what would be wrong with letting capitalism work, and allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines?
It wouldn't lower prices.
__________________ You know who you are.
I know who you are.
Please construct a rational argument and leave the report button alone.
"Let the local communities decide how to pay the cost. They could decide on a local tax, just as an example.
Some will say that poor communities could not afford good schools.
Wake UP people! That's the idea, people would have good reason to build a better community." -a poster here.
You have large debts already and I am skeptical about the 'socialism'.
...and they're threatening to get exponentially larger - what's your point?
Originally Posted by exotic walrus
Abortion funding within set parameters is fairly standard amongst other countries so I would hardly call it hardcore left.
...you're a citizen of one of those other countries - one that's already quite left-leaning so it's no surprise you don't see just how far left such a notion is for this country.
FWIW - I don't look to what other people are doing to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Just because "everyone is doing it" does not make something right. In the same vein, just because other countries "are doing it" doesn't make it right either.
Moral relativism is the philosophy of lemmings and rarely gets one anywhere except to the bottom of cliff.
__________________
"I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you." - Isa 44:22
Where did NewWorld say that Capitalism is "evil"? You're knee-jerking at things that nobody has said.
Ringo
__________________ "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
-- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797. Presented to Congress and signed by everyone in attendance.
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''
-- Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights
"I ain't afraid of your Yahweh
I ain't afraid of your Allah
I ain't afraid of your Jesus
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God"
-- 'I Ain't Afraid' by The Klezmatics
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Why, so the rich can get richer? Capitalism is already working. The corporations are getting more and more of our money.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against a business making a fair profit and getting a return on investment. But these big health insurance companies have been making their own weather for far too long now, jacking up premiums at two and three times the rate of inflation for many, MANY years.
What do you think the reason for ever-increasing insurance premiums is? Greed? Desire for more profit?
I guarantee one way to drop insurance company premiums significantly is to overhaul the tort process that allows individuals and groups to sue for exhorbitant sums these companies you proclaim are making too much profit. Doctor malpractice insurance premiums are through the roof as a result of current tort practices. Etc.
That's just one way to lower overall costs.
But does high health insurance prices justify the federal government taking control of this country's entire health care system? I'm not remotely convinced giving the federal government carte blanche control of this nation's health care system is at all prudent, either constitutionally or fiscally.
I am very concerned there are too many people looking at this issue with a naive belief that rising health care costs are a "humanitarian crisis" that only the federal government can solve.
The Democrat party has been seeking to nationalize health care for the last 80 years. Surely our health care system hasn't been in crisis all that time. Quite the contrary. So we need to look at this objectively and ask if the federal government's interest in controlling one sixth of the nation's economy is in fact a humanitarian goal or something altogether different.
__________________
"I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you." - Isa 44:22
...and they're threatening to get exponentially larger - what's your point?
...you're a citizen of one of those other countries - one that's already quite left-leaning
Historically Australia is a conservative country.
so it's no surprise you don't see just how far left such a notion is for this country.
I see how it is left for the country specifically - because its fundamentalism is on par with Saudi Arabia and Iran. I am just saying globally in other industrial countries abortion rights aren't an epic struggle between right and left, they are just centrist and standard.
FWIW - I don't look to what other people are doing to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Just because "everyone is doing it" does not make something right. In the same vein, just because other countries "are doing it" doesn't make it right either.
What do you think the reason for ever-increasing insurance premiums is? Greed? Desire for more profit?
I guarantee one way to drop insurance company premiums significantly is to overhaul the tort process that allows individuals and groups to sue for exhorbitant sums these companies you proclaim are making too much profit. Doctor malpractice insurance premiums are through the roof as a result of current tort practices. Etc.
Money spent on malpractice insurance and suits is only a fraction of the increasing costs. Where I live, in TX, they passed tort reform several years ago. And guess what, there has been a decrease in suits and money paid, but that has not translated into lower costs or more affordable insurance. TX still leads the nation in uninsured at around 25%.
In other words tort reform sounds nice on paper, but it here in TX it clearly shows that it doesn't translate into reduced costs or more access to insurance. Its just nothing more than nice sounding gimmick of the right.
But does high health insurance prices justify the federal government taking control of this country's entire health care system? I'm not remotely convinced giving the federal government carte blanche control of this nation's health care system is at all prudent, either constitutionally or fiscally.
You are severely misinformed if you think the government is taking over health care. Nothing being proposed in legislation is even remotely close to a government take over.
I am very concerned there are too many people looking at this issue with a naive belief that rising health care costs are a "humanitarian crisis" that only the federal government can solve.
Another problem is that many, especially from the right, don't even think there is a problem. Or they don't think that all people deserve access to healthcare.
The Democrat party has been seeking to nationalize health care for the last 80 years. Surely our health care system hasn't been in crisis all that time. Quite the contrary. So we need to look at this objectively and ask if the federal government's interest in controlling one sixth of the nation's economy is in fact a humanitarian goal or something altogether different.
It hasn't been in crisis, but our system is broken. We spend more per capita than any other industrialized nation, and yet we rank near the bottom on pretty much every barometer on health.
If other countries can spend half as much as we do, yet liver longer healthier lives, don't you think that it might just not be such a bad thing to look at what they're doing?
__________________
I am a Christian. I am a liberal. No, these two are not mutually exclusive. Accept it and move on.
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"
- Oscar Wilde
"I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend unto death your right to say it."
- Voltaire
Honestly, my sense of where the country leans now is more a function of what I see in posts from a handful of people here on CF - which I admit may not be entirely accurate. Point taken...
Originally Posted by exotic walrus
I see how it is left for the country specifically - because its fundamentalism is on par with Saudi Arabia and Iran. I am just saying globally in other industrial countries abortion rights aren't an epic struggle between right and left, they are just centrist and standard.
We have a strong majority of people here who object to abortion on a moral or values basis, primarily because we believe that life begins at conception and that such life [in the womb] is therefore as valuable as one outside the womb.
Broadly comparing that belief though with the extreme religious fundamentalism of Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran is not appropriate imo.
We have a strong contingent of people here who believe life does NOT begin at conception, let alone until it clears the womb and on that basis will abort a baby at any stage of development - even up to partial birth, which the majority of us find abhorrent.
I'm not sure how a contrary belief is "centrist" or "standard" in some countries except maybe that there be but an overwhelmed insignificant few in those "centrist" countries who oppose the practice.
The rightness or wrongness (IMHO) of abortion is not a function of how many agree/disagree with it, or a nation's global status, or their industrialized status - or any other variable for that matter - it's not a relative issue. An appeal to how many people or nations believe in abortion, or how global such a belief may be, or how "industrialized" or modern or progressive or technologically advanced or whatever, bears no weight in a discussion of whether an act [this act] is right or wrong. It either is [right] or it isn't. That makes it a very polarizing issue, by definition - whether among two individuals who disagree or two nations, or two continents. KWIM?
__________________
"I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you." - Isa 44:22
Money spent on malpractice insurance and suits is only a fraction of the increasing costs. Where I live, in TX, they passed tort reform several years ago. And guess what, there has been a decrease in suits and money paid, but that has not translated into lower costs or more affordable insurance. TX still leads the nation in uninsured at around 25%.
In other words tort reform sounds nice on paper, but it here in TX it clearly shows that it doesn't translate into reduced costs or more access to insurance. Its just nothing more than nice sounding gimmick of the right.
But Texas is just one state and most insurance companies are national. Would not tort reform help were every state to pass it? And it is just one means of controlling costs - not the only one certainly. Texas did the right thing to take that step at least.
And who compromises that 25% you claim are uninsured? How many are, say, uninsured by choice? How many don't need/want insurance? And how many of that 25% don't have access to health care despite not having insurance?
Originally Posted by blueapplepaste
You are severely misinformed if you think the government is taking over health care. Nothing being proposed in legislation is even remotely close to a government take over.
I beg to differ - it's what the public option is all about and what such an option will inevitably lead to. The Democrat party proposing this knows this, which is why there's such a strong interest in it. Who's really uninformed here?
Originally Posted by blueapplepaste
Another problem is that many, especially from the right, don't even think there is a problem. Or they don't think that all people deserve access to healthcare.
We don't think this is a problem the federal government needs to, or is constitutionally permitted to take over. True. But "our" options are getting neither shrift nor consideration. Why is that?
That we don't think our health care system can stand improvement is a Democrat party lie they would have you swallow hook, line, and sinker.
And it's a Democrat party lie to suggest we don't think all people deserve access. Good grief!!
Who in this country doesn't have access to health care???
Originally Posted by blueapplepaste
It hasn't been in crisis, but our system is broken. We spend more per capita than any other industrialized nation, and yet we rank near the bottom on pretty much every barometer on health.
Our system is NOT broken! Gah!! Can it stand improving, yes! Can we be doing things better, YES! But that is not patent cause to give it over to the federal government to control!
As to whether we rank on the bottom of other's health barometers - irrelevant. "Health" is a function of many things, only one of which is access to health care; others being a person's lifestyle choices, e.g. which can certainly stand improvement (e.g. our high obesity rate) - but those are individual choices the federal government has no right to control.
The argument against such a right (personal choices) is one that argues that if someone makes a bad choice and they get sick or hurt as a consequence of such a choice that others must then pay for their care. Such an argument leads inevitably to absolute tyranny if taken to its logical conclusion. We already know, for example, that those who would run this abomination (obamacare) feel it incumbent to control what we eat (they'll tax sugars for example), what we drink (they'll tax alcohol for example), and many other things some bureaucrat deems "unhealthy". Well, educate people about the choices they have, fine - but if someone makes a bad choice, there's no reason the rest of us must pay for it.
The major credit lenders, for example, made bad choices and we felt the need to pay for it in the form of bail outs. Most of those we bailed out have filed for bankruptcy anyway, assuring the eternal loss of those monies. Gah!! Nannyism!!
Originally Posted by blueapplepaste
If other countries can spend half as much as we do, yet liver longer healthier lives, don't you think that it might just not be such a bad thing to look at what they're doing?
Yeah, it just might if the unintended (or not) consequences of doing the same thing impinge on personal liberties - yeah! Which is worse?
__________________
"I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you." - Isa 44:22
__________________ Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences. –C.S. Lewis”
Well there is hope if we can get these reckless spenders out of office. Otherwise we will be a socialist country with crippling debts.
How concerned were you about our "crippling debt" when Bush was in office? And you're big fat liar, because Obama and his people have not only said over and over that no public funds will pay for abortions, it's stipulated in the bill. What, you don't believe them? Why?
Please, many of us here read the facts and we factcheck everything, EVERYTHING. So when make you claims that go against what the government is telling us, then you need to come with some kind of proof.
Can it stand improving, yes! Can we be doing things better, YES! But that is not patent cause to give it over to the federal government to control!
Linear Mode
