American Politics during the Obama Presidency

I agree pretty much with all stated problems in the health system, even to the 45K dying realted to a lack of insurance being another symptom of the problem.

When I said this in my first post in this thread:

"It's not quite as big a problem as Obama and the Democrats make it out to be for the BIG MAJORITY of people in this country."

I should have added "to be solved immediately, in the next few months." Reading Ricardo's response to that particular quote I realized that it didn't come out as clearly as I intended it. I tend to write too fast (I'm a busy guy) and don't choose my words as carefully as I should in order to completely express myself.

I understand that there had to be some fast movement to prop up a failing financial system, as far as the failing global economy, et al. I don't think that Obama and the Democrats spent the money wisely (at least not a generous portion of it) but I also don't think it was (or will be) a complete failure.

The truth is, I write software and have only a more-than-general understanding of the really high-level complex issues involved. I haven't written too much in oposition to the expenditure that has taken place for that reason. A few comments to note my uncertain dissatisfaction, that's about it.

I have run a business for the last eight years or so, and before that I was involved at middle-level management in a large corporation. I've seen how healthcare impacted people in general as an employee who saw his contribution go up significantly over time, to a manager who had to tell his people about the latest hike or loss of benefits and worry that some of his best people were going to flee to other places, and as a self-employed person who has had to survive without insurance and fret that he wouldn't be able to hire people because he couldn't offer insurance.

Under that last category, I began to understand that insurance is not the necessity that it seems almost everyone thinks it is.

I have raised the point "why should we need health insurance" in two threads now, at least once in each one. I was hoping I might get some specific comments in this thread, me being the first response to Ricardo and all, which should have brought some prominence to the fact it was asked. Maybe the point has been mixed in among my other comments too much.

Can someone please answer me:

If we were going to do REAL REFORM, and not just pile more overhead and government onto the current issue in an attempt to fix things, why didn't we take a little time, as grown-ups who realize that the current system and possibly the entire current thought process on how to provide better medical care to as many people as want it, just sit down and think about it for a little bit instead of rushing into this?

Of course, the real answer is politics. Obama knew that he couldn't sit around and wait for a real discussion, because he had a particular brand of reform in mind, one that is VERY hard to swallow for a LARGE number of people in our country. He knew that he had to ram his plan through his first year in office while he still had impetus and certainly before the midterm elections when he is likely to lose the large and important majority that he has in Congress.

Ok, so I can understand the political necessity if he wants to do what he has in mind. But I don't have to like it.

To me, this situation and what Obama is doing with healthcare points to why I distrust government. I know it's imperfect, as demonstrated, but to me that is why government should do less, at least actively. Pass laws where necessary, leave out loopholes for your buddies, and then enforce with righteousness that which you have put into place. Human nature seems to not allow that to happen, and human nature is to put more bandages on the festering wound until it has to be amputated.

So again, why insurance for every little ache and pain, every visit to the doctor, every test that should be run?

I was not a wealthy person by any stretch of the imagination, when I was living in the States and worked, and managed people, etc, etc. I was more fortunate than many, but I was way less fortunate than a lot of people I knew, much less than existed in the US as a whole. But I managed for a good number of years to not have to buy anything but catastrophic-level insurance.

Why can't we fix things for real so that medical costs aren't outrageous, so that people could afford to visit the doctor's office and have checkups and keep healthy out of their own pockets?

Something so that about 3/4 of the country could afford normal health care without insurance and the 1/4 that couldn't we would figure out how to pay for them?

Why can't we take a step back and figure out the right way to do this instead of being caught up in this paradigm that you need medical insurance to live day by day?

Have catastrophic insurance, sure. I understand that shit will happen that is over the edge as far as costs go, even in a situation where health care in general is not as expensive. In fact, it is the big stuff that wreaks some of the worst havoc.

If you start paying for catastrophic insurance when you're young, you'll have built up enough equity (under a fair system) to deal with the age-related problems that are going to cost more. Insurance is about spreading risk, and the cost of that which happens to young people also gets spread out among the general population.

I've written so much now that I can't go on to provide examples or more detail.

But why can't we talk about real reform instead of piling more crap on the dung heap?

It's already too late. Again.

My top ten list for health care reform:

I'm aware this isn't perfect but we're not dealing with some 3rd world system, we have the best system, it only needs some common sense.

1. No more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies are going to have to take it in the shorts, along with the next 4 items below.

2. No dropped coverage when you get sick.

3. No waiting period for coverage.

4. Eliminates yearly and lifetime caps on coverage.

5. Force insurance companies to provide comparable coverage in all states. Lets' face it they have a monopoly. Huge savings here.

6. Tort reform, fricking lawyers do nothing but add to the cost, big savings here.

7. Send all illegal Mexicans back to Mexico or force them to p2p for health care, currently they only take from the health care system, plus they send their cash back home. Savings everywhere here.

It's like mexicans can walk into any emergency room and service (fix a broken arm, or a BBBJ etc. Is free, americans have to pay, that aint right.

8. Modernize the record keeping process and eliminate cost. Obama was right on this one. Moderate savings.

9. Leave Medicare / Medicaid alone for now. This is already a (government mess) The biggest saving of all, maybe in a couple years or so.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]My personal opinion: If they don't get this passed before Thanksgiving, they won't get it passed at all.[/QUOTE]Stan,

The Dems are not going to let their boy go down in flames, and thus I can state with great certainty that Congress will pass [u]a[/u] [u]bill[/u] of some type that they will trumpet as "Health Reform", including a wildly promoted "Presidential Signing Ceremony" and endless claims of Democratic victory.

The only issue is whether or not they pass a bill that [u]ACTUALLY[/u] reforms the health insurance business, including the health justice business, which the country has needed for many years.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Ricardo]1. Won't add a dime to deficit and paid for upfront.[/QUOTE]Okay, is there anyone on this forum that actually believe this, or am I the only one who is ROTFLMAO?

No, seriously. I'd like to hear the supporting arguments from anyone who can make a case that [u]any[/u] of the Dems proposed health care bills "[i]won't add a dime to deficit and paid for upfront[/i]".

Alternatively, is there anyone that would like to make a bet on this?

Thanks,

Jackson

Dctex99 [QUOTE=Cowpie]My top ten list for health care reform:

I'm aware this isn't perfect but we're not dealing with some 3rd world system, we have the best system, it only needs some common sense.

1. No more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies are going to have to take it in the shorts, along with the next 4 items below.

2. No dropped coverage when you get sick.

3. No waiting period for coverage.

4. Eliminates yearly and lifetime caps on coverage.

5. Force insurance companies to provide comparable coverage in all states. Lets' face it they have a monopoly. Huge savings here.

6. Tort reform, fricking lawyers do nothing but add to the cost, big savings here.

7. Send all illegal Mexicans back to Mexico or force them to p2p for health care, currently they only take from the health care system, plus they send their cash back home. Savings everywhere here.

It's like mexicans can walk into any emergency room and service (fix a broken arm, or a BBBJ etc. Is free, americans have to pay, that aint right.

8. Modernize the record keeping process and eliminate cost. Obama was right on this one. Moderate savings.

9. Leave Medicare / Medicaid alone for now. This is already a (government mess) The biggest saving of all, maybe in a couple years or so.[/QUOTE]Congratulations Cowpie, and well done!

I was contemplating posting my own list of what a good health insurance reform bill should include, but you've beat me to it.

Among other other things that you've enumerated, your plan...

- Does not raise anyone's taxes.
- Does not increase the Federal Budget or the National Debt.
- Does not force anyone to buy health insurance.
- Does not fine anyone for NOT buying health insurance.
- Does not effect anyone's current health insurance provider.
- Does not increase the cost of anyone's current health insurance.*

*Note: Obviously, eliminating pre-existing conditions and the cap on lifetime payouts will raise the average cost of everyone's health policies as these increased costs are spread across all policy holders, but I predict that this will be offset by the reduced costs from health insurance reform and increased competition.

One point though. There's no need to "force" insurers to do business across state lines. All we need to do is replace the state-level licensing and other regulations with uniform federal licensing and regulations. This would allow insurers to sell their policies in any and every state. You know, just like you can buy your auto insurance from any company in the country.

The problem for the Libs is that your proposal does not facilitate their true goal of wealth redistribution, nor does it allow them to give anything to their low-income constituencies, or to illegal aliens for which they have aspirations of turning into loyal Democrat voters.

In other words, its only good for the country as a whole.

Thanks,

Jackson

If there are no waiting periods and no limits on pre-existing conditions, won't the smart move be to not purchase health insurance until you get sick and drop it as soon as you get well?

If only sick people actually buy health insurance, isn't that going to badly skew the risk pool and underwriting results for companies providing the coverage? Won't they need to substantially increase premiums to survive? Who is going to be able to afford those dramatically premiums?

Insurance costs are just a symptom of the real problem of high medical costs in the USA and, if we want a market-based solution, somebody is going to have to figure out a way to have a system where the the bulk of consumers have a direct stake in the price of medical care and can afford to buy it when they need it.

My insurance premium goes up 7-10% each year, my co-pays rise ($10/ office visit to $20/ visit in the past 5 years) and my choices become more limited (30% copay to go out-of-network vs 20% just a few years ago) 20 more years of that and private health insurance will be too expensive and too restricted to be a viable alternative to a single-payer system that has can pool risk across 300 million people, can directly control costs by setting prices, and can set limits on treatments.

Here's kind of a fun article from 2005 about the value of preventing states from limiting interstate competition.

[url]http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007011[/url]

The fun part is the way the article uses financial deregulation in refuting the concern that there would be a deregulatory race to the bottom.

"The best analogy for what to expect here is probably our experience with interstate banking, which has indeed resulted in operators moving to friendly climes like Delaware and South Dakota but which has also proven nothing but a boon to consumers. A national market has allowed the growth of big, financially stable institutions that have earned consumer trust."

Ain't that a crackup.

They do make good points about special interests increasing costs by loading up coverages and the dangers of adverse selection posed by guaranteeing access. Although for some reason, they seem to assume that the same special interests will give up and crumble when faced with a multi-state environment.

[QUOTE=Cowpie]My 2 cents:

If that happens, I predict O BAMA will also have to pay a price; maybe someone will make a move to "integrate" Mount Rushmore. A tribute to his ambition and socialist causes. Personally I think it would be defacing a nation monument.

Oh well, I guess when the talking stops, and logic fails, and a dictator refuses to listen, it's Americans right and privilege too defend democracy. Something Argentineans know little to nothing about.[/QUOTE]But 2 cents for this opinion seems a little stiff!

[QUOTE=El Queso]I began to understand that insurance is not the necessity that it seems almost everyone thinks it is.

IT IS LIKE CAR INSURANCE, YOU DON'T NEED IT UNTIL YOU ARE IN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT. THEN WITHOUT IT YOU CAN BE TRULY FUCKED!

If we were going to do REAL REFORM, and not just pile more overhead and government onto the current issue in an attempt to fix things, why didn't we take a little time, as grown-ups who realize that the current system and IT'S BUSINESS. Possibly the entire current thought process on how to provide better medical care to as many people as want it, just sit down and think about it for a little bit instead of rushing into this?

UNFORTUNATELY, STARTING FROM SCRATCH IS NOT A REALISTIC OPTION. THAT'S LIKE ASKING MICROSOFT TO DO WINDOWS OVER STARTING FROM SCRATCH. WHEN A SYSTEM CONTROLS 16% OF THE ECONOMY, OR FOR MICROSOFT 80% OF THE MARKET, YOU CAN'T DO A REWITE, YOU CAN HARDLY DO A REBOOT. SAD BUT TRUE.

Of course, the real answer is politics.

IT'S NOT POLITICS - THE POLITICALLY SMART THING WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR OBAMA TO TAKE THE ISSUE OFF THE AGENDA AND SAY THE ECONOMIC CRISIS HAD TO TAKE PRECEDENCE. HE DIDN'T BECAUSE HE UNDERSTANDS THEY ARE INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED.

ITS BUSINESS - THE INSURANCE / MEDICAL BUSINESS INTERESTS HAVE OBSTRUCTED ANY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM, OTHER THAN GETTING GOVERNMENT TO GIVE THEM MORE CUSTOMERS AND TO PICK UP THE TAB, SINCE MEDICARE WAS INTRODUCED IN 1964. THEY MADE QUARTERLY PROFITS THE HOLY GRAIL REGARDLESS OF ANY OBLIGATION TO THEIR CUSTOMER BASE AND LIKE THE WALL STREET MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, HAVE PUT THE WHOLE SYSTEM AT RISK. INSURANCE ISN'T INSURANCE WHEN IT CAN BE CANCELLED ON A CORPORATE WHIM DESPITE YEARS OF PAYING PREMIUMS ON TIME.

Obama knew that he couldn't sit around and wait.

THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN WAITING FOR 79 YEARS SINCE TEDDY ROOSEVELT FIRST CALLED FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE. THERE HAVE BEEN 18 PRESIDENTS OVER THAT TIME, AT LEAST EIGHT OF WHOM ATTEMPTED TO HAVE THE US NOT BE THE ONLY INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY THAT DOESN'T HAVE IT.

OBAMA TOOK ON THE ISSUE, BECAUSE EVERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ECONOMIC EXPERT - RIGHT OR LEFT - SAYS WHAT THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE SAYS - CHANGE HEALTH CARE OR IT WILL UNDERMINE ANY HOPE OF LONG TERM ECONOMIC RECOVERY.



He knew that he had to ram his plan through his first year in office. Certainly before the midterm elections when he is likely to lose the large and important majority that he has in Congress.

YOU MAKE MY POLITICAL POINT - TAKING ON THE ISSUE WAS HIGH RISK, AND MOST POLITICIANS AVOID HIGH RISKS. OBAMA SAW WHAT HEALTH CARE DID TO CLINTON, SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POLITIC TO LEAVE IT ALONE. BUT HE TAKES HIS JOB SERIOUSLY. HE CHOSE TO BE ECONOMICALLY RESPONSIBLE AND POLITICALLY FOOLHARDY.

To me, this situation and what Obama is doing with healthcare points to why I distrust government.

GIVEN WHAT WE ALL HAVE LEARNED ABOUT HOW THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OPERATE - AND WHAT WALL STREET DID OVER THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS - YOU DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT? HOW ABOUT WE CAN'T TRUST INSTITUTIONS RUN BY PEOPLE WHO LET GREED OR A LUST FOR POWER RULE THEIR BEHAVIORS!

But I managed for a good number of years to not have to buy anything but catastrophic-level insurance.

WITH THE COST OF TREATMENT IN THE US, GETTING A TOOTH PULLED AND REPLACED CAN RUN UP BILLS THAT ARE CATASTROPHIC FOR MOST MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES!

But why can't we talk about real reform instead of piling more crap on the dung heap?

I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT BUT THINK THE WORLD DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY ANYMORE! [/QUOTE]YOU ARE A SMART GUY - EVEN MORE IDEALISTIC THAN ME (WHICH WILL SCARE SOME OF OUR FELLOW BLOGGERS) I WAS DUMB ENOUGH TO WORK IN POLITICS TO END POVERTY, RACISM AND WAR. THOSE MIGHT BE EASIER TASKS THAN HEALTH CARE!

[QUOTE=Cowpie]My top ten list for health care reform:

I'm aware this isn't perfect but we're not dealing with some 3rd world system, we have the best system, it only needs some common sense.

1. No more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies are going to have to take it in the shorts, along with the next 4 items below.

2. No dropped coverage when you get sick.

3. No waiting period for coverage.

4. Eliminates yearly and lifetime caps on coverage.

5. Force insurance companies to provide comparable coverage in all states. Lets' face it they have a monopoly. Huge savings here.

6. Tort reform, fricking lawyers do nothing but add to the cost, big savings here.

7. Send all illegal Mexicans back to Mexico or force them to p2p for health care, currently they only take from the health care system, plus they send their cash back home. Savings everywhere here.

It's like mexicans can walk into any emergency room and service (fix a broken arm, or a BBBJ etc. Is free, americans have to pay, that aint right.

8. Modernize the record keeping process and eliminate cost. Obama was right on this one. Moderate savings.

9. Leave Medicare / Medicaid alone for now. This is already a (government mess) The biggest saving of all, maybe in a couple years or so.[/QUOTE]The only item of disagreement is deporting illegal aliens, which sounds easy but it ain"t. And they will not get any more assistance under the reformed system unless their employer (who knows they are illegal but likes to pay low wages) lets them but into a company plan where the illegal then pays for coverage, not the taxpayer)

[QUOTE=Jackson]Dctex99 Congratulations Cowpie, and well done!

I MUST ASSUME LIKE COWPIE YOU ENDORSE 9 KEY ELEMENTS OF THE OBAMA PLAN, THEN YOU GO OFF THE SKIDS, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE.

- Does not raise anyone's taxes. -

- THAT'S DOABLE AND PROPOSED.

- Does not increase the Federal Budget or the National Debt.

- DOABLE AND PROPOSED.

- Does not force anyone to buy health insurance.

- MANDATORY VIRGINITY DISAPPEARED A WHILE BACK. WE MANDATE CONTRIBUTING TO SSI AND MEDICARE AND BUYING CAR INSURANCE. AS WELL AS ME PAYING FOR A FEW WARS IN MY LIFE I OPPOSED. EVERYONE PICKS UP THE BILL FOR THE VOLUNTARY UNINSURED WHEN THEY GET SICK. MANDATORY IS NECESSARY. AND WE KNOW LIBERTARIANS DON-T LIKE IT.

- Does not fine anyone for NOT buying health insurance.

FINES ARE THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM OF A MANDATORY FEATURE.

- Does not effect anyone's current health insurance provider.

DOABLE AND PROPOSED. EMPLOYERS RETAIN THE "FREEDOM" OF TO CHANGE PROVIDERS IF COVERAGE GETS TOO EXPENSIVE. THEN THE EMPLOYER CHANGES HIS EMPLOYEES PROVIDER, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

- Does not increase the cost of anyone's current health insurance.*

I ASSUME YOU MEAN BEYOND THE HUGE INCREASES THAT THE INSURANCE PROVIDERS INTEND TO IMPOSE THAT MAY DOUBLE COSTS IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

*Note:. All we need to do is replace the state-level licensing and other regulations with uniform federal licensing and regulations.

I ASSUME THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS WOULD PRECLUDE THE PROVIDERS FROM THEIR CURRENT PRACTICES THAT COWPIE'S (AND OBAM'AS) PLAN WOULD ELIMINATE!

The problem for the Libs is that your proposal does not facilitate their true goal of wealth redistribution, nor does it allow them to give anything to their low-income constituencies, or to illegal aliens for which they have aspirations of turning into loyal Democrat voters.

RANT ON KEMOSABE!

Jackson[/QUOTE]INTERESTING TAKE YOU HAVE JACKSON, ALL THE INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS ASIDE!

My intent was to try and make sense. OBAMA is trying to force National health care on eventually everyone. Can you imagine another payroll deduction called comrade health care in addition FICA, Medicare, Medicaid, and social security. That's exactly what he's up to.

As for Jackson's comments below:

I totally agree with him it reflects a common sense conservative view point. Who in the hell wants to be forced to pay more and get less, especially for a bunch of assholes who only want to take from America and not pay their share?

- Does not raise anyone's taxes.

- Does not increase the Federal Budget or the National Debt.

- Does not force anyone to buy health insurance.

- Does not fine anyone for NOT buying health insurance.

- Does not effect anyone's current health insurance provider.

- Does not increase the cost of anyone's current health insurance

[QUOTE=Ricardo]YOU ARE A SMART GUY - EVEN MORE IDEALISTIC THAN ME (WHICH WILL SCARE SOME OF OUR FELLOW BLOGGERS) I WAS DUMB ENOUGH TO WORK IN POLITICS TO END POVERTY, RACISM AND WAR. THOSE MIGHT BE EASIER TASKS THAN HEALTH CARE![/QUOTE]Thanks for the compliment:)

But really, I don't necessarily see myself as idealistic. To me, much of this is common sense, but of course, "common sense" is only common to those who are infected with the same memes, or who don't have other, contradictory memes to interfere.

My grandmother, who died in February of this year at the ripe age of 92, used to tell me a story about when she first had healthcare, through the bank she worked at in Tulsa, Ok. This was, if I recall the time period correctly, the late '50s.

She used to go to the doctor as often as required and paid her own way, and that of her two boys. She was poor - her husband was not in the picture any more, in any sense. She worked two jobs. Her sons (obviously my father and my uncle) worked as well to help provide for the family, as young as 14. They lived modestly, yet with pride in themselves and the fact that they were productive members of their society.

Her doctor used work with patients in trade, in payments, whatever to make sure that he could provide the best care to them that he could provide because he actually cared about being a doctor more than being rich - at the time.

Shortly after getting insurance, things changed. The doctor's prices went up by almost 100%. My grandmother was worried about this, but the doctor told her not to worry because with the new insurance that she had, he was able to accept a little less from her than normal, and yet he could turn around and charge the insurance company more because they would accept it.

Well, obviously, that seems to me to be the beginning of the end.

I don't believe that we necessarily have to start over to do true reform. I don't believe there is a way to return to the past, but also, using the excuse that it's too difficult to "do the right thing" (whatever that may end up being) is a cop out.

My comments about Obama's political manueverings were not a criticism that he had to do that to get something done. It was a statement of fact that if he wanted to get something done, he would have to play that particular game to get it passed, particularly at this moment in time, because there are too many people opposed to what he wants to do.

The problem I have is that he is not setting things right, I believe. I think he is compounding the mistakes that already exist, much like (it can be argued) Roosevelt did by many of his New Deal programs in an attempt to fix previous problems.

I guess from this standpoint, perhaps, I AM idealistic. To think that we can actually set things right in this day and age, with so many people with so many different ideas, may be impossible.

Before I came to live in Argentina, I had an idea that what was going on in the States was dangerous. Since I have come to live here, I have come to the definite conclusion that what is being done is dead wrong.

Personal responsibility is lost when you try to do too much for people who do not do for themselves. In the States, it is still true (though I don't know for how much longer) that ANYONE who applies themselves can get ahead. But there are too many organizations and "politically correct thinking" that allow whoever wants to to cry, ***** and moan about their "plight."

The problem is, every social program that is enacted sucks the money from the people who have worked hard for it and who would invest it back into the economy and gives it to people who don't produce, for one reason or another. The government will NEVER be able to do things truly efficiently, it's the nature of the beast.

"Redistribution of Wealth" by any artificial means is destructive.

I watch here in Argentina as the "fearless leaders" fly free in the face of "terrible world capitalism" and buddy up with poeople like Hugo Chavez, telling the people that countries like the US are what's wrong with the world, and that their poverty is all our fault.

My sister-in-law (who is 13 and whom I have invited to come from Paraguay to get a better education) is forced to read that famous book that Chavez gave to Obama (who accepted it like an idiot - sorry, but I think that was stupid and amateurish) - "Las Venas Abiertas de Latina America" (The Open Veins of Latin America) in school here.

In the opening chapter of the book, it states very clearly its intent to prove that the US primarily, and some European powers as well, conspire to do everything they can to keep Latin America in its place and ensure that all of their resources are sucked out to leave them penniless and powerless. Of course, she is such an intelligent young ldy, that she comes to me every so often, pointing out obvious (even to a 13 year old!) Serious nconsistencies in what the author is saying.

As I told my sister-in-law, there is some truth to what she will read, but it's only a partial truth (not even a half-truth really)

Here, there is a small percentage of people who have money and everyone else contributes to them in one fashion or another. Through taxes, through unfair wages, through unfair patronage and many other things. And the people here honestly believe that their government is doing what they can to combat those rich people and redistribute their wealth as best they can.

Well, the uneducated masses believe that. The educated minority knows better, but they are powerless to do anything. The government here actually pays the poor to come to rallies and money magically gets distributed to key places that affect the poor just before elections. The poor are very ignorant and almost always vote the way the government wants them to.

The unions have power here as well - but the government, for example, has ruled that the business themselves must pay the union fees. On top of a 40% contribution in taxes, on top of the mandatory healthcare payment, on top of many other local taxes and other crap that businesses have to put up with. It makes it very very difficult to do business here and make money.

I see similar things happening in the US as the "poor" scream that they are being left behind, and as the "left" says "we have to take the wealth from the richer, who can afford it, and give it to the 'poor' who are down-trodden and left behind."

I put the word "poor" in quotes above, because the truth is, I don't think there are very many poor in the US who have really any idea what poor means. Why is that? Because those we consider poor in the States often live better lives than (or at least equal to) many of the people who consider themselves middle class here.

I used to live in the Fifth Ward in Houston. I know whereof I speak. I certainly would not like to live like that - so I worked my ass off to ensure that I would not. But the people who live in places like that live better than most of the people who live around me, outside of my "special" closed neighborhood out here in Pilar. And this is an affluent area!

The Argentino rich live in closed neighborhoods, but the middle class live in small houses, on small properties, with walls around their one or two bedroom houses (with 3-6 family members) living in fear from the real poor, who live in crumbling unfinished-wall brick "buildings" (very ugly houses) The streets here, to my neighborhood, are so terrible that they are difficult to drive on and my car constantly has problems with tire balancing and front end alignment. But the streets to where many of the middle class live are unpaved and often muddy, and the streets to the poor even more so.

And that's just here in a small place in Buenos Aires. This is quite affluent compared to most of the rest of what I have seen in Latin America. Paraguay is a trip and a half!

I have written at times about my wife's family's origins. This is true povery of the class that you see on TV where people are begging money to help these truly, truly poor people who live (barely) at the whim of the weather on subsistence farming.

In the States, very few people have ANY idea what poverty is. My mother and my grandmother lived in poverty very similar to what I have described in Paraguay. That kind of poverty doesn't really exist any more in the States. Why? Because we HAD a work ethic where people were too proud to accept handouts from the government and we pulled ourselves up by the bootstraps.

Because although things are not perfect and people abuse the system, capitalism has allowed EVERYTHING to raise in relation to the rest of the world where capitalism is not practiced.

In my opinion, a free market system in which everyone has an opportunity (and the "poor" are not sucking the wealth [as in "redistribution"] from those who keep it running) will far out perform any socially-engineered program that man, at this point in time, can implement.

So in my opinion, what Obama is doing with many of the things he wants to do is fucking up the system with more overhead and engineered things, instead of focusing on things that are truly unfair practices by those in power and behind PACs who try to get everything they can for themselves, and whatnot.

Let me give you an example of healthcare:

One of my clients is an Ob / Gyn physician, employs two other physicians and 18 employees. Each year the amount insurance companies pay for specific procedures (office, hospital and out patient surgery centers) declines. Add to this the fact the insurance companies continue to "bundle" services together at a lower price and the physician has seen a steady decline in income over the last 10 years while expenses have continued to rise. The physician has attempted to add more patients but reached a point where medical care was compromised and decided to stick with good care and continue to ride the decline in income. (I am sure malpractice concerns played a role in this decision as well as this client being an excellent physician who really cares about the patient)

Today this physician is still seeing more patients than 10 years ago but is making 41% less in take home pay due to the decline in reimbursement and increases in expenses. I should add this physician sponsors a 401(k) for the employees, contributes up to 10% in matching and provides PPO healthcare coverage for the employees.

Add to this the government required move to electronic medical records (a really good thing in the long run) but the physician had to shell out $350K for the hardware and software not to mention $28.8K in annual software and hardware support.

Now the reward for being a good corporate citizen and taking care of employees is ObamaCare. This physician has decieded if what is being talked about now passes, the area will be one OB / GYN physician short and 20 people will be out of a job as she will fold her tent and do something else, make a little less money and get out of the rat race. Now if you check the polls there are many physicans in the same boat, get out and do something else.

Fix healthcare? Get the lawyers out of it, get the government out of it, return to personal responsiblilty, referenced in earlier posts. Jackson and I had this very discussion in July, when we grew up you paid your on way, only went to the doctor when you really had to, only went to the ER if there was free flowing blood or bones sticking out and only had catstrophic care for the rally big bad things. IMHO, the worst thing that happend to healthcare is when the insurance companies invened to "CO-PAY" and you could consume all the healthcare you could for $10 $20 or $30. It completly divorced the cost of care from the payment of care for the patient.