My objections to Zero's new Health care plan.

There is no such thing... Government at best is incompetent rulership, at worst tyranny... Someone said something like that, may be Ben Franklin.

 

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness... Why should I pay your bills

 

if thats the government that gets elected

 

if your in a strange town and get in an accident would you expect the emergency services there to come to your aid even if you didn't pay into them, or be left by the side of the road?

i believe in colonial times in america fire protection was on a paid basis and if you hadn't paid your house was allowed to burn to the ground.

i hope we're better than that now

some years ago in texas a road was being built and a buried body was come upon, so construction stopped till local authorities came and conducted an investigation, it was determined that the bones were many thousands of years old, they were of for the time those of an elderly woman that in her youth had broken a leg which meant that she was unable to care for herself for the time it took to heal , meaning she was cared for by others, shouldn't we be as caring as those ancestors?

 

I don't think any of you went to the link I posted and read that humongous document or the horrendous 700 pages of add-in's and edits.

When you can say you did, and can comment on my logical look at those line items, then you can try to un-seat me from my logical conclusion that this bill is gonna make a mess out of American health care system, and contribute directly to the socializing of America.

When you take the Capitalistic Republic away from we Americans, the whole world will suffer economically.
Without consumers, who's gonna pay the bills. Money, Dollars, is what the U.S. thrives on. Take that out of our daily market place and we begin to atrophy.

Your complaints about the Rich causing our problems and Government being in bed with them is just flying in the face of Logic.
Obama is paying back his Campaign contributions with our money. Obama gave our money away. The Wall-street folks didnt take it, Obama gave it to them.
The Sheeple are happy with that. So happy they'll argue any point the Republican Capitalists put up.

 

I would add that this whole line of reasoning is tragically flawed as it is based on a flawed foundation, which is that the rich are the detractors, the leeches, the burdens on the economy, when in fact the rich are the producers in our free market system.

But even this is not the most fundamental flaw in this line of thought. The fundamental flaw is the concept of an 'economy' that is like a pie of a set or pre-determined and unchanging size, doled out to us all, rich and poor alike, by forces unknown. In this line of thinking, naturally the rich are to be hated and blamed for all ills since they have taken 'too much' of the pie, and this would obviously be at the expense of the poor, who have been left with an insufficient 'share'.

Class warfare at it finest. Too bad it's 100% WRONG!

Jimbo

 

i dont think i said the rich per say caused the problems but the bankers and ceo's of financial institutions too big to fail the ones who's greed knows no bounds

and a growing economy can be a good thing as long as it grows for all and some are not favored by government policy

and there are too few rich to produce much of anything but financial instruments

a few decades ago the major engine of our economy was the real production of something you could buy and take home

but sense the movers and shakers decided that it could be made cheaper somewhere else the middle class hasnt advanced much at all while those at the top have done very well thank you very much

when banking became the engine behind the economy then creative banking became the road to riches, welcome to AIG and credit default swaps and naked swaps in which you can insure something you dont even have to own.

oil is bought and sold about 17 times on the futures market artificially driving up the cost before it gets to the refinery, welcome to $4 a gallon gas. i know its down now but t's creeping up.

even allen greenspan that acolyte of rand admitted that free markets didn't do well at self governing

all im saying is we need rules that are understood and that apply to every body equally

bring back glass/steigle so we dont wind up with banks too big to fail that fail

when you have government setting rules for markets its easier for startups to get into a market, when you have totally free markets with out rules the big players will always freeze out any one attempting to enter a market, no rules free markets are not completive markets

the time is coming not too far off when there will not be enough work to go around when fully automated factories will require little or no human presence, who should be allowed to own such factories

i remember as a kid road crews consisted of large crews to construct them, as machinery took over far fewer people were required

agriculture was once the largest sector of the economy now it accounts for less than 5% of employment

manufacturing was 50% plus, now 15% or less

and so on and so on

now its creeping up into the more skilled jobs, call centers in india also accounting even the media is going off shore for news rooms

clear channel has taken over the radio now its programed out of a central location and the local station is little more than a locked transmitter

what happened to the days when a man could be the bread winner buy a modest home and have a stay at home wife/mom and send the kids to college, thats the house i grew up in

when you could get a job and have some security, a pension and health care, and all you had to do was a good job, when there was an understanding between employer and employee, there really was such a time

theres coming a time when we will have to rethink our economy from the ground up or it will look like something out of science fiction with the peoples as corporate citizens and not americans, germans, english etc. who wants to be a microsoft citizen?

 

Well said Jimbo.
The Sheeple will never accept it though.

I guess nobody's going back to the first page eh?

 

Are you "pontificators", among the 25% or so that actually voted? - Here in OZ, everyone must vote - or face a small fine... if you do not like anyone on your ballot then write, "all are useless shits" on the ballot paper, or write whatever else you fancy, as that actually counts as a vote... If you did not vote then you have morally abrogated your right to comment, seeing as how you are one of the losers that can be blamed for this economic disaster...

 

You say this with a sort of ' half-wit ' understanding of what really happened. You ought to know that the fuse that lit the bomb was the government's interfering with bank loan practices (standards) in response to legislation and finally lawsuits from lefty political pressure groups who asserted that bank lending practices were discriminatory to inner city poor people and that banks should relax their lending standards to accommodate these groups. Once this foot was in the door, other pressure groups asserted that these 'programs' should apply to ALL people who could not otherwise afford a home loan, so that a program that was small and contained, mushroomed into something big and potentially dangerous.

The rest gets complicated, and involves the congress refusing to regulate various peripheral sectors, like insurance, which if properly handled, would have prevented the catastrophe from spreading beyond the banks involved. Note that at each key step, a politician of the party known as Democrat was the gatekeeper. Not a single Republican in sight on this part.

When the economy grows, all benefit. This does not mean that all benefit equally. This is never the case, and cannot be made to happen under any circumstance. The more regulation there is, the more money it takes to do business. Heavy regulation helps large politically favored businesses only; it NEVER helps the little guy.

But on the whole we are all much wealthier than we were 30 years ago even while the top earners have doubled or tripled their real income, far outpacing the income growth of the middle class. Note that if the rich had not been so fortunate, this would not have put ONE EXTRA DIME in the pocket of the middle class, so it's of NO CONSEQUENCE, except as a means to get votes by promoting class envy. In fact, since the wealthy drive the economy forward, you could make a better case for attributing whatever growth the middle class experienced to the top earner's good fortune, rather than insinuating that their good fortune somehow took money from the middle class.

All the industrial wealth of the country was produced by the efforts of individuals whose motivation was to get rich; your analysis above is just ridiculous.

The reasons manufacturing continues to move offshore are numerous and both simple and complex. Government regulation is a big one. Unfair currency value manipulation is another big one. Intentional 'dumping' in order to destroy domestic manufacturing and export unemployment is another. Would it have been more virtuous in your opinion if the "movers and shaker" let their companies go out of business rather than move their manufacturing offshore?

The party you love brought the USA into the world of modern fractional reserve banking whereby an elite group of nominee capitalists basically rents our entire money system back to us. Keep this FACT in perspective next time you get on a rant about how the 'other guys' (R) are all in the pockets of the fabulously wealthy.

They passed the legislation in secret session, no less, to keep the public unaware of their scheme. And why did they do it? To facilitate the advancement of socialism, of course! You can't have socialism without a 'flexible' money system, and the gold standard just wouldn't let bird that fly. The last truly honest Democrat was William Jennings Bryan, who vehemently opposed this. But he's Loooong gone

The party with a 'D' gave us this little mess in their efforts to prevent the oil companies from becoming energy 'monopolies'. The oil companies used to own not only the leases, but also the oil in the ground. When this was the case, the big oil companies were 'vertically integrated' (like McDonalds) and in a price war with each other which kept prices way down, like less than 25 cents a gallon. The 'D' guys demanded that oil be traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, just like any other commodity like pork bellies and Orange Juice and Wheat. Price manipulation has been with us ever since. The ironic thing is that people actually believe that the oil companies NOW have control over crude pricing, AFTER congress took away any influence they once had! Are we really that F'n stupid:?:

Government regulations always benefit some and hurt others. The government always winds up picking winners and losers through regulation, which is then doled out as a political favor to the well connected (huge) companies. The 're-regulation' of the telecom industry during the 90's is a case study in this. Ever wonder what happened to all the little cell phone Cos?

Like the Federal Reserve?

It's exactly the opposite. Why do you think there's such prodigious growth in the least regulated markets and the least growth in the most regulated? Regulations ALWAYS cost money, no exceptions. The more there are, the higher the bar is set, and the greater the wealth needed to start a new business. I can tell you've never actually owned a business

So in such circumstances, you'd be an advocate of abrogating property rights? Which politically favored group would you be in favor of bequeathing the factories upon in your hypothetical case?

There will always be a need for lower skilled workers. As you pointed out, these workers used to make a decent wage, but no more. Why is that? Could it be because of uncontrolled illegal and badly controlled legal immigration? Is that not the same reason that US population is growing, solely by immigration?

Farm subsidies have all but wiped out the small farm. This is a *perfect* example of how a government program that was originally designed to reduce the pains of normal market forces and unforeseen events has had the unintended consequence of benefiting the wealthiest players in that market the most. And of course farm subsidies remain a prized political favor to be carefully doled out to the most 'deserving' political contributors

Just wait and see what happens if the "Climate Change" legislation hits! Even the paltry 15% remaining will look like paradise! Even my little tiny company is looking at a move to the UAE if such legislation becomes reality, and we are just a service co.! Imagine what all the manufacturers are thinking!

Question:
Would that move make me evil? Should I keep my business here and just starve? Would starvation be the 'morally upright' or 'patriotic' course, in your oh so well-considered opinion?

Socialism is NOT the answer, unless the question is

"How do I persuade a free people to give up basically ALL of their rights, while simultaneously enriching my selected group of nominee capitalist cronies, and providing NOTHING of value in return but empty promises?"

Socialism will solve NONE of the problems you've mentioned.

Jimbo

 

I had a broken leg once, with a full leg cast that my father paid for. Having seen the process, I could set the same fracture myself. I delivered newspapers for months, starting out pedaling with one foot, finally cut the foot portion off myself, finally cut the whole damn thing off myself. My five breaks since then, some gruesome, I handled myself. The only thing I have gone to a doctor for since is antibiotics.
My father didn't expect you to pay for my x-rays, etc. - How unfair would THAT have been!
Your conjecture about the ancient, old woman is nonsense.
The question is moot because "The One" and his agenda are now recognized by sentient beings as F'ed up. Don't look up sentient - if the "Obama '08" sticker is still on your Prius, argument can be made either way about your awareness...

"Well...He is reading this..."
"He may have had help."
"He has a cute pastel Prius or a "chick-up" (Honda Ridgeline, etc.) - He drives!"
"He lives in a colony and follows the guy in front of him while "tweeting".
"But the corners of his "Bashful for Obama" photo bumpersticker are dog-eared. He must have tried to discreetly remove it."

"A redneck might have done it but it is the best evidence for self-awareness we can find."
"Ants, because they make so many wrong decisions, as a collective, succeed marvelously - kind of a "warped space-time" way to look at things but is this what universal healthcare is about?"
"Exactly! But the ant farm has a better chance of advanced healthcare just because with the sheer numbers of surgeries, some of them HAVE to be right"
"Don't ants EAT their wounded?"
"Yes but the wait for disposition is shorter than the typical Canadian/European and there aren't really any more ants in all the colonies of the savanna than there are inner-city under-employed who desire that others take care of them"

"Ants aren't self-aware!"
"Just fill out the ballet with the union boss recommendations and follow the guy in front of us."

 

When asked if Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance was correct, Obama replied, "You know, I have to say I'm not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
Also admitted:

-He doesn't know how his health care plan would actually work, but knows it will be run by the government, so there's "no chance it wouldn't work."
-He doesn't know how much his plan would cost, but is "almost positive there are still enough rich people around to pay for it."
-He's not familiar with health care or insurance in general, but had both as a community organizer, and felt "comfortable" with them.

There you have it!

 

Just read post #37... Too much mis-information and downright stupidity to digest in these wee, early hours before work. Somebody else break that **** down line-by-line, please.
Example; "...but sense the movers and shakers decided that it could be made cheaper somewhere else the middle class hasnt advanced much at all while those at the top have done very well thank you very much..." And everybody gets more stuff cheaper (thank your union pay and benefits, by-the-way, for the jobs leaving)! Also, this demonstrates that people like you are motivated by jealousy - "We havn't advanced much BUT THE RICH HAVE."

 

explain why in the past the country has always done better under progressive governments than conservative ones, the economic gains more, etc, and this is a numbers fact not open to interpretation

from the expansion of the middle class to a safer environment and you can put teddy Roosevelt in there and i believe nixon for the epa

i don't really favor any party over another i favor goals and results

sense goldwater the republican party has hypocriticaly become the party of anti science, traditional and family values, how is that working out?

like it or not obama was elected by wider margins than bush 2 ever got and elections have consequences.

democracy is the rule of the majority for good or ill, and in the last few elections the will of the people has been in a more progressive direction that fact is hard to deny

i sometimes wonder where Conservatives see this country going and do they realize that their children and grand children and their children will inherit what they bequeath

 

Hey goofball,

Let's not forget that ALL the early progressives were also 'conservatives' as the progressive movement was started by the Republicans, especially Theodore Roosevelt. Ditto for the environmental movement. These are just historical facts; US politics did not start in 1972

At that time it was the political left, the Dems that were well ensconced with the churches. They used religious ideas of Christian charity to get the earliest socialist legislation rammed through. At that time is was commonly said that Karl Marx was the last Christian Prophet!

They got all the 'morality' laws passed on the same platform, including laws against fornication, prostitution, ************* and a host of others. Then there's the anti-drug laws; all from the Dems also. In the late 1930's when these laws were coming into existence, the Dems commissioned a famous Republican mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia, to do an independent study on the dangers of marijuana, and why its use/possession should be made criminal. He concluded, much to their chagrin, that it should NOT be illegal and that it was not dangerous, so they suppressed the report and tried to destroy LaGuardia, and of course, passed the legislation anyway. Google "LaGuardia Report"

So now that you know that without the involvement of the churches, your precious socialist safety net would not even exist. Wanna explore the Dems history in race relations, next?

Let me give you an historical excerpt from the time:

"The KKK is the paramilitary wing of the Democratic Party of the United States"

Jimbo