Quoting Mt99 (Reply 98): Sure. How long was the war in Iraq supposed to last?

I think everyone had around 8-10 years in their head when the war started for a sizeable military presence, followed by a smaller force on the ground to support an alliance defence against Iran or other theats. This would be on par with previous experience, for example after WWII.

Here's one of the biggest problems I have with this program. Everyone talks about a cost of around a trillion dollars over 10 years. But the program isn't expected to really kick off until 2013 (what's the significance of that year, I wonder  ), so that's the cost of only 5-6 years, not 10. And the indications from the OMB is that the spending in the following 10 years REALLY explodes, but that's beyond most people's radar screens.

Secondly, such government programs, from Social Security to Medicare, has historically always grown to be many times more expensive than anticipated. If there is one thing that government has always been terrible at is projecting costs. If the OMB says it's going to cost $6 trillion over the next 20 years, I expect the real cost will be closer to $20 or $30 trillion, after inflation adjustments.

Quoting Wukka (Reply 96): Great comment there. I'm not a Republican, but I find your comment quite offensive. You're basically saying that all Republicans don't care about two children with cancer. So you're going off of one story, eh? Well, let me tell you about all of the stories about fundraisers that Republicans have set up for other kids with cancer... or their parents, or their grandparents, or some other kid with cancer. That's bullshit, and you know it. If it's obvious to you, perhaps you need a strong cup of coffee to wake up. You might as well be saying that the Shriners set kids on fire so they can support their burn centers and circuses. Boo on you.

First of all, I have always given to the Shriners. We all tend to paint with a broad brush. It was not the Democrats sitting there like Wooden Statues during the speech. I am sure there are a few good Republicans and a few good Democrats, obviously not the other night on the Republican side. I do not think there were many Democrats screaming during the town hall meetings. The Republicans want to kill this idea, just as they obstruct most ideas for the good of the common folk. Now that which will protect their benefactors, yes, yes. No, no. the party of no for anything which threatens the established trickle down theory that they thrive on. A buck for me and to hell with thee. Hypocrites all in politics, but the Republicans are the best at it. The world is laughing at us.

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contrib..._09-11-09_DBFLDAU_v15.3f8b47d.html


Right from the horses mouth, a Canadian who lives with a public health system. Obama's speech on health care seems not so far out to me. Of course I am not a Republican.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 99): Quoting Baroque (Reply 97): Probably not, but I did work in Kansas for a year Did you drive a pickup truck ?

No, but I did have a colleague who had a licence to have an 0.5 calibre machine gun on the back of his truck, and he had a licence to fire bursts, from memory about 20 or 25 shots. I will leave you to work out what he was doing out in Kansas firing a heavy machine gun. Quite a good technique, but definitely a version of "only in America". We do the same thing here but a bit less dramatically, no machine gun! And don't ask me about medicine in Kansas lest I tell you!!!

Quoting DXing (Reply 92): spending on the war is finite, we know it will end

Quoting DXing (Reply 92): So you're all for wasting more money. If the program is such a financial loser then you ought to be for killing it now, heck 6 months ago.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 99): Stats show that 70% of our employment is small business ...70% ...

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 99): it should not insult you if you believe in it.

I consider myself a moderate. Voted for Bush I the first time and then got very pissed at the arrogance of his administration. Voted for Bush II the first time, but the Chaney factor and the horrid fuck up of invading Iraq turned me off. No way was I voting for

On the health care side I strongly believe that this country can do better, buy the insurance companies will pay out any amount of money to protect their income and profits. I have yet to see them move in a direction that improves the quality of care for their policy holders. It's all about money and a million dollars a day does a pretty good job fooling the masses.

And after experiencing it in Australia I do KNOW that private companies can do very well in competing in an environment with a pubic option. Australia's public option, by the way, is far larger than Obama proposed.

The US system has failed the people of this country. No question in my mind.

We consider profits more important than people.
Money more important than morality.
And Cash more important than character.

The greatness of any country lays in its people. In the area of medicine the politicians have turned their back on average people because the money from private insurance companies is far too great. Even the AMA is calling for reform, which to me indicates that they are embarrassed with today's environment.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): The US system has failed the people of this country. No question in my mind. We consider profits more important than people. Money more important than morality. And Cash more important than character. The greatness of any country lays in its people. In the area of medicine the politicians have turned their back on average people because the money from private insurance companies is far too great. Even the AMA is calling for reform, which to me indicates that they are embarrassed with today's environment.

     

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 99): Never said it was the only place ...never. But more people do it there way in the US than anywhere else . We are a nation of entrepreneurs and self determined people. Stats show that 70% of our employment is small business ...70% ...

Where do I get health insurance if I were to quit my job and start a business? Wouldn't universal coverage give people more freedom to start their own business?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 100): I think everyone had around 8-10 years in their head when the war started for a sizeable military presence, followed by a smaller force on the ground to support an alliance defence against Iran or other theats. This would be on par with previous experience, for example after WWII.

Everyone thought that? That's why Rumsfeld said on Feb. 7th of '03 "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months" , and on March 16th Cheney said “I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months“
I know it's completely off topic, but you're clearly trying to re-write history on this one.

Quoting DXing (Reply 92): One big difference, spending on the war is finite, we know it will end

When? According to Rummy, the war in Iraq was only supposed to last six months. How long have US Forces been occupying Iraq?

Quoting DXing (Reply 92): Money spent is money spent doesn't make any difference what it is spent on since it is still going out the door.

So, it is okay, in your opinion, to spend trillions of dollars in other countries for nation building, but it is unacceptable to spend even one thin dime on our own country? Where was your outrage when Bush vetoed NO speding bills? Where was your outrage when Congress rejected NO spending bills when the Republicans were in power? Why are you only outraged when the Dems want to spend money within our boarders on our own people?

Quoting Max550 (Reply 106): Everyone thought that? That's why Rumsfeld said on Feb. 7th of '03 "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months" , and on March 16th Cheney said “I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months“ I know it's completely off topic, but you're clearly trying to re-write history on this one.

The war itself, yes, but expeditionary forces would stay for a lot longer. Remember that the US and other allies had full occupation forces in Germany until 1955, 10 years after the end of the war, and garrison forces for decades after that.

However we can't deny that the fighting took a lot longer than expected. The point is that it is still a finite issue, compared to something like a social program, which never ends.

[Edited 2009-09-11 09:22:38]

Quoting Max550 (Reply 106): Where do I get health insurance if I were to quit my job and start a business?

You'll probably be like me and go with a self-employed or small company group.

That means you're giong to be paying a lot more for insurance and it won't be the same quality as large companies have.

I paid $1,000+ per month and the insurance company screwed me every time they could.

While I loved having my own little company and was sufficiently successful to plan on working as long as I could our family did pay a price when it came to medical care.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108): The point is that it is still a finite issue, compared to something like a social program, which never ends.

If you are 20 years old, or older, you can expect taxpayer payments going to Vets from the Bush War for the rest of your life. Every tax dollar you pay will have part going to pay for the mess left from the Iraq Invasion. You are still paying for WW II vets, Korean War Vets, Vietnam Vets (thank you for my monthly check) and Iraq War I vets. In terms of finite, sure - someday the new vets will all die out, but not during your working years so you might as well forget the finite side.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 106): Where do I get health insurance if I were to quit my job and start a business? Wouldn't universal coverage give people more freedom to start their own business?

It does. It's by ordinary people and for ordinary people. Don't be fooled by the moneymen folks.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 93): The U.S. insurance companies should actually be inviting people to mammographies, for instance, and giving discounts to people who take these tests.

They do. They very strongly encourage preventative care. They are aware that it keeps their costs down.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 100): Here's one of the biggest problems I have with this program. Everyone talks about a cost of around a trillion dollars over 10 years. But the program isn't expected to really kick off until 2013 (what's the significance of that year, I wonder Yeah sure), so that's the cost of only 5-6 years, not 10. And the indications from the OMB is that the spending in the following 10 years REALLY explodes, but that's beyond most people's radar screens.

Why? Why is the U.S. magically different from any European state? I'm sorry, but you have no evidence on which to make that claim.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 111): The U.S. insurance companies should actually be inviting people to mammographies, for instance, and giving discounts to people who take these tests. They do. They very strongly encourage preventative care. They are aware that it keeps their costs down.

But then I don't understand (yet another instance) why the President made a point of it at all? Do all schemes give the customers such an incentive and how much would it be in real terms?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 111): Why? Why is the U.S. magically different from any European state?

I think it's partially a question of scale. No European country is anywhere near the size and population of the US, and any federally managed program of that scale will not be nearly as well managed. I think the individual states might be able to run it better.

But apart from that, the Obamacare numbers just don't make sense. The proposed spending amounts do not tie in to either Obama's idiotically low number of 5% he said the other day, nor the massive numbers that are expected to shift to the proposed public plan due to it's low prima fascia cost. We've already decided in my company that if this goes through, all employees making less than $80K or so will be shunted over to the public option, and only higher-level employees will be kept on private insurance. Millions of small businesses will make the same choice. 5% will quickly rise to 30, 40 or 50%. Obama has no plans for that (at least not that he's made public - I believe that this is his intention all along).

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 113): I think it's partially a question of scale. No European country is anywhere near the size and population of the US, and any federally managed program of that scale will not be nearly as well managed.

Can you estimate the function for us? Would that detrimental effect be a linear one? Would an organisation of 60 millions (say France) be affected at all? Is it know to any organisatorial theorists? If the U.S. is too big to administer, would you consider selling or leasing some of it back to Russia, Mexico and France? That way the cost savings could be realized for the benefit of all.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 114): Can you estimate the function for us? Would that detrimental effect be a linear one?

I would expect it to be exponential.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 114): If the U.S. is too big to administer, would you consider selling or leasing some of it back to Russia, Mexico and France? That way the cost savings could be realized for the benefit of all.

The solution would be to decentralize - you know, how the US was supposed to be managed.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 95): You don't know what you're talking about, at all.

Then neither does the President since that is his suggestion regarding prevenitive medicine. Again, the Presidents own words:

"And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies %u2013 because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."

Please explain where he says that "preventive medicine" will be scaled to just those who are at risk. You'll also need to explain how the CBO has said that preventive medicine, as described in the scored bills, will cost more than it saves.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc...92/08-07-Prevention_PSally.1.1.htm

Dear Congressman:

This letter responds to the question you asked at a July 16, 2009, committee markup concerning the Congressional Budget Office%u2019s (CBO%u2019s) analysis of the budgetary effects of proposals to expand governmental support for preventive medical care and wellness services. Specifically, you asked whether the agency%u2019s scoring methods reflect potential reductions in federal costs from improvements in health that might result from expanded support for those activities.1

Preventive Medical Care

Preventive medical care includes services such as cancer screening, cholesterol management, and vaccines. In making its estimates of the budgetary effects of expanded governmental support for preventive care, CBO takes into account any estimated savings that would result from greater use of such care as well as the estimated costs of that additional care. Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 95): Wilson's outburst was unprecedented

   Time to read your history. Wilson's outburst was minor compared to other outbursts in Congress. Just a couple of examples both near and far. BTW, remember the rules of decorum in the House apply to everyone, all the time.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...ing_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.html

http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/debt_limit/11-16/gingrich_pm/index.html

Quoting Dvk (Reply 95): Wilson showed a clear lack of "personal responsibility", the insult you love to hurl at the drop of a hat toward anyone who doesn't ascribe to your paranoid right wing extremist views.

He apologized for his outburst but I see no reason for him to apologize for the substance behind it. The President's speech was full of lies and unsubstantiated innunedo.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 98): Sure. How long was the war in Iraq supposed to last?

We know when it is going to end, how long will health care reform last? If they could insert sunset provisions, as they did with the tax cuts, into the law regarding the public option that might make it more palatable since it would give everyone a great chance to see how crummy and expensive this legislation is.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): On the health care side I strongly believe that this country can do better, buy the insurance companies will pay out any amount of money to protect their income and profits.

Especially from unfair competition which is what the government represents.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): I have yet to see them move in a direction that improves the quality of care for their policy holders.

Insurance companies are not in charge of improving "quality of care", that is the health care professionals job. Insurance companies are the financial arm, not the operating arm.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): It's all about money and a million dollars a day does a pretty good job fooling the masses.

Same as giving how many speeches and tying up the networks in prime time how many times? How much has that cost private business for which they receive no compensation?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): The US system has failed the people of this country. No question in my mind.

The federal government has failed the people in not using the Interstate Commerce claus in the Constitution to open up insurance markets such as in Alabama where the President claims that one company controls 90% and rather than open up the State to other insurance companies he would rather only allow one, the government.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): We consider profits more important than people. Money more important than morality. And Cash more important than character.

Yet we are one of the most charitable countries on the face of the planet. With the wealthy continuing to give away large sums of cash.

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto011320081809081899

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/11/1124_biggest_givers/6.htm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): The greatness of any country lays in its people.

Yet you want to invest an extrodinary amount of new power in the governments hands.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): Even the AMA is calling for reform, which to me indicates that they are embarrassed with today's environment.

Remind me, exactly how many doctors does the AMA actually speak for? How about if I help? Less than half.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s....php?storyId=105458292&ft=1&f=1003

Long one of the lobbying titans in the halls of Congress, the AMA is now just another voice in the cacophony of medical interest groups. And while it's still the largest physician group, the AMA represents an increasingly smaller percentage of the nation's practicing physicians — about one-third, by most counts.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 107): So, it is okay, in your opinion, to spend trillions of dollars in other countries for nation building, but it is unacceptable to spend even one thin dime on our own country?

If you would spend even a little time researching your posts you wouldn't look so ridiculous. The budget of the United States is largely tilted towards two things. Paying the interest on the debt, and social service programs. The defense budget comes in a distant third.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 107): Where was

I am upset at both Republicans and democratic party led Congresses that spend recklessly. I have said that several times now, hopefully one of these times it will sink in.

The battles in Iraq and Afghanistan were neccessary IMO and no amount of your whining will change that opinion.

The stimulus bill was rushed through without proper deliberation and as we are seeing the results, or lack thereof. The health care bill represents more of the same. Rather than concentrate efforts on those areas that aren't working, pre-conditions, tort reform, portability across state lines, free market competition across state lines, expanding coverage for those at the bottom rungs of the financial ladder, Congress and the President are going to fire a shotgun blast and trash a system their very own citizens have resoundingly said they like and want to keep. He claims that he wants to "call out" people that don't agree with him in the well of the House, and yet forum members like Dvk go off the deep end when he gets some back face to face.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 115): The solution would be to decentralize - you know, how the US was supposed to be managed.

Ok, then the States only need to work together and present a scheme of decentralised healthcare. Apparently the effect of the unknown inefficiency function will be negligible between the population sizes of 5 to 60 millions, so you'd need to be split into what, five administrative public healthcare areas.

[Edited 2009-09-11 11:48:03]

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): Time to read your history

I did, and you're again comparing apples and oranges. One of your links didn't work, but Wilson's single, insulting yell of "You lie" to the President during his address to Congress is unprecedented

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): He apologized for his outburst

And the interview I saw of him afterward showed a clearly unrepentant Wilson who admitted he only apologized because the Republican leadership told him he had to.

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): The President's speech was full of lies and unsubstantiated innunedo.

Only to the eyes and ears of the paranoid extreme right.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 114): If the U.S. is too big to administer, would you consider selling or leasing some of it back to Russia, Mexico and France? That way the cost savings could be realized for the benefit of all.

   We'll take back the Pacific Northwest; anything to help a friend.

The size argument is totally bogus. Countries from 10 million to 100 million successfully run their health care systems and there's no reason why a country of 300 million can't do the same. I will agree that the states rights issues -- when there are 50 states -- could create an impossible administrative bureaucracy if each fiefdom charts its own course. But that's not insoluble either -- a federally administered system could take care of that.

Either way it doesn't matter. The US already has a monumental health bureaucracy that is largely responsible for its outrageous costs structure; it's hard to believe any reform could make that worse.

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): The battles in Iraq and Afghanistan were neccessary IMO and no amount of your whining will change that opinion.

I will never ever understand how the Iraqi invasion and occupation is neccessary, so stop telling me it is. How many times were insurgents from Iraq attacking the United States?

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): not using the Interstate Commerce claus in the Constitution to open up insurance markets such as in Alabama

Why wouldn't insurance companies offer health insurance in Alabama? Mabye because there is no profit in it? If Blue Cross or Aetna is avaliable in more than one state, I would guess they could also be available in Alabama. But, if there is no profit in being in that state, why should they? That is what this is all about, right? Free market and profits for everyone but the government?

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): I am upset at both Republicans and democratic party led Congresses that spend recklessly.

Why not call out the Republicans on it? I see a lot of whining on the right about the spending habits of the Democrats, but very little (if any) complaining about the spending habits of the right. Yes, I include you in that group.

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): Congress and the President are going to fire a shotgun blast and trash a system their very own citizens have resoundingly said they like and want to keep.

It is funny how a majority of people wanted health care reform at the beginning of this whole thing. Then, after the "death panels" lies and "government take-over" lies and all the other lies, a "majority" of people want things kept the same. Even when the lies are proven to be lies, we still get "But, but, but.... socialists!"

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): Insurance companies are not in charge of improving "quality of care", that is the health care professionals job. Insurance companies are the financial arm, not the operating arm.

When an insurance company refuses to approve payment for a treatment or test and the patient cannot afford to pay out of pocket then the insurance companies then the insurance companies ARE part of the operating arm. And some juries have fortunately let them know that they cannot always get away with their greed.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 114): Same as giving how many speeches and tying up the networks in prime time how many times? How much has that cost private business for which they receive no compensation?

No network was required to broadcast the speech. Someone broadcast the Yankee game so FlyDeltaJets87 could watch the game instead of the speech. It's pretty fair to say that networks put the speech on so most of their viewers wouldn't change channels. BFD. Sarah got more coverage when she quit the job Alaskans entrusted her with.

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): Yet we are one of the most charitable countries on the face of the planet. With the wealthy continuing to give away large sums of cash.

It is amazing how some people prop up the image of charities taking care of all problems and are horrified at paying a penny more in taxes for any reason.

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): If you would spend even a little time researching your posts you wouldn't look so ridiculous.

I only look like a fool to those who put their cash above the character of this country.

And I don't have to do much research to know how much I paid a month for health insurance. Or look a the unpaid bills to see how they work so hard to avoid payments.

Truth is that you'll only accept the hard right view point - considering everyone else a communist or socialist. Paint me anything you want - the rabid comments from your side are past having any value, no matter how many time it's repeated.

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): The defense budget comes in a distant third.

The Defense budget is still a bit of change. Compare ours to a lot of other countries, everything from carriers to iPhones for troops stuck in sandy places. The time to bring down the deficit is obviously when we are not in a recession. Bush (both, actually) could have done a better job in this regard.

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): The battles in Iraq and Afghanistan were neccessary IMO and no amount of your whining will change that opinion.

Afghanistan was, as I recall, where the terrorists were, and Iraq was where the oil was. Cheney was an oil company CEO so it makes sense that he would push for invading Iraq. Around $3 trillion estimated for a total long term cost (including care for vets) for the Iraq fuck up. A small part of that cost might have been enough to do some major actions in Afghanistan - maybe even getting the terrorists Bush led us to believe he was giong after.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 117): Ok, then the States only need to work together and present a scheme of decentralised healthcare.

Sure. More insurance company dollars going to state politicians. Add that to the money going to national politicians and yoiur premiums will increase more than the estimated 9% to 10%.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 118): Only to the eyes and ears of the paranoid extreme right.

And the white racists who hate having a man of color in the White House.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 118): I did, and you're again comparing apples and oranges.

So insults come in apples and oranges? That is an interesting point of view, some people getting insulted is not as important as another? Tell that to Professor Gates.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 118): One of your links didn't work

Somehow an l got attached to the end of the link.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...ning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm

Quoting Dvk (Reply 118): Only to the eyes and ears of the paranoid extreme right.

Guess Factcheck.org is part of the paranoid extreme right then eh?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech/

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 120): If Blue Cross or Aetna is avaliable in more than one state, I would guess they could also be available in Alabama.

   Do you ever check before you post?

https://www.bcbsal.org/plans/index.cfm

Did you bother to look into the Blue Cross Blue Shield association prior to posting?

http://www.bcbs.com/about/

Perhaps if you had you would have seen that Blue Cross Blue Shield is an association of insurers using the same common name but operating as seperate companies because of varying State regulations. The federal government could easily use the Interstate Commerce clause to even those regulations out across the country but since that would encouarge free enterprise and fair competition instead of firm government control, that would be against the democratic parties creed.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 120): Why not call out the Republicans on it?

This makes about the fifth time you've asked that in the course of several threads, how many tmes will it take for me to say I have before it sinks in?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 120): It is funny how a majority of people wanted health care reform at the beginning of this whole thing.

The majority of people still want health insurance reform, they just don't want the reform that the President and the liberals are selling.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 121): When an insurance company refuses to approve payment for a treatment or test and the patient cannot afford to pay out of pocket then the insurance companies then the insurance companies ARE part of the operating arm

Sorry but that does not wash. Failure to provide financing does not equate to actual operation.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 121): It is amazing how some people prop up the image of charities taking care of all problems and are horrified at paying a penny more in taxes for any reason.

Yes, some people actually have the audacity to believe that they know better how to spend their money than the government. Charities have their place, so do government safety net programs, but trashing an entire system simply to gain more control over ordinary peoples lives is wrong and should be opposed. The President needed to come out and acknowledge that the majority of people aren't satisfied with what Congress had offered up and it was time to scrap what has been worked up so far and start again. Instead he again tried to sucker the country into buying what a majority of the country sees as a lemon with a combination Sunday sermon and used car salesman pitch.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 121): Quoting DXing (Reply 116): If you would spend even a little time researching your posts you wouldn't look so ridiculous. I only look like a fool to those who put their cash above the character of this country.

Perhaps you missed something. Let's re-read that again.

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): Quoting Seb146 (Reply 107): So, it is okay, in your opinion, to spend trillions of dollars in other countries for nation building, but it is unacceptable to spend even one thin dime on our own country? If you would spend even a little time researching your posts you wouldn't look so ridiculous

Maybe a little clearer now?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 121): The Defense budget is still a bit of change. Compare ours to a lot of other countries

Yep, it's tough being the lead dog. Yet whenever there is a huge natural disaster in a remote area of the world who is one of the first from the international community to respond?

Quoting Arrow (Reply 119): We'll take back the Pacific Northwest; anything to help a friend.

   Make you wonder if we should not ask the Mods to add to the title, "Including the inadvertent comedy hour". If the US is too big to govern why does it keep acquiring new bits? Why should the inhabitants of Diego Garcia be kept out in the "cold"?

Quoting DXing (Reply 122): trashing an entire system simply to gain more control over ordinary peoples lives is wrong and should be opposed

You never know, you might be able to get treatment for that particular phobia under a good national health scheme.   

Quoting Baroque (Reply 123): You never know, you might be able to get treatment for that particular phobia under a good national health scheme.

And perhaps living a country where you are free to make your own choices is a bit of a mental challenge for some.   

Quoting DXing (Reply 124): Quoting Baroque (Reply 123): You never know, you might be able to get treatment for that particular phobia under a good national health scheme. And perhaps living a country where you are free to make your own choices is a bit of a mental challenge for some.

See there you go again.

Hong Kong 90.0 +0.3
2 Singapore 87.1 -0.2
3 Australia 82.6 +0.4
4 Ireland 82.2 -0.3
5 New Zealand 82.0 +1.2
6 United States 80.7 -0.3
7 Canada 80.5 +0.3
8 Denmark 80.0 +0.4
9 Switzerland 79.4 -0.1
10 United Kingdom 79.0 -0.5

http://www.heritage.org/Index/

Somewhere between             a    and OOOOPS.

You really ought to make an appointment. Might be getting worse or even perhaps worser which is three times at least as bad as worse.

Quoting DXing (Reply 122): Sorry but that does not wash. Failure to provide financing does not equate to actual operation.

If you don'r have the money to pay out of pocket when your insurance company says "No" then the insurance company IS making the decision on the treatment or test you receive. That is operational. Ask any doctor who has butted their head against the wall over insurance "decisions"

Quoting DXing (Reply 122): Yep, it's tough being the lead dog.

It's tougher having the financial hind teat in the area of medicine for the people of this country.

Quoting DXing (Reply 124): And perhaps living a country where you are free to make your own choices is a bit of a mental challenge for some.

Dude, I can assure you that the Aussies have as much freedom as you and I. Don't know where you got the idea that there was a dictatorship Down Under, but you obviously know little about daily life there.

In the area of Medicine the FDA here has delayed your doctor's freedom to provide medications, tests and equipment until other advanced countries. Cpaps are a great example, as is the test for bacteria when you have an ulcer. Both, by the way, are Australian discoveries.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 125): See there you go again.

Yep, the devil is in the details. Comparing the two countries the U.S. comes up short in four areas to Australia.

Government size.

"Total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, are high. Government spending has been rising and in the most recent year equaled 36.7 percent of GDP. Stimulus measures passed in the second half of 2008 promised to push government spending significantly higher"



Monetary freedom.

"Five points were deducted from the U.S. monetary freedom score to account for policies that distort domestic prices. Government interventions in late 2008 in housing and financial markets pointed to substantially increased price distortions in the future."


Financial freedom.

"Government interventions in financial markets in the second half of 2008, including purchase of assets and measures affecting the allocation of credit, if not rapidly undone, indicate a serious loss of financial freedom that will lower future U.S. economic freedom scores.

Corruption speaks for itself given the amount of our political leaders in just the past two years that have been charged with corruption.


Once again it appears that our own government does us in. Yet somehow some people believe that if we just give that same government a little more power all will be right.   

Before I forget, according to the link we lead Australia in business, trade, fiscal, and labor freedom. Seems to me that based on that, if you discount our lousy government, you are more free to pursue your goals in the United States than Australia.

In addition, according to the link you provided, one of the main reasons Australia scored so well?

http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Australia

"Australia's economic freedom score is 82.6, making its economy the 3rd freest in the 2009 Index. Its overall score is 0.4 point higher than last year, primarily reflecting improvement in fiscal freedom as a result of recently implemented tax cuts."

How about that!!! Evil tax cuts!!! Maybe we can learn something from Australia!      

BTW, how could I have forgotten:

http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030001a/overh...0compulsory%20voting%20article.htm

Now that's freedom!   

Quoting DXing (Reply 127): BTW, how could I have forgotten: http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030001a/overh...0compulsory%20voting%20article.htm Now that's freedom!

You don't actually have to vote in Australia - you just have to show up at a polling place on Election Day, or provide an excuse (illness, travel, etc.). Or you can just pay the $20 AUD fine.

Quoting DXing (Reply 127): Once again it appears that our own government does us in. Yet somehow some people believe that if we just give that same government a little more power all will be right.

Baroque's link is from the Heritage Foundation - hardly an unbiased arbiter of what constitutes freedom.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 126): If you don'r have the money to pay out of pocket when your insurance company says "No" then the insurance company IS making the decision on the treatment or test you receive.

When does the building begin, before, or after the financing is in place? Does the quality of the building depend on the financing or the construction worker? Regardless, you said:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): On the health care side I strongly believe that this country can do better, buy the insurance companies will pay out any amount of money to protect their income and profits. I have yet to see them move in a direction that improves the quality of care for their policy holders. It's all about money and a million dollars a day does a pretty good job fooling the masses.

Quality of care is not the insurance companies responsibility. It is up to the policy holder to find a doctor or hospital that suits their definition of "quality" within the defined limits or network of their policy. That still does not stop an ordinary citizen with the means to afford it, the choice to pick what they choose and pay the difference. You cannot accurately predict at this time that that choice will remain under a government run option.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 126): It's tougher having the financial hind teat in the area of medicine for the people of this country.

And yet the entire problem could be solved without the federal government getting involved outside of regulatory changes.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 126): Dude, I can assure you that the Aussies have as much freedom as you and I.

Never said they didn't. But as Barouge's link has shown, it appears that here in the United States we do have more freedom in some areas. I said that in this country you are free to make your own choices (obviously refering to health care) evidently, even as you have described previously, more so than they do in Australia.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 126): Don't know where you got the idea that there was a dictatorship Down Under, but you obviously know little about daily life there.

Did I mention a dictatorship or even intone that?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 126): In the area of Medicine the FDA here has delayed your doctor's freedom to provide medications, tests and equipment until other advanced countries.

And exactly what orginization does the FDA belong too? And yet you still want to give them even more power over you.   

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 128): You don't actually have to vote in Australia - you just have to show up at a polling place on Election Day, or provide an excuse (illness, travel, etc.). Or you can just pay the $20 AUD fine.

And as you well know, in this country you don't have to do either. The freedom to ignore a right is just as important as excersising it. That certainly is not the responsible thing to do as a citizen, but one of the hardest hit things in our country over the past 50 years has been just that, personal responsibility.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 128): Baroque's link is from the Heritage Foundation - hardly an unbiased arbiter of what constitutes freedom.

Nevertheless, it is the link he provided.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 113): I think it's partially a question of scale.

No it's not. More people=more tax revenue. The economy of scale does not change when you go from 60 million to 250 million.

It is a question of spending 57% of our taxes on a bloated and unnecessary military that no other industrialized nation seems to think is necessary. We could carve out less than 10% of that budget and provide excellent healthcare to every U.S. Citizen and legal resident alien without increasing taxes a dime.

But, for some reason, this country seems to think that keeping an absurdly large number of SSBN's operational is more important.

Quoting DXing (Reply 129): it appears that here in the United States we do have more freedom in some areas.

But less in others, like needing to stay "in network" when selecting doctors, or not receiving the full benefit you pay cash out for.

Quoting DXing (Reply 129): I said that in this country you are free to make your own choices (obviously refering to health care) evidently, even as you have described previously, more so than they do in Australia.

Actually Australians have one huge freedom that we lack. They can opt for the government program (Medicare) if they don't want to pay out money for private care. Everyone pays the Medicare Tax, but some people prefer private insurance. The main difference? You can go to a private hospital for care, but often get taken care of by the same doctor as a Medicare doctor.

The Aussies also had the freedom to use a cpap at night or have laparoscopic surgery or be given antibiotics for bacteria causing ulcers BEFORE we could get it in the US. We eventually got those freedoms, but only after the Aussies had them for a fairly long time.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 131): But less in others, like needing to stay "in network" when selecting doctors, or not receiving the full benefit you pay cash out for.

As I explained, if you have the means you don't need to stay in network and there are polices available tht allow you to pick your own doctor. It's all in what you want to pay for.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 131): We eventually got those freedoms, but only after the Aussies had them for a fairly long time.

Again, because of whom? And yet you still insist that giving the government more power wll some how resolve this.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 130): No it's not. More people=more tax revenue. The economy of scale does not change when you go from 60 million to 250 million.

Sure it does for not all of those people are paying the same rate in tax. Some are paying none and others are paying max. There is only one way to remedy that, everyone pays a higher rate.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 130): But, for some reason, this country seems to think that keeping an absurdly large number of SSBN's operational is more important.

There are only 18 Ohio class boomers. They are the best way to insure the survivability of a nuclear force.

You know, some countries are not sitting still militarily.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 130): No it's not. More people=more tax revenue. The economy of scale does not change when you go from 60 million to 250 million.

Let's take the state of New York, for example - hardly a state known for efficient government, but it has its own income tax system. 20 million people in New York, and the best number I can get for the New York Department of Tax and Finance (I guess a combination of the Treasury and the IRS on the state level) is under 5,000 people, or 4000 population per employee.

The IRS alone employs about 115,000 people for 300 million people. That is one employee per 2600 population. In addition, there is the well known use by the IRS of outside, contract labor - I haven't been able to get a number on them,

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 130): It is a question of spending 57% of our taxes on a bloated and unnecessary military that no other industrialized nation seems to think is necessary.

Our military represents 20% of the federal budget (2007 - the last year we have complete numbers not polluted by bailouts etc.) Social services, medicare and other such social programs made up 67%, not counting another 21% for Social Security (more than the military) which is considered "off-budget".

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf

You might want to check your sources.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 128): Baroque's link is from the Heritage Foundation - hardly an unbiased arbiter of what constitutes freedom.

A study made with the Wall Street Journal. I looked at the methodology, and it looks like a pretty carefully done study, as these studies go.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 134): The IRS alone employs about 115,000 people for 300 million people. That is one employee per 2600 population

Your number seems to assume that the IRS only works on individual tax returns.

How about business taxes?

Did your research exclude every business from one man companies to the largest corporations?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 134): You might want to check your sources.

 

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 135): Your number seems to assume that the IRS only works on individual tax returns. How about business taxes?

Are you saying that states don't tax businesses?

Perhaps you should not have brought up that subject, because the states not only get tax returns from businesses within the state, but any company in any state that sells a service or widget in their state. My little Kentucky-based company has to file tax returns in about 20 states. By comparison, business taxes on a federal level are simple.

So by bringing up business taxation, you've made the federal/state efficiency differentiation even more obvious. Thank you.

Quoting DXing (Reply 133): There are only 18 Ohio class boomers. They are the best way to insure the survivability of a nuclear force. You know, some countries are not sitting still militarily.

Then explain to me why we are the ONLY country with such a force. Who were we going to be using it against?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 137): Then explain to me why we are the ONLY country with such a force. Who were we going to be using it against?

Russia and China are both building new classes of SSBNs. Ours are 20-30 years old and we have no plans to replace them (luckily the Ohio class was ahead of their time when they were built).

It is funny, after reading all this blather, including my own. I just watched the movie the "Rainmaker" from 1997. It covered this argument quite well about Insurance Companies and their practices, and of course Lawyers for those companies. I even mentions Tort Reform. Imagine that.

Quoting DXing (Reply 132): As I explained, if you have the means you don't need to stay in network and there are polices available tht allow you to pick your own doctor.

WIth insurance premiums the way they are a lot of people can only afford what's available in network. Finding out who are the best docs doesn't matter when the insurance won't pay the price.

Maybe we need to make "networks" illegal. That will add freedom to the medical world very quickly.

Quoting DXing (Reply 132): Again, because of whom? And yet you still insist that giving the government more power wll some how resolve this.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 136): So by bringing up business taxation, you've made the federal/state efficiency differentiation even more obvious. Thank you.

When you're talking about the IRS manning levels per individual it distorts manning levels. Some of the 115,000 work on the business side, which your numbers didn't include.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 140): Maybe we need to make "networks" illegal. That will add freedom to the medical world very quickly

A few years ago, the wife of a friend of mine had kidney cancer, they went to Yale Medical which was out of the network, our insurance through the company refused to pay. He went through hell trying to get the bill paid. The only way it was finally settled is the company applied pressure to the insurance company to pay. Without the company stepping in, he was screwed.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 137): Then explain to me why we are the ONLY country with such a force. Who were we going to be using it against?

We are not the "only" country with such a force.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/faq.html

Many of these submarines are longer than a football field. Great Britain, France, China, and Russia operate nuclear-powered submarines. These and many other countries also operate small numbers of diesel or conventionally-powered submarines. In all, 43 countries operate over 600 submarines. The country with the largest number of submarines is Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_submarines

Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN)
Ballistic missile submarines are larger than any other type of submarine, in order to accommodate ballistic missiles and more importantly the ability to operate nuclear warheads.

Type 092 submarine China
Triomphant class submarine France
Advanced Technology Vessel / Arihant India
Akula Russia
Vanguard class submarine United Kingdom
Ohio Class Submarine United States

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 140): WIth insurance premiums the way they are a lot of people can only afford what's available in network. Finding out who are the best docs doesn't matter when the insurance won't pay the price.

First where can I find the source material for what people can afford. Second who the best doctor is, is subjective and has no relevance to price. If a persons perceives that their doctor is good, they will keep coming back.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 140): Maybe we need to make "networks" illegal. That will add freedom to the medical world very quickly.

Fine, that can be accomplished by using the Interstate Commerce claus to eliminate State regulations regarding the selling of insurance. No need for any other government intrevention save a list of regulations. As an example, lasik eye surgery. Considered cosmetic under most circumstances and not covered by many insurance plans. What used to cost many thousands of dollars per eye has dropped steadily over the years. Why? Because of government intrevention? Hardly. It's because people have to pay, in most cases, out of their own pockets and thus the industry realizes that in order to stay in business and keep attracting new customers, since it is supposedly a one time procedure, they have to make the price affordable. I can get lasik done in probably any State in the Union, buying health insurance should be the same. If it were the price would have only one way to go. And no need for anyone to give up anymore power over their lives to the government.

Quoting DXing (Reply 122): The majority of people still want health insurance reform, they just don't want the reform that the President and the liberals are selling.

Here we go again with the right changing history. What really happened is: People origionally wanted reform. But, since the right-wing talking head were not spearheading that campaign (they wanted to make themselves look good), they decided to just attack what they believed (and lead their minions to believe) is the only health care legislation out there. That is where the whole "You are a Nazi" and "death panels" and "illegals will get full coverage" lies came from.

Quoting DXing (Reply 122): Did you bother to look into the Blue Cross Blue Shield association prior to posting?

The original statement, if you bother to check for yourself, is:

Quoting DXing (Reply 116): open up insurance markets such as in Alabama where the President claims that one company controls 90%

Either they do or they don't. Who is the major corporation selling health insurance in Alabama? How much do they control? Did you check the president's facts?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 134): A study made with the Wall Street Journal. I looked at the methodology, and it looks like a pretty carefully done study, as these studies go.

I'm not criticizing the study's methodology, but rather its choice of what to study. The Heritage Foundation picked a limited set of metrics on which to judge economic freedom in a country; additionally, there are other aspects to freedom that are not economic. This doesn't mean the study is bad, only that one must recognize that any measure of freedom is heavily influenced by how the researchers chose to define freedom.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 140): When you're talking about the IRS manning levels per individual it distorts manning levels. Some of the 115,000 work on the business side, which your numbers didn't include.

What's your point? I compared NY State tax manpower against the IRS, business and individual all included. You just can't admit you're wrong, can you?

Quoting DXing (Reply 142): Second who the best doctor is, is subjective and has no relevance to price.

It's interesting to see how people determine who is a good doctor.

Some people like the one that pat them on their back.

Fortunately with my wire's experience in medicine we have been able to know the doctors who have the best outcomes - not a bad criteria.

Nurses in hospitals generally have an idea of who their family goes to and who they don't.

Those without the experience or contacts miss out on that information.

So they call the help line at the local hospital or a recommendation?

And get the names of docs that drop presents by that call center?

Or they take a gamble on a doc because they are "in network", meaning they have negotiated customers by giving a discount?

Quoting DXing (Reply 127): Now that's freedom!

You just never know when or how to admit you are wrong DX do you?

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 128): You don't actually have to vote in Australia - you just have to show up at a polling place on Election Day, or provide an excuse (illness, travel, etc.). Or you can just pay the $20 AUD fine.

Zackerly. For those you do not understand it is a compulsion to vote for those who do understand it is not that at all. However it does mean that valid votes are usually over about 95%. Not getting governed by unrepresentative swill (to borrow a phrase from Paul Keating) is a freedom you probably don't understand DX although I suspect Yellowstone does and I know Ken777 does.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 128): Baroque's link is from the Heritage Foundation - hardly an unbiased arbiter of what constitutes freedom.

Also zackerly. Like getting governed by a group that gets more than about 25% of the vote is real handy! But I used Heritage F as it showed he was sunk even with his own petard.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 131): Actually Australians have one huge freedom that we lack. They can opt for the government program (Medicare) if they don't want to pay out money for private care. Everyone pays the Medicare Tax, but some people prefer private insurance. The main difference? You can go to a private hospital for care, but often get taken care of by the same doctor as a Medicare doctor.

Indeed we can.

Quoting DXing (Reply 132): Again, because of whom? And yet you still insist that giving the government more power will some how resolve this.

Well first because of Aus scientists, one of whom was brave - or was it FREE - enough to test the cure on himself. Then because those in government were quick on the uptake. But having Nobel laureates is not the sort of thing you would expect for a society that is so frozen by its lack of freedom.

Getting to the facts of the matter, as Ken777 rather hints, the very suggestion that Australians, above most countries, lack freedom is totally risible. Herding cats is one phrase that comes to mind. And you obviously have never met Australian humour.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 131): Actually Australians have one huge freedom that we lack. They can opt for the government program (Medicare) if they don't want to pay out money for private care.

As polled a majority of Americans don't consider that to be a "freedom" under the current proposed legislation.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 143): The original statement, if you bother to check for yourself, is:

OK, Lets check it:

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 120): 1. Why wouldn't insurance companies offer health insurance in Alabama? 2. Mabye because there is no profit in it? 3. If Blue Cross or Aetna is avaliable in more than one state, I would guess they could also be available in Alabama. But, if there is no profit in being in that state, why should they? That is what this is all about, right? 4. Free market and profits for everyone but the government?

1. Why woudn't they offer it? Because of State regulations. That's the main reason in all the States. There used to be similar situation when it came to air carriers. Certain carriers dominiated certain regions due to regulations. That changed without a "government" owned airline being started, so can health insurance. As matter of fact the two times the government has gotten into the transportation business its failed miserably, Conrail and Amtrack.


2. If there is no profit in it then Ken777's major argument is out the window. Again, it is regulation.

3. I think I made this clear, if you had bothered to check you would have known this. But, to further you education:

http://www.decaturdaily.com/detail/43144.html

There are a number of interesting items in the article.

4. The government is not and should not be a profit making entity.

So again, if you had checked prior to posting you would have had your answer.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 143): Either they do or they don't. Who is the major corporation selling health insurance in Alabama? How much do they control? Did you check the president's facts?

Yes, and guess what? As usual he overestimated and presented an innacurate picture, like a lot of other thing in that speech. From the link above:

Koko Makin, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama’s vice president and corporate secretary, said the company provides coverage for about 75 percent of consumers who have health insurance here. But Blue Cross also administers the AllKids insurance program for needy children, and others not in the official number.

The president’s estimate is close to the American Medical Association’s 2008 market share figure of 89 percent for Blue Cross in Alabama

So the real number is somewhere between 75 and 89 percent. The President said almost 90%. What is there to say that it isn't almost 74%? The real question should have been why is it over 50%. I bet the answer is regulation.

The article also gives numbers for surrounding States.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 146): Or they take a gamble on a doc because they are "in network", meaning they have negotiated customers by giving a discount?

My network lists plenty of doctors. If they were all bad I have a feeling some enterprising reporter would be picking up on it. Again, "good" is subjective, even among nurses.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 147): You just never know when or how to admit you are wrong DX do you?

Wrong? When I showed how your own link proves two points, that the government is source of any "lack" of freedom we have and that a big reason Australia was ahead of the United States is the one thing liberal harp on all the time, namely tax cuts? I take that wrong then.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 147): Also zackerly. Like getting governed by a group that gets more than about 25% of the vote is real handy! But I used Heritage F as it showed he was sunk even with his own petard.

Yep, and that    blew up in your face. If we could get a group of politicians that realize, like yours, that tax cuts benefit everyone, not just the rich then I'd happily let them govern.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 147): Getting to the facts of the matter, as Ken777 rather hints, the very suggestion that Australians, above most countries, lack freedom is totally risible.

I never said Australia lacked freedom, I said that we have more and I think I showed that using your own link. The mandatory voting law would be another example. No matter what the fine or enforcement, the law is still on the books. You are not as free if the government is mandating by law what is supposed to be a fundemental right of self determination.

Quoting DXing (Reply 148): 1. Why woudn't they offer it? Because of State regulations. That's the main reason in all the States. There used to be similar situation when it came to air carriers. Certain carriers dominiated certain regions due to regulations. That changed without a "government" owned airline being started, so can health insurance. As matter of fact the two times the government has gotten into the transportation business its failed miserably, Conrail and Amtrack.

Because it was set up to fail. Amtrak can't run successfully if it can't invest in its own infrastructure.

In every other country that has started government-run transport systems, like Spain, France, England, Germany, Belgium, Australia, Japan, Korea, etc. the systems work fine.

Quoting DXing (Reply 148): I never said Australia lacked freedom, I said that we have more

And that shows what a closed-minded chauvanist you are.