Good column about the state of American politics.Although, one should note that Mr. Friedman was not writing articles like this a few years ago when books, movies, and rap songs were being written about assassinating President Bush. And a few crazy people tried to act on that back then, just like may happen today. The fact of the matter is that there is always some nut case trying to assassinate the President, regardless of who it is. Remember when some nut tried to crash a plane into the White House during the Clinton years? It's not a new thing.
I believe the article lays blame on radicals on both sides and not just the right.
Also the articles cited weren’t written by Mr. Friedman.
|
Good column about the state of American politics.Although, one should note that Mr. Friedman was not writing articles like this a few years ago when books, movies, and rap songs were being written about assassinating President Bush. And a few crazy people tried to act on that back then, just like may happen today. The fact of the matter is that there is always some nut case trying to assassinate the President, regardless of who it is. Remember when some nut tried to crash a plane into the White House during the Clinton years? It's not a new thing.I believe the article lays blame on radicals on both sides and not just the right.
Also the articles cited weren’t written by Mr. Friedman.
Just so we are clear, here is what Mr. Friedman himself said in the article.
Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.
And Mr. Obama is now having his legitimacy attacked by a concerted campaign from the right fringe. They are using everything from smears that he is a closet “socialist” to calling him a “liar” in the middle of a joint session of Congress to fabricating doubts about his birth in America and whether he is even a citizen. And these attacks are not just coming from the fringe. Now they come from Lou Dobbs on CNN and from members of the House of Representatives.
Sometimes I wonder whether George H.W. Bush, president “41,” will be remembered as our last “legitimate” president. The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater “scandal.” George W. Bush was elected under a cloud because of the Florida voting mess, and his critics on the left never let him forget it.
So yes, if you want to count one sentance about the "left wing extremists" that hounded President Bush, in an opinion piece that is filled with paragraphs about how right wing extremists are creating a climate that could result in the assassination of President Obama, then yes he mentioned both sides. However, if you look at the substance of his message, then it is clear that he, like Nancy Pelosi, is "worried about the climate of violence the right is creating," as the House Speaker said.He adds a single throwaway sentance about left wing extremists questioning the legitamicy of President Bush's election, and in his mind he is being balanced in his coverage.
Also yes, the articles I cited were not from Mr. Friedman. Nor did I ever say that they were. They were in fact news coverage of actual attempts to assassinate previous presidents, something that Mr. Friedman says that the climate only now exists for, because of the right wing criticism of the president. My point was that when people were actually trying to assassinate presidents, both Republican and Democrat, Mr. Friedman was not out wringing his hands and fretting in this way. You have to remember that Thomas Friedman is just like the guy who hangs out by the water cooler all day, except he gets payed by America's paper of record to tell you what he thinks.
Failing my Will save again ...
I do have to say, all the hand-wringing over 'dangerous' dissent is a little disingenous, when there was so much vitriol directed at George Bush that frankly I am amazed more people didn't take potshots at him.
I am not a fan of GWB, but some of the heights the opposition got to towards the end were simply ridiculous. Heck, there are still people calling for his arrest out in the blogosphere.
Also, this crap ain't nothing new: Idiots have been doing it since at least 1835: >LINK<. I just watched a show last night on PBS called History's Detectives which delved into a letter written to Andrew Jackson by Junius Brutus Booth, John Wilkes Booth's father, which directly threatened murder on Old Hickory. It was determined to be legitimate.
The problem modern politicians face is that the Internet has allowed folks of a similar bent to congregate virtually. There are pros and cons to this. On the one hand, it allows folks to discuss things they might not be able to in real life. It has energized voter participation, and gotten people involved in politics like never before.
On the other, it encourages an 'echo chamber' effect where people who frequent the various sites or shows never question what's being told them and never reach beyond the converted for discussion. Then they are shocked when their views are questioned, to the point where they think that the questioners are dangerously insane for even bringing up doubts. One reason I try to scour both sides for info, to cancel out the fringe 'noise'. A lot of folks still labor under the assumption that if it's printed or spoken on the radio/TV it is fact.
This is the problem with using political hyperbole: It is a two-edged sword. Much like the Patriot Act, it begs to be used in sooooo many ways, and it is effective, but 'ware the day when the weapon turns in your hand and cuts you deep.
A lot of folks still labor under the assumption that if it's printed or spoken on the radio/TV it is fact.
Yeah; Andrew Vachss calls them "Cyber-Chumps." That dude has a pithy phrase for every idiot.
I'm opposed to the death penalty because states which use the death penalty have higher violent crime rates. Seriously, check it out sometime. The South (including Texas) has the highest execution rate AND the highest murder rate. The correlation is so strong it's almost overwhelming.That's about the only coherent argument against it I've ever heard -- I'll have to look into the stats. Usually people say it's not fair, or that it's too harsh a punishment, but I always felt it wasn't so much a punishment as an assurance: an executed murderer or rapist has a 0% chance of repeating his crime. But if it actually does spawn more of them, then that's not much use.
The best argument I've ever heard against the death penalty in America is a conservative one. Basically the government is simply to corrupt and incompetent to be trusted with the power of life and death in the criminal justice system. As a minarchist I find this argument the most compelling.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best argument I've ever heard against the death penalty in America is a conservative one. Basically the government is simply to corrupt and incompetent to be trusted with the power of life and death in the criminal justice system. As a minarchist I find this argument the most compelling.I'm opposed to the death penalty because states which use the death penalty have higher violent crime rates. Seriously, check it out sometime. The South (including Texas) has the highest execution rate AND the highest murder rate. The correlation is so strong it's almost overwhelming.That's about the only coherent argument against it I've ever heard -- I'll have to look into the stats. Usually people say it's not fair, or that it's too harsh a punishment, but I always felt it wasn't so much a punishment as an assurance: an executed murderer or rapist has a 0% chance of repeating his crime. But if it actually does spawn more of them, then that's not much use.
Having been in prison, I must say hat life without parole is much more punitive than the death penalty. Seriously, I thought seven years was forever...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having been in prison, I must say hat life without parole is much more punitive than the death penalty. Seriously, I thought seven years was forever...
Yeah, given the choice of death or life without parole I'd take death every time.
That being said, we need a new penal colony. Maybe the moon? RAH thought it would work ...
|
|
Having been in prison, I must say hat life without parole is much more punitive than the death penalty. Seriously, I thought seven years was forever...Yeah, given the choice of death or life without parole I'd take death every time.
That being said, we need a new penal colony. Maybe the moon? RAH thought it would work ...
I've always been partial to the idea of the Death Valley Free Prison.
Good column about the state of American politics.
Am I the only one who finds it sad that he wants to imprison people for exercising their right to free speech? I thought leftist writers liked the 1st amendment or at least pretended to.
Fixed it for ya.Meh. I voted for him twice. Clinton became much more centrist as time went by in his presidency, and I think it helped his overall favorability. The whole impeachment thing was a disgrace and a waste of time and energy. Another reason I will never vote for Bob Barr for ANYTHING.Seconded. That guy is a Libertarian in the same way that Ron Paul is a Republican.
Ironically quite a few folks (including me) supported Ron Paul in the Republican presidential primary and then voted Libertarian in the general election. It was a pleasant change voting for someone I merely disliked rater than someone I despised only slightly less than their opponent.
I've been an active Republican for over 22 years, and I have basically exhausted my patience. I've always known that the Republican party was just the lesser of 2 evils, but Ron Paul's candidacy and living in a county where elections are decided in the Republican primary is all that has kept me in the Republican party. It's saddens me that there is almost no place left to turn for people who want a balanced budget, sound monetary policy, constitutionally limited government, peace, and free enterprise.
In the spirit of those of us unhappy with either corporate party and sadly watching our warnings go unheeded:
Wow David, you did it. Cool!
In the spirit of those of us unhappy with either corporate party and sadly watching our warnings go unheeded:
That story makes fine use of irony, and all the same arguments could be applied to the the civil liberties side of the debate with too.
I have found myself increasingly drawn by the logic and reason of libertarian argument for at least 5 years (if not always the candidates).
I find it sad how many people would rather vote for a candidate they disagree with on a majority of issues than vote for a third party that they agree with on most of the issues. It's almost as sad as the number of people who don't even try to stay informed or vote.
|
|
Fixed it for ya.Meh. I voted for him twice. Clinton became much more centrist as time went by in his presidency, and I think it helped his overall favorability. The whole impeachment thing was a disgrace and a waste of time and energy. Another reason I will never vote for Bob Barr for ANYTHING.Seconded. That guy is a Libertarian in the same way that Ron Paul is a Republican.Ironically quite a few folks (including me) supported Ron Paul in the Republican presidential primary and then voted Libertarian in the general election. It was a pleasant change voting for someone I merely disliked rater than someone I despised only slightly less than their opponent.
There was a lot that I liked about Ron Paul, particularly in his fiscal policy. However, he and I had widely different veiws of history and the Constitution. More importantly though, he lost my support when he admitted on Meet the Press that he loaded down bills in the House with earmarks if he knew they would pass, vote against them, and then run around claiming to be against earmarks. That was really the straw that broke the camel's back.
|
In the spirit of those of us unhappy with either corporate party and sadly watching our warnings go unheeded:
That story makes fine use of irony, and all the same arguments could be applied to the the civil liberties side of the debate with too.
I have found myself increasingly drawn by the logic and reason of libertarian argument for at least 5 years (if not always the candidates).
I find it sad how many people would rather vote for a candidate they disagree with on a majority of issues than vote for a third party that they agree with on most of the issues. It's almost as sad as the number of people who don't even try to stay informed or vote.
Worst to me are the people who don't even try to stay informed then vote.
|
|
Worst to me are the people who don't even try to stay informed then vote.In the spirit of those of us unhappy with either corporate party and sadly watching our warnings go unheeded:
That story makes fine use of irony, and all the same arguments could be applied to the the civil liberties side of the debate with too.
I have found myself increasingly drawn by the logic and reason of libertarian argument for at least 5 years (if not always the candidates).
I find it sad how many people would rather vote for a candidate they disagree with on a majority of issues than vote for a third party that they agree with on most of the issues. It's almost as sad as the number of people who don't even try to stay informed or vote.
How dare you speak about 90% of the Democrat and Republican voter base like that!
Worst to me are the people who don't even try to stay informed then vote.How dare you speak about 90% of the Democrat and Republican voter base like that!
Is that worse than those (Dems & Repubs) who consider themself informed, but are clinging to "facts" that have been repeatedly disproved... and then vote accordingly? Or those that dogmatically continue to vote only for their party?
|
|
In the spirit of those of us unhappy with either corporate party and sadly watching our warnings go unheeded:
Yeah, when the whole finacial crisis started we were studying the Hoover administration in my U.S. History class. I pointed out to my students that the Obama plan was exactly what Hoover did at the start of the Great Depression. My supervisior told me to keep my political views out of the classroom. When I pointed out the sections in my textbook and the direct parallels in the Obama plan, she told me that it was "my job to teach, not to educate." Her exact words.
...she told me that it was "my job to teach, not to educate."
Hmmm, does that fall under "Zero Tolerance" or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
When did critical thinking get to be so frowned upon? Oh, right, a happy citizen wants to belong, wants to go with the flow... nobody likes troublemakers. Plus, critical thinking isn't on any standardized test to get funding.
There was a lot that I liked about Ron Paul, particularly in his fiscal policy. However, he and I had widely different veiws of history and the Constitution. More importantly though, he lost my support when he admitted on Meet the Press that he loaded down bills in the House with earmarks if he knew they would pass, vote against them, and then run around claiming to be against earmarks. That was really the straw that broke the camel's back.Fixed it for ya.Meh. I voted for him twice. Clinton became much more centrist as time went by in his presidency, and I think it helped his overall favorability. The whole impeachment thing was a disgrace and a waste of time and energy. Another reason I will never vote for Bob Barr for ANYTHING.Seconded. That guy is a Libertarian in the same way that Ron Paul is a Republican.Ironically quite a few folks (including me) supported Ron Paul in the Republican presidential primary and then voted Libertarian in the general election. It was a pleasant change voting for someone I merely disliked rater than someone I despised only slightly less than their opponent.
I don't recall him being opposed to earmarks so much as unconstitutional pork. Earmarks are consistent with congress' constitutional duties of budgeting and allocation. If he puts earmarks in bills for purposes he has identified as outside of the governments constitutional authority then votes against the bill as a fig leaf knowing that the bill will pass any way, I would find that to be hypocritical.
...she told me that it was "my job to teach, not to educate."Hmmm, does that fall under "Zero Tolerance" or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
When did critical thinking get to be so frowned upon? Oh, right, a happy citizen wants to belong, wants to go with the flow... nobody likes troublemakers. Plus, critical thinking isn't on any standardized test to get funding.
My experience with public schools for the past 15 or so years has revealed outright hostility to critical thinking, scientific method, and thoughtful analysis.
Obey, regurgitate, and "Do not question!" seem to be the prevailing attitudes in public education at every level including college in my experience.
|
|
I don't recall him being opposed to earmarks so much as unconstitutional pork. Earmarks are consistent with congress' constitutional duties of budgeting and allocation. If he puts earmarks in bills for purposes he has identified as outside of the governments constitutional authority then votes against the bill as a fig leaf knowing that the bill will pass any way, I would find that to be hypocritical.
It was on Meet The Press the week before Christmas last year. Here was the exchange;
Rep. Ron Paul: I have never voted for any earmarks in my career.
Tim Russert:No, but you put them in the bill. If you were true to your philosophy, you would say no pork spending in my district.
Rep. Paul:They steal our money, that’s like saying that people shouldn’t take Social Security money.
Here was another exchange from the same show that turned me off.
Tim Russert: You say that you are for term limits for Congress. Yet you have served in the House for eighteen years. Doesn't that send the wrong message?
Rep. Paul: But I never ran on voluntary term limits. There’s a big difference. I didn’t sign a pledge for a voluntary term limit. I will continue to serve until we have people with the right understanding of the role of government in Congress to take my place.
I don't know if the transcript is still up. I had a copy printed out that I used in my government class.
|
|
...she told me that it was "my job to teach, not to educate."Hmmm, does that fall under "Zero Tolerance" or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
When did critical thinking get to be so frowned upon? Oh, right, a happy citizen wants to belong, wants to go with the flow... nobody likes troublemakers. Plus, critical thinking isn't on any standardized test to get funding.
My experience with public schools for the past 15 or so years has revealed outright hostility to critical thinking, scientific method, and thoughtful analysis.
Obey, regurgitate, and "Do not question!" seem to be the prevailing attitudes in public education at every level including college in my experience.
Actually I was teaching at a private boarding school. The students mostly came from rich white libral families back East. Anything that might upset the parents and stop the cash flowing in was frowned on.
My experience with public schools for the past 15 or so years has revealed outright hostility to critical thinking, scientific method, and thoughtful analysis.
Obey, regurgitate, and "Do not question!" seem to be the prevailing attitudes in public education at every level including college in my experience.
That was my experience with many teachers when I was in school, especially the ones without some experience under their belt. I got lucky with some of mine, teachers with a decade or more, and who were more concerned with teaching/educating than meeting some school board mandate. I graduated before all this standardized testing kicked in too.
Down here at least, the school board are nearly all career politicians with minimal (often no) teaching experience. But then, the city and county government leaders have no real applicable education or qualifications to be running things either (well, other than being well connected politically).
I don't recall him being opposed to earmarks so much as unconstitutional pork. Earmarks are consistent with congress' constitutional duties of budgeting and allocation. If he puts earmarks in bills for purposes he has identified as outside of the governments constitutional authority then votes against the bill as a fig leaf knowing that the bill will pass any way, I would find that to be hypocritical.It was on Meet The Press the week before Christmas last year. Here was the exchange;
Rep. Ron Paul: I have never voted for any earmarks in my career.
Tim Russert:No, but you put them in the bill. If you were true to your philosophy, you would say no pork spending in my district.
Rep. Paul:They steal our money, that’s like saying that people shouldn’t take Social Security money.
Here was another exchange from the same show that turned me off.
I don't know if the transcript is still up. I had a copy printed out that I used in my government class.Tim Russert: You say that you are for term limits for Congress. Yet you have served in the House for eighteen years. Doesn't that send the wrong message?
Rep. Paul: But I never ran on voluntary term limits. There’s a big difference. I didn’t sign a pledge for a voluntary term limit. I will continue to serve until we have people with the right understanding of the role of government in Congress to take my place.
The term limit issue doesn't trouble me especially. He didn't break a promise that I'm aware of.
I don't happen to support term limits; I think that's why we have elections.
Voluntary term limits are between the candidates and voters, but it's somewhat akin to unilateral disarmament. It seems to weed less unprincipled office holders out.
|
|
Okay, have a question. I keep hearing proponents of the public option saying that it will lower the impact of medical costs on the federal budget and deficit. I heard Sen. Chris Dodd say it on Meet The Press just this morning. Can someone please explain how addeding another 20 to 45 million people to a federally run insurance program will save the government money? Because I just can't wrap my head artound the idea.
Okay, have a question. I keep hearing proponents of the public option saying that it will lower the impact of medical costs on the federal budget and deficit. I heard Sen. Chris Dodd say it on Meet The Press just this morning. Can someone please explain how addeding another 20 to 45 million people to a federally run insurance program will save the government money? Because I just can't wrap my head artound the idea.
I assume that, by "public option," you mean the proposal to impose a blanket set of federally-promulgated regulations that cover any private options? Because that's the closest I've seen to anything resembling "government health care" that has the slightest chance of ever becoming anything more than rhetoric.
There was some talk about expanding Medicare to cover people who fell in the cracks, so to speak, of whatever system is implemented. 20 - 45M people would be the total uninsured, though, that would need to get insured elesewhere; certainly nowhere near all of those would end up in the gaps. But that's irrelevant, because I personally don't see there's a snowball's chance in hell of that passing.
P.S. The phrasing of your "question" implies you've already made up your mind, and just want to vent about what you perceive to be some liberal conspiracy. Like if I were to say, "Can someone explain to me why Republicans talk about the 'Culture of Life' when all they want to do is bomb every country on Earth into oblivion and force all our own people to die from lack of health care?!" Phrased that way, there's not a question present, just an argument. (I don't believe that argument, BTW -- I'm using some nonsense I hear elsewhere as a convenient example.)
|
|
Okay, have a question. I keep hearing proponents of the public option saying that it will lower the impact of medical costs on the federal budget and deficit. I heard Sen. Chris Dodd say it on Meet The Press just this morning. Can someone please explain how addeding another 20 to 45 million people to a federally run insurance program will save the government money? Because I just can't wrap my head artound the idea.I assume that, by "public option," you mean the proposal to impose a blanket set of federally-promulgated regulations that cover any private options? Because that's the closest I've seen to anything resembling "government health care" that has the slightest chance of ever becoming anything more than rhetoric.
There was some talk about expanding Medicare to cover people who fell in the cracks, so to speak, of whatever system is implemented. 20 - 45M people would be the total uninsured, though, that would need to get insured elesewhere; certainly nowhere near all of those would end up in the gaps. But that's irrelevant, because I personally don't see there's a snowball's chance in hell of that passing.
P.S. The phrasing of your "question" implies you've already made up your mind, and just want to vent about what you perceive to be some liberal conspiracy. Like if I were to say, "Can someone explain to me why Republicans talk about the 'Culture of Life' when all they want to do is bomb every country on Earth into oblivion and force all our own people to die from lack of health care?!" Phrased that way, there's not a question present, just an argument. (I don't believe that argument, BTW -- I'm using some nonsense I hear elsewhere as a convenient example.)
Kirth, I have not made up my mind. Sen. Dodd talked about how the program proposed in his bill would expande government provided care through a public option, his words, to at least 20 million people. It was also the figure quoted by Sen. Arlen Spectre on Fox News Sunday. I'm just not sure how adding more people to a Medicare style program would save the government money.
I'm just not sure how adding more people to a Medicare style program would save the government money.
The question is, "Save money compared to what?" If it would cost me $2,000 to repave my driveway, and I refuse and end up cracking my car's suspension, costing me $3,000, then I would have saved $1,000 by just spending the money up front. If all the uninsured people (no money up front) that are denied Medicare end up going to the emergency rooms and being inefficiently treated there on the taxpayers' money, which is the cheaper alternative?
But we can do a lot better than that. What if there were a deal like "OK, you can either (a) show proof of private insurance, or else (b) get dinged extra taxes to pay for your Medicare coverage, but either way, you've got to have some sort of insurance." -- which I think is the idea. That way, for people with private coverage nothing changes, and people without would have to get it -- and would be paying for it as well. If universal coverage existed in that sort of setup, then emergency room visits would all fall under someone's insurance, alleviating the need for a taxpayer "slush fund" to cover the unpaid bills (but not eliminating the need totally, because no system is perfect).
|
|
I'm just not sure how adding more people to a Medicare style program would save the government money.The question is, "Save money compared to what?" If it would cost me $2,000 to repave my driveway, and I refuse and end up cracking my car's suspension, costing me $3,000, then I would have saved $1,000 by just spending the money up front. If all the uninsured people (no money up front) that are denied Medicare end up going to the emergency rooms and being inefficiently treated there on the taxpayers' money, which is the cheaper alternative?
But we can do a lot better than that. What if there were a deal like "OK, you can either (a) show proof of private insurance, or else (b) get dinged extra taxes to pay for your Medicare coverage, but either way, you've got to have some sort of insurance." -- which I think is the idea. That way, for people with private coverage nothing changes, and people without would have to get it -- and would be paying for it as well. If universal coverage existed in that sort of setup, then emergency room visits would all fall under someone's insurance, alleviating the need for a taxpayer "slush fund" to cover the unpaid bills (but not eliminating the need totally, because no system is perfect).
I can understand what you are saying. However, When Sen. Dodd or Sen. Specter say that the program will not add anything to the deficit, that is where I get lost. I they were out there basically saying you have to spend money to save money, then I cold get behind the program. My problem is that I have actually heard politician go on the talking head shows and say that the public option as defined by a system similar to Medicare or SCHIP would actually create a budget surplus. I can see the idea of saving the $1000 dollars by spending the $2000, but it sounds to me like some of the people talking about it are trying to sell us on an idea that if we spend the $2000 it will yield $4000 in savings.
|
Maybe they are thinking that they will have a savings because it would add lower risk people into the Medicare risk pool. Right now it is used almost exclusively by the elderly, who have much higher medical expenses. Putting some younger people into the pool would result in more people paying into Medicare that don't have big medical expenses.
I don't know that that's what they're talking about, but it's my shot in the dark.
|
|
Maybe they are thinking that they will have a savings because it would add lower risk people into the Medicare risk pool. Right now it is used almost exclusively by the elderly, who have much higher medical expenses. Putting some younger people into the pool would result in more people paying into Medicare that don't have big medical expenses.
I don't know that that's what they're talking about, but it's my shot in the dark.
An economist who specializes in this matter says exactly that. The young and healthy will wind up subsidizing the elderly and unhealthy.
I will look up his name tomorrow and link to some of his articles.
See? I belong in the Senate.
See? I belong in the Senate.
Yeah! Given the jokers in there, we'd be better off picking any 100 random people off the street (or off the Paizo boards) and put them in instead. You just volunteered, though, so you're disqualified, according to the "Lincoln Test."
|
|
Maybe they are thinking that they will have a savings because it would add lower risk people into the Medicare risk pool. Right now it is used almost exclusively by the elderly, who have much higher medical expenses. Putting some younger people into the pool would result in more people paying into Medicare that don't have big medical expenses.
I don't know that that's what they're talking about, but it's my shot in the dark.
An economist who specializes in this matter says exactly that. The young and healthy will wind up subsidizing the elderly and unhealthy.
I will look up his name tomorrow and link to some of his articles.
That's how social security works.....the problem is, since it's inception, people just started living too damn long. *sic*
y'rekkin?Well, if I'm already paying in, you know, by law, how would adding me to the Medicare pool save money?
Oh, wait: Celestial Healer IS Senate material!!!!
;)
Because it'll be cheaper. Duuuh...
|
Because it'll be cheaper. Duuuh...y'rekkin?Well, if I'm already paying in, you know, by law, how would adding me to the Medicare pool save money?
Oh, wait: Celestial Healer IS Senate material!!!!
;)
Adding you won't save anyone money.
Currently someone with out insurance gets sick they do nothing until it requires an emergency room visit and we the taxpayers get slapped with the bill if the person can't afford it which let me tell you is pretty much anyone. How ever if Joe Smith had health insurance he could have gone to the Doctor gotten it taken care of for less then a tenth of what it would later cost and saved us the money. Its cheaper for the goverment to pay for the preventive care then the later emergency room visit.
Now the really moronic part is denying Illegal Aliens healthcare. Care to guess where they go for health care when they desperately need it? The Emergency Room where the doctors have to treat them and then we get stuck with the bill. How ever illegal aliens = bad so we shouldn't deal with the massive cost involved in thier emergency room visits...
The problem with tiny government is lets go over some of the Socialist Concepts of why we need government regulation.
1. Drugs sure lets not regulate drugs. I always wanted to get a new drug that hasn't been tested that kills 10% of the people who take it.
2. Credit Industry hey it should be perfectly legal to not actually check to see if people can afford the house they are buying and then to adjust the interest rate to cover for losses. My Dog just loves her no limit American Express Card hell if I know how she will pay for it...
3. Health Insurance. Everyone knows Acne is a preexisting condition so nope no health insurance for you. Charge people extra for routine check ups that can save them 20 grand in hospital bills? My personal favorite, a simple phone call could have saved me an emergency room visit, ambulance ride and a week long hospital stay that damn near killed me. One lousy phone call to schedule the removal of my gall bladder and it would have saved them quite a bit of money. Naw much cheaper to not call me and it bursts...
The problem is currently the American Healthcare industry is under regulated for profit and in general will deny claims more often then they will pay for them. I prefer government employees who don't give a damn about who you are to people whose sole reason to exist is to maximize thier profits at the expense of my continued well being.
|
|
Looking at my check stub, it indicated I'm already paying into Medicare.
So, um...
See, I don't know enough about the legislation to know if the people who "opt in" to medicare would have another premium on top of that. If they do it would make sense, if they don't, I'd be a little dubious myself.
Although, many uninsured people are already given care via the emergency room at the government's expense anyway, so it is possible that government-provided health care expenses would actually decrease, as pointed out by another poster.
|
|
2. Credit Industry hey it should be perfectly legal to not actually check to see if people can afford the house they are buying and then to adjust the interest rate to cover for losses. My Dog just loves her no limit American Express Card hell if I know how she will pay for it...
Actually, they used to check people's credit before giving them a home loan or a credit card. Then a bunch of people who had poor credit got together and sued the credit industry for discrimination, and won. Then Congress passed a law saying, according to them, that people with poor credit tend to be minorities so it is really racism that is the heart of them being refused the loan and that any government backed bank had to extend credit to anyone who had even the resonable apperance of paying the money back. In fact they mandated by law that anyone with a credit score of better then 580 could not be denied a loan simply based on their credit. It was all part of George Bush's idea of an "ownership society" and both parties tripped over each other to be the first to take the credit for all these new home owners. Of course now they are tripping over each other to be the first to blame the other guy, but the fact is that, in this particular case, government regulation caused the problem.