McCain Is the Only Hope of the GOP & America

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by scotty

Why feed a lying, currupt beast though.?

Ok, you want to fix it? Why not advocate that we do something about the greedy pharmacies to bring the prices down ? Why not advocate that we do something about the greedy lawyers waiting outside hospitals and doctors offices for a chance at a frevilous lawsuit. Not to mention the greedy people who take them up on it.?

The only way to bring costs down will be to intruduce outside competition. If we had an optional national health insurance program all Americans would be covered. As explained that will bring down the cost of health care because doctors will not be passing loss on to everyone else. With the public system being cheaper than the private insurance system the private insurance companies would have to bring their prices down to compete. Right now their is collusion going on between this massive companies where they secure eachother's interests and keep prices inflated so they can maintain their prophets. A national system would bring a competitive component to the system that would bring a balance.

France was #1. To the shagrin of the Canadians, the French system is a system like what Hillary is promoting, a government/private combination. This has worked to keep costs far lower in France than what we see in the US.

Also...in France doctors don't have to worry so much about malpractice insurance. The American malpractice litigation system is a mess, a nightmare for doctors. What's interesting is that we see people coming to the US to learn medicine and then leave the US to practice medicine. Doctors in the US have too much paperwork (thanks to the private insurance companies). They also have too many legal expenses. In France they have a sensible cap on malpractice rewards. This keeps the cost down and protects doctors. So yes...even a national system based on the European system would resolve the malpractice insanity.

You remember the tobbaco settlements? How all that millions was going to cancer victims, hospitals, anti-smoking etc. Then a year or so later it came out that all the states had spent the money because their local governments were "broke" (what ever)

The states are broke. I work for the government and let me tell you what's happened here. The Fed used to give us block grants and funding for various initiatives. The Bush administration cut a number of those block grands and funding initiatives. However, the Bush administration passed more laws we're required to abide by. So we have tons of unfunded mandates. We've had to raise local property taxes and sales taxes in various areas to make up for the difference and we're still in the red. Why did Bush cut funding? To give massive tax breaks to this billion dollar companies that helped him with the election. They also closed a number of middle class tax shelters and expanded shelters for those making over $200,000 a year. They shifted the tax burden to the Middle class and left the states with unfunded mandates. It's a real mess bro. Of course when the settlements came down we were already marching into the red.

You talked at the beginning of this thread about addressing the root of the problem. Well there is the root of the problem. Its can't be solved by feeding the greed even more.

Like I already said....Dr. William McGuire (CEO of United Health Care) walked away with 1.7 billion dollars in stock options....the same year nearly 18,000 Americans died because they were too poor to afford medical treatments and procedures that might have saved their lives.

[ChristopherHall]

You're an anarchist's dream bro. It was argued that government regulations in the banking and mortgage loan industry was the problem. So they deregulated the industry and expanded variable rate home loans. Well....now we see what the government was protecting us from. Get real bro. Government isn't the problem....lawless, exploitive, people who feel they don't have to obey the law are the problem.

Here's an idea...if you think government is the problem take care of your own sewage, don't call the police if you get into trouble, also if your house catches fire...don't call the local municipal fire department. Hey, since states require a driver's license just stop driving. Or...move to a place where you can get away from this American government you hate so much.

I mentioned how my wife and I visit Canada every year. Here's a clip on YouTube about a Canadian waiting room that I found entertaining....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ1lPPTPSR4

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Wrong. Funding for Medicare and Medicaid would be transfered into a national health insurance program funding the program nearly 60%. Taxes needed to pay for the rest of the program . . .

These programs, and many of the state programs like them, are all cut of the same cloth. They are compulsory wealth transfers from the prepared to the unprepared. Where is the compassion in that? It actually detracts from compassion on a local neighborhood level, as people consider that their neighbor's problems are being handled by a myriad of government programs. Charity is done on an individual basis, and from a cheerful heart.

The U.S. government has a right to raise taxes to defend the shores and provide a common currency. All the rest of this mess, most of it slipping in under the much-abused "interstate commerce clause," is extraneous to the constitutional mandate for the federal government. But now all these poor sods are conditioned to receive their handouts, and are actually in worse shape than if we'd left them to sort out their own problems. It's a massive vote-buying scheme disguised as Christian charity, or civic-mindedness, or whatever, and apparently you've bought into it. It won't be so funny when we reach the tipping point of: less than 50% pay taxes AND more than 50% receive financial assistance from the government.

Baloney. How is it ethical to use tax dollars for anything then?

Defend the shores, provide a common currency. Everything else is about currying favor with constituencies and special interest groups. And you paying for it, ya sucker you! Err, wait a minute . . . . so am I! aaaaaaaagh!

Someone will always wish not to have their tax dollars spent on something.

That is true enough. Defense spending, department of energy and transportation, and other such things that benefit the citizenry as a whole are no big deal. What you are defending is the politics of personal and class envy, of confiscatory, compulsory wealth transfer. It is NOT for the common good that the man down the street with poor planning and finance abilities get a handout - it's for his good alone, and it's to the detriment of the people that pay for it. Our freedoms were based on equality of opportunity, but this socialist system attempts to guarantee equality of outcome. This defies all natural law and is nothing more than a cynical vote-buying scheme. Jesus himself said the poor we'll have with us always.

I guess everyone's being robbed. Maybe we should shut down the government and become an anarchy.

Hyperbole. Wheee! what fun! hyperbole.

Get realistic here bro. We're talking about Health Insurance. It's not like a car or computer. It's health.

From where do you originate a sovereign right to an insurance policy????? People that don't plan and save have suffered from the dawn of time. It's highly egotistical to think that this can be changed.

Look at our successful federal programs to end drugs and poverty . . . oops! - They've spent BILLIONS these past 40 years and the statistics have only gotten worse. How about that federal department of education? We spend more now than ever, and our students are performing more poorly than they ever have. The only thing these programs have succeeded at is building bureacracies that actively work at self-preservation and growth, like a cancer.

Do sick people have a basic human right to health care that can save their lives. Last year an estimated 18,000 Americans died because they couldn't afford health insurance.

This is false. There are charity hospitals. Lack of insurance does not equal lack of treatment. The "uninsured" statistics are trumped up by the many, many people who CHOOSE NOT TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY ARE YOUNG AND HEALTHY! Why would anybody want to subsidize the old and the sick through an insurance company, yet ANOTHER bureaucratic entity, albeit one trying to turn a profit? It used to be

It's Nixon's fault that people expect health insurance from their employers, another bad idea. All this third-party payer system has unnecessarily run up the prices.

What was their only crime? Being poor.

This reminds me of that age old question, why do bad things happen to good people? I hear you about the plight of the virtuous poor, the trouble is they're scarce as hen's teeth around here. Another romantic myth bites the dust.

I believe your heart is in the right place. The trouble is that you are proposing an untenable and proven non-viable solution to a sensational, emotional problem that has been exaggerated from the word go.

Would you like to visit a Canadian forum and talk with some Canadians about this with me?

I'd feel so . . . . . . awkward. I don't speak a word of Canadian.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

We've had to raise local property taxes and sales taxes in various areas to make up for the difference and we're still in the red. Why did Bush cut funding? To give massive tax breaks to this billion dollar companies that helped him with the election.

I can at least look at the rest of it but we will have to agree to disagree here.

This is economics one on one. Those tax breaks put more money into companies pockets (yes some did go to the big boys) Those companies reinvested that money into themselves and expanded, thus hiring more workers. My company has grown on average 38% every year for the past 4 years. That is awesome growth for an already multi-million dollar company. I myself in just the past 4 years have had 3 promotions totaling an 84% increase in pay in that same time frame. The kicker is this, Now that election year is coming up and the assumption is to have a democratic president, our company made an internal decision to limit its own growth to just 12% this year in anticipation of the tax hikes that will be coming. This will result in less spending which dampens the economy, as we are seeing. Reagan did it and Clinton inherited it, now Bush done the same thing and the Dems. will take it all back in order to pass plans to take care of others. Its not that I don't believe in what your advocating, I just don't believe in the way they want to do it. Our way may take longer, but your way will bankrupt the country AND everyone in it.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Give me one biblical example of a Christian using the sword to execute sinners. Just one.

I love the way you misrepresent me. I never said the Christian individual is to execute. Paul said the GOVERNMENT had that responsibility. They are MINISTERS of God. If ministers, who's will and precepts are they to follow? Who appointed them? (and God wants nothing to do with government).

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Dave...those were the Laws laid down in ancient Israel. Paul didn't endorce overthrowing Rome and instituting Biblical Law as you are in regards to the United States.

CH, it is frustrating that you don't read or seem to understand what I've written.
I never advocated social uprising. I stated that the transformation is from the bottom up, by regeneration! It's all about evangelism.

I hate to say that you are blatantly misrepresenting me but come on! Read what I write if you wish to interact with me. We can disagree but let's be honest and represent the other's position accurately.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

These programs, and many of the state programs like them, are all cut of the same cloth. They are compulsory wealth transfers from the prepared to the unprepared. Where is the compassion in that? It actually detracts from compassion on a local neighborhood level, as people consider that their neighbor's problems are being handled by a myriad of government programs. Charity is done on an individual basis, and from a cheerful heart.

I'm beginning to think you guys are brain damaged. You're already paying for the uninsured, that's why your premiums are so high. I explained this in an ealier post how this cost is passed down to YOU in higher premiums. Of course it's inflated so they can bring in a prophet. So don't argue that you're against paying for the unprepared when you're paying far more for them right now than you would be under a nationalized insurance system.

You're equating health care that could save a life to giving a bag of groceries at a charity. That's real pathetic bro. Health care for the sick and dying isn't a matter of charity it's a matter of moral mandate. Maybe you think their lives should depend on a charitable contribution here and there and if they cannot afford to complete the treatments and die it's all good. I don't. There's a story out of New Mexico about a man who needed charitable help with cancer treatments. His family were able to raise enough money for the first phase of treatments and he underwent treatment and was showing improvement. However, they couldn't raise enough money to continue the treatments and he was denied treatment on the grounds that he could not pay. He died. I guess you think that's just fine right? Fine and dandy for you. In your America if you're wealthy enough to pay for the treatments or you can afford insurance you deserve to live. If you can't...well...charity is your lot and if it isn't enough DIE! Health care is too important to be relegated to charity. Charity is a bag of groceries for a family that lost a job. Charity is putting a family up for a few nights in a hotel if their house burns down. Charity is given coats to kids during the holidays. You can't in your right mind relegate cancer treatments to charity. That's a joke, that's immoral. That's unholy. I'd go as far as to say that's unChristian.

The U.S. government has a right to raise taxes to defend the shores and provide a common currency. All the rest of this mess, most of it slipping in under the much-abused "interstate commerce clause," is extraneous to the constitutional mandate for the federal government. But now all these poor sods are conditioned to receive their handouts, and are actually in worse shape than if we'd left them to sort out their own problems. It's a massive vote-buying scheme disguised as Christian charity, or civic-mindedness, or whatever, and apparently you've bought into it. It won't be so funny when we reach the tipping point of: less than 50% pay taxes AND more than 50% receive financial assistance from the government.

Bro...you're disconnected from reality. The vast majority of people who are uninsured are considered "working poor". They work full time, often two jobs, and still can't afford health insurance. They are not sods wanting a hand out.

Defend the shores, provide a common currency. Everything else is about currying favor with constituencies and special interest groups. And you paying for it, ya sucker you! Err, wait a minute . . . . so am I! aaaaaaaagh!

Bro...my family would have been paying $365 dollars a month for the insurance we had. By the end of the year it was estimated to be raised above $380 a month. Why? Because of the drain on the system by the uninsured. Let me try to explain it to you like I did in another post....the uninsured go to the emegency room. They see a doctor for an advanced illness. They can't pay the bill. The provider takes the loss and hands it down in higher health care costs. To cover the higher costs of health care the health insurance providers increase the cost of premiums. When premiums increase in cost more people find they can't afford insurance and therefore more people end up uninsured and going to emergency rooms and the cycle repeats itself.

Now in the US we pay 16% more on health care than any other Westernized country but we're nowhere near providing the quality they provide. Up to 33% of all the money spent on health care in the US is spent on redundant administrated costs and could be eliminated by a centralized health records system.

That is true enough. Defense spending, department of energy and transportation, and other such things that benefit the citizenry as a whole are no big deal. What you are defending is the politics of personal and class envy, of confiscatory, compulsory wealth transfer. It is NOT for the common good that the man down the street with poor planning and finance abilities get a handout - it's for his good alone, and it's to the detriment of the people that pay for it. Our freedoms were based on equality of opportunity, but this socialist system attempts to guarantee equality of outcome. This defies all natural law and is nothing more than a cynical vote-buying scheme.

Dude...you're already paying for the uninsured AND it's being inflated for profits. That's why your premiums are so high.

Jesus himself said the poor we'll have with us always.

That's not meant to make us just walk away from social responsibility as a nation and a people. Since we'll always have the poor with us we all should suck it up and carry eachother through. You're a Social Darwinist. That means like Darwin you believe in the survival of the fittist. You believe that if they are poor and can't afford health care, can't get charity health care they need, it's OK that they just die. Dude....that's Satanic and just the opposite of what Jesus was trying to teach us as a people.

[ChristopherHall]

From where do you originate a sovereign right to an insurance policy????? People that don't plan and save have suffered from the dawn of time. It's highly egotistical to think that this can be changed.

Dude, do you know how expensive it is to pay for cancer treatment out of pocket? I'm so flabbergasted I'm convinced that's the dumbest assessment I've heard on this subject. We're not talking about saving up to buy a used Toyota. We're talking about health care for a family of five. Do you know how much this companies are extorting from our preachers for their health insurance? I know a pastor who pays over $700 a month for health insurance. He'd be wiped out if the church didn't help him pay for it and he was forced to work and pay for it himself like everyone else. Many ministers I know don't even have health insurance. What about their kids? I'd like to see them covered too. I know a pastor who's family was wiped out when his wife got liver disease. Was he not saving enough or planning enough. Bro...that' kind of accusation is pathetic.

Look at our successful federal programs to end drugs and poverty . . . oops! - They've spent BILLIONS these past 40 years and the statistics have only gotten worse. How about that federal department of education? We spend more now than ever, and our students are performing more poorly than they ever have. The only thing these programs have succeeded at is building bureacracies that actively work at self-preservation and growth, like a cancer.

Most countries don't focus on drugs like we do. They leave people alone as long as they aren't bothering anyone.

Welfare rolls are down to record lows right now. Unemployment is up however.

The Department of Education is suffering from a parental problem. Parents need to be more involved in their children's lives. But often it takes both parents working and sometimes if it's a single parent it takes working two jobs. Even working families have to abandon their children to work in the corporate plantation so they can afford skyrocketting costs of living and health insurance is a major cost. If you want to help kids...invest more in families not schools. Relieve families.

This is false. There are charity hospitals. Lack of insurance does not equal lack of treatment. The "uninsured" statistics are trumped up by the many, many people who CHOOSE NOT TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY ARE YOUNG AND HEALTHY! Why would anybody want to subsidize the old and the sick through an insurance company, yet ANOTHER bureaucratic entity, albeit one trying to turn a profit? It used to be

I know of a few good charity hospitals. I also know there's a wait to get in. Yes a percentage of uninsured in America's uninsured are uninsured by choice. But when many of them are suddenly taken ill or enjured they go to the hospital and find themselves unable to pay the bill. Every year 25,000 Americans declare bankruptcy over medical bills they can't pay. Some of these are those who choose not to have insurance because they were dumb enough to gamble with their health and financial well being. While they wouldn't like it, it would be better to force them into the system. If they plan right they can afford it. Please note...when they can't pay their bills they pass the cost back down to us in higher premiums. You and I pay for them with premiums that nearly break our family budgets.

It's Nixon's fault that people expect health insurance from their employers, another bad idea. All this third-party payer system has unnecessarily run up the prices.

That's part of the problem I agree. In my opinion a single payer national health insurance system would be far better.

This reminds me of that age old question, why do bad things happen to good people? I hear you about the plight of the virtuous poor, the trouble is they're scarce as hen's teeth around here. Another romantic myth bites the dust.

Dude....wellfare rolls are down and the majority of the uninsured are working poor. What planet are you from?

I believe your heart is in the right place. The trouble is that you are proposing an untenable and proven non-viable solution to a sensational, emotional problem that has been exaggerated from the word go.

Untenable and proven non-viable solution.....

Have you been to Canada or Europe bro? I mean have you personally been in a Canadian hospital? They blow us away...and we pay 16% MORE in over all costs than these countries do.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Scotty...you're so blind. I'm not your enemy. I'm advocating social compassion, that's all. Dave and you are advocating executing people. If Dave had his way, trust me, eventually even you would sin and find Dave's guns turned on you. And in that moment...I'd still be advocating compassion...but toward you.

I don't own a gun and have no authority to execute anyone. That is the government's role. BTW, not all sins are capitol crimes......again you are misrepresenting, on purpose, my position. You seem to have a real problem with the holiness of our God. If He says all homosexuals should be executed who am I to disagree. You have a problem with God but with an relativistic, secular, humanistic government....no problem. They're compassionate.......

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by scotty

I can at least look at the rest of it but we will have to agree to disagree here.

This is economics one on one. Those tax breaks put more money into companies pockets (yes some did go to the big boys) Those companies reinvested that money into themselves and expanded, thus hiring more workers. My company has grown on average 38% every year for the past 4 years. That is awesome growth for an already multi-million dollar company. I myself in just the past 4 years have had 3 promotions totaling an 84% increase in pay in that same time frame. The kicker is this, Now that election year is coming up and the assumption is to have a democratic president, our company made an internal decision to limit its own growth to just 12% this year in anticipation of the tax hikes that will be coming. This will result in less spending which dampens the economy, as we are seeing. Reagan did it and Clinton inherited it, now Bush done the same thing and the Dems. will take it all back in order to pass plans to take care of others. Its not that I don't believe in what your advocating, I just don't believe in the way they want to do it. Our way may take longer, but your way will bankrupt the country AND everyone in it.

Bro...what industry do you work in? It's not the same for every industry. Some industries do better when we stop giving tax breaks to companies that send jobs over seas. Some jobs can be gained if we focus on giving tax breaks to companies that stay here. But that stands only in some industries.

I worked in the information technology field. In 2002 the Federal Government begain issuing visas for foreign workers in the technology fields like they were candy. Corporations had a hay day. They started hiring foreign contractors left and right to save money. I was laid off twice one right after the other. The last private job I had I was working for a leading bank in their technical department and they brought in a company from India named Tata. Yep....I could see it happening all over again. I took the job that was offered me by the city and I've worked for the government in account and financial reconciliation since. Who ever is President needs to direct the department of labor not to issue so many senseless visas and only grant them to companies if absolutely necessary. It was a mess bro let me tell you.