FREE HEALTH CARE!

[Bluespook]

i don't have a problem with the EPA in so much as i have a problem with obama using the agency as a battering ram to push enviro nazi regulation. If congress won't pass CO2 controls, no problem, obama will just make the EPA enforce it and run around the side of congress.

[Whisky Guy]

Ah ok. I was going to say that almost the entire world models their environmental regulations, testing and sampling methods off of the US EPA and the Belgians. You may not like the CO2 regulations but they very literally wrote the book on contaminated sites and it is a very good book. A bit dry, but good.

[Ozz]

You're a tea bagger?

I'd say She's a Long Island Ice Tea bagger.
Your surprised she's a teabagger? I'm surprised you could look in the mirror not being one.

[GreatWhiteNortherner]

I have a well and a big ass lake next to my house on my own property, i'll use as much water as i fucking like.

On to the topic at hand. NOTHING IS FREE!!! How much plainer can i make it. People pay for it in one form or another. I know, only the rich will pay as the marxist in chief said. What he doesn't tell you is that the people who own the businesses and make things work, pass those costs on to the customer, in other words, you. You will pay in the end and the very people who he claims to want to help will be hit the hardest. I know, shouldn't call names, shouldn't call obama a marxist and all that stuff, well, i'll stop doing it when he stops acting like one. Take over auto comanies, healthcare, student loans, banks, regulate everything imaginable under the FCC and the EPA, shit congress wouldn't do, let's just get around that with orders congress can't control. We are sliding in some scary shit people. Your drinks and smokes are next, food they determine unhealthy come after that. Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have, some old crazy guy said something to that effect once, I think his name was Jefferson, from back east somewhere.

Nothing is free is the truth. But it doesn't just come from the rich. Everybody who earns a "living" (if that's what you can call working for minimum wage) will be paying their taxes (cough).

Also one bone to pick. The use of Marxist as some sort of slander is just a little vague and ignorant. I can't claim to align my ideals with Marx's completely, but some may fall into the Marxist category (being that they were most popularly discussed by him) -- this is not derogatory, but classification. Whether or not one considers that a negative thing is another matter. For instance, Obama may appear to be applying Marxist principles to new American policies and laws, but there is nothing really Marxist about them. Some are mildly socialist maybe, and some with hints of authoritarianism, but that's all I've noticed. For the Tea Party to claim to be a people's revolution and sprinkle the government Marxist and evil sounds a little confused.

Also the "auto company takeover" that occurred was the purchasing of GM by the governments of the US and Canada as well as the United Auto Workers Union. They purchased it because it had been run to the ground by a great American company, Cerberus, who turned a profit on its downfall and near complete demise. (Ever wonder why GM had shit the bed so bad for the past number of years?) The three buyers did this to retain what few jobs GM had left in North America. I will give you that this hasn't exactly turned around yet.

Student loans can be had from both independent banks or the government separately, can they not?

I would like to know what banks the US had taken over. I haven't heard of this. I've heard of banks taking a bailout and then lending the money back to the government with interest. Not even your Federal Reserve is government or publicly owned.

And not to say the government down there isn't screwing with shit. Hell they're even screwing with our government. I just wanted to volley that big ol' Marxist ball.

[Smatter Noguts]

We'll all be using Three Seashells instead of Toilet Paper!

I think the EPA and Consumer Protection Agency might have a thing or two to say to you about that, no matter how good it feels.

[Chimneyfish]

For instance, Obama may appear to be applying Marxist principles to new American policies and laws, but there is nothing really Marxist about them. Some are mildly socialist maybe, and some with hints of authoritarianism, but that's all I've noticed.

Obama fired the CEO of GM when it was a private company. Then Geithner was given power to regulate the salaries and bonus compensations of employees of private companies. It's clear that they view corporations as some kind of social welfare agents for the public good instead of as businesses pursuing their own profit.

Also the "auto company takeover" that occurred was the purchasing of GM by the governments of the US and Canada as well as the United Auto Workers Union. They purchased it because it had been run to the ground by a great American company, Cerberus, who turned a profit on its downfall and near complete demise. (Ever wonder why GM had shit the bed so bad for the past number of years?) The three buyers did this to retain what few jobs GM had left in North America. I will give you that this hasn't exactly turned around yet.

The shackling by the UAW was a big reason why GM stopped being able to compete in its final years. It got to the point of existing solely to pay employee benefits. I think the simple question that never really got answered during that mess is; Why shouldn't have GM been allowed to fail and be handled by a bankruptcy court?

[hoverdog]

The bill isn't UHC and it doesn't even allow states to do that individually, it's a weak compromise, a patch on a broken system. There are a lot of real reasons to not like it.
Mark of the beast Obomba muslim marxist socilast HITLER!!!!! is not a real reason, it's ridiculous and embarrassing.

[GreatWhiteNortherner]

Obama fired the CEO of GM when it was a private company. Then Geithner was given power to regulate the salaries and bonus compensations of employees of private companies. It's clear that they view corporations as some kind of social welfare agents for the public good instead of as businesses pursuing their own profit.

That's some kind of action that I'd sooner file under authoritarian rather than Marxist. None of that happened from the bottom up. It wasn't the workers who took hold of the companies and enforced these actions, but the country's leader dictating them. You're right it's a welfare move. "Big Poppa's gonna take care o' yeh, just sit back'n watch TV. Shhhhhh". There's really nothing Marxist about that. (The idea is, in the interim stage between wage slavery and some sort of communist utopia is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Obama fails to fit that role, in my understanding)

The shackling by the UAW was a big reason why GM stopped being able to compete in its final years. It got to the point of existing solely to pay employee benefits. I think the simple question that never really got answered during that mess is; Why shouldn't have GM been allowed to fail and be handled by a bankruptcy court?

I won't argue that the UAW may have had something to do with it, however I would not at all peg them as the entire reason. Read up on that Cerberus group, man. Nasty business.
The second point...the only guess I could give (I don't know THAT much about the situation) is that there are a great number of auto workers in the United States and Canada employed by GM (in spite of all their shady factory relocations, etc). Without GM, these folks would simply be without jobs. Ford isn't exactly opening a ton of plants, Toyota just closed NUMMI in Michigan and their hirings are as tight as my virgin asshole. I work in a Toyota steel parts stamping plant (and paid pathetically -- non-union, go figure). One fellow I knew, with the plant manager as a reference tried to get hired on to a Toyota car manufacturing plant an hour away during a "big hiring spree" and was turned down. There should have been no more perfect a candidate.

So imagine setting loose thousands upon thousands of unemployed auto workers on the already painfully dry job market (to join the already suffering steel workers here in Canada thanks to US Steel). These folks are trained (besides the few skilled tradesmen employed) at one occupation -- the car assembly line -- it's a lifelong career for most of them. Put these men and women on the market and they're either on the street or working for minimum wage in a fucking chocolate factory.

May seem like a bit of a welfare move...but in this country it also helps keep up a little healthy competition...or will in time. Canada's been overrun by Dutch and American oil and gas companies forever in spite of the fact that we have our own massive oil resources. So, Trudeau in his time sets up PetroCan, a public Canadian gasoline company. (The industry hasn't suffered for it. It's helped Canada, and slowed only some rich, foreign oil barons profits from soaring even higher.)

I can't speak for the US on that one.... but that is my guess.

And really I guess we'll see in time what happens -- whether they actually fix it and make it work or fuck it all up. I'd say it's fifty-fifty, though they're sure to not admit defeat, if defeat it is, until far, far too late.

[Ptflea2]

Last year my friend cut his index finger to the bone with a knife while he was chopping onions for dinner. He fainted from the blood loss and as he fell, hit his head on the corner of his table really bad. His girl friend call an ambulance and they took him to the ER. He ended up spending the night in the hospital due to the head injury. Good news = they stitched his finger back on, stitched the deep cut on his head, and ran some test to make sure he didn't have any internal brain damage. Bad news = he didn't have health insurance. Overall tab = $4,600.

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue with health care "reform," but I would certainly agree that it needs to be more affordable. People should not be afraid to go to the doctor/hospital because they are not sure they can afford it.

[Chimneyfish]

Mark of the beast Obomba muslim marxist socilast HITLER!!!!! is not a real reason, it's ridiculous and embarrassing.

Why are you telling us that? Are you just making a random observation or is it directed towards something posted in this thread?

[kowalski]

Ideally you want a system where everyone has free basic healthcare which can be supplemented by private health care - the two should complement each other.

The reason is needs to be free at a basic level is to make sure that poor people are not neglected. The reason it needs to be supplemented by private health care is because the Government cannot afford to pay for top quality treatment for everyone.

This will require the Government to co-operate with private companies with the common interest of making people better. This is a very difficult thing to achieve...

[fiyah]

[Chimneyfish]

The second point...the only guess I could give (I don't know THAT much about the situation) is that there are a great number of auto workers in the United States and Canada employed by GM (in spite of all their shady factory relocations, etc). Without GM, these folks would simply be without jobs.

But why should my right to keep my income be dependent on the size of any private company? If you followed that same reasoning then it would have made sense to have continually used tax dollars to bail out the horse-and-buggy industry up to this day. The reason a company like GM files for bankruptcy is because whatever it's producing isn't valuable enough to sustain itself. Using tax dollars to hoist up that same, failing system is an inherently bad investment.

Another thing I don't understand about the "too big to fail" philosophy is where specifically the line is drawn, and who is worthy of deciding? Let's say you open up a bar. At that point, you're the one in charge of hiring and firing, agreeing to wages with your staff, and you're the one responsible if your bar doesn't make any money. Then let's say your bar starts doing well enough to franchise the company and you start opening up more and more bars. What is the objective point at which the tax payers become responsible for your corporation not going under?

Also- it's no surprise that bailed-out corporations gave out big bonuses. Once the government decides your company is too big to fail and that they're going to spend as much money as necessary to keep you in business, then your incentive for making smart business decisions pretty much disappears. You have the promise of tax dollars to back up any shortcomings.

[Chimneyfish]

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue with health care "reform," but I would certainly agree that it needs to be more affordable. People should not be afraid to go to the doctor/hospital because they are not sure they can afford it.

Competition in the private market- ruled by the forces of supply and demand- will always produce better products at a cheaper price than the government. When the government grants itself a monopoly on an industry, it doesn't have anybody to compete with. Politicians don't have to worry about losing their job when public project falls through. There's no incentive to do anything cheaply since it's not their money they're using- it's tax dollars.

There's countless examples of this, but since the subject is health care- consider Lasik eye surgery. It's not covered under any current government insurance programs The price of the surgery has fallen dramatically, while the costs of every other procedure in the medical industry have skyrocketed. My mom got Lasik surgery back when it was really new, and I remember it being a hefty investment. Now there's literally a Lasik doctor nestled in one of the high-end strip malls in my city.

The less that individuals have an incentive to care about the costs of the services they're using then the higher the costs will be. People will lower the standard for what conditions they'll visit a doctor over- which will create shortages and much longer waits. They'll be able to take every costly medical test in existence no matter how unnecessary. Now that insurance companies can't charge variable premiums that reflect the variable risk they're taking on, of course premiums will go up. There's no way they can't go up.

[GreatWhiteNortherner]

The second point...the only guess I could give (I don't know THAT much about the situation) is that there are a great number of auto workers in the United States and Canada employed by GM (in spite of all their shady factory relocations, etc). Without GM, these folks would simply be without jobs.

But why should my right to keep my income be dependent on the size of any private company? If you followed that same reasoning then it would have made sense to have continually used tax dollars to bail out the horse-and-buggy industry up to this day. The reason a company like GM files for bankruptcy is because whatever it's producing isn't valuable enough to sustain itself. Using tax dollars to hoist up that same, failing system is an inherently bad investment.

Another thing I don't understand about the "too big to fail" philosophy is where specifically the line is drawn, and who is worthy of deciding? Let's say you open up a bar. At that point, you're the one in charge of hiring and firing, agreeing to wages with your staff, and you're the one responsible if your bar doesn't make any money. Then let's say your bar starts doing well enough to franchise the company and you start opening up more and more bars. What is the objective point at which the tax payers become responsible for your corporation not going under?

Also- it's no surprise that bailed-out corporations gave out big bonuses. Once the government decides your company is too big to fail and that they're going to spend as much money as necessary to keep you in business, then your incentive for making smart business decisions pretty much disappears. You have the promise of tax dollars to back up any shortcomings.

You do raise a really tough point, but I don't think there is any objective answer. Are you employed, Chimneyfish? I don't know what the job market is like in those parts, but I live in one of the areas in Canada with one of the highest unemployment rates and it is climbing still.
Maybe it's a matter of perspective? If the likes of GM, or any other major employer of skilled workers, were to suddenly fold, the job market would really overflow with desperate people. I guess I see it as a bit of depression prevention. Or prevention of a deeper depression, anyhow.

I think I'm mudding this whole discussion up a little, though. Mixing in too much Canada. I'm getting all mixed around.