CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Your world? No - I'm no where near your dream world. UHC would be a HUGE failure in our society and gov't structure just as other gov't run social welfare programs have been and are. I've suggested my "fix" for this, but like I've said - it won't work because if you give the gov't an inch - they take a mile. Until the gov't can prove it can be responsible with our money and such - I do not condone it basically running/taking over our healthcare system.
I've been frustrated with gov't SPENDING for years - seems NONE of the politician really want to address that problem.
CkG
I agree that universal health care is going nowhere. America is a country of 300 million people, 90% of which have health insurance within the existing framework. Trying to introduce a system which would change the system for all those people is impossible - it would be huge, expensive, and quality of care would certainly suffer for the transition period - and probably even afterwards, due to the beurocracy and inefficiency that I am certain would go with it.
However, I do not suscribe to the position that the 10% who are uninsured lack coverage only because they don't think they will need it. Health coverage is expensive when you are making low wages. The national average monthly premium for a family is $588. (source) Thats over $7000 a year. That is a huge chunk of change when you are dealing with even the bottom quarter of houshold incomes. If your employer does not provide coverage, then you can see why millions remain uninsured.
I think that adressing this problem is a good idea; I also think that it would be a very complicated issue - not impossinle, but it would have to be thought out very carefully.
What is your position on the issue, CAD?
However, I do not suscribe to the position that the 10% who are uninsured lack coverage only because they don't think they will need it. Health coverage is expensive when you are making low wages. The national average monthly premium for a family is $588. (source) Thats over $7000 a year. That is a huge chunk of change when you are dealing with even the bottom quarter of houshold incomes. If your employer does not provide coverage, then you can see why millions remain uninsured.
I think that adressing this problem is a good idea; I also think that it would be a very complicated issue - not impossinle, but it would have to be thought out very carefully.
What is your position on the issue, CAD?
It's a ridiculous premise that invading Iraq provides for our common defense anymoreso than subsidizing Israel's wall does. In fact, these activities make us less secure at home and abroad. Suffice it to say I believe quite a few dimes should go to DOD (granted with much better oversight) but that money should be spent on defense . . . national-building money should go through State . . . securing contracts for US corporations should go through Commerce. Funneling scarce funds (by definition they are scarce since we are borrowing much of it) through arguably the most inefficient of all departments is just plain dumb.
If I had a hand in planning a national healthcare program that guaranteed appropriate preventative care/health maintenance and reasonable interventional care . . . I would endorse reasonable physician fees. Considering the government (state/federal) continue to squeeze providers it's only a matter of time before no one will care for Medicare/Medicaid recipients (except for single physicians without loans). As for myself, if I was interested in becoming wealthy I would have never entered medicine. I'm an aspiring academic with a healthy portfolio of current research . . . alas by the time I'm tenured the government will be broke b/c after paying for Medicare/SS/Medicaid/DOD and interest on the debt . . . the Treasury will be empty.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I've posted it before - it really needs to be in a thread that is specifically about UHC though - we've already taken this one off on a tangent
But we seem to agree on some things about UHC, but I'm sure we'll find something to disagree onCkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I've posted it before - it really needs to be in a thread that is specifically about UHC though - we've already taken this one off on a tangent
CkG
You're probably right.
I think the best angle from which to approach the various issues is primarily pragmaticism steered by common sense. Here's to that. :beer:
We didn't spend $500 billion to invade Iraq and speaking of ridiculous premises you have nothing to back up your statement about us being "less secure".
Well I was quoting the total annual cost of DOD-related activities. Curiously, the government has taken to fudging the numbers so that expenditures related to particular activities are more difficult to dissect out. I don't know exactly how much DOD wasted before the Neocons arrived . . . but I'm pretty sure the waste has increased.
Even Bushies agree or at least the ones with working neurons that our troops are certainly at risk in the theater. They were placed in that theater by choice not need. Arguably we had no choice in Afghanistan (terrorist training ground) . . . as opposed to the terrorist breeding grounds in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia. We've made few allies (that were not bought) and many of those aren't worth the price of purchase. In the meantime, we've alienated much of the world.
When I traveled East and Southeast Asia in 2000 I knew not to stray too far from shore while in Sulawesi, go any farther east than Lombok, travel to far south in the Phillipines. Hell I watched the local militia beat down pro-democracy, anti-corruption protesters in Yogyakarta. I would love to go back soon but I cannot imagine taking my wife to the same places I visited just a few short years ago. IMHO, in the past most people distinguished duplicitous American foreign policy from Americans. I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Bush has made it personal and accordingly much of the world takes it personal as well . . . in particular in the Muslim world.
A cooperative world has the greatest potential to be our most secure world. When we look out for the common interest . . . peace, security, prosperity . . . for all inhabitants of Spaceship Earth, great things can be accomplished. But alas Bushies have poisoned the well of goodwill. Furthermore, Bush policy has made a bad situation (specter of terrorism) worse. In order to contain, if not eliminate the real threats in this world, we must work together. I don't see it happening under current leadership . . . and until it does we may have more bad years ahead of us than behind.
Even Bushies agree or at least the ones with working neurons that our troops are certainly at risk in the theater. They were placed in that theater by choice not need. Arguably we had no choice in Afghanistan (terrorist training ground) . . . as opposed to the terrorist breeding grounds in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia. We've made few allies (that were not bought) and many of those aren't worth the price of purchase. In the meantime, we've alienated much of the world.
When I traveled East and Southeast Asia in 2000 I knew not to stray too far from shore while in Sulawesi, go any farther east than Lombok, travel to far south in the Phillipines. Hell I watched the local militia beat down pro-democracy, anti-corruption protesters in Yogyakarta. I would love to go back soon but I cannot imagine taking my wife to the same places I visited just a few short years ago. IMHO, in the past most people distinguished duplicitous American foreign policy from Americans. I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Bush has made it personal and accordingly much of the world takes it personal as well . . . in particular in the Muslim world.
A cooperative world has the greatest potential to be our most secure world. When we look out for the common interest . . . peace, security, prosperity . . . for all inhabitants of Spaceship Earth, great things can be accomplished. But alas Bushies have poisoned the well of goodwill. Furthermore, Bush policy has made a bad situation (specter of terrorism) worse. In order to contain, if not eliminate the real threats in this world, we must work together. I don't see it happening under current leadership . . . and until it does we may have more bad years ahead of us than behind.
That was not an Ad-hom. Calling you a stupid socialist would be considered ad-hominem. What I was referring was the fact that socialists/protectionists/communists like you have been wrong about the economy for centuries.
"Socialism is Un-American"
"Pot-induced rant"
"Pinko"
and now "socialists/protectionists/communists like you"
Any other name-calling and or false attribution that you'd care to claim isn't ad-hominem attack?
I think I've made my position clear many times, that we need a balance between raw capitalistic greed with inherent social/political/economic stratification and an ambitionless state of socialistic apathy with non-rewarding economic homogeneity. The current mouthings of the far right are a siren song, a deception, a sucker play based on a false economy of debt, a way for the holdings and control of the economic elite to explode while leaving the rest of us holding the bag. We need to find a better balance between the extremes if we're to survive as a society with a broad middle class, and to provide our descendants with an environment where Democracy can exist as something more than an empty shell..
We need to pay our own way, to work together, and to call on those most able to make the sacrifices necessary to accomplish that. Co-opting the middle class with pissant tax cuts and pie in the sky pandering to greed and myopic self interest won't accomplish that.
GWB Inc. is heading in precisely the wrong direction, towards a tyranny of the Plutocracy achieved by simultaneously looting the treasury and hobbling future governments under a mountain of insurmountable debt.
"Pot-induced rant"
"Pinko"
and now "socialists/protectionists/communists like you"
Any other name-calling and or false attribution that you'd care to claim isn't ad-hominem attack?
I think I've made my position clear many times, that we need a balance between raw capitalistic greed with inherent social/political/economic stratification and an ambitionless state of socialistic apathy with non-rewarding economic homogeneity. The current mouthings of the far right are a siren song, a deception, a sucker play based on a false economy of debt, a way for the holdings and control of the economic elite to explode while leaving the rest of us holding the bag. We need to find a better balance between the extremes if we're to survive as a society with a broad middle class, and to provide our descendants with an environment where Democracy can exist as something more than an empty shell..
We need to pay our own way, to work together, and to call on those most able to make the sacrifices necessary to accomplish that. Co-opting the middle class with pissant tax cuts and pie in the sky pandering to greed and myopic self interest won't accomplish that.
GWB Inc. is heading in precisely the wrong direction, towards a tyranny of the Plutocracy achieved by simultaneously looting the treasury and hobbling future governments under a mountain of insurmountable debt.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter