RNC chairman: Obama's health care is socialism [Archive]

View Full Version : RNC chairman: Obama's health care is socialism

Fade

07-20-2009, 12:16 PM

RNC chairman: Obama's health care is socialism
Jul 20 12:11 PM US/Eastern
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The chairman of the Republican Party on Monday called President Barack Obama's plan to overhaul health care "socialism," accusing the president of conducting a risky experiment that will hurt the economy and force millions to drop their current coverage. Michael Steele, in remarks at the National Press Club, also said the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and key congressional committee chairmen are part of a "cabal" that wants to implement government-run health care.

"Obama-Pelosi want to start building a colossal, closed health care system where Washington decides. Republicans want and support an open health care system where patients and doctors make the decisions," Steele said.

Asked if Obama's health care plan represented socialism, Steele responded: "Yes. Next question."

Obama has repeatedly said he does not favor a government-run health care system. Legislation taking shape in the House envisions private insurance companies selling coverage in competition with the government.

Even so, numerous Republicans in Congress continue to level the accusation at Obama and congressional Democrats, and Steele did so in sharply critical terms.

"Many Democrats outside of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Waxman cabal know that voters won't stand for these kinds of foolish prescriptions for our health care. We do too. That's why Republicans will stop at nothing to remind voters about the risky experimentation going on in Washington," the party chairman said. Harry Reid, D-Nev., is Senate majority leader; Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.Article continued at http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99I9EAO1&show_article=1&catnum=0

Sarig

07-20-2009, 12:23 PM

tyovan

07-20-2009, 12:25 PM

Republicans want and support an open health care system where patients and doctors make the decisions

Hahaha - at present its the insurance industry making the decisions! And also doctors' lawyers, since doctors live in fear of getting sued..

SOG

07-20-2009, 01:02 PM

Too true. Neither sides plan is on par.

khaz

07-20-2009, 01:09 PM

Medicaid was brought into being to curtail rising health care costs, and we all know what a wonderful job was done with medicaid.

Obamacare will lead to rationing of care as decided by Federal officials, a lower quality of life for many patients and the decision to let others die to contain budget costs.

But the Dems will accomplish thier goal which isnt healthcare but taing power away from people and giving it to politicians, after all they know whats better for you and your money.

NavyTimes

07-20-2009, 01:13 PM

JKD

07-20-2009, 01:37 PM

FullMetalJackass

07-20-2009, 01:39 PM

Jobu

07-20-2009, 01:44 PM

Sarig

07-20-2009, 03:08 PM

Socialist health care would be a disaster for patients, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies. And of course it would bankrupt the country as government spending will certainly increase at an uncontrollable rate.

It's called "taxes". For some reason Americans abhor the concept, yet it is working wonders for the rest of the world.

Not quite sure how everyone being entitled to health care would be a disaster for patients. A disaster for rich people who have to get in the same line as some lowly worker perhaps, but there's always private hospitals for those that want to be special. And NavyTimes probably referred to the fact that when poor people can't afford going to the hospital, they're sick more often and longer, and can work less. This doesn't benefit the economy in any possible way.

Pharmaceutical companies are currently "sponsoring" hospitals and doctors, who in turn prescribe their medicines to patients who may or may not need them. Do you really like this?

I live in a country where admittadly, the health care has some problems, mostly because of a large bueracratical restructuring that was done only a few years ago, but the advantages are pretty damn huge. If I need to have some really expensive surgery done, I don't have to check my wallet first, worry about bankrupcy, I don't have to ask some insurance company "please", it gets done, and what I can concentrate on is regaining my health, instead of financial issues.

I have no idea how you figure it would be a disaster for doctors though.

Jobu

07-20-2009, 04:07 PM

It's called "taxes". For some reason Americans abhor the concept, yet it is working wonders for the rest of the world.

Yea ok the rest of the world is working wonders with their high taxes, lol.

CPLHUNTER

07-20-2009, 04:16 PM

I don't think its socialism per say but it's the best example of a far left wing Democrat trying to push a healthcare bill down our throats that will completely damage small businesses, remove the ability for people to op out of a government plan if they want, raise taxes across the board and further sink our country into the ground.

Liberals can sit here all day long and say well since it works in Canada or Britain it must work here. Not necessary since for one reason our population is much larger. Compare the population of Canada to the US population.

Secondly, I've had first hand experience from government healthcare being in the Marines, and I can say I much prefer my Cigna insurance p-)

The government option will destroy competition in the healthcare market thereby driving up prices and forcing insurance companies out of the game.

I agree our healthcare system needs reform, lets start by reforming the medical malpractice laws to prevent so many lawsuits and monies against doctors and insurance companies.

Let's not provide free healthcare to non US citizens. My friend owns a small graphic design company with 4 employees. She is expecting to have to at least lay of one guy because of the new penalities of the government option on small business.

CPLHUNTER

07-20-2009, 04:29 PM

TallGuy

07-20-2009, 04:48 PM

Probably because we provide better insurance and coverage than companies with only 1 option for healthcare.
No, it has nothing to do with better insurance. Did you know that Cuba has the highest survival rate for breast cancer?

SOG

07-20-2009, 04:54 PM

Our government finger ****s everything it touches. Medicare is going to bust in the future and Obama wants to stack another brilliant program that will fail over time on top.

Obama has repeatedly said he does not favor a government-run health care system. Legislation taking shape in the House envisions private insurance companies selling coverage in competition with the government.

So the government would run it's own healthcare but private companies could compete. So he does favor government run healthcare otherwise he wouldn't be trying to pass it. Whoops.

This is not a slight against countries that employ various elements of socialism in their government. Our government is a crazed crack addicted unwieldy beast. It screws up anything it touches and never effectively regulates anything it actually should. Giving more money/power to the US Government is pure insanity. I'm so ****ing happy it works for you. We're not you.

Vandervahn

07-20-2009, 05:22 PM

NavyTimes

07-20-2009, 05:34 PM

Did you know that the US rates #1 in cancer survival rates?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm

Probably because we provide better insurance and coverage than companies with only 1 option for healthcare.

Never heard that number before, no. :) I were able to find similar numbers from another source as well: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

Good on you. However, cancer is not the only thing a health care is supposed to do. And you need to realize that every countries have a private health sector, also the communist pandemonium that is norway. We also have several mechanisms in the public sector so that institutions compete against each others for funds, based on several factors.

TallGuy

07-20-2009, 05:44 PM

Never heard that number before, no. :) I were able to find similar numbers from another source as well: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

Hmm, Iceland is only in the top three. Damn socialized healthcare! :)

FullMetalJackass

07-20-2009, 05:50 PM

Hmm, Iceland is only in the top three. Damn socialized healthcare! :)

Congratulations. You guys still bankrupt?

Soldat_Américain

07-20-2009, 05:51 PM

Put it this way, the democrats plan doesn't go far enough...and well the republicans don't have one so maybe they should just go away. Open to flame, but whatever. The insurance companies need competition to drive down the cost. Someone who is much smarter than I knows what needs to be done and how it can be done without breaking our backs. And if he hadn't noticed we became socialized under Bush when we nationalized the banking system, but I love how things are conveniently forgotten by all parties.

TallGuy

07-20-2009, 05:52 PM

Congratulations. You guys still bankrupt?
Yes, but the quality of healthcare is still the same....

CMNot

07-20-2009, 06:00 PM

mp.net's CMN: RNC chairman needs to re-calibrate his word definitions.

Yes, but the quality of healthcare is still the same....

And you pay significantly less for it. lulz.

XShipRider

07-20-2009, 06:02 PM

We've been on the socialist railroad ever since FDR signed Social Security into existence.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
On June 8, 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a message to the Congress, announced his intention to provide a program for Social Security. Subsequently, the President created by Executive Order the Committee on Economic Security, which was composed of Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor, Chairwoman; Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury; Henry A. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture; Homer S. Cummings, Attorney General; and Harry L. Hopkins,
Federal Emergency Relief Administrator. The committee was instructed to study the entire problem of economic security and to make recommendations that would serve as the basis for legislative consideration by the Congress.
In early January 1935, the Committee made its report to the President, and on January 17 the President introduced the report to both Houses of Congress for simultaneous consideration. Each House passed its own version, but
eventually the differences were resolved and the Social Security Act was signed into law on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for the general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to
pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income.

Read the rest of the brief history in pdf format here. (http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/2007historybooklet.pdf)

Unsustainable. The first check delivered to a recipient who had not paid a dime into the system should have been the warning cloud. The single most expensive program ever devised.. until health care overtakes it (if passed).

Sarig

07-20-2009, 06:08 PM

Of course it's bloody expensive, it's about keeping people alive...

XShipRider

07-20-2009, 06:24 PM

Of course it's bloody expensive, it's about keeping people alive...

...longer than their natural lives would allow since many didn't bother to take care of themselves. Carry an extra 100+ pounds around then require expensive heart surgery(ies). Yep, good system.

I would have little problem with some sort of health care safety net if it was managed efficiently. Looking at Medicare and Medicaid tells me all I need to know. And if anyone thinks this new program won't break Uncle Sam's piggy bank, look at Social Security and how it grew over the years.

Lasse

07-20-2009, 06:30 PM

Americans will never understand the wonders of "communism healthcare" (like Norway) until they experience it. I skateboarded with a couple of guys from the US here in Norway, one of them broke his arm and was like "**** nuts, I don't have insurance" and we took him to the hospital, and they fixed him up for free. Never seen an American that happy with a cast on his arm.

Kilgor

07-20-2009, 06:37 PM

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Denver/Cure_Prescription.jpg

Fade

07-20-2009, 06:38 PM

JJC

07-20-2009, 06:40 PM

I wish they can at last find a way that a filling wouldn't cost you $250-500 or a stupid root canal $1200. Why should a single wart removal cost $799? There is no super advanced labor skills involved behind these procedures, and if doctors in Mexico do it much cheaper, so should ours. We should reform our malpractice laws or whatever the factors that drives the cost of services to ridiculous levels.

Jurinko

07-20-2009, 06:43 PM

When government says it can do something better and cheaper, watch out!

Health care can be
- free, high quality but not for everybody
- free, for everybody but poor quality
- high quality and for everybody, but not free.

And nobody cares for Canadians - where they will go then to get quick and high quality health care? p-)

sepheronx

07-20-2009, 06:49 PM

Well, if out of 330,000,000 people paid an extra $30 on their taxes for health care, that is $9.9B, and that is a lot of money to be placed on health care. Add government funding per year of 5% of total GDP, that is even more, and doing so, reduce the military budget that is too much. Cannot afford to reduce the budget? Then reduce the number of military bases that are placed in various countries. I mean, if it costs USA 200B just to maintain these bases and pay for costs of land use and such, who needs them?

Oh no, doctors cannot afford to pay for their third home and their second yacht? Boo hoo. Many countries who have socialized medical care are doing quite well. UK, Russia, Canada, Finland, ect. Their systems work, why not USA's? Waiting lines are 9 months or whatever BS that is posted here? Maybe in a major city and depending on the symptons. But most people I know or me, have got in after waiting 20 mins. Boohoo, 20 mins of my life or my health (which BTW, is what is keeping me alive).

When government says it can do something better and cheaper, watch out!

Health care can be
- free, high quality but not for everybody
- free, for everybody but poor quality
- high quality and for everybody, but not free.

And nobody cares for Canadians - where they will go then to get quick and high quality health care? p-)

Watch what you say. My cousin is a surgeon in Hamilton, Ontario. He makes lots of money, and the hospitals have quality equipment as well as trained professionals. What we are missing is the number of doctors. And it isnt because we cannot afford them, it is because lack of trainees and personnel to higher abroad (and our stupid policy that many doctors who do come from various other countries are not recognized, and forced to work as taxi drivers or at a Shwarma cafe).

Lasse

07-20-2009, 07:02 PM

My cousins American GF broke her arm while on holidays here in Canada, she got rayed and a cast and paid less than 200 bucks I think...she seemed pretty happy.
When I had Mono (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_mononucleosis) I paid $20 to see my doctor and do all the tests (took about 2 hours total), then another $30 for my meds. I wonder what it would cost in the US, not to mention that I was knocked out for a month.

Jurinko, you forgot the last one:
Free, but higher taxes. Which is the worst of them all, some of your tax money might never be spent on you or your lucky family that never gets sick\injured. On the other hand, if you are unlucky, you might actually save a lot of cash.

kc135cc

07-20-2009, 07:34 PM

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Denver/Cure_Prescription.jpg

:cantbeli: You do realize that Socialism and Communism are two different theories of Government? Right? I only bring this up, due to the fact that the image represents Communism, and get this, NOT Socialism. Thanks.

Geezah

07-20-2009, 09:20 PM

In other news: Michael Steele announces he will be pulling his kids out of public schools, stop driving on public roads, stop using the public library, stop using his community's emergency services, stop going to public parks, and so on, because they are socialism.

So medical care is now being compared to roads and public schools, well that's reason enough to poo poo socliased medicine right there.

kc135cc

07-20-2009, 09:30 PM

Lets get rid of all Social programs, and taxes that benefit all of us.. roads, education (although poor) and see where we end up.. what a great idea :cantbeli:
This Country will not fail because of Liberals/Democrats, or Conservatives/Republicans, but because of the inability to see another side of the story... This Country is polarized.. we will seal our own demise:|

Power_serj

07-20-2009, 09:36 PM

I just a read a lot of posts from non-Americans on this topic. A lot of you guys are ignorant about the health care. CARE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW, REGARDLESS IF YOU HAVE INSURANCE OR NOT!

This plan will bankrupt America. The idea Obama has is to heavily tax the top earners. The top earners are the small business owners, investors, and everyone the U.S. economy relies on. When these people have less money, it is the consumer and the middle and lower class who suffer when the top earners off-set their losses from tax (usually through less investments, cutting wages, lowering wages, laying off workers, and bringing the prices of products through the roof).

USA =/= Europe so don't tell me how Socialized medicine works for Finland.

Kilgor

07-20-2009, 09:41 PM

bababooey

07-20-2009, 09:42 PM

Medicare works well here in the states. Its a God send for poor elderly people. On the flip side, I am concerned about abuses. Health insurance for all would only work in the states if people would strive to live healthy lives and have preventative checkups. All the fat people would clog up the clinics with their problems leaving the healthy people to pay the bill. A buddy of mine works for a big hospital. He sees the abuses. The common one is when someone goes to the emergency room, sees its too busy, they go home, call an ambulance, and gets to be first in line.

bababooey

07-20-2009, 09:45 PM

I just don't see how publically financed healthcare can work, especially in America.

People are living longer, however they are treating their bodies like a garbage tip and medical costs just keep rising.

It sounds like a bottomless pit to me.

I agree. I have one difference. Their should be a way to seperate those who try to stay healthy and those who live like slobs. If you try to be healthy and you get sick, you should be taken care of, because poo happens. If your'e a slob, then tough poo.

Power_serj

07-20-2009, 09:49 PM

I have an idea. People should actually be required to pay the hospital back (sounds kind of crazy, you know, paying for the services you use). The hospital could set up a payment plan for the specific customer's costs and personal economic situation. If someone went to a hospital for non-emergency reasons, the payment should be at a higher rate to punish this. If the person doesn't pay the hospital, it could affect that person's credit score, just like anything else they don't pay. If that doesn't work, then they could have this money extracted directly from peoples' pay checks. This plan would encourage some people to pick up insurance. In a plan like that, of course some people would be able pay all the bills of a huge accident where they broke every bone in their body, but the hospital would actually collect reimbursement of some sort.

With a guest worker program put into place, illegal immigrants would become documented and could be apart of some such system. We all know how illegal immigrants abuse U.S. hospital, just like a lot of U.S. citizens (this is a whole other subject though).

The government should enact laws protect hospitals from hefty lawsuits so that medical care could be cheaper. Obviously, there would still be some kind of accountability, but protect against outrageous lawsuits.

Kilgor

07-20-2009, 09:56 PM

I agree. I have one difference. Their should be a way to seperate those who try to stay healthy and those who live like slobs. If you try to be healthy and you get sick, you should be taken care of, because poo happens. If your'e a slob, then tough poo.

I know, but god forbid we have to introduce responsibility into society. Its always someone else's fault.

bababooey

07-20-2009, 10:00 PM

I like the idea of putting non-taxed money in a health account. My wife has it and its good, but not great. Money in the account is only good for one year and you must spend it or lose it. I think that money should be allow to stay there, indefinitely and gaining interest. It could then be used for major health conditions, if there is a need. Maybe someone out there is familiar with this plan.

JKD

07-20-2009, 10:11 PM

I just a read a lot of posts from non-Americans on this topic. A lot of you guys are ignorant about the health care. CARE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW, REGARDLESS IF YOU HAVE INSURANCE OR NOT!

If you go into an emergency room suffering a heart attack due to diabetes they have to make every effort to stabilize you(they'll bill ya later) but they are under no obligation to help you manage your long term, and probably very expensive, medical condition.

...on a side note that syringe and sickle image is really fvckin' up my browser. 7200 X 4224? Really?

TallGuy

07-20-2009, 10:22 PM

I just a read a lot of posts from non-Americans on this topic. A lot of you guys are ignorant about the health care.
The same thing can be said about a lot of the Americans posting here. Most of them have no idea how public health care works in other countries. They just talk about Medicare and think all public health care is like that.
I've experienced private health care in the U.S., military CHAMPUS/TriCare and the Icelandic health care system.
Private HMOs have too much fine print and are always screwing people over. Kaiser Permanente sent my uncle home with severe pneumonia and some antibiotics. His heart gave up because of the severity of the illness. The coroner said he should have been hospitalized and given antibiotics intravenously.
IMO, the Icelandic health care system and the military CHAMPUS/TriCare is better and more simple.

If public health care works in most other developed countries, it should work in the U.S.

c62

07-20-2009, 10:27 PM

For all you who think dealing with insurance companies or lawyers, etc... is bad. Try dealing with a gov't bureaucrat, heaven forbid you take up any of the alloted 15 min break over your silly insignificant heart attack. Every time the gov't has gotten involved to try and fix a problem(houseing, education....) things always ended up way worse than when it started. I'm kind of curious to how much the gov't can **** things up before people start to catch onto the idea that the only thing the gov't can do right is **** things up.

Whoever it was, 9.9 billion for US health care won't be a drop in the bucket. This is going to run into the trillions.

I've heard a few proposals that basically say you only use your medical insurance for emergencies only. Routine stuff comes out of pocket(kind of like home owners insurance). I haven't heard too many details, so I'm not too sure about it, but it sounds interesting.

Russianlynxy

07-20-2009, 11:11 PM

I realize Socialism/Communism (which are different from one another btw) is a sensitive ideological topic over there in the States, but I would appreciate if someone could clear up for me what the problem is in having elements of socialism integrated in certain aspects of the economy, especially those aspects which improve the overall quality of life for citizenry. I am not saying have free health-care, but affordable, especially for health problems that require long-tern treatment, such as cancer. I get the idea that some of you think if one cannot afford to treat his cancer or whatnot, he is not fit to survive among the rest of society.

The biggest paradox being of course being insurance companies... social services which are meant to protect you end up pumping your income instead. I've heard in many US states it's required, which means they lobby the state government to force a service which should be optional. In other words, when I buy a product, I can buy a warranty/protection plan, but I'm NOT required to subscribe to one.

deagle

07-21-2009, 01:57 AM

well, after the previous administrations gaffes, its probably due time for an overhaul anyway.

Kippari

07-21-2009, 04:47 AM

Most of the Euros here must understand that a large proportion of the yanks are feckin fat, and by that i mean monstrous. That means highly increased cardial and vascular problems, increased diabetes and more bones snapping. These often (except for the diabetes) require surgeries, which cost a mint. Not to mention that the large part of the obese people are the lowest earning ones who eat burgers or kfc in daily basis.

Bros, you need an additional progressive fat tax to cover for weight related disabilities. Everyone should pay the taxes the amount directly related to their health and wealth. That should motivate some lardies to lose their extra tonnage.:)

Jurinko

07-21-2009, 04:54 AM

I just a read a lot of posts from non-Americans on this topic. A lot of you guys are ignorant about the health care.

We havesomehow combined system, with two state insurance companies and private insurance companies. State IC are balancing on the edge of insolvency now, since there is no reason for them to cut their own bureaucracy and behave effectively. If they make a loss, state will always cover it and they know it. Private insurance companies have to "jump as high as their budget allows". Private den****ts are very sensitive to this and they prefer privately insured clients, because state ICs pay late and have always low budget.

We have state hospitals and hospitals as joint ventures, belonging to municipalities. State hospitals are generating debt happily, since there is no reason for them to keep balanced budget, cut bureaucracy or abundant beds and their management orders services or equipment based on bribes going into their pocket. When water or power companies are trying to stop supply of water/electricity because of unpaid debts, there is always a big uproar "how dare they". No wonder that non-state hospitals do not have these problems, since they have to care about their budget.

Our chief of parliament has a company (now written onto his wife). This company sells heavily overpriced equipment like computer tomography etc. to state owned hospitals.

Previous government introduced a 1euro payment for each visit of doctor, each drug prescription and 1,5e for each day in the hospital. It was limited to some monthly maximum. Immediate result was stop of cumulative debt growth, since we had extremely high consumption of medicines per capita. Similar experience had Poland, where WWII vets had free medicines and their consumption quickly climbed to 10x the nation average.

It is true that the health tax here yields much less money than in rich countries, since our salaries are relatively low. But the other side is, that these money are wasted. We have too many half-empty hospitals from the socialist era, which can not be maintained from the given money and every attempt to merge them is strongly opposed, since everyone thinks every small city sh*thole has right to have big hospital. Our doctors are underpaid and going to Czech or Germany, patients are bringing their own toilet paper and pyjamas to the hospitals. My two kids were born in our hospitals and inhospitability of hospital staff was even worse for mothers than physically poor conditions.

Functioning system has to include some incentives and punishments, so people do care about their health and do not misuse the HC. I wonder whether insurance companies in US can adjust the individual client insurance payments based on overweight or smoking; this should be the best lever, how to force folks to care about themselves - via their own purse. Socialized medicine supports irresponsibility, like socialized car insurance would lead to careless driving (concerning the state of car bumpers).

On the other side, insurance companies can cover only such treatment, for which they have money. It is favorite idea that if state manages the system, it will have bottomless budget which can cover everything. But governments like to pretend they can do it better and cheaper. It looks that instead of many private companies which have their own management, yachts and expensive cars (jealousy, anyone?) one state-controlled IC would be better. This argument fails, as according to the same thinking, one state owned bank or car producer would be better than many private ones. (There is just step to the idea of one political party as well :)). Potential savings will be many times overshadowed by inefficiency, corruption, bureaucracy - since it is the profit factor, which drives the private companies to think deeper and work harder than any governmental body (even Alamo project and Moon expedition were pretty cool).

The result of fully socialized medicine will be, that cost will spin up and to save it not to bankrupt, government will have to save it by new and new money, then new taxes. Since prices will be regulated, there will be no money for R&D, which is pretty expensive. Nowadays, US citizens are paying the bigger part of the world medicine R&D I believe. Those drugs after becoming generics are getting to the rest of the world.

To the poster above, saying that socialized system works OK for Russia is, uhm.. what is the average life expectancy in Russia? I think bellow Bangladesh.

brainplay

07-21-2009, 09:50 AM

I realize Socialism/Communism (which are different from one another btw) is a sensitive ideological topic over there in the States, but I would appreciate if someone could clear up for me what the problem is in having elements of socialism integrated in certain aspects of the economy, especially those aspects which improve the overall quality of life for citizenry. I am not saying have free health-care, but affordable, especially for health problems that require long-tern treatment, such as cancer. I get the idea that some of you think if one cannot afford to treat his cancer or whatnot, he is not fit to survive among the rest of society.

The problem with integrating elements of socialism into a free market regime is that it cancels out the need for many free market elements by introducing state funded care. By fixating payment by the state or mandating certain coverage there is no room to compete in services and/or payment plans. Preventative medicine is already hamstrung on this issue.

Making healthcare affordable is more than just insurance though. Insurance itself needs major reform. But then so does tort law which mandates huge expenses on hospitals that need to be recouped thus driving up costs.

In short you either need to have a fully socialized system or a fully free market system. Combining the two leaves you with the current US dilemma.

CMNot

07-21-2009, 11:11 AM

free market regime

This is the kicker though, isn't it?

There is no free market?

Noons86

07-21-2009, 11:14 AM

Chulo

07-22-2009, 12:22 AM

Omg I am glad I am not living under a regime where moneygrabbing lawyers and insurance companies decide if I get the healthcare i need.

How much resources are wasted in the US because your workforce is ill instead of getting the best healthcare available per default?
What we should have is a free market based on what people want, afford and can get. The present system is NOT.. and this is because of the HMO system that was put in place (by the Democrats btw) and a mismash of semi-government control and incompetence that has centralized the health care market. Is our present system good? no it is not, and that is because of the government control and stupid restrictions put in place.

So is it logical that when you add water to oil and it does not burn you add more water to it?

Chulo

07-22-2009, 12:26 AM

Certain conservatives have been calling everything Obama does "socialist" ever since his inauguration. Its not news when someone right of center says it anymore.

I'd like to hear what an out-and-out, self identified socialist thinks of the plan, then I'll be able to weigh the "socialism" claim a little better.
So what do you think of the Government taking control of financial institutions, and events like GM. Where the company was too big to fail (should not file bankruptcy) so the government steps in, restructures everything, gives out shares (unevenly) and rewrites bankruptcy laws, and THEN let it file bankruptcy. Then places their guys they trust, and now is dictating policy (which cars, how many, which dealers should close)

L8apex

07-25-2009, 12:53 AM

The American health-care system is the most expensive per capita in the world. All for the good of the consumer, naturally.

I get amused every time I see the world 'socialism' thrown around like it's a dirty one, on the yankee side of the pond though.

Socialism is a dirty word...period. Please keep it on your side of the pond.

What is the best way to impose Socialism in society? Answer from the Gipper 50 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs