On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Like I said drugs are a seperate issue. I believe they all should be > legalized fyi but that is not the discussion here. > > And yes I do believe in States' Rights superceding thsoe of the Feds > in many cases. But you are diverging your argument. When I say > "government" it is an inclusive word, meaning Federal, State, Local. > I'm sorry that the constitution is not set up that way... that it does not fit your definition nor allow for its use. > > Is your argument that the Federal government should not reform health > care, or that no government should do it? > The Federal government in all its wisdom is the very organization that is not allowing competition across state lines.... Insurance, if it to be more than simply regulated, is a state issue. > > And I wish I didn't get taxed at all. But a lot of people miss the > bigger issue here. I will make a couple points: > 1.The U.S. population growth rate is slowing. > > Despite these large increases in the number of persons in the > population, the rate of population growth, referred to as the average > annual percent change,1 is projected to decrease during the next six > decades by about 50 percent, from 1.10 between 1990 and 1995 to 0.54 > between 2040 and 2050. The decrease in the rate of growth is > predominantly due to the aging of the population and, consequently, a > dramatic increase in the number of deaths. From 2030 to 2050, the > United States would grow more slowly than ever before in its history. > http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html > > 2. The U.S. labor force is diminishing > Over the 2006-16 decade, total employment is projected to increase > by > 15.6 million jobs, or 10 percent, slightly less than the 15.9 million > jobs, > or 12 percent, during the 1996-2006 decade. The labor force filling > these > jobs, while becoming more racially and ethnically diverse, is > projected to > grow more slowly than in the past. This slowdown in the growth of > the > labor force is expected, in part, because of the aging and retiring of > baby > boomers. As a result, the need to replace workers who retire or leave > the > labor force for other reasons--called replacement needs--is projected > to > create a significant number of additional job openings. > http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm > > 3.Employer Provided insurance is declining(slightly) > Within these figures, the proportion covered by employment based > schemes went down from 60.2 per cent in 2005 to 59.7 per cent in 2006, > as did the proportion covered by government schemes which decreased > from 27.3 per cent in 2005 to 27.0 per cent in 2006. > > > It's not about Uncle Sam digging his greedy hands into your > pocketbook. It's about a healthy and educated American Workforce. We > need every able-bodied person to be healthy enough to continue to > work. Otherwise taxes will have to be increased on the rest of us that > can work. So either we pay a little more now and have a better country > for it, or we put it off and pay more later and have a worse country > for it. U.S. citizens are going to have to pay this bill at some time, > and the Right can rant and rave all they want about "no taxes" but it > is unavoidable. > > You can't stick your head in the sand and hope this problem will go > away. It's bigger than your measely pay check with an added $10 in > taxes taken out, it's about the future of our country. > I feel local government is far more reactive to the needs of the people it serves than the Feds ever were or could be and history has proven that to be true time after time. The feds have enumerated powers and duties.... every time they have overstepped those powers and duties without the permission of the states (read constitutional ammendment) they have fucked the duck nand caused more pain that in turn requires (at least in their mind) more of the never ending ciccle jerk of bad management, interference and cost over-runs. It is why the states allow people to move freely about, to establish domicile in whichever state they feel is most suited to them. When everything is under fed control you will soon find that the Fed will gain boldness and tellyou that this freedom no longer exists. You are correct... it is about the future of the nation... the nation of 50 separate states with each having something different to offer it citizens and each having the absolute freedom to do so. > > On Oct 2, 11:20 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > No, government is sworn to defend against enemies foreign and domestic. > now > > you are mixing the rights of states under the constitution with those > > enumerated duties of the feds. > > > > Has government cured the woes of drugs, alchohol, or health care in its > MANY > > attempts or has it just muddied the waters and caused pricing to be out > of > > control ?? > > > > In its many efforts to ban alchohol, drugs and guns it has built criminal > > organizations that rival the police forces.... and left the general > public > > more and more helpless. > > > > In its many attempts at general population healthcare it has fostered a > > system of graft and corruption that had a bigger bottom line than General > > Motors last year (and this). > > > > Show me one unqualified governmental success in dealing with a SOCIAL > > problem..... > > > > there is NO right for my neighbor to see one dime of my money paying for > HIS > > healthcare. > > > > I do have a right to openly (and proudly) carry a weapon. > > > > yet Government has these two reversed in its efforts..... > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:37 AM, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think you meant "why can a foreigner use." And actually the > > > Government does regulate drugs and alcohol (but that's a serperate > > > issue). Our Government was forbade from regulating religion, and they > > > do regulate health care currently. The debate here is about reforming > > > the system. > > > > > And yes healthcare is a social issue, right along with education and > > > crime. > > > > > Dictionary: so·ci·e·tal (sə-sī'ĭ-tl) > > > > > Of or relating to the structure, organization, or functioning of > > > society. > > > > > And point is you said Government has never been able to, and should > > > not regulate social problems, which is an outright lie. Fixing these > > > problems is the very basis of Government: To address social issues, > > > and fight off invading armies. > > > > > On Oct 2, 1:15 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > social problems as defined by common usage in todays political > climate. > > > > > > healthcare > > > > alchohol/drug abuse > > > > religious expression > > > > > > are Social, but not necessarily Societal problems. > > > > > > why is a fucking foreigner can use and apply the language and its > petty > > > > political di(e)ffereces used in your country better than you can. > > > > > > Please TRY to stay in the context of your own political atmosphere. > > > > > > I can have a social problem without it ever, in any concievable way, > > > being > > > > considered a societal problem. > > > > > > illiteracy pisses me off..... > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:26 PM, LimboIndo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Government is NOT a cure for any social ailments. It has NEVER > solved > > > a > > > > > > single social problem. It has never solved a single problem. > > > > > > > Do you honestly believe this? This is your idea of a valid > argument, > > > > > making completely ludicrous statements that aren't even in the > realm > > > > > of reality? Government is a SOCIAL system INVENTED to solve SOCIAL > > > > > PROBLEMS. Solving social problems is the PURPOSE of Government. > Read > > > > > the greats Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, all referred to a SOCIAL > CONTRACT. > > > > > Crime, Safety, Order are all Social problems. > > > > > > > so·cial (sshl) > > > > > adj. > > > > > 1. > > > > > a. Living together in communities. > > > > > b. Of or relating to communal living. > > > > > c. Of or relating to human society and its modes of organization: > > > > > social classes; social problems; a social issue. > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 10:42 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Again, you miss the points made as you are all wrapped up in > > > semantics > > > > > and > > > > > > phraseology without bothering to hear the point made. > > > > > > > > In a nutshell: > > > > > > > > Government is NOT a cure for any social ailments. It has NEVER > solved > > > a > > > > > > single social problem. It has never solved a single problem. > > > > > > > > Health care and access to it ARE social ailments. There is no > > > "perfect" > > > > > > system". Someone will always be left out. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:28 PM, LimboIndo <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We are debating the need for health care reform based on health > > > care. > > > > > > > Not government waste, not government corruption, not crooked > > > > > > > politicians, not if it rains too much in Seattle. > > > > > > > > > As I've said before please argue if we need health care reform > > > based > > > > > > > on our current health care system. If there is a need, then the > > > means > > > > > > > to address it must be discussed. If you think our health care > > > system > > > > > > > is fine the way it is, I would ask you why you thought so. It > costs > > > > > > > more than any other place in the world, it is no better than > > > average > > > > > > > based on rankings of World Health Orginizations, and its > current > > > lack > > > > > > > of universal coverage potentially exposes the broader > population to > > > > > > > epidemics. Not to mention a healthier work force is better for > our > > > > > > > economy. > > > > > > > > > *Not directed at you frank, but I wish everyone would look up > two > > > very > > > > > > > important terms: "Red Herring, and Straw Man" > > > > > > > > > Please stop making these types of arguments, they are > fallacious in > > > > > > > there composition and not valid. Please make valid arguments. > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 8:14 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Surely you don't think that the Government does not commit > > > wasteful > > > > > > > spending? > > > > > > > > > > Of course not and that's the point. Fraud and waste are not > going > > > > > away > > > > > > > > anytime soon. Too many people who make policy have their > hands in > > > the > > > > > > > > cookie jar. Yet you fail to account for this when you argue; > "If > > > we > > > > > > > > can get everyone Health Care without more taxes, without > > > healthcare > > > > > > > > quality going down and without healthcare costs going up, > what is > > > the > > > > > > > > problem?" At the end of the day you guys keep forgetting > > > *someone* > > > > > has > > > > > > > > to pay for this. If you think the government will be able to > > > achieve > > > > > > > > healthcare nirvana without raising taxes then I have a bridge > to > > > sell > > > > > > > > you. > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 3:40 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Fraud and waste, emphasis on waste. Surely you don't think > that > > > the > > > > > > > > > Government does not commit wasteful spending? Why haven't > they > > > done > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > yet? Who knows? Most likely Politicians afraid to rock the > boat > > > and > > > > > > > > > stop pandering to swing voters, or politicians with > millions or > > > > > > > > > hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from > > > > > insurance/ > > > > > > > > > medical companies (like most of the ones trying to the > block > > > the > > > > > > > > > reform). > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 12:45 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we can get > > > > > > > > > > > everyone Health Care without more taxes, without > healthcare > > > > > quality > > > > > > > > > > > going down and without healthcare costs going up, what > is > > > the > > > > > > > problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds great, now prove it can be done. The CBO doesn’t > seem > > > to > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > it will work. Common sense says it won’t work. A > significant > > > > > portion > > > > > > > > > > of the funding supposedly will come from the elimination > of > > > fraud > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > waste in the current system. Exactly how that will be > done is > > > > > still a > > > > > > > > > > black box secret and one that most believe can’t be done. > And > > > if > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > can be done, why isn’t it being done today? After all, > the > > > > > biggest > > > > > > > > > > single complaint with the current system is cost, and if > you > > > can > > > > > > > > > > eliminate fraud and waste you can reduce cost. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 12:16 pm, LimboIndo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to Plain'ol > > > > > > > > > > > > > It depends on what you mean by "efficient?" It is > dangerous > > > to > > > > > > > confuse > > > > > > > > > > > "efficiency" with "what is best for the American > people." > > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to MJ-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > What reforms have Government instituted thus far? This > is > > > the > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > > proposal of a major (emphasis major)reform of health > care > > > > > > > instituted > > > > > > > > > > > by the Government that has ever been proposed, to my > > > knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to the snippet about socialist, government > > > etc... > > > > > > > > > > > It would appear Mr. Bastiat confuses a Democratic > Society > > > and > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > other Society. In Democracy the people are the > government. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And it seems both of you have danced around the > question. > > > "If > > > > > we > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > > > everyone Health Care without more taxes, without > healthcare > > > > > quality > > > > > > > > > > > going down and without healthcare costs going up, what > is > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > problem?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no problem with the ideal, then we need to > work > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > details of how to implement it. If you do have a > problem > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > ideal, then your problem might be larger than you > suspect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 9:06 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LimboIndo > > > > > > > > > > > > But is healthcare reform the right thing to do > for > > > our > > > > > > > country? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MJ > > > > > > > > > > > > You presume that Government -- who gave us 'reform' > after > > > > > > > > > > > > 'reform' after 'reform' that put us *in* this mess in > the > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > > > place -- is the appropriate facilitator for this > > > so-called > > > > > > > 'reform'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless Government > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
