instead of a player in the economic game. For these reasons the American people have gone forward in progress.
There is [in this election]. Submitted to the American people a question of fundamental principle. That is: shall we depart from the principles of our American political and economic system, upon which we have advanced beyond all the rest of the world.
I would like to state to you the effect that. [an interference] of government in business would have upon our system of self-government and our economic system. That effect would reach to the daily life of every man and woman. It would impair the very basis of liberty and freedom.
Let us first see the effect on self-government. When the Federal Government undertakes to go into commercial business it must at once set up the organization and administration of that business, and it immediately finds itself in a labyrinth. Commercial business requires a concentration of responsibility. Our government to succeed in business would need to become in effect a despotism. There at once begins the destruction of self-government.
It is a false liberalism that interprets itself into the government operation of commercial business. Every step of bureaucratizing of the business of our country poisons the very roots of liberalism that is political equality, free speech, free assembly, free press and equality of opportunity. It is not the road to more liberty, but to less liberty. Liberalism should not be striving to spread bureaucracy but striving to set bounds to it.
Liberalism is a force truly of the spirit, a force proceeding from the deep realization that economic freedom cannot be sacrificed if political freedom is to be preserved. [An expansion of the governmentís role in the business world] would cramp and cripple the mental and spiritual energies of our people. It would extinguish equality and opportunity. It would dry up the spirit of liberty and progress. For a hundred and fifty years liberalism has found its true spirit in the American system, not in the European systems.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am defining general policy. I have already stated that where the government is engaged in public works for purposes of flood control, of navigation, of irrigation, of scientific research or national defense. It will at times necessarily produce power or commodities as a by-product.
Nor do I wish to be misinterpreted as believing that the United States is a free-for-all and devil-take-the-hindmost. The very essence of equality of opportunity and of American individualism is that there shall be no domination by any group or [monopoly] in this republic. It is no system of laissez faire.
I have witnessed not only at home but abroad the many failures of government in business. I have seen its tyrannies, its injustices, its destructions of self-government, its undermining of the very instincts which carry our people forward to progress. I have witnessed the lack of advance, the lowered standards of living, the depressed spirits of people working under such a system.
And what has been the result of the American system? Our country has become the land of opportunity to those born without inheritance, not merely because of the wealth of its resources and industry but because of this freedom of initiative and enterprise. Russia has natural resources equal to ours. But she has not had the blessings of one hundred and fifty years of our form of government and our social system.
By adherence to the principles of decentralized self-government, ordered liberty, equal opportunity, and freedom to the individual, our American experiment in human welfare has yielded a degree of well-being unparalleled in the world. It has come nearer to the abolition of poverty, to the abolition of fear of want, than humanity has ever reached before. Progress of the past seven years is proof of it.
The greatness of America has grown out of a political and social system and a method of [a lack of governmental] control of economic forces distinctly its own our American system which has carried this great experiment in human welfare farther than ever before in history. And I again repeat that the departure from our American system. Will jeopardize the very liberty and freedom of our people, and will destroy equality of opportunity not only to ourselves, but to our children.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]The link you provides leads to a National Institue of Heath survey--most of which are done as telephone intervews. People without listed telephone numbers do not participate. The definition of "health insurance" includes all forms of accident insurance.[/QUOTE]Miami Bob,
I believe you may have mis-read the report. I couldn't find any reference to "auto insurance" anywhere in the text, although this note was included at the bottom of every table in the report:
[quote=CDC Report: Percentage of persons of all ages without health insurance coverage]A person was defined as uninsured if he or she did not have any private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) state-sponsored or other government-sponsored health plan, or military plan at the time of the interview. A person was also defined [u]as[/u] [u] uninsured[/u] if he or she had only Indian Health Service coverage or had only a private plan that paid for one type of service such as accidents or dental care.[/quote]
Most people that have health insurance are happy with it because only a small percentage of people are getting screwed over by their insurance company or employer at any point in time.
It would be hard to deny the existence of two serious problems:
1. Per capita health care costs are increasing faster than we can pay for them as a society.
2. Many people don't have access to affordable insurance plans.
We can continue to ignore the problems or we can try and solve them. Pick a side and argue it but don't try to pretend the problems don't exist.
Accident insurance includes what you credit card provides when you buy a ticket with the credit card and motor vehicle insurance is for accidents and almost all staes in the usa require PIP which is health coverage for injuries resulting from any accident involving your motor vehicle and possibly any accident invioling you as a passenger in another person's vehicle or a pedestrian hit by a motor vehcle. This is the definition in the small print.
Your position may fit into your world view in a nice package--the market is a gift from god which puts everything right. Talk to people who need their health insurance or have to pay for it in the usa and you will hear a different story.
I'm shure that you will call me a socialist--I am in a sense. Just like richard nixon was a socialist in a sense when he fostered medicare and regan was for not fighting against medicare. And you will be when you accept medicare benefits, if you accept them. If you think social security and medicare are morally wrong--refuse the benfits.
We live in a social democracy as does western europe and most of the first world. The usa is the odd man out, not everybody else. There are some socialist elements in our society and almost all first world societies.
They're going hard. Looks like it's going to pass. All you buckslaps in Argentina forced to return to the USA because it's all good.
I thought they said it would pass but maybe it won't pass or a co op. They're talking about the Obama assasination a lot on Drudge Report. He posts articles on it all the time. Send some cash to the DNC to keep Obama going.