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.

It seems I tried to bring you along too fast in understanding how our monetary system actually works. Most people on all sides of the political spectrum cannot grasp the reality; to expect a wing nut such as yourself was a bit of a stretch on my part.

So, let's keep it simple, and leave the issue at a level that you might be able to converse in - our paying the govt in payroll taxes for health care coverage versus paying private insurers for our coverage.

Why is it that those actually on Medicare opposed privatizing it two to one? Why is it that we heard t-baggers screaming for the socialist govt to keep their hands off their Medicare?

You know, you might do yourself a favor if you try to rise upon your current bumper sticker mentality and actually do some thinking for a change.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

welfare queen

Your using this evil term tells me everything I need to know about you.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

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).


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.


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


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.

Yes, I think that the thrift ethic and fear of debt is a primary factor.

I would add the fear that someone else is taking advantage, even if it clearly themselves that are one of those that are taking advantage. As noted in the NYT piece, they say its okay for them because: it's only temporary; they really wouldn't be doing it unless they really needed to do it: they deserve it (e.g. military service); no one really tells them how much they're getting implying if they only knew how much the operation was, they wouldn't partake; and of course, the old Ayn Rand excuse of if the govt is offering a freebie, it is your objectivest right to take all you can.

And, of course, they imagine that they're the only ones with these excuses.

There really is a fear of "the other" on the Right. I think it goes to very heart of why one chooses that lifelong viewpoint that now makes up for what passes as the Right today. It really explains much of vitriol towards Obama who, to the vast chagrin of progressives, by any objective measures is one of the most moderate President's in our lifetime.

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.

'Son here's your sword and inheritance, earn your own keep'. This Southern boy always pays his debt.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

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

Cable is a choice and optional. Much of health care is not, especially if one has a sick child.
Choice is good and free enterprise is also good where it fits. Unfortunately the US medical system currently does not operate as a free market. We would need a new system that provided a balance of power between the 'customers' with medical needs and the providers. Now , there is not a balance of power and the free market forces that work in a free market do not and can not work in the current health care 'system'.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

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.

The Republicans have yet to propose a viable approach because they can only say the free market solves all problems. It is clear that the free market has not worked well for the US health care system. I do have concerns about the Democrat approaches that result in Government dictates .

I find it difficult to understand free-market approaches to health care when every single country the US is in competition with has some form of government-sponsored health care/insurance. How is that an equal playing field financially?

Originally Posted by playwrite

It seems I tried to bring you along too fast in understanding how our monetary system actually works. Most people on all sides of the political spectrum cannot grasp the reality; to expect a wing nut such as yourself was a bit of a stretch on my part.

So, let's keep it simple, and leave the issue at a level that you might be able to converse in - our paying the govt in payroll taxes for health care coverage versus paying private insurers for our coverage.

Why is it that those actually on Medicare opposed privatizing it two to one? Why is it that we heard t-baggers screaming for the socialist govt to keep their hands off their Medicare?

You know, you might do yourself a favor if you try to rise upon your current bumper sticker mentality and actually do some thinking for a change.

Hey, I'm not the one who was asking the question why healthcare should cost money and associating a single payer system as being Free. I'm very aquainted with a monetary system and nothing is free in a monetary system. The money comes from someone or some place. Privatization would shift and remove the money stream that feeds the Medicare program and essentially eliminate the program and eliminate the govt jobs of those who run and manage it. Knowing this, I can certainly see why two-thirds of its recipients would be opposed to the idea of it. Privatization would be a radical change to their norm in the same way that the idea of government control would be a radical change to our norm. Now, a self proclaimed intellectual should be able to comprehend something as easy as that without seeking assistance or consulting with your peers. So, what is your problem, why are you unable to flip a situation like that around and understand?

Oh, and the bumper sticker mentality that I have is the willingness and the physical ability to stick a IDIOT bumper sticker to your forehead and turn you around for all to see.

Originally Posted by radind

The Republicans have yet to propose a viable approach because they can only say the free market solves all problems. It is clear that the free market has not worked well for the US health care system. I do have concerns about the Democrat approaches that result in Government dictates .

The US health care system isn't currently a true free market system. It's more or less a monopoly. Minnesota has three health care providers that roughly cost the same. The way I see it, the Democrats want more government programs because their programs keep them in business, so to speak. The Republicans want more economy because the private sector economy keeps them in business. The Tea Party wants to institute fiscal control to get us back on the right track financially, so to speak.

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?

Thanks PW for asking the question of our times.

Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan official who has crossed over to the other side, says that this issue is indeed more a question for psychologists and sociologists than economists.

Or maybe, I would add, for philosophers like me

http://billmoyers.com/segment/bruce-...he-right-went-

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

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.

I have no problem with some heir driving a Bentley on the same road as I do. I have no problem with the Coast Guard rescuing a rich yachtsman. I have no problem with the cops seeking out and the legal system prosecuting someone who embezzles money from a plutocrat.

What is your problem with a sales tax that ensures that some the people who get little for their work at least have medical care for themselves and their loved ones? What is your problem with excise taxes on cancerweed and alcohol products, taxes so collected funding the added costs related to tobacco and alcohol? What is your problem with an increase in Medicare taxes (which in accordance with market reality would fall upon the consumer in higher prices) so that we can have "Medicare for All"? Do you really think that the difference between paying $12.99 for a video disk and paying $15.99, or between paying $5.50 and $7.50 for an all-you-can-eat buffet is worth people who work in that store or restaurant for minimum wage die younger than otherwise if they have a diagnosis of treatable diabetes?

Are you willing to say that the medical quality and duration of life of the working poor and their families is worth the bargains that you get because many people have no healthcare on the job? Are you "pro-death"?

Oh, by the way -- I know of no health insurer who offers low-income discounts. Blue Cross in Michigan charges the same premium for the same age whether one makes $15K a year or $15M a year. You pay for the Bentley in America and might end up with a clunker with health insurance.

Oh, by the way -- your bigotry reeks when you speak of "welfare queens".

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

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

Cable TV is not a necessity. It is in fact a luxury (unless you live out in the sticks where signal reception is execrable, as it is where I live -- at least 60 miles from any TV signal except for some channel of a religious huckster). Health insurance can be the difference between life and death.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Why are the words "drug companies" so hard for (Exile '67) to utter?

He must be a fellow-traveler of the Ayn Rand cult who believes that anything that a corporation does in the name of profit is a service to humanity -- even if it prices people into the grave.

The rigged deal that the pharmaceutical companies get -- that gives them monopoly prices on the ground that such "inspires innovation" (they spend more money on marketing than on research)" -- and the reliance upon cost-loading, for-profit bureaucracies -- makes our medical-care system the most expensive in the world with only mediocre results at best... and deplorable results for those priced out.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The US health care system isn't currently a true free market system. It's more or less a monopoly.

Mostly it's a bunch of insurance companies who charge exorbitant rates for lousy, selective coverage.

The way I see it, the Democrats want more government programs because their programs keep them in business, so to speak.

Democrats want health care programs because it will save business and patients money and provide better coverage.

The Republicans want more economy because the private sector economy keeps them in business.

The Republicans want lower taxes because of the mantra that government takes their money to give to folks who don't earn it. The result is that the economy suffers, because fewer people can spend money to keep people in business with customers.

The Tea Party wants to institute fiscal control to get us back on the right track financially, so to speak.

The Tea Party wants to lower taxes because they think taxes are theft and don't pay for anything they need. This has happened because their Party has made government not to work by starving it. But the only way to get fiscal control is to raise taxes, not lower them. The way is to spend for things we need, and not spend for things we don't; not just to refuse to ever pay or raise taxes in an attempt to stop any government spending except for wars, on the excuse that any such spending is automatically bad or immoral.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Cable TV is not a necessity. It is in fact a luxury (unless you live out in the sticks where signal reception is execrable, as it is where I live -- at least 60 miles from any TV signal except for some channel of a religious huckster). Health insurance can be the difference between life and death.

It's interesting and kinda disturbing to think about what the corporate moguls have done to our economy and technology. Cable TV is a perfect example. Noone ever needed Cable TV. But big companies like comcast and Time Warner can get lots more money by charging people for cable. Then the TV networks and broadcasters think they can get more money by putting their better programs on cable, and (although I think all TV is mostly a wasteland except maybe PBS) they put all their money into programming on cable, and free broadcast networks have nothing left on except lousy cop and doctor shows, reality TV and how-to programs, which are cheaper to produce than quality programs with a good script and good acting like we used to get.

Same with cell phones and ipad/iphones. Someone like Steve Jobs comes along and says we can make a lots of money with beautiful gadgets. But that means you have to subscribe to an expensive service. Pretty soon everyone thinks they need a cell phone service, which is more expensive than land lines. And answering machines built for land lines are now nothing but crap that don't record very long messages.

And of course, we don't really need health insurance companies. Single payer medicare for all would work quite well, but we have to have the middle man because it makes some people wealthy. So they raise a fuss and indoctrinate people with trickle-down economics that says Medicare for all is socialism and unAmerican, and thus defeat single payer or public option proposals.

And for everything we need nowadays, there's a big box store. Small stores that provide quality products don't make big money for the super rich; only Walmarts can do that. So they drive all the other companies out of business, and insist on free trade and anti-union policies so the big boxes can sell stuff made with slave labor in Malaysia or Bangladesh or China. And so it goes in our Reaganoid, trickle-down world.

Now is the time to occupy it and start shutting it down, and envisioning a better alternative. Educate, advocate, and activate.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

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.

The poor can't afford to give that income to pay for someone else's health care. But the right wing wants to raise their taxes anyway with a flat tax..

You don't mind living in the nation that gets the least quality health care for the most money, because doing so upholds the trickle-down theory, an article of faith with you and all conservatives today.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Mostly it's a bunch of insurance companies who charge exorbitant rates for lousy, selective coverage.

Democrats want health care programs because it will save business and patients money and provide better coverage.

The Republicans want lower taxes because of the mantra that government takes their money to give to folks who don't earn it. The result is that the economy suffers, because fewer people can spend money to keep people in business with customers.

The Tea Party wants to lower taxes because they think taxes are theft and don't pay for anything they need. This has happened because their Party has made government not to work by starving it. But the only way to get fiscal control is to raise taxes, not lower them. The way is to spend for things we need, and not spend for things we don't; not just to refuse to ever pay or raise taxes in an attempt to stop any government spending except for wars, on the excuse that any such spending is automatically bad or immoral.

Don't that forget that the bulk of the costs are from the the health care providers . There is waste in our current insurance and we should fix this, but this alone would not fix the health care system.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's interesting and kinda disturbing to think about what the corporate moguls have done to our economy and technology. Cable TV is a perfect example. Noone ever needed Cable TV. But big companies like comcast and Time Warner can get lots more money by charging people for cable. Then the TV networks and broadcasters think they can get more money by putting their better programs on cable, and (although I think all TV is mostly a wasteland except maybe PBS) they put all their money into programming on cable, and free broadcast networks have nothing left on except lousy cop and doctor shows, reality TV and how-to programs, which are cheaper to produce than quality programs with a good script and good acting like we used to get.

Same with cell phones and ipad/iphones. Someone like Steve Jobs comes along and says we can make a lots of money with beautiful gadgets. But that means you have to subscribe to an expensive service. Pretty soon everyone thinks they need a cell phone service, which is more expensive than land lines. And answering machines built for land lines are now nothing but crap that don't record very long messages.

And of course, we don't really need health insurance companies. Single payer medicare for all would work quite well, but we have to have the middle man because it makes some people wealthy. So they raise a fuss and indoctrinate people with trickle-down economics that says Medicare for all is socialism and unAmerican, and thus defeat single payer or public option proposals.

And for everything we need nowadays, there's a big box store. Small stores that provide quality products don't make big money for the super rich; only Walmarts can do that. So they drive all the other companies out of business, and insist on free trade and anti-union policies so the big boxes can sell stuff made with slave labor in Malaysia or Bangladesh or China. And so it goes in our Reaganoid, trickle-down world.

Now is the time to occupy it and start shutting it down, and envisioning a better alternative. Educate, advocate, and activate.

when I was growing up in the 90s cable TV was good. then around 2000 it started going to crap, especially documentary channels like Discovery and TLC, which slowly became dominated by idiotic reality shows.

Originally Posted by Odin

when I was growing up in the 90s cable TV was good. then around 2000 it started going to crap, especially documentary channels like Discovery and TLC, which slowly became dominated by idiotic reality shows.

Now TV is good again. I would argue some genres are at there best. dramas and soap operas (not daytime) are really good right now. Plus the sitcom has made a comeback. I don't know prevalent reality tv is. I think it is a type of show that will continue, but as part of the TV diet not all of it like it was the first part of the decade. I think when people reacted to TV being so bad stations really turned it up a notch.

You are right about Discovery from what I've seen over the years though..

Originally Posted by Odin

when I was growing up in the 90s cable TV was good. then around 2000 it started going to crap, especially documentary channels like Discovery and TLC, which slowly became dominated by idiotic reality shows.

I used to love those channels and those were the ones I mainly watched in the 90's. Now all they show is programs like "Ice Road Truckers". Does anyone even watch those shows? I agree that reality TV shows are awful. The only thing I really ever watch on TV anymore is the news. And that gets boring often too, since usually they just cycle the same stories over and over again all day long. Unless something major is happening, you can turn off the news for several days, and get caught up on everything that transpired while you weren't paying attention in about an hour.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The US health care system isn't currently a true free market system.

Nor will it ever be one. A free market is possible only when both buyers and sellers are free to walk away from the transaction, and neither buy nor sell anything -- to or from anyone. Where there is a captive buyer, as in health care, or a captive seller, as in the job market, a free market is impossible.

H

Originally Posted by ASB65

I used to love those channels and those were the ones I mainly watched in the 90's. Now all they show is programs like "Ice Road Truckers". Does anyone even watch those shows? I agree that reality TV shows are awful. The only thing I really ever watch on TV anymore is the news. And that gets boring often too, since usually they just cycle the same stories over and over again all day long. Unless something major is happening, you can turn off the news for several days, and get caught up on everything that transpired while you weren't paying attention in about an hour.

Crime Drama is still really good, however. The re-imagined Hawaii Five-O is great, as are The Mentalist, Blue Bloods, Unforgettable and Person Of Interest. Even the CSI and NCIS franchises still have some life left. Interestingly, all these shows are on CBS, which had fallen to dead last in the late 90s and seems to have begun its comeback with...Survivor.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The poor can't afford to give that income to pay for someone else's health care. But the right wing wants to raise their taxes anyway with a flat tax..

You don't mind living in the nation that gets the least quality health care for the most money, because doing so upholds the trickle-down theory, an article of faith with you and all conservatives today.

They need to raise the rich's capitol gains tax to levels that everyone else is paying.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Mostly it's a bunch of insurance companies who charge exorbitant rates for lousy, selective coverage.

Democrats want health care programs because it will save business and patients money and provide better coverage.

The Republicans want lower taxes because of the mantra that government takes their money to give to folks who don't earn it. The result is that the economy suffers, because fewer people can spend money to keep people in business with customers.

The Tea Party wants to lower taxes because they think taxes are theft and don't pay for anything they need. This has happened because their Party has made government not to work by starving it. But the only way to get fiscal control is to raise taxes, not lower them. The way is to spend for things we need, and not spend for things we don't; not just to refuse to ever pay or raise taxes in an attempt to stop any government spending except for wars, on the excuse that any such spending is automatically bad or immoral.

I disagree, you're not going to reign in govt spending by allowing it to have more money (raising taxes) to spend. You reign in government spending by withholding money (lowering taxes) which results in less money available for it to spend. This is common sense. Sooner or later, the government will reach the point where it looses it credability and validity with the private sector taxpayers. At that point, you're dreams will come true and you will be able to live under a government that controls just about every aspect of your life. Me, I will be living free under a very limited government with a large army to keep your government at bay. You're a fool if you actually believe that history will not repeat itself.

Originally Posted by The Rani

For people who want more Power over their healthcare ...

Eat more fruits and veggies instead of meat.
Get some form of exercise every day.
Maintain a healthy weight.
Keep nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine out of your system.
Be grateful for what you have in your life. For anyone typing on this forum, that's plenty.

Then you won't have to worry so much about who pays for meds that you don't need anyway.

I do like your common sense approach to resolve health care issues. I'd have a problem keeping nicotine and alcohol out of my body. But other than that, I'd be able to comply to your health care plan.