Ron Paul has no chance. The ruler of this country rigged the election to pick up their own puppet because they control the voting system. They justify the result by faked poll because they control media.

Here is the proof. People found Ron Paul is the most popular candidate in Internet. Because Internet is open place. Ron Paul got most support from military, that's can't be rigged because the donation is there.

Quote, "

Ron Paul Will Win The Presidential Election 2012 - Here's The Proof !!
http://www.rtr.org/videos/26054/3776...the-presidenti
RTR.org - Watch - Ron Paul Will Win The Presidential Election 2012 - Here's The Proof !!

Uploaded by GetRenewable on Jan 11, 2012

This is Proof: Ron Paul will win the presidential election in 2012. These are the main candidates for the upcoming elections. Notice the number of Likes and dislikes on each video. Ron Paul Dominates all by Thousands of percent. This is our new President. Dr. Ron Paul. Please keep up the good work and victory is ours. Gain Liberty. End Debt. Vote Ron Paul! New Hampshire Speech By All Presidential Candidates. PLEASE VIEW EVIDENCE: Below...

Rick Santorum: [link to www.youtube.com]
(1489 views - 9 likes 76 dislikes)

Newt Gingrich: [link to www.youtube.com]
(3,082 views - 16 likes / 124 dislikes)

Jon Huntsman: [link to www.youtube.com]
(3,087 views - 35 likes 100 dislikes)

Mitt Romney: [link to www.youtube.com]
(20,600 views - 335 likes 690 dislikes!!) and they call him the winner! hahahah

RON PAUL: [link to www.youtube.com]
(129,000 views - 3,916 likes - 44 dislikes.)

Now YOU tell me who is gonna win. It's an obvious landslide victory

."

I still say Paul has no chance because this is a covert totalitarian. They control election system and play you people fool.
Quote:
Just look at how 'successful' Ron Paul was against John McCain and Mitt Romney in his bid for the 2008 nomination. He led all kinds of gallup and straw polls, he even led the way in raising funds via internet campaigning...yet how much success did he have in securing the nomination?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I haven't seen anyone argue for "free" healthcare, since it's not possible. PW and others, including me, have argued for single payer. I haven't seen anyone argue for socializing the healthcare industry, though it may accomplish something similar to that on its own. So I fail to see you point - especially given your concern that you may be expected to be a payer. If we actually get to single pater, then yes you will, just like the rest of us. If you're incorporated, so will your business. If you want to be pissed-off, there's your target.

Here's what he said to me.....

[/QUOTE]i start at the beginning. Why does anyone have to pay anybody to get sufficent health care? I'm a single payer guy.

Barring that (because of the stupidity of about 1/2 the people in this country), then I'm about why anyone should find it difficult to pay the $200 - they should be gainfully employed or self-employed with wages far more than adequate to pay for sufficent health care coverage.

I don't buy into the premise of your overlords. [/QUOTE]

You be the judge.....

Originally Posted by Odin

The Right Freaks Out As GOP Poll Finds 20% Of Republicans May Vote For Obama

Looks like it's gonna be a Democratic landslide, LOL!

It will be even more than 20% if Romney wins the nomination.

Originally Posted by katsung47

Ron Paul has no chance. The ruler of this country rigged the election to pick up their own puppet because they control the voting system. They justify the result by faked poll because they control media.

Here is the proof. People found Ron Paul is the most popular candidate in Internet. Because Internet is open place. Ron Paul got most support from military, that's can't be rigged because the donation is there.

Quote, "."

I still say Paul has no chance because this is a covert totalitarian. They control election system and play you people fool.
Quote:
Just look at how 'successful' Ron Paul was against John McCain and Mitt Romney in his bid for the 2008 nomination. He led all kinds of gallup and straw polls, he even led the way in raising funds via internet campaigning...yet how much success did he have in securing the nomination?

Ron Paul has no chance because he only appeals to a minority of the voters. That he has a small, loyal and active following is true, but that is all.

This extremely interesting story from today's New York Times introduces a new element into the election. It interviews a number of people from Chicago County, Minnesota, just outside Minneapolis, most of them conservative activists. But the real point of the article is that the federal government is now supporting a huge segment of the lower middle class, mainly through the earned income tax credit, which is now available to people who make nearly $50,000 a year, depending on their overall picture. It began as a way to let the poorest wage-earners keep more of their money but it has expanded a lot. (Remember, these people are paying payroll taxes.) This may in fact be a big part of the reason that federal income tax rates have plummeted so dramatically in recent years, something I have noted on my blog but I haven't been able to explain.

What is remarkable is that most of the people they interview oppose tax increases for anyone and favor government spending cuts. Many claim they don't want the benefits they are getting (although they do want Social Security and Medicare.) These people were the backbone of their local Tea Party and they turned out a 36-year Democratic Congressman last fall.

This is a dynamic to watch.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Here's what he said to me.....

Originally Posted by PW ...

i start at the beginning. Why does anyone have to pay anybody to get sufficent health care? I'm a single payer guy.

Barring that (because of the stupidity of about 1/2 the people in this country), then I'm about why anyone should find it difficult to pay the $200 - they should be gainfully employed or self-employed with wages far more than adequate to pay for sufficent health care coverage.

I don't buy into the premise of your overlords.

You be the judge.....

So, are you opposed to shifting to single payer, eliminating all employer-based healthcare, and just providing adequate pay to your employees so they can buy their own? It may mean a real minimum wage (~$15/hr.), but you get to quit hining that you are put upon to provide what you would prefer to avoid. Of course, your employees are now free to change jobs, even though they have preexisting conditions in the family. There is no loyalty anyway. You should be happy.

Originally Posted by radind

Ron Paul has no chance because he only appeals to a minority of the voters. That he has a small, loyal and active following is true, but that is all.

But the most interesting thing of all is how so many of Ron Paul's loyal followers are young - when the economic policies Paul advocates would utterly devastate those who have just entered the work force, and immensely favor those just on this side of leaving it.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Here's what he said to me.....

i start at the beginning. Why does anyone have to pay anybody to get sufficent health care? I'm a single payer guy.

Barring that (because of the stupidity of about 1/2 the people in this country), then I'm about why anyone should find it difficult to pay the $200 - they should be gainfully employed or self-employed with wages far more than adequate to pay for sufficent health care coverage.

I don't buy into the premise of your overlords.

You be the judge.....

Let me help you out with this.

I'm taking about Medicare for everyone.

Now from the ignorance of the vast majority of people, one "pays" for Medicare through their payroll tax and later from premium payments to the govt.

This is like how one's income taxes "pay" for our military, federal court system, food inspections, federal highway funds, or myriad of things.

Just ignore (like these people do -
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us...it.html?ref=us

- that most people get way more out of their entitlement programs than they ever put in.

Just ignore that the federal govt runs deficits every year with a total "debt" of $14T. Oh, except for the gnashing of teeth that we or our grandchildren will have to "pay" for that debt! Problem with that is the federal govt completely pays its entire debt every year about 4-5 times - it rolls its debt over through bond expiration and re-issuing with 3-5 times more bids than securities made available. It then continues to inject more dollars into the economy by issuing dollars for the interest. Always have (except for idiocy of Andrew Jackson) and always will.

The federal govt doesn't save money. The federal govt doesn't check its tax receipts before it spends. The Federal govt spends money by issuing it - by changing electrons on spreadsheets (Note to M&L - its too much to convey the "electrons waving at one another"). If it didn't, then you and I and everyone else would not have any money to earn, spend or save; there would be no economy except for Libertarian and anarchist magic pony land - also known as Somalia.

Putting aside attempts at social engineering (for good or for bad), the federal govt taxes us for only two real reasons: (a) to get us to use its currency so it can buy goods and services from us and (b) to destroy money supply as a means for price stability. Right now, taxes are too high for the economic situation we are in (that statement should cuddle your heart).

Those are the only real reasons why you "pay" to the federal govt. You don't pay for our military, federal court system, food inspections, federal highway funds, or myriad of things. And that is true for Medicare, either as it exist today or if it would cover everyone tomorrow. To believe otherwise is cognitive dissonance - yet relatively very few, all along the political spectrum, understand this. You're just another of the sheeple.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This extremely interesting story from today's New York Times introduces a new element into the election. It interviews a number of people from Chicago County, Minnesota, just outside Minneapolis, most of them conservative activists. But the real point of the article is that the federal government is now supporting a huge segment of the lower middle class, mainly through the earned income tax credit, which is now available to people who make nearly $50,000 a year, depending on their overall picture. It began as a way to let the poorest wage-earners keep more of their money but it has expanded a lot. (Remember, these people are paying payroll taxes.) This may in fact be a big part of the reason that federal income tax rates have plummeted so dramatically in recent years, something I have noted on my blog but I haven't been able to explain.

What is remarkable is that most of the people they interview oppose tax increases for anyone and favor government spending cuts. Many claim they don't want the benefits they are getting (although they do want Social Security and Medicare.) These people were the backbone of their local Tea Party and they turned out a 36-year Democratic Congressman last fall.

This is a dynamic to watch.

Before seeing this post of yours, I referenced this same NYT story -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us...it.html?ref=us

- in my response to Exile. I was actually thinking about starting a new thread to discuss the Right's increasing cognitive dissonance. It's been a while since we have discussed the earlier "What's the Matter with Kansas" or the 2010 update of "Keep Govt's Socialist Hands off my Medicare!"

As the NYT article states people are now twice (10% going to 20%) as dependent on the govt safety nets than just a few years ago - both in the Minnesota town that is the subject of the NYT article as well as the nation as a whole. However, it is the individual stories, particular conveyed by the videos, of conservative voters either directly dependent or a love one directly dependent on the govt, with little likelihood that they could survive the loss of the benefits, yet stating that these programs should be greatly reduced if not eliminated.

Here we have Exile and others constantly claiming that they "pay" for whatever they've gotten in this country, completely ignoring the federal deficit that they rail against. Railing against transferring wealth from one group to another completely ignoring that no one's tax rates have gone up in over a decade and for most, taxes have actually gone down - and in that time, for better or worse, enormous federal govt expenditures on two wars, heightened security, banks bailouts, auto producers bail outs, and a host of other things. Nobody has actually "paid" for these things.

Then there are those young people clamoring to support Ron Paul, who, if elected, would destroy whatever chance they might of otherwise of had to live in a prosperous country.

I'm sure this will elicit all kinds of reaction as to why I'm wrong about this or that (and then I can go through the typical exchange where we get to their cognitive dissonance that even they recognize but typically mishandle by running away with a few choice words on departure). However, this is not really a question of whether they are right or wrong - the facts speak for themselves, they are simply wrong.

The real question is why do they cling to such delusions?

I think at its heart is that the world has just gotten way too complicated for them. Their positions mask a desperate cry to return to some imagined past of greater simplicity where everything is clear, just need to work hard to succeed, and one can perhaps even get a magic pony. It's not going to happen, and I don't believe it ever did in the past. But yet they cling. Why?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Before seeing this post of yours, I referenced this same NYT story -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us...it.html?ref=us

- in my response to Exile. I was actually thinking about starting a new thread to discuss the Right's increasing cognitive dissonance. It's been a while since we have discussed the earlier "What's the Matter with Kansas" or the 2010 update of "Keep Govt's Socialist Hands off my Medicare!"

As the NYT article states people are now twice (10% going to 20%) as dependent on the govt safety nets than just a few years ago - both in the Minnesota town that is the subject of the NYT article as well as the nation as a whole. However, it is the individual stories, particular conveyed by the videos, of conservative voters either directly dependent or a love one directly dependent on the govt, with little likelihood that they could survive the loss of the benefits, yet stating that these programs should be greatly reduced if not eliminated.

I grew-up with people just like the ones in this story - to the point that they were of Scandinavian descent too. What you're seeing here is the Protestant work and thrift ethics banging headlong into their own experiences. Since both must be true, they equate the cause of their dependence on their willingness to be dependent. Modern Swedes and Norwegians may not be typically tight fisted, but their ancestors certainly were. SO they see a problem, they look in their toolkit, and apply the tools they have (note my .sig addresses that).

Originally Posted by PW ...

Here we have Exile and others constantly claiming that they "pay" for whatever they've gotten in this country, completely ignoring the federal deficit that they rail against. Railing against transferring wealth from one group to another completely ignoring that no one's tax rates have gone up in over a decade and for most, taxes have actually gone down - and in that time, for better or worse, enormous federal govt expenditures on two wars, heightened security, banks bailouts, auto producers bail outs, and a host of other things. Nobody has actually "paid" for these things.

If you grow-up poor, or even lower middle class, debt is scary. Think of it as an illness that must be fought-off at all times. That's the mind set.

Originally Posted by PW ...

Then there are those young people clamoring to support Ron Paul, who, if elected, would destroy whatever chance they might of otherwise of had to live in a prosperous country.

Yeah, that one is a bit baffling. I don't have a nice, neat narrative to explain it either.

Originally Posted by PW ...

I'm sure this will elicit all kinds of reaction as to why I'm wrong about this or that (and then I can go through the typical exchange where we get to their cognitive dissonance that even they recognize but typically mishandle by running away with a few choice words on departure). However, this is not really a question of whether they are right or wrong - the facts speak for themselves, they are simply wrong.

The real question is why do they cling to such delusions?

I think at its heart is that the world has just gotten way too complicated for them. Their positions mask a desperate cry to return to some imagined past of greater simplicity where everything is clear, just need to work hard to succeed, and one can perhaps even get a magic pony. It's not going to happen, and I don't believe it ever did in the past. But yet they cling. Why?

Your experience and theirs are very different. Living in the midst of a hardscrabble life makes one tough, but also wary. Sometimes, ones fight-or-flight reflex gets triggered when it should go to sleep. I see that as the central issue here. It's a lot more difficult to reach an understanding that runs counter to your lifelong programming, no matter how incorrect the programming may be. That's why I'm afraid that we will not fully adopt sensible policies until we try the disastrous ones first.

I can see I (and the Times) got something interesting going here.

At bottom I think this is a reflection of our completely dysfunctional economy. A substantial proportion of the working population cannot pay taxes (income and social security) and live. So the earned income tax credit was designed to make it possible for them to live. Meanwhile, they are having more and more trouble affording health insurance. And the continuing disappearance of good jobs has made the problem much worse. We now do have a huge assistance program for working poor, and they resent it! But the problem is that we can't provide enough good jobs, the way Germany does.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If you grow-up poor, or even lower middle class, debt is scary. Think of it as an illness that must be fought-off at all times. That's the mind set.

That's a mindset this Scandinavian-American absorbed from the cradle. I am reflexively debt-averse. Interesting that us Norskies in Yankeedom have come to "out-Yankee" the original Yankees.

Originally Posted by Odin

That's a mindset this Scandinavian-American absorbed from the cradle. I am reflexively debt-averse. Interesting that us Norskies in Yankeedom have come to "out-Yankee" the original Yankees.

You wouldn't say that if you met my mother. . . .

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So, are you opposed to shifting to single payer, eliminating all employer-based healthcare, and just providing adequate pay to your employees so they can buy their own? It may mean a real minimum wage (~$15/hr.), but you get to quit hining that you are put upon to provide what you would prefer to avoid. Of course, your employees are now free to change jobs, even though they have preexisting conditions in the family. There is no loyalty anyway. You should be happy.

No, I'm against shifting the control from the people to the government. You and PW are a couple of twits caught up in the political games. PW doesn't even understand why people should be expected to pay for healthcare. According to you and me, the people will pay via taxation for single payer. You might want to pull him aside and educate him that the individual will be paying for their healthcare under a single payer system and the quality and the services and the products will be determined by bureaucrats and their budget behind closed doors. It isn't a matter of who pays, I'm gonna pay either way. It's a matter of what I'm going to be able to control and recieve for my dollars. Oh, and you should also educate your little blue twits that it is OUR dollars at stake and it's not the DEMOCRATS.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

No, I'm against shifting the control from the people to the government. You and PW are a couple of twits caught up in the political games. PW doesn't even understand why people should be expected to pay for healthcare. According to you and me, the people will pay via taxation for single payer. You might want to pull him aside and educate him that the individual will be paying for their healthcare under a single payer system and the quality and the services and the products will be determined by bureaucrats and their budget behind closed doors. It isn't a matter of who pays, I'm gonna pay either way. It's a matter of what I'm going to recieve for my dollars. Oh, and you should also educate your little blue twits that it is OUR dollars at stake and it's not the DEMOCRATS.

I've got news for you, exile, the quality and services and products we receive from health care today are determined by bureaucrats--bureaucrats with one thing on their minds--profit. They want us to buy the maximum amount of care, without cost-benefit analysis. Bureaucrats in other advanced countries do a much better job of making those decisions. That's why their people get care just as good for half the money. That's a FACT.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Before seeing this post of yours, I referenced this same NYT story -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us...it.html?ref=us

- in my response to Exile. I was actually thinking about starting a new thread to discuss the Right's increasing cognitive dissonance. It's been a while since we have discussed the earlier "What's the Matter with Kansas" or the 2010 update of "Keep Govt's Socialist Hands off my Medicare!"

As the NYT article states people are now twice (10% going to 20%) as dependent on the govt safety nets than just a few years ago - both in the Minnesota town that is the subject of the NYT article as well as the nation as a whole. However, it is the individual stories, particular conveyed by the videos, of conservative voters either directly dependent or a love one directly dependent on the govt, with little likelihood that they could survive the loss of the benefits, yet stating that these programs should be greatly reduced if not eliminated.

Here we have Exile and others constantly claiming that they "pay" for whatever they've gotten in this country, completely ignoring the federal deficit that they rail against. Railing against transferring wealth from one group to another completely ignoring that no one's tax rates have gone up in over a decade and for most, taxes have actually gone down - and in that time, for better or worse, enormous federal govt expenditures on two wars, heightened security, banks bailouts, auto producers bail outs, and a host of other things. Nobody has actually "paid" for these things.

Then there are those young people clamoring to support Ron Paul, who, if elected, would destroy whatever chance they might of otherwise of had to live in a prosperous country.

I'm sure this will elicit all kinds of reaction as to why I'm wrong about this or that (and then I can go through the typical exchange where we get to their cognitive dissonance that even they recognize but typically mishandle by running away with a few choice words on departure). However, this is not really a question of whether they are right or wrong - the facts speak for themselves, they are simply wrong.

The real question is why do they cling to such delusions?

I think at its heart is that the world has just gotten way too complicated for them. Their positions mask a desperate cry to return to some imagined past of greater simplicity where everything is clear, just need to work hard to succeed, and one can perhaps even get a magic pony. It's not going to happen, and I don't believe it ever did in the past. But yet they cling. Why?

You mean that no one has actually paid for any of those things that you mentioned yet. We probably won't at a significant cost to the left, our world image and the world itself. You don't get this because you're missing the reality.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

No, I'm against shifting the control from the people to the government. You and PW are a couple of twits caught up in the political games. PW doesn't even understand why people should be expected to pay for healthcare. According to you and me, the people will pay via taxation for single payer. You might want to pull him aside and educate him that the individual will be paying for their healthcare under a single payer system and the quality and the services and the products will be determined by bureaucrats and their budget behind closed doors. It isn't a matter of who pays, I'm gonna pay either way. It's a matter of what I'm going to be able to control and recieve for my dollars. Oh, and you should also educate your little blue twits that it is OUR dollars at stake and it's not the DEMOCRATS.

Do you like having the most expensive medical system in the world? That is what you get with ours.

The People do not have control of the medical-payment system; it is a profiteering cartel that at times effectively prices people into the grave. The system works well for someone who has a generous private-sector employer or works for the government, or else is super-rich. Otherwise it is a raw deal as any cost-loading monopoly. That it deals in something that makes the difference between life and death makes it all the more abominable.

As it is, people who work for skinflint employers get no break on health insurance. Sure, a customer gets a break and gets cheaper hamburgers, clothes, TVs, or video because the employees of places that supply such things are paid so little that they can't afford health insurance. Maybe we would get a special break if people worked in such places were slaves who had to sleep in kennel-like accommodations and could be starved or beaten if they underperformed. There's an obvious limit to the tolerance that most of us have for injustice. I am reminded of what the late Polish dissident (toward Commies) Czeslaw Miłosz observed that "those who became dissidents were not necessarily those with the strongest minds, but rather those with the weakest stomachs; the mind can rationalize anything, he said, but the stomach can take only so much."

The working poor in America get no special breaks; they feel the rawness of American capitalism with few compensations. They don't get to buy into the cornucopia that you take for granted -- maybe a new movie on video every week instead of a new one once a month. Are you willing to pay 10% more to ensure that if the server at the buffet has a child with asthma that that child can get treatment for asthma -- or let that child DIE! Our system does everything possible to turn as many people as possible into fierce competitors for the barest necessities of life in a destructive race to the bottom. Such is a 3T in our bureaucratic-plutocratic system.

The poor pay for the horrible system that we have with the most precious thing possible -- their lives. How well people cope with such a condition such as diabetes depends to no small extent on the sort of medical coverage that they have. But if you are lucky then those horrors happen to someone for whom you care not in the least. You may not be personally cruel, but you have sold out to the politics of cruelty.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I've got news for you, exile, the quality and services and products we receive from health care today are determined by bureaucrats--bureaucrats with one thing on their minds--profit. They want us to buy the maximum amount of care, without cost-benefit analysis. Bureaucrats in other advanced countries do a much better job of making those decisions. That's why their people get care just as good for half the money. That's a FACT.

I've got news for you, the quality and services and products that we recieve from health care today were determined by the people who provide (scientists, doctors, nurses and many others) and those who pay (insurance companies, corporations, employees and customers) for health care.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I've got news for you, the quality and services and products that we recieve from health care today were determined by the people who provide (scientists, doctors, nurses and many others) and those who pay (insurance companies, corporations, employees and customers) for health care.

Why are the words "drug companies" so hard for you to utter?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Do you like having the most expensive medical system in the world? That is what you get with ours.

The People do not have control of the medical-payment system; it is a profiteering cartel that at times effectively prices people into the grave. The system works well for someone who has a generous private-sector employer or works for the government, or else is super-rich. Otherwise it is a raw deal as any cost-loading monopoly. That it deals in something that makes the difference between life and death makes it all the more abominable.

As it is, people who work for skinflint employers get no break on health insurance. Sure, a customer gets a break and gets cheaper hamburgers, clothes, TVs, or video because the employees of places that supply such things are paid so little that they can't afford health insurance. Maybe we would get a special break if people worked in such places were slaves who had to sleep in kennel-like accommodations and could be starved or beaten if they underperformed. There's an obvious limit to the tolerance that most of us have for injustice. I am reminded of what the late Polish dissident (toward Commies) Czeslaw Miłosz observed that "those who became dissidents were not necessarily those with the strongest minds, but rather those with the weakest stomachs; the mind can rationalize anything, he said, but the stomach can take only so much."

The working poor in America get no special breaks; they feel the rawness of American capitalism with few compensations. They don't get to buy into the cornucopia that you take for granted -- maybe a new movie on video every week instead of a new one once a month. Are you willing to pay 10% more to ensure that if the server at the buffet has a child with asthma that that child can get treatment for asthma -- or let that child DIE! Our system does everything possible to turn as many people as possible into fierce competitors for the barest necessities of life in a destructive race to the bottom. Such is a 3T in our bureaucratic-plutocratic system.

The poor pay for the horrible system that we have with the most precious thing possible -- their lives. How well people cope with such a condition such as diabetes depends to no small extent on the sort of medical coverage that they have. But if you are lucky then those horrors happen to someone for whom you care not in the least. You may not be personally cruel, but you have sold out to the politics of cruelty.

Our medical 'system' certainly needs major reform . I just filled a prescription with retail price of $390 , but cost to me was $90 based on group insurance. I think that the US made a fundamental mistake in tying most medical insurance to employers. Although I am not happy with the current Health care law, most Republicans refuse to even admit we have a problem. As you have pointed out there are other countries that operate with lower costs. Congress seems to have problems getting anything done on any difficult issue( taxes, health care etc). One thing that I really do not understand is why the Washington solutions need to so complex and take so many pages to describe. The one thing that seems to have worked reasonably well is the series of military base realingnments( 'BRAC'). I am begining to favor just turning over all the hard problems to a set of 'BRAC" style groups and let Congress stand aside except for approving the proposals.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I've got news for you, the quality and services and products that we recieve from health care today were determined by the people who provide (scientists, doctors, nurses and many others) and those who pay (insurance companies, corporations, employees and customers) for health care.

The quality of health care is primarily detemined by the health care providers. No single customer has much say in the quality or the cost. There is a total imbalance of power.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Do you like having the most expensive medical system in the world? That is what you get with ours.

The People do not have control of the medical-payment system; it is a profiteering cartel that at times effectively prices people into the grave. The system works well for someone who has a generous private-sector employer or works for the government, or else is super-rich. Otherwise it is a raw deal as any cost-loading monopoly. That it deals in something that makes the difference between life and death makes it all the more abominable.

As it is, people who work for skinflint employers get no break on health insurance. Sure, a customer gets a break and gets cheaper hamburgers, clothes, TVs, or video because the employees of places that supply such things are paid so little that they can't afford health insurance. Maybe we would get a special break if people worked in such places were slaves who had to sleep in kennel-like accommodations and could be starved or beaten if they underperformed. There's an obvious limit to the tolerance that most of us have for injustice. I am reminded of what the late Polish dissident (toward Commies) Czeslaw Miłosz observed that "those who became dissidents were not necessarily those with the strongest minds, but rather those with the weakest stomachs; the mind can rationalize anything, he said, but the stomach can take only so much."

The working poor in America get no special breaks; they feel the rawness of American capitalism with few compensations. They don't get to buy into the cornucopia that you take for granted -- maybe a new movie on video every week instead of a new one once a month. Are you willing to pay 10% more to ensure that if the server at the buffet has a child with asthma that that child can get treatment for asthma -- or let that child DIE! Our system does everything possible to turn as many people as possible into fierce competitors for the barest necessities of life in a destructive race to the bottom. Such is a 3T in our bureaucratic-plutocratic system.

The poor pay for the horrible system that we have with the most precious thing possible -- their lives. How well people cope with such a condition such as diabetes depends to no small extent on the sort of medical coverage that they have. But if you are lucky then those horrors happen to someone for whom you care not in the least. You may not be personally cruel, but you have sold out to the politics of cruelty.

Do you think a welfare queen or a working poor would be willing to give up 10% of their income to pay for Donald Trumps grandson's asthma treatments or my kid issues? BTW, I don't mind living in the nation with the most expensive health care in the world.

Originally Posted by radind

The quality of health care is primarily detemined by the health care providers. No single customer has much say in the quality or the cost. There is a total imbalance of power.

Who do you think wants cable TV, the provider or the customers?

Originally Posted by radind

Our medical 'system' certainly needs major reform . I just filled a prescription with retail price of $390 , but cost to me was $90 based on group insurance. I think that the US made a fundamental mistake in tying most medical insurance to employers. Although I am not happy with the current Health care law, most Republicans refuse to even admit we have a problem. As you have pointed out there are other countries that operate with lower costs. Congress seems to have problems getting anything done on any difficult issue( taxes, health care etc). One thing that I really do not understand is why the Washington solutions need to so complex and take so many pages to describe. The one thing that seems to have worked reasonably well is the series of military base realingnments( 'BRAC'). I am begining to favor just turning over all the hard problems to a set of 'BRAC" style groups and let Congress stand aside except for approving the proposals.

Both parties know that there's a problem. The Democrats want the government solve the problem by taking over the problem which would create more government. The Republicans want to use market based solutions to solve the problem which requires less government.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Why are the words "drug companies" so hard for you to utter?

"Drug companies" aren't hard for me to say.