American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415132]Esten, I have NEVER said Medicare or Social Security should be cut for the exact reason you stated, people paid in for the benefit. What I have said needed to be axed was MEDICAID and WELFARE, government vote garnering programs invented by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Esten, you and your liberal friends please keep your rose colored glasses on and remain in denial until after November 2012 and the conservatives sweep your folks in Washington from office. Even Democrats admit it was about cutting spending and shrinking government – at least the ones that are left. Get a grip big guy[/QUOTE]Doppel, I did not see where you weighed in before on Medicare and Social Security, but am glad to see we agree on this.

There is another poll out today with some fairly detailed questions about how to cut the deficit. Of interest, when asked about specific potential benefit changes to these two programs, the top choice among all groups (including Republicans) were for options where the rich take more of the burden. More evidence of this theme.

Top change to Medicare benefits: Raising the premiums high-income Medicare recipients have to pay.
Top change to Social Security benefits: Reducing benefits for Americans with higher incomes.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/20/us/poll-graphic.html[/url]

Again, liberals / Democrats agree spending cuts are important and are not against them. We will just differ on where the cuts should be made. You support cuts to Medicaid and Welfare, so let me ask you a question. I know one of the conservative arguments is that some people abuse these programs and don't take enough personal responsibility. But I'm sure you also recognize there are many honest, ethical people at the bottom of the economic ladder who are willing to work to get out of that situation but can't get a job that pays enough (especially in this economy where 5 people are competing for every job). So, you are perfectly fine with taking away benefits from people at the bottom of the ladder, and thereby likely increasing poverty, disease and death in this country, when there is an alternative i.e. a small tax increase on people who can afford it? You would rather protect tax cuts for the rich, than protect Americans who have fallen on hard times?

You see Esten that is the difference between the Left & the Right, the answer to everything is more government and more taxes for the Left.

Let me see if I get this right, you want high income earners to pay more but take less from social security and medicare? How is that "fair"?

Now if I advocate cutting Medicaid and Welfare I want to push people into poverty and kill them? I love the logic. I know it has never occured to you if you took the benefit away they might actually get up and go do something when the checks stoped coming in?

The United States became the greatest power on earth, respected by our friends and feared by our foes without Welfare and Medicaid. These areas were left to states and private citizens or groups to take care of and we muddled through. Since Johnson's great society and the introduction of Welfare and its step child Medicaid I would argue we have declined as a nation since removing the need to work for what you get.

Let me give you one example of the "good" Welfare has done in the Black community, the very community it was intended to help! Check studies of the Black family unit and out of wedlock birth rate prior to 1965. Now look at those two items today. Yes all that "caring" has really helped nearly destroy one segment of our population and reduce it to dependency on the government. Great Job!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415145]Let me see if I get this right, you want high income earners to pay more but take less from social security and medicare? How is that "fair"?[/quote]DG,

You already know the liberal answer to this question: It's "fair" because 51% of the voters have decided that it's okay to take whatever they want from the other 49%.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415145]Let me give you one example of the "good" Welfare has done in the Black community, the very community it was intended to help! Check studies of the Black family unit and out of wedlock birth rate prior to 1965. Now look at those two items today. Yes all that "caring" has really helped nearly destroy one segment of our population and reduce it to dependency on the government. Great Job![/QUOTE]You already know the liberal answer to this one too, which is "[I]These statistics would have been much worse if we had [U]NOT[/U] enacted these programs.[/I]", an unprovable statement just like the liberal's claims about the effect of Obama's 1 trillion economic stimulus program.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415145]The United States became the greatest power on earth, respected by our friends and feared by our foes without Welfare and Medicaid. These areas were left to states and private citizens or groups to take care of and we muddled through. Since Johnson's great society and the introduction of Welfare and its step child Medicaid I would argue we have declined as a nation since removing the need to work for what you get.[/QUOTE]No truer words ever were spoken.

1. Not so long ago, giving and support for the out-of-work and down-and-out were the responsibility of families, communities, civic and church groups. Those who "got" were appreciative and were expected to live up to their end of the bargain: Do what you can so you won't need support anymore. Usually, folks weren't asking for handouts. They were offering to do some work for something, anything, and folks reciprocated when they could.

2. Liberals took this out of their hands and put government in charge. As a consequence, there wasn't much of a social compact left, no quid pro quo,"I give and you'll do what you can to improve your situation."

3. As a result of #2, the groups in #1 no longer felt responsible for giving and support. Some still help out. But, it's viewed as government's responsibility.

4. As a result of #2, many of those on the dole have lost sight of their obligation to do what they can to improve their situation. What they "get" doesn't directly affect anyone else. It's just government money.

I hear this ALL the time on the radio when they're interviewing out-of-work folks. Classic examples are former employees of banks who used to make $100, 000 a year, but they're turning down jobs paying $60, 000 because they're waiting for something better to come along. Managers who used to make $60, 000 are turning down $17 hour jobs because they don't pay enough. They'd rather stay on the dole than do what they can to improve their situation. Most claim they're actively looking for work, but virtually all of them have been out of work for two years and won't lower themselves to do anything they view as menial work or below their former station in life. They view themselves as victims of the economy, which is the government's fault.

It is a problem, and it's an unintended albeit direct consequence of programs like medicaid, rent subsidies, food stamps and unemployment benefits. No one starts out life aspiring to be on these programs. But, once there, many find a comfortable existence. They don't thrive; they just survive. And, they come to view their job as figuring out how to work the system rather than figuring out how to get out of the system. When you get generations who have gone through life this way, then you've got a real problem. That's where we are now.

There are many articles discussing the problems with ObamaCare. For anyone who's interested, this one's about the best succinct summary that I've seen regarding the phony "deficit reduction" argument being offered by Democrats: [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257625/why-everything-starts-repeal-charles-krauthammer[/url]

Charles Krauthammer usually hits the nail on the head. The guy rarely misses.

1. Obamacare increases the cost of healthcare for everyone.

2. Obamacare will stifle innovation in the healthcare field (including pharma)

3. The lying muther fuckers (I, e, democrats in the senate) that foisted this POS on us have to make a decision. That decision is 1) vote for it again (and guarantee defeat in 2012) or vote against it (draw the ire of the organized left.

4. Nationalized healthcare is the clarion call to lovers of those inalienable rights, imbued upon us, via the declaration of independence, to resist government usurpation of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

IT IS Not O'bama CARE.

That sounds very Racist.

All parties agreed to It. It is A Health CARE FOR ALL, Package.

It would cost more to appeal it.

Use Guys need to Travel and Need some Heath CARE when you are there.

Like I said It was cheaper for me to see a Doctor in Buenos Aires than in the USA.

Oh, Cuba was Cheaper When I was there.

I BET MOST OF YOU HAVE NEVER LEFT THE USA.

Most of you most likely did not go to school after the 12th grade.

SCHOOL and learning is a LIFE TIME Session. YOU WILL NEVER STOP Learning and going to SCHOOL.

And if did not go and travel you will not know shit about the World Heath CARE of other Countries.

Only You That HAVE BEEN TO MORE THAN 70 COUNTRIES NEED ANSWER, As I Have Been.

Travel more Then express Your opinions.

I hear this same shit everyday on Radio free USA.

They have never left their HOUSE.

Jackson mentioned about 9-11.

The Terrorists were:

Most were Saudis.

No Afghans,

No Pakistanis,

NO Iraqis.

No WMDs.

WTF.

All of are boys lost for What?

OIL!

Same as Vietnam. A Waste.

This is a Sex Site, Not POLITICIAL SITE.

JACKSON shut down all the Political Threads!


[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 415156]1. Obamacare increases the cost of healthcare for everyone.

2. Obamacare will stifle innovation in the healthcare field (including pharma)

3. The lying muther fuckers (I, e, democrats in the senate) that foisted this POS on us have to make a decision. That decision is 1) vote for it again (and guarantee defeat in 2012) or vote against it (draw the ire of the organized left.

4. Nationalized healthcare is the clarion call to lovers of those inalienable rights, imbued upon us, via the declaration of independence, to resist government usurpation of constitutionally guaranteed rights. [/QUOTE]

WT69 let's get this stright, it is not "our" healthcare plan, it was ramed throught by liberal Democrats and is in the process of being killed. It will be repealed in 2012 after the elections. It is ObamaCare, even the Dems and left wing media call it that and to say calling it that is racist is pure liberal hogwash and the last bastion of the liberal when they can not win the argement. ObamaCare still remains one of the most disapproved of pieces of legislation to be passed in years. What Congress has done, Congress can undo so get a grip.

I also see you calling on Jackson to kill the political thread, if you can't stand the heat don't go in the kitchen. Simply go to the other threads. No one forces you to click on this thread, read it or contribute to it. If you don't like it don't participate. Again the last bastion of the liberal, if you don't like it censor it or shut it down. For the liberal there is only one opinion and that is their's. Liberals and old Joe Stalin have a lot in common. Only one line and that is the Party's line comrad.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;415157]Like I said It was cheaper for me to see a Doctor in Buenos Aires than in the USA.[/QUOTE]WT,

Do you really believe that Obamacare is going to rectify this disparity?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415157]IT IS Not O'bama CARE.

That sounds very Racist.

[/QUOTE]Anybody who didn't vote for Obama is a racist.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;415157]IT IS Not O'bama CARE.[/QUOTE]Hey WT69 - You are correct.

The name of the new health care law is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Republicans have a slang name for it as part of their smear, distort and repeal campaign. In the face of such a good piece of legislation, they need to muster all the ammo they can, which explains why their repeal bill calls it the "Job-Killing Health Care Law Act". Another proven GOP distortion.

Though not perfect, it is a very good piece of legislation. The reason it is so good? Because Republicans weren't involved in writing it! There is a reason Americans trust Dems more than Repubs when it comes to health care.

Krauthammer's attack on PPACA frames it as a deficit reduction bill. But actually, it's a health care reform bill. It just has the added benefit of reducing the deficit. That's because it includes two new tax hikes on the wealthy, something we need more of in this country.

Despite all their colorful language and distortions, Republicans have failed to muster significant support for repeal. Americans are growing increasingly tired of it, as evidenced by the latest AP Poll showing support for full repeal down to only 26%. Now that their symbolic vote is out of the way, let's hope Republicans realize they do not have a mandate for repeal, and instead work with Obama and Dems to focus on jobs and the economy.

[QUOTE=Jackson;415149]You already know the liberal answer to this question: It's "fair" because 51% of the voters have decided that it's okay to take whatever they want from the other 49%.[/QUOTE]No, democracy is not always fair to all groups. But it's the fairest way we have on making decisions on what government programs we fund and how they are funded. I asked you before what your proposal was for how decisions should be made, but you didn't answer.

The sweeping statement you made is not what liberals believe. What they believe is that it is fair for the rich to pay more and receive fewer benefits. Here is the reason:

[i]It's fair because it's an approach where people contribute and receive according to their financial means. [/i]

The interesting thing is that [u]most rich people agree with this[/u]. And to an extent, so do Republicans.

[url]http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1438[/url]

Q. Do you think raising income taxes on households making more than "X" should or should not be a main part of any government approach to the deficit?

X = $250,000 X = $1,000,000
Republican 42% 56%
Democrat 82% 89%
Independent 55% 69%
Income >250k 64% 67%

Why the broad support? Maybe it's just [i]common sense[/i]?

This "you have no right to take my money" argument is just an ideological defense for selfishness.

Who Cares?

[QUOTE=Esten;415167]This "you have no right to take my money" argument is just an ideological defense for selfishness.[/QUOTE]You're right, there's a lot of selfishness in this world. Jews, Tutsi's, all the rich bastards right down through history. The majority should rule. Take their property, then hack them to death with machetes. But only if you can first show via an opinion poll that the majority approve.

WT69, Why don't you just stop reading this thread instead of complaining about it.

Mongers-

The "obamacare" health care reform bill is a complete disgrace and the manner in which it was hammered through the legislative process is even more disgraceful. There are two reforms that the US healthcare system direly needed; the making illegal the practice of health insurance companies refusing coverage to individuals based on preexisting conditions and the formation of a truly "public option", meaning a taxpayer funded public healthcare system to operate alongside the current private healthcare system (just like EVERY civilized and semi-civilized country in the world EXCEPT the US has). Essentially, the "obamacare" bill will spend untold billions of dollars to reorganize the current system and NOT solve the main problem at hand. Yes, refusing health insurance based on preexisting conditions will soon be made illegal but that could have been done by executive order or stand alone legislation. I expect that the Supreme Court will find parts of the Obamacare bill unconstitutional and at some point the Congress will vote to repeal the bill; whether the bill will in fact be repealed depends on if Obama is reelected in 2012.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Esten;415167]This "you have no right to take my money"[/QUOTE]Let me see if I understand your logic.

If you said this to a lone guman you would be considered morally correct, but if you say it to a crowd you're instead advocating an "[i]ideological defense for selfishness[/i]"?

So, the determining factor is the size of the crowd that has decided to [strike]steal[/strike] appropriate your money?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Esten;415165]Though not perfect, it is a very good piece of legislation. The reason it is so good? Because Republicans weren't involved in writing it! There is a reason Americans trust Dems more than Repubs when it comes to health care.[/QUOTE]You obviously didn't pay much attention to the mid-term elections. More to follow in 2012. You're suggested approach of denial certainly works short term. I might suggest that dems currently have NO idea WHAT the american people want dude.

As far as WT69 goes! Give me a f*cking break. I will not include all the wild crazy comments I read today from you. You sound like "sadly" the typical wild ass liberal that gives most dems a bad name these days. Since YOU are so well traveled (LOL) , YOU need to explain to us redneck, uneducated, bible thumping idiots how things need to be done as WE JUST DON'T GET IT! IALOTFLMAO! Better YET, just slam you're picture of america down our throats and dismiss us as stupid, uneducated, etc. Shame on you WT69, you have just had too many early breakfast meeting with your girlfriend Pelosi. Suggest you stick to 100 peso privado girls dude. You're politics are totally caustic, and certainly NOT in touch with America in 2011. Tick. Tick. Tick all. 2012 isn't that far off in the distance. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

I just don't understand why Educated people, would want to deny health care to anyone.

My Blue Cross health insurance company is raising their rates, again. Which will make it unfordable to many.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415175]I just don't understand why Educated people, would want to deny health care to anyone.

My Blue Cross insurance company is raising their rates, again. [/QUOTE]WT,

I don't want to "[i]deny health care to anyone[/i]." But I also don't want to be [u]forced[/u] to pay for someone else's health care.

However, I accept that modern societies will always provide health care subsidies to their most impoverished members, which we're currently doing with Medicare and Medicaid.

The solution here is to enact policies that lower the cost of health care so that it is more affordable to the 15% of people in this country that do not currently have traditional coverage. Unfortunately, Obamacare does NOT and will NOT lower the cost of health care, but then that was never it's intent anyway.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Toymann; 415174]You obviously didn't pay much attention to the mid-term elections. [/QUOTE. ]

OK pay attention to the mid-terms, but don't get too invested in whatever era you think was just set in motion by the voters. Witness the following:

1992. Clinton wins the presidency. A new era of progressive command is proclaimed.

1994. R's take control of Congress. A new era of conservative command is proclaimed.

1996. Clinton re-elected handily. So much for the conservative era.

2000. Gore wins the popular vote, Bush appointed POTUS by Supreme Court after Florida recount is halted. A new era of compassionate (I. E. Moderate) conservativism is proclaimed.

2004. Gingrich's Rs retake control of Congress. An era of hard-nosed conservative command is proclaimed.

2006. Ds retake control of Congress. Hard-nosed conservative era ends abruptly.

2008. Obama wins and Ds control both houses. New era of progressive command is proclaimed.

2010. Rs retake control of the House, but Ds keep the Senate. Era of progressive command ends abruptly. Tea party era begins.

CONCLUSION:

History shows that US voters are as reliable and consistent as the chicas of BA (and almost as self-absorbed and self-destructive)!

And keep in mind, Obama is better positioned for re-election than either Clinton or Reagan were at the middle of their terms in office. In addition, polls show support for the Tea Party eroding, as their virulent rhetoric loses appeal among moderates and independents. Although in Senate races, the Rs are structurally better positioned with fewer incumbents on the ballots, historically the party whose presidential candidate wins benefits in Senate races. Take note StanDaMann!

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415172]Let me see if I understand your logic.

If you said this to a lone guman you would be considered morally correct, but if you say it to a crowd you're instead advocating an "[i]ideological defense for selfishness[/i]"?

So, the determining factor is the size of the crowd that has decided to [strike]steal[/strike] appropriate your money? [/QUOTE]It is not about some random crowd. We have a government to run with services people need and want. We all chip in according to our means. Sometimes people want things others don't, and sometimes not all spending benefits all people. It sounds like you want special treatment so you can avoid paying for things that only benefit others.

Maybe we should just throw Democracy out the window and try another system. What's your suggestion?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415175]I just don't understand why Educated people, would want to deny health care to anyone.

My Blue Cross health insurance company is raising their rates, again. Which will make it unfordable to many. [/QUOTE]They are raising your rates because they are getting their profits before Obama care takes effect.

[QUOTE=Esten; 415178]It is not about some random crowd. We have a government to run with services people need and want. We all chip in according to our means. Sometimes people want things others don't, and sometimes not all spending benefits all people. It sounds like you want special treatment so you can avoid paying for things that only benefit others.

Maybe we should just throw Democracy out the window and try another system. What's your suggestion? [/QUOTE]I think that, deep down, this is what you want. You keep talking about taxes in terms of rich people's ability to pay, and benefits being allocated to people based on their needs or limited means. Your last few posts repeat these phrases. That ideology is sometimes called "communism" and sometimes called "socialism."

"[i]From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)" is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the principles that, in a communist society, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs. [/i]"

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability[/url], _to_each_according_to_his_need.

This has been your abiding theme here. Whether you realize it or not, whether you're prepared to admit it or not, this is the foundation for your rhetoric. You are, at base, a socialist.

I don't say that in a pejorative, McCarthy sort of way. It used to be a common world view. There are plenty smart people who have (wrongly) held these views. Whether you're willing to concede it or not, that is exactly the perspective you've been expressing here. You may prefer to call it a Democrat perspective, or a liberal perspective, and you undoubtedly consider it a "smart" perspective. But if one is going to call a spade a spade, it is a socialist / Marxist perspective. The thoughts and ideas you are articulating, based on this perspective, have been thoroughly discredited over the past 100 years. You're free to keep trying, though, and you have plenty of company in this administration.

Unfortunately, we all have to suffer as this administration's little experiment fails. Fortunately, the majority of the public now sees that the emperor has no clothes.

Well said Stan, but what Esten never seems to grasp is what "people want and need" is not the same as what people can afford. Esten always sees the government as the single entity to provide all to the masses and class warfare is the way to go for taxes.

See my earlier post about the decline of the USA since Lyndon Johnson's administration began the systemic destruction of people's dignity and the continued assault on all those institutions which in the past made America great. As a nation we have already slid from Great to mediocrity and we are still heading down hill.

I remember Jimmy Carter telling us that American's best days were behind her – Obama's administration can not end soon enough for me. Yes he is up in the polls – above 50%. But nothing has happened yet. He may get another boost after the State of the Union, but after that the rubber meets the road and the hard choices have to be made. When this happens he will be back in the upper 30's again until he is either challenged from within his own party or outright defeated in 2012.

Hey I "want and need" an estate, stocked with hotties, fast cars, good food and the list goes on, but what I can afford is a nice home, rude American women, a used car and Micky D's. Oh well if Esten can deliver and someone else pay I'm in!

(Need to clarify here for Esten and WT69 – the last paragraph is a joke)

Here are some things I believe in:

1. A strong private sector that rewards risk-taking, hard work and innovation.
2. A private sector that avoids extreme concentration of wealth in a small group.
3. A strong government that does what the private sector cannot do well.
4. A government that limits private sector abuse through responsible regulation.
5. Redistribution to address extreme imbalances in distribution.
6. Progressive taxation.
7. Balanced budgets.

I favor a mixed economy biased towards capitalism. I do not believe in 'laissez-faire' capitalism.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415185]Well said Stan, but what Esten never seems to grasp is what "people want and need" is not the same as what people can afford. Esten always sees the government as the single entity to provide all to the masses and class warfare is the way to go for taxes.[/QUOTE]As I've said before, I support a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes on higher incomes to balance our budget. The rich elite started class warfare decades ago, and are now using this phrase to protect their interests. How sad you've fallen for it.

You said before "It starts with us." Sounds good on the surface. But where is the "us" part? All you've proposed so far is spending cuts on Welfare and Medicaid.

Did you mean "It starts with the poor."? Who in your mind are all lazy?

[QUOTE]See my earlier post about the decline of the USA since Lyndon Johnson's administration began the systemic destruction of people's dignity and the continued assault on all those institutions which in the past made America great. As a nation we have already slid from Great to mediocrity and we are still heading down hill.[/QUOTE]We prospered in the 1900's when we had higher taxation on higher incomes. Forget about the nostalgia about how much we were respected and feared. Focus on the progress of the middle class and poor. The metrics associated with these groups began stagnating or declining not with Johnson, but with the rise of the corporate special interest system since Reagan. This also coincided with the explosion in US debt beginning ca. 1982.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415184]This has been your abiding theme here. Whether you realize it or not, whether you're prepared to admit it or not, this is the foundation for your rhetoric. You are, at base, a socialist.[/QUOTE]As you know we have a progressive taxation system, and according to multiple recent polls most Americans believe in addressing taxation and spending cuts in ways that put more of the burden on the rich. Heck, even 59% of Republicans support reducing Social Security benefits for those with higher incomes.

Therefore according to your singular socialist criteria, belief in people contributing and receiving according to their means, the United States is a socialist country and most Americans are socialists.

Good one!

I will never be able to repay you for your work in making my dalliances easier and more rewarding. Please don't view my response as hostile or as an attack (your handle isn't Esten. LOL). If and when we cross paths in Bs As (regardless of your political leanings) , I am buying.

However, I would like to politely and respectfully respond to your post in the spirit of debate, not hostility.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415157]IT IS Not O'bama CARE.

That sounds very Racist. [/quote]The name of the guy responsible for this mess has the family name of Obama. When Hillary Clinton tried the same thing, it was called 'Hillarycare' There is nothing racist about it (other than the fact that anyone who opposes anything Obama is a defacto racist).

[quote=]All parties agreed to It. It is A Health CARE FOR ALL, Package.[/quote]Quite the contrary, the majority of the citizenry and the republican minority in the congress adamantly opposed it.

[quote=]It would cost more to appeal it.[/quote]In correct. It will save hundreds of billions and perhaps a trillion if it is scrapped.

[quote=]Use Guys need to Travel and Need some Heath CARE when you are there.[/quote]I pay for evacuation insurance if I am ill or injured while traveling abroad so that I can get back to the best health care in the world.

[quote=]Like I said It was cheaper for me to see a Doctor in Buenos Aires than in the USA.[/quote]That is not indicative of a better health care system.

[quote=]Oh, Cuba was Cheaper When I was there.[/quote]Why did Castro ban the Michael Moore movie which so glowingly lauded the Cuban healthcare system?

[quote=]I BET MOST OF YOU HAVE NEVER LEFT THE USA.[/quote]I can't speak for any of these other racist hillbillies, but I have been out of the US lots. I have been to Alaska, Hawaii and Texas, so put that in your pipe and smoke it (LOL)

[quote=]Most of you most likely did not go to school after the 12th grade.[/quote]I've got me some school'and in the class room and in the school of hard knocks.

[quote=]SCHOOL and learning is a LIFE TIME Session. YOU WILL NEVER STOP Learning and going to SCHOOL.[/quote]Unless you are unwilling to learn and ignore facts that contradict your preconceived notions.

[quote=]And if did not go and travel you will not know shit about the World Heath CARE of other Countries.[/quote]Because health care in other nations is of lower quality than that available in the US is no reason to bring the quality of care available to all Americans down.

[quote=]Only You That HAVE BEEN TO MORE THAN 70 COUNTRIES NEED ANSWER, As I Have Been.[/quote]I love you. But, traveling to 70+ countries is irrelevant to the US health care debate, except as means through which you can gauge the differential in quality of care from one country to another. I have traveled a bit. In addition to the international destinations named above, I have put my feet on several continents (still waiting for your reviews of privados in Antarctica, before I make my plans to go there and check the last one off my list)

[quote=]Travel more Then express Your opinions.[/quote]This will come as a surprise to you but, I have some opinions and I occasionally share them with others. My travel plans and my propensity to share my opinions are not necessarily correlated.

[quote=]I hear this same shit everyday on Radio free USA.[/quote]How the fuck do you have time to listen to the radio? I figure you must spend 20+ hours a day researching brothels (for which I will be eternally grateful).

[quote=]They have never left their HOUSE.[/quote]If it is a good house of ill repute, there may not be a good reason to leave it.

[quote=]Jackson mentioned about 9-11.

The Terrorists were:

Most were Saudis.

No Afghans,

No Pakistanis,

NO Iraqis. [/quote]No Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Branch Davidians nor Jehovah's Witnesses.

[quote=]No WMDs.[/quote]While not found in the quantity expected prior to the war, there were some found. Due to the lack of visibility into the activities of the prior regime, it was nearly impossible to verify or dispel the claims made by the regime that they were actively developing NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) weapon systems for the express purpose of destabilizing the gulf region and striking out at the Great Satan.

[quote=]WTF.[/quote]That's what I say.

[quote=]All of are boys lost for What?[/quote]I do not believe for a moment that Washington runs wars with the best interests of our heroes in mind. However, I am reminded of something Churchill is reported to have said: "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

[quote=]OIL![/quote]You take away our oil, you do us harm. If we were able to tap the more-than-abundant oil reserves, located beneath US soil, perhaps we would not feel the need to engage in such military actions. I guess you can't have it both ways.

[quote=]Same as Vietnam.[/quote]Other than the facts that they were fought on foreign soil, resulted in far, far too many US casualties, and domestic politics played a roll in increasing the body count, there are no similarities.

[quote=]A Waste.[/quote]In the case of Vietnam, I agree in that misguided politicians in Washington wasted our greatest national resources. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, I disagree that all Us casualties in these conflicts have been wasted.

[quote=]This is a Sex Site, Not POLITICIAL SITE. [/quote]

I believe that this is better characterized as a lifestyle site. For me and perhaps some others, engaging in political debate is part of my lifestyle. Interestingly, this thread has more posts than any other.

[quote=]JACKSON shut down all the Political Threads![/QUOTE]From usaseguide to internationalsexguide to argentinaprivate, there are more than a few locales covered. Everyone of them has local political implications. Further, travelers and expats a like might enjoy keeping up with current political themes and goings on.

WT, again, I am truly appreciative for all that you have done for our mutual benefit. I welcome, appreciate and respect your opinions and do not for a second mind that they do not conform to mind. In fact, if we all thought alike, the world would be pretty boring and all the chicas at privados would be exactly the same. I am not interested in converting you to my point of view rather, I am just interested in presenting my views.

WT69-

Don't fret, because sooner or later, the WallyWildeyes, Jacksons, and Toyman's of the USA will be guillotined and perhaps tarred and feathered by the inevitable armed insurrection that will occur in the USA if the (formerly) middle and working classes are indefinitely denied affordable healthcare and a dignified living wage. These fools are so blind in their ways (and never ending drive for larger profits) that they fail to realize that by providing the (formerly) middle and working classes with these basics they are in fact providing for the continuation of the very system that allows such wealth to be accumulated. When the majority of the population is humiliated and cannot afford to provide the basics for their family the system in place is bound to come crashing down and extremists often take power. Those opposed to any wealth redistribution in the form of government funded healthcare and higher wages should look at what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, etc. Desperate citizens will support and vote for irresponsible populists when they are convinced that those holding the wealth at he top don't give a fuck about their welfare.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Permit me to be so bold as to provide a short history lesson on the American Healthcare System and the Federal Government.

Once upon a time we had a three tier health delivery system which worked well and was affordable for those who wished to purchase insurance or pay for it on an individual use basis.

The Primary Tier was comprised of the individual physicians and small community clinics. They treated the everyday aches and pains and mishaps of our populace. This tier represented the most cost efficient setting for this type of treatment. The vast majority of care was delivered at this level.

The Secondary Tier was the local hospitals. When the patient required care beyond the scope of the local physicians and clinics they were taken to these facilities. This represented a less cost efficient setting than the first tier due to the need for a more complex scope of services but still cost efficient for the type of care delivered.

The Tertiary Tier was comprised of the large teaching hospitals. These facilities took care of the most complicated cases and were in part funded by either their state or by the University associated with their teaching program. This represented the least cost efficient setting due to the most complex scope of services and support offered to those with the most serious injuries and illnesses.

Now during this time nearly everyone paid the stated cost of their care and of course there was some charity care provided to those in need. But in those days people were embarrassed to accept charity as it was an admission they could not care for themselves or their family. A time when people actually believed they were responsible for themselves and their families.

Enter Medicare / Medicaid. In a few short years with the Federal Government determining what would be paid to provide medical care in both rural and urban settings (with no experience I might add regarding the cost of these services except fr0m the Ivory Tower physicians who had never practiced medicine only taught and theorized).

The Primary Tier was wiped out due to the payment set by the Fed for these services were less than the cost to provide the services. Now there were few if any small clinics and family doctors in the rural areas to provide medical care, they were not willing to starve to do so.

The Secondary Tier began to collapse as the Primary Tier was collapsing, again due to the payment set by the Fed being lower than the cost of the service and with the with the loss of the Primary Tier causing an inflow of patients to a less cost efficient setting for their care. Now there are very few if any Second Tier hospitals left, they have been forced to morph into Tertiary Tier hospitals to offer the complex scope of services required under law.

The Tertiary Tier facilities only became larger with hospitals in the Secondary Tier moving up to the Tertiary Tier. Now we are treating everything at the highest and most cost inefficient level.

Several years after the first Federal price structure was established the Fed suddenly realized they had cannibalized our healthcare system and actually reduced the number of points of service for healthcare in addition to delivering healthcare in the most costly level, I. E. Tertiary Facilities. The Fed tried to change this but the system that had take decades to form naturally to meet the public's needs had been swept away by the Fed and like the Old South was Gone With The Wind, never to be seen again.

So ends the history lesson for today.

Tomorrow the Canada System – how to bring the vast majority of a country's populations healthcare status down to increase the healthcare status of a very small minority.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders;415197]...the (formerly) middle and working classes are indefinitely denied affordable healthcare and a dignified living wage.[/QUOTE]Hey Rock,

85% of Americans had and still have health care that is apparently "affordable" as they are still have it, and 90% of them have jobs that generally pay better than most of the rest of the world.

You're going to need uglier numbers than that to fuel the "inevitable armed insurrection" you're advocating.

Of course, if the liberals continue to run our country into the ground, you just might hit those numbers, but then that's the true liberal agenda anyway, right?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 415197]WT69-

Don't fret, because sooner or later, the WallyWildeyes, Jacksons, and Toyman's of the USA will be guillotined and perhaps tarred and feathered by the inevitable armed insurrection that will occur in the USA if the (formerly) middle and working classes are indefinitely denied affordable healthcare and a dignified living wage. [/quote]These are the same masses that marched their ways to the polls some 90 days ago and emphatically said the exact opposite: don't give us "free health care" or other artificial, government-created transfers of wealth from the financially-productive portion of society to the financially-consumptive portion of society. Adding hundreds of new taxes, regulation and bureaucracies to administer this socialist medical system cannot, in any contortion you or someone else may dream up, result in lower COST (I. E. The actually cost of delivery of the goods or services as opposed to the out-of-pocket-expense of the recipient of said good or service).

As for a dignified living wage, what do you think is fair? I think everyone (18-65 yrs old) has a right to $50k per year no matter what. If 50% of the country doesn't pay taxes, then the other 50% (presuming that they all make at least $50K) will need to pay into the system enough to pay for it. That seems pretty fair. So at what point, after getting used to being paid $50k per year for producing absolutely nothing, do you think that 50% receiving that benefit will seek to support themselves and reduce the strain on those supporting them?

If you give someone something for free, what is their incentive to earn more so that they can afford to actually pay for it? If I can get it for free without doing anything, I sure as shit am not going to bust my ass just to make enough money so that I can pay a market price for it. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

[quote=]These fools are so blind in their ways (and never ending drive for larger profits) that they fail to realize that by providing the (formerly) middle and working classes with these basics they are in fact providing for the continuation of the very system that allows such wealth to be accumulated.[/quote]I disagree. The pursuit of personal self-interest (a right imbued upon us by our creator, enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and formerly guaranteed by the US Constitution) and conservative folkways and morays, developed over centuries, are what enabled the creation of the greatest economic engine and the most just and compassionate society man has ever known. It ain't perfect but it is the best.

The Left, whether misguided or purposeful, is fully vested in destroying what is great about America.

[quote=]When the majority of the population is humiliated and cannot afford to provide the basics for their family the system in place is bound to come crashing down and extremists often take power.[/quote]When a majority is enslaved by generations of handouts, they lose the ability to fend for themselves.

[quote=]Those opposed to any wealth redistribution in the form of government funded healthcare and higher wages should look at what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, etc.[/quote]Hmmm, now look at what shining beacons they have all become as Utopian workers' paradises leading the world in terms of longevity, quality of care, economics and personal satisfaction. Viva la revolucion!

[quote=]Desperate citizens will support and vote for irresponsible populists when they are convinced that those holding the wealth at he top don't give a fuck about their welfare.[/quote]That is one way to explain Obama's electoral win.

Mongers-

More conservative drivel from WW, who decided to respond to my post (without actually reading it) with more of his puritan "city upon a hill" long winded nonsense. If you had actually bothered to read my recent posts in this thread before responding, you would realize that I have been adamantly against the "obamacare" health care reform monstrosity. Your entire "liberals destroyed america" argument is complete bullshit; the USA is teetering on bankruptcy today because of the actions and decisions made by the neo-conservative administration in office from 2001-2009. The most 'conservative' of all, your very own Dick Cheney, famously said "deficits don't matter", and he practiced what he preached, being the second in command of an administration that took a multi billion dollar federal budget SURPLUS and turned it into a TRILLION dollar DEFICIT. The warning about what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina, was just that, a warning, meaning that the wealthy in the USA should care about how the middle and working classes in the USA are treated in order to keep the current system in place and prevent a disastrous situation from happening as has happened in those places.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Rock Harders;415213]The warning about what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina, was just that, a warning, meaning that the wealthy in the USA should care about how the middle and working classes in the USA are treated in order to keep the current system in place and prevent a disastrous situation from happening as has happened in those places.[/QUOTE]Rock,

The [I]middle and working classes in the USA[/I] are in fact much better off (re: prosperous) than their counterparts in the countries you itemized.

Actually, [I]the middle and working classes in the USA[/I] are in fact much better off (re: prosperous) than their counterparts [B]ANY WHERE ELSE in the WORLD[/B], which pretty much leaves your argument sputtering around the room like a loose balloon.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 415213]Mongers-

More conservative drivel from WW, who decided to respond to my post (without actually reading it) with more of his puritan "city upon a hill" long winded nonsense. [/quote]I think my response is spot on. What Puritanical statements have I ever made? I don't recall bringing religion, outside of its role as it relates to the founding of our country, into the discussion. As for nonsense, how do you support your proposal that the American working man should pay out of his own pocket to support the American sitting-on-his-ass-man?

[quote=]If you had actually bothered to read my recent posts in this thread before responding, you would realize that I have been adamantly against the "obamacare" health care reform monstrosity. [/quote]Good for you. You must be smarter than you appear.

[quote=]Your entire "liberals destroyed america" argument is complete bullshit;[/quote]I'll avoid using terminology like 'illiterate douche bag' (however appropriate it may be). Never have I said that America has been destroyed. If you could both read and comprehend, you'd be able to understand that.

"The Left, whether misguided or purposeful, is fully vested in destroying what is great about America."

The left attacks exceptionalism, individualism, advancement based upon merit, innovation and winning. Where is the fallacy of my argument.

[quote=]the USA is teetering on bankruptcy today because of the actions and decisions made by the neo-conservative administration in office from 2001-2009.[/quote]If you think Bush was a Neo-com, you are dumber than I thought. If you think that the Bush White House is responsible for dolling out billions in bad loans to unworthy borrowers, your analysis might need some tweaking.

[quote=]The most 'conservative' of all, your very own Dick Cheney, famously said "deficits don't matter", and he practiced what he preached, being the second in command of an administration that took a multi billion dollar federal budget SURPLUS and turned it into a TRILLION dollar DEFICIT.[/quote]Wow, and for all these years, I thought that the House was responsible for spending. By the way, how's your boy Obama been doing on the deficit front?

[quote=]The warning about what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina, was just that, a warning, meaning that the wealthy in the USA should care about how the middle and working classes in the USA are treated in order to keep the current system in place and prevent a disastrous situation from happening as has happened in those places.[/quote]That warning makes about as much sense as warning drivers on I-95 of congestion the M3 outside London.

[quote=]Suerte[/QUOTE]Whatever

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 415197]WT69-

Don't fret, because sooner or later, the WallyWildeyes, Jacksons, and Toyman's of the USA will be guillotined and perhaps tarred and feathered by the inevitable armed insurrection that will occur in the USA if the (formerly) middle and working classes are indefinitely denied affordable healthcare and a dignified living wage. These fools are so blind in their ways (and never ending drive for larger profits) that they fail to realize that by providing the (formerly) middle and working classes with these basics they are in fact providing for the continuation of the very system that allows such wealth to be accumulated. When the majority of the population is humiliated and cannot afford to provide the basics for their family the system in place is bound to come crashing down and extremists often take power. Those opposed to any wealth redistribution in the form of government funded healthcare and higher wages should look at what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, etc. Desperate citizens will support and vote for irresponsible populists when they are convinced that those holding the wealth at he top don't give a fuck about their welfare.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Look at median per capita income adjusted for purchasing power in the USA compared to other countries. Or the number of cars, television sets, air conditioned houses and the square footage of living space compared to the population. Jackson is right on this one and you're wrong.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 415219]Rock,

The [I]middle and working classes in the USA[/I] Are in fact much better off (re: prosperous) than their counterparts in the countries you itemized.

Actually, [I]the middle and working classes in the USA[/I] Are in fact much better off (re: prosperous) than their counterparts [B]ANY WHERE ELSE in the WORLD[/B], which pretty much leaves your argument sputtering around the room like a loose balloon.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]I would put it a bit differently:

The middle class actually exists in the United States. I haven't been to Cuba, so I can't say much about the country. But, as for the rest of the places listed, Argentina included, the middle class really doesn't exist. That's true of nearly all South America, with the exception of Brazil and Chile. I'm pretty sure Cuba lacks a middle class, as well, but can't speak from personal experience and don't want to draw WT's ire since I'm so provincial.

I know that "middle class" is a relative term (relative to upper and lower classes) but it is the one facet of Argentina that really stands out when you're there. There are folks who are undeniably rich, and there are folks who are undeniably living paycheck to paycheck. I would characterize the latter as "lower" or "working class" by American standards, regardless of income. There are very few people in between.

This is what "soak the rich" populist / socialist rhetoric really leads to when put into practice. You get a lot of words about standing up for the little guy, and making sure that everyone gets a slice of the pie. But, what really happens is that the middle class vanishes, or is never allowed to come into being, and you end up with two poles: the very rich and the very poor. The very rich then help support the corrupt administration and keep quiet about the wealth they are amassing. You see this in Russia, Venezuela and Argentina today. The very poor are dumb enough to believe that "soak the rich" strategies will change things and that those who bloviate this sort of rhetoric have their best interests at heart. Venezuela and Argentina are great examples of this today.

It's not the rich who suffer when the socialists / populists take over. It's the middle class, and those in the working class who might aspire to be middle class.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders;415213]The warning about what happened in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Argentina, was just that, a warning, meaning that the wealthy in the USA should care about how the middle and working classes in the USA are treated in order to keep the current system in place and prevent a disastrous situation from happening as has happened in those places.[/QUOTE]If you'd like, I'd be happy to share with you some factual history and go through your lists and dispel you misconceptions regarding any similarities, other than coincidences, that you believe exit between any of them and the US. There are coincidences, scary ones but I doubt you see them.

Perhaps the most illuminating example is Venezuela. Let's start with the Saudi Venezuela period (roughly '74-'79 during the first Perez presidential term). Due to the oil crisis, one of Venezuela's plentiful natural resource (oil) shot up in value. Yes, this resulted in individuals related to the oil-patch making lots of money. You would then say that these rich bastards (probably all republicans) fucked the little guys and didn't share the wealth. Then low and behold, those rich fuckers bankrupted the country. So, oil prices soar, there is money flying out of their asses and the rich private sector caused the financial collapse of the nation. Those miserable sons of bitches.

But Venezuela's financial collapse of the 1980s resulted from failed leftist policies and actions in response to the popping of an asset bubble, in this case oil. Prior to oil prices falling out of the sky, the government believed that oil prices would never go down and therefore they could massively increase public spending without a care in the world. Out of control government spending and borrowing, in the face of declining revenues created a situation where the government couldn't meet its obligations. There was no way the government could pay for its massively-increased public spending nor its debt therefore it began devaluing its currency (I. E. Printing money) in order to pay its bills. This destroyed the wealth of its citizens (and everyone else holding Bolivars) , lowered the national standard of living and the middle class evaporated. Failed leftist economic policies further exacerbated the problem, opened the door for increased corruption and entrenched the nation in the beginning of what would be at least 30 years of shit.

So I ask you, how did the private sector force the government to massively increase public spending? Why did those rich bastards make oil prices crash? Why did the private sector break into the federal mint and print more money?

If you ask me, your example looks a lot more like an indictment Obama and the left rather than affluent members of the private sector.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;415228]I know that "middle class" is a relative term.[/QUOTE]Stan. You got that right!

We all can be counted in some statistical category, such as middle class. However, the categories don't tell us much about how people live, how well they live and how they see their futures.

The conservative right uses personal income as the determinant of whether people are poor, middle class or rich. That selective definition distorts the debate. For example, in the US, if a man works two jobs and his wife works too and the kids work after school and the family still struggles to meet day-to-day expenses because everything costs so much, the fact that the family is "middle class" on the income charts is nice, but it doesn't tell the story of its quality of life.

Having a healthy income in a high cost country does not mean a person has a better quality of life than someone with a moderate income in a low cost country. Nor does it take into account differences in social benefits that are provided by government in country after country around the globe, paid for by taxes on citizens, taxes the people approve of, because of the positive impact of those benefits on their quality of life.

One way to measure where people fit in the US societal class structure might be to poll self-described "middle class" people who live elsewhere and to survey their perceptions. People in the developed countries in Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia could be surveyed as to whether they would want to pull up stakes and move to the "new" United States where every indicator shows the middle class is under siege, the safety net is being unravelled, discrimination against immigrants is rampant, random violence is not uncommon and political disagreements among its citizens are decidedly unpleasant. There is little doubt those polling results would be far different than they were a few decades back. Just like the US is far different than it was a few decades back.

The simplistic, foolish AP debates with many members using misleading numbers and dubious logic to buttress an ideological point of view go nowhere. The conservative mongers want to keep what money they have and not let government tax them to help the have nots. While, the liberals think a fair society is the whole point of having a society. They embrace the provision in the US Constitutional that calls on government to "promote the general welfare". Believe the have-nots in society, as well as the well off, fall within the term "general" and are comfortable with a "progressive" tax system that generates the needed revenues. And never the twain shall meet!

In the words of the Founding Fathers government's responsibility was to build a "more perfect union." as well as "promote the general welfare." Obama's policies since he took office are of a piece with those objectives and with the history of US economic progress. From the early days of the country's founding as debates swirled around Alexander Hamilton's call to create a national bank, up to and including Obama's first two years in office, the private sector has been dominant and the federal government has played a supportive role that has evolved as the society's needs have evolved. That evolution has resulted in elected government leaders, with the support of the citizenry, taking on critical programs that strengthened the economy and allowed the people to enjoy a better life, as well as to perform a policing function protecting against private sector actions that threaten the general welfare of the people.

Virtually every modern-era President, regardless of party, including Obama has operated within those parameters. To call Obama radical or a socialist or a communist is simply dishonest. And blatant dishonesty calls into question the motivations of the accusers.

WW, don't confuse them with facts, they wish to cherry pick the facts which suit them.

Never heard a word from WT69 or Esten regarding the history of healthcare, guess the fact Federal intervention is what F*ked up the system in the first place is not something they wish to hear.

When we had a three tier system, healthcare costs were so low they were a throw away benefit for the employer. Today I know of no employer who is not trying to reduce the costs by decreasing benefits or by cost shifting to the employee due to the sky rocketing cost of health insurnace. My firm is spending $140k this year on healthcare for my employees and when I started it was less than half that.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 415228]I would put it a bit differently:

The middle class actually exists in the United States. I haven't been to Cuba, so I can't say much about the country. But, as for the rest of the places listed, Argentina included, the middle class really doesn't exist. That's true of nearly all South America, with the exception of Brazil and Chile. I'm pretty sure Cuba lacks a middle class, as well, but can't speak from personal experience and don't want to draw WT's ire since I'm so provincial.

I know that "middle class" is a relative term (relative to upper and lower classes) but it is the one facet of Argentina that really stands out when you're there. There are folks who are undeniably rich, and there are folks who are undeniably living paycheck to paycheck. I would characterize the latter as "lower" or "working class" by American standards, regardless of income. There are very few people in between.

This is what "soak the rich" populist / socialist rhetoric really leads to when put into practice. You get a lot of words about standing up for the little guy, and making sure that everyone gets a slice of the pie. But, what really happens is that the middle class vanishes, or is never allowed to come into being, and you end up with two poles: the very rich and the very poor. The very rich then help support the corrupt administration and keep quiet about the wealth they are amassing. You see this in Russia, Venezuela and Argentina today. The very poor are dumb enough to believe that "soak the rich" strategies will change things and that those who bloviate this sort of rhetoric have their best interests at heart. Venezuela and Argentina are great examples of this today.

It's not the rich who suffer when the socialists / populists take over. It's the middle class, and those in the working class who might aspire to be middle class. [/QUOTE]Just a general view and opionion. Unless you you fall into the UPPER middle class category, you will find that most of the middle class are living from check to check. Consumerism is an addicton that american buisness have fostered on the american people that they will never be happy unless they possess a certain lifestyle. Just an example, people bought houses not only to live in and to channel their rent payments into a form of equity. However, most people (even fiscally conservatives) constantly use their equity line to pay for a richer life than they normally would have enjoy. See all those new cars in the employees' parking lot? I used to drive a 1984 Mercedes 300TD, a beautiful German car with air conditioning problems. Nobody wanted it when I try to give it away, how I wish I could have it here in Bangkok. They are given their due respect here. Unlike California mechanics, the mechanics here do not have any problem dealing with any airconditiong problems.

So often, when a household lose 1 job or both jobs, all hell break lose. Even when their incomes are in the 6 figures. Zero savings, credit card debt, obesity are all the hallmarks of American middle class. As claimed here in the forum, people along the poverty line in American still enjoys far more comforts and conveniences than in many developing countries, try telling them that they should be smiling and being positive. Half of them don't even know if Dallas is in the United States, let alone where Cambodia or Bangladash is. Misery is misery when you can't pay the bills, or when you have a beautiful car, but no money for gas or entertainment expenses.

Just a joke, there are 3 things in Cuba you enjoy for free. Sing, dance and fuck.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415233]Never heard a word from WT69 or Esten regarding the history of healthcare, guess the fact Federal intervention is what F*ked up the system in the first place is not something they wish to hear.[/QUOTE]I'll respond to it (below) if you'll respond to my points from 1/24:
- Did you mean "It starts with the poor" ?
- The progress of the poor and middle class, and explosion in debt, since Reagan.

[QUOTE]The Primary Tier was comprised of the individual physicians and small community clinics. They treated the everyday aches and pains and mishaps of our populace. This tier represented the most cost efficient setting for this type of treatment. The vast majority of care was delivered at this level.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Enter Medicare / Medicaid. In a few short years with the Federal Government determining what would be paid to provide medical care in both rural and urban settings (with no experience I might add regarding the cost of these services except fr0m the Ivory Tower physicians who had never practiced medicine only taught and theorized).

The Primary Tier was wiped out due to the payment set by the Fed for these services were less than the cost to provide the services. Now there were few if any small clinics and family doctors in the rural areas to provide medical care, they were not willing to starve to do so. [/QUOTE]My response to this is.... I have no idea WTF you are talking about.

When I go to the doctor (which is rarely), I don't go to a hospital. I go to a physician in a small office or clinic. As do most people. So how exactly did your Primary Tier get "wiped out"?

Furthermore, you just haven't made the case as to how much of our high health care costs are due to federal intervention vs. insurance company profits and other factors.

Surely you can do better.... or maybe not.