Posted on 11/21/2009 4:24:18 PM PST by indianrightwinger
Why was it so hard for Dems even to start health care debate? By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent 11/21/09 6:43 PM EST The extraordinary thing about the dramatic events surrounding the health care bill in the Senate is that there is any drama in it at all. Lawmakers are simply voting to begin debate on their version of health care reform. Just begin debate -- not end it, and not move on to a final vote.
If Democrats, with a 60-vote majority in the Senate, were not able to begin debate on the top Democratic policy priority in a generation -- well, that would be a devastating turn of events, both for the party and for President Obama. And yet just starting debate has proved difficult, and only today did the 60th Democratic vote fall in place in favor of beginning the process.
I asked a high-ranking Republican Senate source whether it was really that hard to get the Democratic votes together. Could it have been a media-fed story, with reporters looking to inject some unwarranted drama into the proceedings? No, I was told. "It really was that hard for them to get to 60 just to proceed," the source said. "Very telling."
And judging by the statements of four moderate Democrats -- Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Nelson -- it will be far, far harder when the process comes to the really important vote, the one that would bring debate to a close debate and move on to an up-or-down vote on the Democrats' health care plan. Today all four of those Democrats publicly threatened to side with Republicans and kill the bill before it can move to a final vote, unless their concerns are met.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
I am happy to see I am not the only one who has noticed. They are in for a rude awakening before this is all over.
We sure do — she had sewed up. A lot can happen including the 2010 election before anyone should be choosing a candidate.
SCHULTZ: OK.
So do you think that you can get a health care bill done by the first of the year?
HARKIN: Ed, mark my word, we‘re going to have this health care bill done before we go home for Christmas.
SCHULTZ: The CBO score, why is this taking so long, Senator?
HARKIN: Well, it‘s taking so long because the Finance Committee bill that came out of the Finance Committee was very late. I understand that. But a lot of the language they had in that bill had to be scored. It wasn‘t scored as they went through the process.
And then the CBO had to score the House bill, then they had to score the Republicans‘ alternative in the House. And so they had to do that first.
SCHULTZ: You think it will come in under $900 billion?
HARKIN: Yes, sir.
SCHULTZ: I‘m saying $880 billion. What‘s your call tonight?
(LAUGHTER)
HARKIN: Who have you been talking to, Ed, anyway?
SCHULTZ: Well, see, Tom, what I think is going to happen is that Harry Reid wants a little financial wiggle room here, and he‘s telling these guys at CBO, bring that baby in at $880 billion so I‘ve got some chips on the table here, so I can get these public option guys up to the bar.
What do you think?
HARKIN: Well, Ed, I‘m not going to confirm or deny. But let me say, you‘re in the ballpark, my friend.
SCHULTZ: OK. So, Lieberman and Nelson and Landrieu and Lincoln, they‘ll be part of the 60 on the first—to get it to the floor, to get this thing going?
HARKIN: I believe that‘s right. Yes, sir, I believe that they will be part of the 60.
SCHULTZ: With the public option?
HARKIN: Well, with the public option that we have. Now, that‘s in the bill right now.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
HARKIN: But, now, that public option might be changed on the floor. You understand that.
SCHULTZ: Absolutely.
HARKIN: I mean, we‘re going to have amendments. That could be changed on the floor.
SCHULTZ: I expect it to get a lot better. Absolutely.
HARKIN: Well, I would hope so, too, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Yes. Well, Senator Harkin, you‘re giving me a little confidence tonight that—and I think—I think American Democrats and liberals want to hear that this thing is still very much alive and the obstructionists are going to get pushed aside.
HARKIN: Ed, I just finished going through about two hours, just before I came on your show, of going through the bill, the merged bill. And I can tell you there‘s a lot of good stuff in that bill.
And so I‘m very much enthused right now that we have a good bill, we have a good product. We‘ll get the 60 votes, and hopefully we‘ll be able to fend off some of the disastrous votes in the amendments that the Republicans are going to throw at us on the floor.
SCHULTZ: And will the Senate bill do more than six million people on the public option? Can you give us a higher number?
HARKIN: That I can‘t give you right now, Ed.
SCHULTZ: OK.
HARKIN: But I can—because we—let me put it this way—the public option we have in the bill right now, I believe, is a good compromise.
SCHULTZ: OK.
HARKIN: That‘s the one that says there will be a public option and a state can opt out if they want to.
SCHULTZ: But last night—an opt out. But last night‘s meeting, no more compromises. You‘ve gone as far as you‘re going to go, right?
HARKIN: Well, you know, Ed, I never say never. There‘s always room to accommodate people. And don‘t forget that we still have to go to conference on this, even after it gets outside the Senate.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
Senator Harkin, I appreciate your time.
HARKIN: Well, I‘m telling you, Ed, we‘re going to get this job done.
SCHULTZ: Hey, you‘re my source. I‘m counting on you, buddy. I mean, every time I talk to somebody I say, my friend Tom Harkin keeps telling me this is the way it‘s going to be.
HARKIN: Well, I‘m off a little bit, Ed. I said we were going to have it to the president before Christmas, but I didn‘t anticipate all the delays of the CBO. But I‘ll tell you what—this bill will be signed into law before the president gaves his State of the Union message in January.
SCHULTZ: I‘m all about it.
And why do they exempt themselves from participating in the program?
Republicans when Republicans BARELY had a majority in Congress DID NOT INCREASE GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Republicans actually DECREASED DISCRETIONARY government spending. Most government spending and programs is Mandatory as in SSI ,entitlements etc..Republicans actually tried to privatize social security but were defeated by democrat filibusters and the media who lied saying that Republicans were taking away social security from Seniors. You think Seniors or any of these dead beats living free off of government programs, or do-nothings working in government agencies are going to give up that free government check they get every month? Think again. it's impossible to do and you blaming Republicans for not reducing the size of these programs is wrong because they can't wave their hands and shrink these programs . If Republicans had tried to greatly reduce SSI, medicaid etc. all hell would break loose as the media and millions of seniors,unions, government workers, and others would go nuts , rioting, and democrats filibusting in the Senate. republicans only had barely a majority not a filibuster proof majority that Democrats have now so they knew democrats would fillibuster any attempt at reducing these entitlements or any large government program.
Practically no government program ever shrinks. The only time some discretionary programs shrunk and were cut was during the last Republican Congress. Government has grown greatly every year for the last 100 years. Actually the years of the republican congress is the only time discretionary spending was reduced. Most conservatives like I am are for the military increases in government spending . Republicans did increase military and discretionary national security spending drastically especially after 9/11, to fight 2 wars.Wars costs money you know.
Here in this article you can see that Republicans decreased the only thing they could DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY spending.They did however increase military and national security spending which is also discretionary spending. So the media spun that and said that Republicans increased government and discretionary spending and technically that is true but the Republicans only increased military and national security spending . If Republicans would not have increased military spending during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars then that would have sent our troops out to be massacred . Is that what you want? I don't and most conservatives don't. I approved of that spending increase because we were at war and the military needed to be upgraded after Clinton had gutted it. If Bush and Republicans would not have increased military spending after 9/11 then conservatives would have abandoned Republicans for that too. And the media would have bashed Republicans for it as well.
President Bush this week will seek sharp cuts in highway projects, congressional environmental initiatives, job training and scores of other domestic programs, reflecting the trade-offs required by a fiscal 2003 budget that calls for record increases for the military and domestic security. For weeks, Bush and members of his Cabinet have touted the president's spending initiatives on terrorism and the economic recovery, including a near doubling of spending on homeland security and a 13 percent boost in defense that would mirror the expansive Reagan-era military buildup. Link to Article shows Republicans cut spending
You are just parroting liberal media talking points. Most government programs have built in yearly spending increases and government programs once created by Democrats never get shrunken or eliminated. I see why now why you and so many so-called conservatives hate the Republican party. it is because you buy the lies, spin, and misinformation of the liberal media. you all don't realize that there is a difference between discretionary domestic spending and between mandatory domestic spending . The evil media knows you all don't know that so it lies and says Bush and Republicans massively increased government spending
And I'm not name calling against you. You think everything is about you and give yourself much importance. I'm attacking your ideas which are part of a dangerous movement , an anti-Republican sentiment among conservatives,liberals and so called conservatives. I'm not attacking you personally as I don't know who you are. I'm attacking your ideas . I know there a many , legions , of conservative who think like you and have turned against the GOP and bash the Republicans any chance they get. If MOST of you so-called conservatives who bash the GOP had voted for and supported Republicans we would have a few more Republican Senators so that they would be able to filibuster. now the Democrats control 60 out of a hundred votes and I blame all of you Conservatives who bash Republicans for this. Basically democrats/Marxist, evil communists have a filibuster proof Senate which they can use to pass all kinds of country destroying bills, like Amnesty for illegals and their families which will give the Democrats 100 million new voters, Government Healthcare which Democrats can use to destroy the private sector, the engine of progress, wealth building, wage increases, living standards increases. I'll reply later to the rest of your points.
More proof Bush and Republicans cut discretionary domestic spending and programs.Yeah they increased overall discretionary spending because the U.S. had to upgrade it's military and fight 2 wars! That military spending and mandatory domestic spending is what the liberal media used for 8 years to bash Republican Politicians over the head with every day, "Saying Bush and Republicans increased spending by record amounts ".This of course got many conservatives mad as hell at Republicans which depressed conservative voter turnout as was the liberal media's goal. Are you kidding me , if it were true that Republicans were massively increasing domestic spending the liberal media would love that but they acted all horrified at this reckless spending which Democrats actually wrote into law for the last 100 years. Could Bush reduce the amount of each senior's social security check ? No in fact that SSI Check and most government benefits and salaries have mandatory increases in them every year at least the inflation rate and more. And every year more people get on welfare, food stamps, ssi , medicare, medicaid because democrats made it easier for people to qualify for these programs by writing laws that did that. Now Bush nor Republicans could deny people SSI, medicaid , food stamps, only bureaucrats determine that based on what the law says. But the media just made it seem like Republicans were increasing all that spending when it was spending increased by laws written by Democrats which mandated spending increases for government programs, salaries and entitlements etc.. now 50% of Americans get food stamps . Republicans with their bare majority could not take people off of entitlements. they did do more than previous congress by reducing discretionary domestic spending.
But the cuts are politically sensitive, targeting popular programs that Bush has been touting on the campaign trail. The Education Department; a nutrition program for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeownership, job-training, medical research and science programs all face cuts in 2006. link for above, more proof shows Republicans cut spending
But I'll say now that most of your points like this "Republicans massively increased government spending" lie are just lies and spin that the liberal media satanically invented in order to destroy The Republican party and Bush. And it worked like a charm .Now the poor Republicans are completely powerless in the Senate and House as the last couple of weeks showed. The media is manipulating you and the legions of other so-called conservatives like you to turn against the Republican party. You ALL conservatives who don't support the Republicans , like most of the government educated population are puppets of the liberal media. Now because of all of you so-called conservatives who bash the GOP, and because of liberals/democrats/Marxists the U.S.A. will soon become a 3rd world socialist hell hole. Think not? well 100 new third world illegal immigrants and their families back in the 3rd world will get to vote because the Democrats will give them Amnesty , steamship and the vote. Illegals will then elect only democrats, and will turn the U.S. into a socialist hell hole if the other democrat bills won't do it first.
Now I 'm just posting this because I see that as the problem that is destroying America,that conservatives are not united behind the GOP.I 'm not posting this to attack any anonymous posters personally. How could I since I don't know most of you here? But I see that you say I'm McCain's buttboy. You accuse me of calling you names but you calling me a homosexual is not name calling? LOL.. Look words on a screen by some anonymous poster doesn't' bother me. I know I'm not gay and I hate liberal McCain.Yes the GOP has some liberals , not the 50% you say but 14%, but that is a very small number so all Republicans should not be blamed because some lunatic statist liberal decides to call himself a Republican. I supported Tancredo not mr. Amnesty , mr McCain-Fiengold. These people are individuals and nothing is perfect especially not someone who on a quality web site like this decides to call people junior high names like "buttboy" when the Republic is burning . You , not you personally because you alone have zero power, but all of you in your movement, all of you conservatives( democrat operatives and brainwashed nationalists, and brainwashed conservatives) who are against Republicans destroyed my America!
I think people have to get educated . Yes It's good that most conservatives agree with me that the government should be small and limited and get out of our way. But even though they are right, i haven't met a single conservative that understands how the economy works, why government must stay out of the economy and leave the private sector alone, and why government programs(socialism) can never work and why capitalism is the only thing that works. People should read Hayek and Milton Friedman to learn the answers to all of these questions.
Aw, come on lymelady, these "people" the Democrats are Marxists. They will do that and more, mark my words. Don't you hear these blank staring liberals preaching about how they have to save the planet from global warming ? And they are saying this lie about the global warming hoax and other media lies during the coldest year in a long time.
lymelady said:
"Democrats do not as a whole see themselves as socialists, and that is precisely the problem with socialism. It’s insidious. That is why it’s so hard to fight"
I said: Yes All democrats are socialists whether they see themselves as socialists or not.In fact you are a socialist and I'll prove it below:
lymelady said : " If they cut out a good chunk of it, I’d support it too; heck yeah I want better access to shop around insurance companies, and I might even like it if insurance companies had to take people with pre-existing conditions."
OMG.I cannot believe someone on a conservative forum said that. You are a Marxist. Anyone that believes that the government should be given power to tell private insurance companies who they have to give free services to, is a socialist/Marxist. Look, full Socialism is when the government owns and runs everything and there are no private business. But it is still socialism if you allow the government to run a private businesses also, or to run a part of the business that is so important that it can destroy it.
I'm not trying to call you names. I just call it as I see it. Your ideology and that of liberals , that you believe that it is good to empower government and allow government to run business , create government programs and agencies and to run programs is socialism and it is what is destroying our Republic.
That which you are talking about that government can force private insurance companies to accept dead beats with "pre-existing conditions" who chose not to buy insurance is in there to put private insurance companies out of business. This way no one will pay for insurance until they get sick .When they need a $40,000 heart bypass or other expensive operation these deadbeats will go into the insurance company's office and demand that the insurance company cover them and their operation. The private insurance company would then have to by law have to accept them. Once the insurance company pays for the operation then the dead beat will stop making monthly insurance payments. The result is that there will not be enough people paying insurance regularly to cover the costs the insurance pays out. So that way insurance companies cannot make a profit. As it is with all the government regulations insurance companies make only a 2% profit. Any additional regulations especially this one will definitely put them all out of business then everyone will have to go to the government for healthcare which is the democrats' goal. See?
The reason healthcare is expensive now is because democrats created oppressive government laws that allow frivolous law suits against doctors and hospitals, laws that force hospitals and emergency rooms to treat dead beats like illegals who don't pay for free, so the hospitals have to pass those costs on to us, also medicare and medicaid, laws that dictate what can be covered, laws that don't allow purchase over state lines, and a myriad of other government laws and regulations increase costs .
So it is the repealing of all of these government laws that would allow the free market to lower cost . The government should stay almost completely out of the free market. you see prices coming down, and innovation increasing most rapidly in electronics and computers etc because these industries are less regulated.
I don’t want the government to say they have to give free services to anyone. I’m quite happy with insurance companies being able to charge whatever they want. I’m not happy with government restrictions that make it so I can’t shop around for insurance, and I’m not happy when there is zero insurance available in an area if you have certain pre-existing conditions; of course, if we were allowed to cross state lines on that, people would be able to find plans that would take them and it wouldn’t be an issue. Basically; I’m against current government intrusion on the free market and while they won’t own up to being the ones who put that block in place, part of this bill at one point involved getting rid of some of those blocks. It is a really long bill and it’s possible I misinterpreted that part, but I don’t believe I have since no one on either side denies that.
I’m pretty against most government programs. But I do like that you assume that because I don’t want the government keeping me from buying insurance in certain places based on location, it means I like government programs. That’s some twisted logic there.
Now as for pre-existing conditions, I don’t mind people having to pay more for it. I pay more for my insurance because I have a pre-existing condition. But to be unable to find anyone who will sell you any insurance because you were born with a heart condition or developed cancer out of nowhere or had a heart attack while between insurance plans (and please don’t tell me that a healthy person should rush into any insurance deal at all without taking the time to research companies and policies just to be safe)? That’s not just frustrating, that is a level of life-threatening right there. You sound like Nancy Pelosi justifying jailtime for people who don’t buy insurance; “They’re deadbeats who should have bought insurance but didn’t, so that puts all the burden on us.” It’s easy to get around the “They’ll just stop paying once it’s over” thingy by making these people sign a contract to keep the plan for an amount of time that would protect the insurance companies from this sort of thing; a long term high-expense contract is an incentive to get a cheaper plan while healthy, but allows for individuals to purchase it if they find they need it at a time when they didn’t have a plan already. There are plans offered already for pre-existing conditions, but they’re not available to everyone because of government interference. They are generally more expensive (unless they’re group plans) because of the higher risk.
By the way, the HIPAA regulations are some of the regulations you’re talking about that the “Democrats” put into place that made it difficult for insurance companies, and those passed while Republicans had control of Congress. Does that make them okay and were those Republicans protecting us against government infringement, or was it okay to get rid of the ones who made that possible? The hospitals are also paying for the deadbeats who have pre-existing conditions and can’t get insurance. Something to consider.
Sidenote: When you’re talking to Democrats, don’t forget to leave out that taxing drug companies and medical device makers takes away money from the research done to make medical advances like curing cancer. When a politician makes a big to do about curing AIDS and then supports this bill, he or she is a hypocrite. It’s not just insurance companies and wealthy folks taking a hit on this proposed bill.
That's not what I meant. I am not for the government forcing anyone do do anything.The government should leave us individuals alone and stay out of our lives and the government should stay out of the economy and out of healthcare completely.
It seems to me you are saying that if someone is “helpless” or in need of healthcare but can't afford it that “we” ( really the government) is responsible for giving them free healthcare. that is socialism/communism/marxism .You are saying the slogan of socialism. The slogan of Marxism is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. so you are a socialist. That's why democrats are Marxists to. Because you all want to take from those with ability to produce (like Intel,IBM, Sam Walton,Pfizer pharmaceutical Me) to give to those that have need.
Here is proof that this slogan is the definition of socialism/Marxism /communism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need
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.[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of her or his ability and consume from society in proportion to her or his needs, regardless of how much[citation needed] she or he has contributed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need
I am for repealing the many regulations that now make healtcare more expensive.
Socialism will destroy an economy.So you are saying that we have to put the U.S. on the road to socialism and destroy the economy all because
a very small percentage of people cannot afford to be treated for their illness be it cancer or some other one?
Why can’t you and all of you liberals and democrats/liberal/marxists give your own money to those that can't afford healthcare? hmmm? why don't all you liberals get together online and create PRIVATE charities where all you bleeding heart liberalS can then give most of your money to these charities that give healthcare to those that can't afford it huh? and then leave the rest of us alone. No you don't want to pay for it but you want us to pay for it when we don't want to. So you use the goverment to rob us of our hard earned money to pay for the healthcare of these deadbeats and for grants to "scientists" that fake global warming(see gov programs, agencies that hand out grants don't work).And you want "the rich" ,productive companies and rich investors in those companies to pay for all this too. So you will be stealing from the productive like Intel,Pfizer pharmaceutical, who are the creators of wealth, jobs, high living standards, life saving drugs, life saving technology like MRI machines, Lipitor,Amoxycillin etc. So then Intel, Pfizer pharmaceutical, and their investors who are the producers will go out of business because of the high taxes they have to pay for the healthcare of deadbeats who can't afford healtcare or lie and say they can't afford healtcare or refuse to work . But as long as some gov bureaucrat says that they are in need then that's it we and the productive "rich" have to pay up and pay for them.
It's getting to be that more and more people want to ride for free on the wagon and there are less and less willing to pull it which is just one more of thousands of reasons why gov programs(socialism) are a cancer and don't work.
Look I don't care if there were millions of helpless people that can't afford healthcare. Fact is though that now one in the U.S. is denied healthcare(see below proof).But even if I were a billionaire I wouldn't give a cent to any charity or to anyone in "need" of healthcare. let them die . life is not perfect. who said it was.People do die.Everyone dies.Every year millions of people that have healthcare die in every country of the world.
How many millions of people who have healthcare insurance and who get cancer in the USA die of cancer every year, quite a few million if I my memory serves me right?
So healthcare won't prevent anyone from dying as we all die. I treat myself with Google . Google is so much smarter than doctors. Doctors get that same deer in the head lights look when I start talking about treatments that EVERYONE GETS when I start talking about economics lol.no one has a clue as to why socialism doesn't work .People should Read Hayek and Friedman to learn about economics
Socialism doesn't work. In the initial stages socialism that we (the U.S.A) are in where dead beats do get free healtcare(medicaid,medicare , public hospitals) and free food stamps etc. , we see costs rising dramatically in highly regulated industries like healthcare, high unemployment , U.S. Falling behind China and India in production.
In intermediate stages of socialism we will see rationing (Canada , Britain) of healthcare so many people will not have access to healthcare at all . In the U.S. now no one is denied access to healthcare as there are medicaid, medicare, public hospitals, loans, jobs,insurance,private charities, churches and every hospital must treat anyone that comes in for treatment even if they can't pay for it.And that is mandated by a communist/Democrat law and that raises costs cause we all pay for those deadbeats that use the emergency room as a doctor's office.
In the final stages of socialism where Cuba and N. Korea are the people are starving slaves of the government.
What I do know to be true is that government management of an industry or even a small business does not work. Government programs don't work and it is immoral for the government to steal money from the productive like Merck, Intel,IBM, Dell etc. to give to deadbeats or the “helpless”.
lymelady wrote:
“It’s easy to get around the “They’ll just stop paying once it’s over” thingy by making these people sign a contract to keep the plan for an amount of time that would protect the insurance companies from this sort of thing; a long term high-expense contract is an incentive to get a cheaper plan while healthy, but allows for individuals to purchase it if they find they need it at a time when they didn’t have a plan already. There are plans offered already for pre-existing conditions, but they’re not available to everyone because of government interference.”
Those are a lot of details which would take me pages to reply to each on.But the beauty of the free market capitalism is that no one has to plan anything. See no one plans how to produce any product. Take a simple pencil.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=167218189&blogId=258821944
So, in order to make a pencil, you would have to be able to do all of these things. There are probably thousands of people who have cooperated together to make this pencil. Somehow or other, the people in South America who dug out the graphite cooperated with the people in Malaysia who tapped the rubber trees, cooperated with, maybe, people in Oregon who cut down the trees.
“These thousands of people don't know one another. They speak different languages. They come from different religions. They might hate one another if they met. What is it that enabled them to cooperate together?
“The answer is the existence of a market.
“The simple answer is the people in South America were led to dig out the graphite because somebody was willing to pay them. They didn't have to know who was paying them; they didn't have to know what it was going to be used for. All they had to know was somebody was going to pay them.
“What brought all these people together was an enormously complex structure of prices - the price of graphite, the price of lumber, the price of rubber, the wages paid to the laborer, and so on. It's a marvelous example of how you can get a complex structure of cooperation and coordination which no individual planned.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=167218189&blogId=258821944
But no one should be dealing with details of how to run a complex industry like health care because that can get too complex for a human much less an unaccountable , faking, data faking government pin head.
Funny how only private companies like Intel,Pfizer pharmaceutical,pharmaceutical companies and companies that create medical equipment like MRI machines etc., Funny how only private company produce products healthcare and consumers use huh? what government does this? none. it's because government programs(socialism) do not work.
So the government should stay out of healhcare completely and stay out of our personal lives completely. I am not for the government forcing anyone do do anything .The government should be just dealing with international issues that is defending against foreign invaders be they foreign armies, terrorists, foreign products etc.
Also courts and police to enforce a few laws that only protect human rights, like the right to property, right to life, right to privacy, right to not be assaulted.
That's not what I meant. I am not for the government forcing anyone do do anything.The government should leave us individuals alone and stay out of our lives and the government should stay out of the economy and out of healthcare completely.
It seems to me you are saying that if someone is “helpless” or in need of healthcare but can't afford it that “we” ( really the government) is responsible for giving them free healthcare. that is socialism/communism/marxism .You are saying the slogan of socialism. The slogan of Marxism is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. so you are a socialist. That's why democrats are Marxists too. Because you all want to take from those with ability to produce (like Intel,IBM, Sam Walton,Pfizer pharmaceutical Me) to give to those that have need.
Here is proof that this slogan is the definition of socialism/Marxism /communism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need
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.[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of her or his ability and consume from society in proportion to her or his needs, regardless of how much[citation needed] she or he has contributed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need
I am for repealing the many regulations that now make healtcare more expensive.
Socialism will destroy an economy.So you are saying that we have to put the U.S. on the road to socialism and destroy the economy all because
a very small percentage of people cannot afford to be treated for their illness be it cancer or some other one?
Why can’t you and all of you liberals and democrats/liberal/marxists give your own money to those that can't afford healthcare? hmmm? why don't all you liberals get together online and create PRIVATE charities where all you bleeding heart liberalS can then give most of your money to these charities that give healthcare to those that can't afford it huh? and then leave the rest of us alone. No you don't want to pay for it but you want us to pay for it when we don't want to. So you use the goverment to rob us of our hard earned money to pay for the healthcare of these deadbeats and for grants to "scientists" that fake global warming(see gov programs, agencies that hand out grants don't work).And you want "the rich" ,productive companies and rich investors in those companies to pay for all this too. So you will be stealing from the productive like Intel,Pfizer pharmaceutical, who are the creators of wealth, jobs, high living standards, life saving drugs, life saving technology like MRI machines, Lipitor,Amoxycillin etc. So then Intel, Pfizer pharmaceutical, and their investors who are the producers will go out of business because of the high taxes they have to pay for the healthcare of deadbeats who can't afford healtcare or lie and say they can't afford healtcare or refuse to work . But as long as some gov bureaucrat says that they are in need then that's it we and the productive "rich" have to pay up and pay for them.
It's getting to be that more and more people want to ride for free on the wagon and there are less and less willing to pull it which is just one more of thousands of reasons why gov programs(socialism) are a cancer and don't work.
Look I don't care if there were millions of helpless people that can't afford healthcare. Fact is though that now no one in the U.S. is denied healthcare(see below proof).But even if I were a billionaire I wouldn't give a cent to any charity or to anyone in "need" of healthcare. let them die . life is not perfect. who said it was?People do die.Everyone dies.Every year millions of people that have healthcare die in every country of the world.
How many millions of people who have healthcare insurance and who get cancer in the USA die of cancer every year, quite a few million if If my memory serves me right?
So healthcare won't prevent anyone from dying as we all die. I treat myself with Google . Google is so much smarter than doctors. Doctors get that same deer in the head lights look when I start talking about treatments that EVERYONE GETS when I start talking about economics lol.no one has a clue as to why socialism doesn't work .People should Read Hayek and Friedman to learn about economics
Socialism doesn't work. In the initial stages socialism that we (the U.S.A) are in where dead beats do get free healtcare(medicaid,medicare , public hospitals) and free food stamps etc. , we see costs rising dramatically in highly regulated industries like healthcare, high unemployment , U.S. Falling behind China and India in production.
In intermediate stages of socialism we will see rationing (Canada , Britain) of healthcare so many people will not have access to healthcare at all . In the U.S. now no one is denied access to healthcare as there are medicaid, medicare, public hospitals, loans, jobs,insurance,private charities, churches and every hospital must treat anyone that comes in for treatment even if they can't pay for it.And that is mandated by a communist/Democrat law and that raises costs cause we all pay for those deadbeats that use the emergency room as a doctor's office.
In the final stages of socialism where Cuba and N. Korea are the people are starving slaves of the government.
What I do know to be true is that government management of an industry or even a small business does not work. Government programs don't work and it is immoral for the government to steal money from the productive like Merck, Intel,IBM, Dell etc. to give to deadbeats or the “helpless”.
lymelady wrote:
“It’s easy to get around the “They’ll just stop paying once it’s over” thingy by making these people sign a contract to keep the plan for an amount of time that would protect the insurance companies from this sort of thing; a long term high-expense contract is an incentive to get a cheaper plan while healthy, but allows for individuals to purchase it if they find they need it at a time when they didn’t have a plan already. There are plans offered already for pre-existing conditions, but they’re not available to everyone because of government interference.”
Those are a lot of details which would take me pages to reply to each on.But the beauty of the free market capitalism is that no one has to plan anything. See no one plans how to produce any product. Take a simple pencil.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=167218189&blogId=258821944
So, in order to make a pencil, you would have to be able to do all of these things. There are probably thousands of people who have cooperated together to make this pencil. Somehow or other, the people in South America who dug out the graphite cooperated with the people in Malaysia who tapped the rubber trees, cooperated with, maybe, people in Oregon who cut down the trees.
“These thousands of people don't know one another. They speak different languages. They come from different religions. They might hate one another if they met. What is it that enabled them to cooperate together?
“The answer is the existence of a market.
“The simple answer is the people in South America were led to dig out the graphite because somebody was willing to pay them. They didn't have to know who was paying them; they didn't have to know what it was going to be used for. All they had to know was somebody was going to pay them.
“What brought all these people together was an enormously complex structure of prices - the price of graphite, the price of lumber, the price of rubber, the wages paid to the laborer, and so on. It's a marvelous example of how you can get a complex structure of cooperation and coordination which no individual planned.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=167218189&blogId=258821944
But no one should be dealing with details of how to run a complex industry like health care because that can get too complex for a human much less an unaccountable , faking, data faking government pin head.
Funny how only private companies like Intel,Pfizer pharmaceutical,pharmaceutical companies and companies that create medical equipment like MRI machines etc., Funny how only private company produce products healthcare and consumers use huh? what government does this? none. it's because government programs(socialism) do not work.
So the government should stay out of healhcare completely and stay out of our personal lives completely. I am not for the government forcing anyone do do anything .The government should be just dealing with international issues that is defending against foreign invaders be they foreign armies, terrorists, foreign products etc.
Also courts and police to enforce a few laws that only protect human rights, like the right to property, right to life, right to privacy, right to not be assaulted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.