Apparently it was when Dubya was in office, when did that change?

edit: guess I was beat to it.

Does anyone else find it funny that the arguments by either side are 180'd from what they were two years ago?

Why are we more special that anyone else? if we deserve all this, why do other humans have to suffer while we live in luxury?

so we should pay for the world's healthcare too? After all, they're all human too. People are dying from AIDS in africa and starvation in China, maybe we should pay for all that too...

and in case you didn't realize, the ER cannot turn away a person in this country. I have yet to hear an argument based in logic and reason and not pure emotion.


"You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Like I've said before:

we have a nasty habit of declaring the enemy of our enemy a friend, only to have that friend turn on us in the worse possible way.

Until the US stops its active foreign policy and starts a true defensive foreign policy (where we intervene but only in cases we are directly linked to), we will always have crap where our new enemy was once our "ally"

ok, how about this figure:

$21,000 a year.

That is the average cost per uninsured (man, woman, and child whether they want it or not, legal or illegal) of this program if they can keep it to $1T a year budget. That is excessive. My health insurance is not even half of that a year and I have a fantastic PPO plan with a low deductible.


I'll ask this again because nobody has been able to answer it for me yet:

Why should we throw this kind of money at a broken delivery system?

god, will everyone get off the "faux" news kick already?!? haha! funny little play on words - except the pronunciations are different. you have to have both sides. They're no worse at being unbiased as NYT, CNN, or MSNBC. It's just the other side of the coin. you don't see me going around declaring BSNBC every time i disagree with something olberman says (quite often, i assure you). just grow up and be a little more mature about it. attacking the source does nothing to help an argument.


they bring up many points that nobody else will. yeah, some of it is fearmongering, but the administration and other news agencies do it all the same. this is what "news" has become in this day and age.

It is a real truth by simple economics that the quality of care will diminish for everyone currently receiving healthcare and there are many businesses that will drop their existing health plans for lower level employees (who can be replaced oftentimes a dime a dozen) because they only do it as there is no other option. The small fee paid will likely be far more cost-effective than any employer-provided health plan.

So yeah, there are those that will lose their healthcare as they now know it. If you can't see that, you have zero understanding of business and economics or have you Obama brand blinders on. Next time you start an argument, put a little logic into it and actually argue the point instead of attacking the source.

No, they are doing business, as they are not a government agency. It's a fine line but essentially, they are like a government owned corporation. you know, like GM.

The USPS has been losing money. This means they need to increase profits (duh) and there are three ways to do this: cut costs (been done), increase sales (we've already covered this is going in reverse), and raising prices.

They have been using both options 1 and 3 and neither is saving them. They are a sinking ship that cannot be saved at this point - even full privatization will ultimately fail or become very, very expensive to mail correspondence.

Technically they are in privately owned businesses, but essentially the space is rented to the postal service. We used to have one just down the street in a stationary store.


I'm not surprised in the least. The internet is killing many businesses off and forcing change in every segment of the marketplace. With email being free there is no reason to mail most correspondence anymore. They've been losing money hand over fist for years.

color and shape are not patentable. The formula is. Once the patent runs out, they have to allow others to reverse engineer it.

The government negotiates much like the mob. Basically, they are going to pay what they want and there is nothing the drug companies can do about it.

If this grows too far and profits get cut too much, just watch R&D fall.


As for the second post, the idea is to extend patent protection in order to encourage further research. however, if there are little profits, the incentive will not exist anyway. By allowing a single producer, costs increase naturally (mostly to make up their R&D costs in creating the drug, not to mention the smaller client base for such a specialized drug will automatically increase price.

dropkick murphys - the fortunes of war

So, I have heard the term Keynesian Economics thrown around one too many times by people who have no idea what the hell his ideals were all about - other than government spending is required in some cases (which I wholeheartedly disagree with).

The core part of his argument in 'the general theory...' was that the free market, at it's peak efficiency, is still not reaching 100% employment (true full employment). We currently believe around 5% unemployment is still full employment due primarily to a mismatch of skill, location, or some other variable. for example, 10 construction jobs open in california does nothing for 5 local unemployed accountants and 5 construction workers unemployed in new york. There has to be this mismatch and it will always result in some unemployment.

Keynes' answer to this is active fiscal policy, primarily investing by the government in infrastructure. He argued that periodic downturns (like we are experiencing) can be controled by this fiscal policy where government spends in order to control unemployment, thereby increasing aggregate demand and keeping the economy out of a slump. (This is a very large simplification of course - the actual read is far more detailed and difficult to read)

Sounds all well and good. Except for the one fatal flaw when applied to today's economy: it is a sinking ship. You see, in order for this ideal to hold water, the government must work on a cycle in relation to it's fiscal policy and the economy. As the economy hits highs, the government must drastically pull back it's programs and save for the bottom where it can then invest in order to slow the fall.

This requires a level of dicipline that our lawmakers do not seem to have. By investing heavily at every downturn without soaking up that debt in the good times, we are simply digging faster than ever into the hole. So please, stop jumping on the bandwagon and telling me this is going to work based on some theory you have never read and do not comprehend because this is the fatal flaw in the stimulus package: we are fixing the here and now at the expense of the future.

Why should it be the government's responsibility to babysit the banks or insurers anyway? These are symptoms of a disease and treating symptoms does nothing for the problem. In fact, often treating symptoms only allows the virus to grow stronger.

What we need is core reform. The reason for the bank problem is excess regulation and the fox guarding the henhouse. The Fed needs to be under some independent control, free from banks and the government. If you regulate an industry, only the insiders are going to know how to get around the regulations. I have studied a bit of finance as part of my degree and even I still have no idea how they are pulling the **** they are.

While the insurers are making profits, the industry itself is also growing exponentially more costly - oftentimes not putting any more cash in the pockets of the hard workers but rather, in the pockets of the plaintiffs of frivilous lawsuits and the insurers that provide the skyrocketing malpractice insurance.

As with everything else this adminstration has chased, we need to stop treating symptoms and start going for the root of the problem. It is often against tradition and favors, but it needs to be done in order to provide lasting success.

I think that is a bit excessive. There were just over a million filings last year, or less than 1% of the households (not individuals, households) in the US. That number, from my knowledge, also includes businesses so it's even less of a part of the population.

Even if they were 100% households and 100% medical related, we are proposing to fork out $100B a year or essentially one hundred thousand dollars for every household that filed.

But he's doing it all-or-nothing. Little reforms along the way need to be made as opposed to putting the whole thing through in one big package. Big things that are rushed result in painful omissions and mistakes. not to mention the massive oversight required and the inefficiency. We do need reform - nobody will argue that, but we need to do it slowly and not this rich pay for everyone else's coverage crap.

Nowhere in that does it say I have an end-all, be-all answer. nobody does. my solution is the same as it ever was: let the free-market take care of it. I'm a psycho-libertarian and do not believe in government intervention. Our starting point should be to work on what we have now and increase its efficiency.

I just feel that what we are doing now is like spraying at the rising flames as opposed to the base. in the end, it will all be fruitless.

Wow... Sorry, took a hiatus and it's been a while but I assume this is directed at me.

Sorry that I'm not cool enough for you. No wait, sorry, I'm really not.

People like you give punk a bad name. Punk is not about which band is more obscure. It's not about plaids, stripes, spikes, and boots and all the s*it you can stick in your face. Any feeble attempt to define punk is against the very nature of the mindset. There is no reason for the childish, immature responses. I like what I like and really could not care any less what some arrogant nineteen year-old has to say from his self-proclaimed pedestal (really, ask me some time).

So do us all a favor: grow up. Just because you think your bands are better does not make them real punk and my bands crap punk. music evolves. get over it.

It's about baby steps. The problem is, the current proposals are "the end justifies the means" when we cannot afford the means. We are already drastically increasing our current debt and with other nations calling for a world currency, we have to be frugal.

We need a more logical approach. We must fix what's wrong first and maximize the people covered under the current system. By fixing the current problems, we will reduce costs across the board for everyone. by throwing money at a broken system, all we are doing is wasting valuable resources that could be going toward care or reducing the deficit (ha!).


Oh, and another thing to add: if anyone can tell me how we are going to raise an additional $100B a year through taxes alone and not negatively impact anything, I'm all ears.

It's not the crisis itself that is manufactured, it is how the government manipulates it into what it needs. Take the bank bailout and stimulus for example. With the stimulus, we were told that if it wasn't passed, we'd be in a deep depression. here we are almost six months later, showing signs of recovery, and we haven't even passed out a tenth of what is coming.

manufactured crisis = fear mongering. Clinton did it. Dubya did it. Obama has done it.

So, with all the talk of the government putting it's grubby hands into the medical system, I have a few concerns. Actually, I have a lot of them, but let me just go into depth on a few I have heard very little of. Normally, the argument is based on "it failed in [insert country here]!" or "we are the greatest nation in the world! If [insert country here] has it, so should we!" without looking at the real logic and data behind the problem.

First off, look at our history with the government being involved in healthcare, aka, Medicare. It is bankrupt. 100% flat broke. The "money" that is in there is actually just essentially IOUs which technically, is just a green light for the government to print money to cover those costs, since the budget does not provide for the direct payback of intergovernmental holdings such as this (at least from its income pool). But that is another topic. The point is, we set aside money into a program to assist many with medical care. Instead of using it for its intended purpose, we borrowed from the trust into oblivion. What makes you think that all the money that is pulled from the people to fund this will actually make it 100% into the system? We have zero track record of any such action in any field.

The second concern that I have, in my mind, directly contradicts those that tell me my current healthcare will not change. While my plan may not, my care very much has to. You see, scarcity comes into play in all things, and doctors fall into the all things category. While I fully understand and am aware that the uninsured will make use of an ER when it is absolutely necessary, they do not frequent preventative care. Currently, I call my doctor, I can get in within a week for a normal appointment and within a day for an "emergency" like an illness. My physician is also not taking on any more patients because she is so full.

Economics 101: an increase in demand without a proportional increase in supply will result in higher prices. If the price is forced constant, then you develop a shortage. Guess what happens when there is a care shortage? waiting and rationing. There is no way around it. My doctor works six days a week as it is, I doubt she will come in Sundays too in order to pick up the slack.

So my solution? Fix what is wrong before we start throwing money at it. I'm 100% against government intervention on the providing side. However, we do need major reforms in the areas of tort and fraud. If you can control the sky-rocketing malpractice and liability insurance costs as well as the money lost to fraud, the costs will come down for everyone. If everyone's costs come down, the cost of insurance comes down and it is more available to the people.

Right now, we are doing the same thing we have been doing for the last year: throwing money (or trying to) at a broken system. If we just treat the symptoms, you'll never kill the virus.