The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

You are still saying that medical coverage is earned. That certain people do not deserve to have it. That certain people should go bankrupt when they get sick.

I completely disagree. Where did I say certain people deserve not to have it? I said that putting another 40 million people on some form of government assistance overwhelms the system and creates an immediate shortage, which harms EVERYONE.

As far as a moral high ground....your level of judgmentalism is astounding. I think the corruption of the political system and the imminent collapse of government programs like medicare and social security are great examples of why this is a travesty and will never work. I'd like to see something work. I don't think this is it. As Obama said when not on the teleprompter - "Look at Fed Ex and UPS - they're doing all right. It's the postal service that's ahving all the trouble." Another goverment run program doing horribly. I thought it hillarious when Obama said something to the effect of "Medicare is failing, so we need a different government program to step in". Ludicrous.

Why, when the government is running a 1.6 trillion deficit, and the CBO says this will not save money and in fact may raise the deficit, would I trust them? As a disclaimer, everyone here is well aware (or should be) of how disgusted I was with Bush and the way he spent money. It isn't an Obama thing, it's a government thing. I was against Bush's perscritpion drug program as well.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

As Obama said when not on the teleprompter - "Look at Fed Ex and UPS - they're doing all right. It's the postal service that's ahving all the trouble."

Link?

Not that it's untrue, FedEx and UPS aren't struggling like the USPS is. Maybe the postal system should be privatized. I get all the packages sent via FedEx and UPS but I don't get all the mail sent via USPS.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I completely disagree. Where did I say certain people deserve not to have it? I said that putting another 40 million people on some form of government assistance overwhelms the system and creates an immediate shortage, which harms EVERYONE.

I'm saying, if it will take some growing pains to get to a point where every American has health care, then it's worth it.

Right now, there are people without care, without options. People who go broke due to medical problems. For them, the current situation is more harmful than any possible shortages. When you say it harms EVERYONE, you mean EVERYONE WHO HAS CURRENT INSURANCE, which again cuts out those who are not as fortunate as you and I. I retain my point.

I think the corruption of the political system and the imminent collapse of government programs like medicare and social security are great examples of why this is a travesty and will never work. I'd like to see something work.

If you want to talk about the imminent collapse of gov't programs, please provide a link. If you want to talk about funding the programs, that's a whole other question. But if you want to talk about programs that work...

Medicare works. The satisfaction with Medicare is higher than satisfaction with private insurance.

(Full disclosure, I got the chart from this opinion piece, but the chart is from data from the US Dept of Health & Human Services.)

Social Security does what it's supposed to do - keep people above the poverty line. It was never meant to be a retirement parachute. It keeps the elderly off the streets.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

If you want to talk about the imminent collapse of gov't programs, please provide a link. If you want to talk about funding the programs, that's a whole other question.

I guess this is where we won't agree. I see running out of funding as a imminent collapse. You see it as a need for more funding.

So the government can just take more and more and more to keep funding this stuff.

What do you think will happen when social security can no longer be funded? The only choice is to once increase taxes.

Look at the Obama example of the post office. They run out of money, they raise the cost of a postage stamp, yet they still run huge deficits. How will this vary from what will happen with any medical programs? It won't. In fact, it doesn't. It appears as if you admit to financial insolvency of SS and medicare, but I suppose if we keep throwing more money at it it wil be fine. This is what happens with all government programs.

[wendybeth]

I think the message that keeps getting lost in all this is that health care reform largely depends on negotiating with the various entities that are driving the costs out of control. I suspects you base your assertions of the price of universal access to health care on current costs, Scaeagles, would that be accurate? Other countries pay far less for pharmaceuticals and equipment, which drives down the costs of testing and care in general. We not only subsidize those without healthcare in our country at present, but the world as well. Most of the medical companies charge us outrageous prices, all because they can. It's interesting that some of the most promising research into cures for diseases and syndromes occurs in countries where the healthcare systems are heavily regulated. It would seem that even without the profit motive, researchers and other medical personnel are still motivated to come to the aid of their fellow human beings.

[wendybeth]

Wow- pretty subversive stuff. It's ironic that parents are keeping their kids home, given the main theme of the speech: Obama's Speech to Schoolchildren .