IAP Political Forum

I think most people would help somebody who is less fornuate if they could.  When government started taxing to help the people with welfare, unemployment, medicare, social security benefits, food stamps etc., it seemed like a good idea.  Problem is the government was and still is in control.  We all know people who are poor.  Has increasing our taxes really ever helped them?  Maybe, but very little.  For the amount of taxes we already pay, we should be seeing better results.  Can we all agree on that?     

I propose we are all given a set amount or percentage of our wages (based on our own states needs) that must go to organizations that would be set up in the private sector, not the government as they are now.  We get to determine where our money goes and who it helps or divide it equally, either way.

The government (federal and/or state) is allowed to oversea these not for profit organazations to make sure that our money is going where it is supposed to but they are NOT allowed to touch the money.  Our money does NOT filter through them at any time.  Just as we have taxes taken out of our paychecks for the IRS (which would be less, of course, if this plan worked), so to can we have this new tax taken out.  The difference is, we have that money directly sent to whichever organizations we decide on or equally distributed among them all for the state we live in.  Either that or we must show proof of how much we spent during the year when we go to do our taxes in April (this would be beneficial to the self employed or 1099 person).   

Now, can you all see where things would get a whole lot better in a short amount of time?  By taking this money out of the hands of the government, we get it to the people that need it much faster.  We bypass the middle man.  Not everyone is happy with having to spend hard earned money on the less fortunate but we are forced whether we like it or not.  This also, by the way, gives more power to each state, as it should be.  Some states would require more, some states less, but we all have the choice of where we live.     

Of course this has alot of holes in it but you get the general idea I hope.  The private sector has always been better with money than the government.  There is corruption in everything, that is a given, but I see less corruption this way.  I guess my point is that too much money gets dumped into the government and nobody really has any idea of where it all goes.  If we slowly started putting more and more programs into the private sector, we start to unravel all the red tape and eventually get a clearer vision of what we are paying for.       

The problem is not with the concept of state welfare - other countries do that perfectly well - it is that the US doesn't have welfare, it has workfare.

...

I was unaware Enron was still in buisness.

When MOST buisnesses fail......they fail.

If it is in the governments best intrest to not let the company fail....it intervenes.

I trust neither, but at least when corruption causes the failure of private industries, the country can move on.

If the government fails... we're screwed...


Please understand that jpn's message has been changed by me because of a mistake *I* made.

I wrote that they should be put into not for profit organizations.  No shareholders jpn.  The government would oversea it and if there is a problem, a new npo would be brought it.  That seems like the safest way IMHO.

We can move on when the government fails. And we even have the power to move it along. Its called voting.

Bush is a total failure I'm voting to move on by not voting for the guy who promises to do the same as him. I'm "moving on" by voting for someone so utter different that to move on is inevitable.

Well, I suppose that's technically true. However, you can replace the bus driver but we're all still riding the bus. It sounds like Crystal (welcome, BTW) is suggesting we switch to a train.

Crystal, what you've talking about sounds very similar to the faith based programs Bush has proposed in the past. It is unfortunate that his plan was demonized and it went nowhere. Obama has since somewhat, if not all out, endorsed the idea ... so who knows.

You are quite right that we've seen no real progress with our welfare programs. Some would suggest it has destroyed the minority community.

We've plenty of "progress". Welfare is all but gone.

Let me be clear: Food stamps, the easiest and most common form of assistance is not welfare for the poor, it is a farm subsidy. It is a part of the agriculture bill. If it wasn't, it would have been eliminated long ago. And many attempts have been made to do so by the Republican party in the past. Luckily, the farm lobby is much too powerful. You may want the embarrassment of American citizens starving to death but not me.

People like you keep telling us that welfare is a huge burden on the government and destroys "the poor." Yet we never hear how welfare, is almost impossible to get and represents a fraction of 1% of the budget. It is like when you say those things you are under no obligation to prove them.

    Before the advent of large scale government welfare, a plethora of private organizations provided assistance for individuals who were economically disadvantaged--churches, aid societies, widows' and orphans' benevolent groups, etc. As Marvin Olasky has documented, these private organizations had an impressive record in reducing poverty and economic distress.[13] They did it largely by relying on human goodness based on values such as love and compassion rather than by mechanistic disbursement of funds. Personal responsibility was required. As Olasky recounts, "No one was allowed to eat and run" at the pre-New Deal private charities. Additionally, families took care of less fortunate relatives. While private organizations such as the Salvation Army continue to help the poor, there is strong evidence that their financial support has been dramatically eroded by the public's knowledge that the government provides public assistance.[14]

      When the modern system of public assistance evolved in the 1930s, proponents felt that a humane society should take care of those who had no male breadwinner in the home. No thought was given to the possibility that public assistance predicated on the absence of a male head of household might lead to an increase in the number of such families. If you subsidize something, usually you get more of it, and this has been the case with the single parent families and the welfare system. We believe the evidence supports two propositions: (1) Welfare has increased the incidence of single parent families and contributed to the decline in traditional families (two married parents living together with their children); and (2) Welfare has contributed to illegitimate babies being produced to obtain or increase public assistance payments.

http://www.house.gov/jec/welstate/vg-5/vg-5.htm


You will find information about this, as well, in the link. What did we ever do before the New Deal?

Before the New Deal, little kids went to work. If you had no family, especially among the elderly, you starved. It was quite common and well documented, especially in rural areas, where millions were dislocated by unemployment and dead earth. If you were young and strong and had no money, you stole, you joined a gang and you killed for money or you sold sex. I'm sure you thought the New Deal arose out of a Communist conspiracy. It didn't.

You have posted the conclusions of a partisan Republican Congress:

(1) Welfare has increased the incidence of single parent families and contributed to the decline in traditional families (two married parents living together with their children);

Single parent families appeared among ALL ECONOMIC LEVELS of society for multiple reasons in a vast shift of the society, women in the workforce, the decline of marriage in ALL LEVELS OF SOCIETY. How come what is happening to ALL LEVELS can be blamed selectively on ONE thing for just the poor. Saying welfare caused all these problems because they coincided is like saying the Cold War caused these problems because they coincided. It is bad science.

Further, the gutting of welfare in the mid-90s has not resulted in more two parent families and less single mothers. 

 and (2) Welfare has contributed to illegitimate babies being produced to obtain or increase public assistance payments.

Again, a political position, not supported with solid science, only assertions by politicians, who are well aware that coinciding data can be used to say anything. What percentage of births? How can you prove that? You do know that babies cost a hell of a lot more than welfare payments. Oh, that's right, your MSM dogma didn't tell you that.

I thought it was fairly well footnoted. Dismissing it out of hand as 'partisan' seems...I don't know...lazy, maybe.

What started out to help a small number of people has grown to help many due to an ever growing population.  Times change and we must change with them.  Marriages are broken at every level and single parenting is happening at every level.  The poor cannot be solely to blame.  I don't think anyone is trying to get rid of the idea to help those in need.(I hope)  Some people (like myself) would truly appreciate a different system though.  Even if you are on the side of keeping things in the governments hands, how can you argue that the system is working for both the people who need it and don't get enough and those of us who pay for it?  It is clear that a re-working should be in order.  Why not privatize it while still giving government the power to oversee it?  This should be a solution that keeps people on both sides of the issue satisfied for the most part.  It should not be an issue of dems or republicans (I know, everything is)  It is an issue of getting much needed funds to the people who need it while having more accountability to those who pay for it.  Yes, it is simplistic thinking on my part but simple is a good place to start.  BTW, some complain about the amount of money that is distributed to the less fortunate because of the drain caused by the war, overspending, etc.  It is the government who decides where the money goes.  I'm pretty sure the problem is the same with either political party in charge.  Why then, can't we take the system out of the "whole" and give it it's own place with it's own numbers to have a clear bottom line?  We can then see where more money should go and where there is enough money on a state by state basis. Taking the money away from government should alleviate the problem for all concerned.  They already have too much on their plates to worry about.  Let's give them a much needed break for all our sakes while repairing the damage done to those who don't get what they need.

Those who ignore history forget it does tend to repeat itself. Some of the programs were established during the Great Depression of the 1930s, btw, as a result of two GOP
presidents policies, practices not unlike Dubya's, assisted many with true bootstrap projects provided by FDR.

While WWII with many drafted into the military along with spending for war, eventually brought the nation out of the Depression,  Roosevelts "welfare?" programs that in most cases were a form of workfare, saved many from starvation, assisted families to get on their feet. Provided labor on massive infastructure projects that exist and are still in use for many purposes.  Even the arts were a part of those programs.  Anyone ever visited Coit Tower in San Francisco and observed the spectacular murals there? Depression era artists created them.  And then there is the Golden Gate Bridge. How about Boulder Dam, Grand Coulee Dam.  While there are those who damn any who might need assistance, this nation could use a considerable amount of infastructure replacement. 

Maybe a bit of "work fare" like FDR provided.  From the unemployment stats, the daily closure of businesses, most especially small business and major companies like Mervyns and Room Source now requesting bankruptcy protection, maybe it's time to consider using some of that borrowed money for U.S. projects, instead of sending it down the rat hole or providing it to crooks, both U.S. and Iraqi, and the military industrial complex for killing, rather than providing for the real needs of the American people.

BTW I'm no isolationist, but we've lined the pockets of Bush/Cheney and their cronies long enough. The waste is a major factor in our current economy because of the debt to pay for it. All off budget.

Crystal, I've got some ideas as well. They may not mesh perfectly with yours, but some have already been proven to work well.  And I forgot one of the most successful aspects of Johnson's "Great Society" programs remains. Head start though cut to the bone by GOP dominated budgets, still offers what it's states.  A head start for those
children who otherwise might have an opportunity for the provision of  early childhood education to help in the process of moving on with an interest in learning.  Am I wrong that education can still be the great social equalizer? 

Another very productive method for providing employment for some seniors to supplement low social security payments that also assists in helping some to  get off of AFDC, is government sponsored child care centers where healthy seniors are employed and women can pay less than to private child care centers to be able to actually afford to work and know their children are well cared for.  I know of one highly successful one that was established next door to a senior housing complex. Great way to provide for two groups that might be in economic need.  No handouts, honest and caring labor. 

BTW, Crystal, in my 18 months on AFDC, I never failed to work at least part time.  I even sacked burgers at McDonalds, for  a number of months until I realized my grant was being cut by all but a dollar a day of my earnings.  At the time I was only attending college part time.  Not being really stupid.  I quit and did without the extra dollar a day until I was able to acquire a work study scholarship that the funds I earned were not deducted from the grant and went to college full time instead. Did you know those scholarships were changed under Reagan and women today even have earned scholarship funds deducted from AFDC grants.  Hell of a way to encourage those on AFDC to try to get off of it and become productive taxpayers, huh? 

Through grad school, though by then I was a husband away from poverty, I continued to substitute teach in the day time, teach community college two nights a week and
commute two nights a week 100 miles round trip to eventually earn my MA going to night school, but carrying a full load of credits.  LOL, today it makes me tired to just
think about it.  Rant finished. Maybe too personal, but sometimes you have to have been there and done that to have some real understanding of reality.

Yes, footnotes. Anne Coulter thinks her work is credible because of those, too. The fact that you can't even debate my point shows that you are just another blowhard regurgitating rightwing dogma. I say again, there were charts that showed trends that effected everyone, but for some reason, they decided, when it came to the poor, said trends were due to welfare. Fathers gone, broken families, unwanted pregnancies. Yep. There were plenty of those in Dickensian times. Yet the venerable author never mentions welfare...because there wasn't any. They threw you in jail, something you would no doubt like.

Maybe if you knew what the hell you were talking about, you'd know that fathers gone, broken families and unwanted pregnancies come from bad education, low wage jobs and no jobs at all. But you're an economic, genius, right?

One would think that if that's true, then we would have seen a spike like none other during the Great Depression.

Is that true?

ps: what do the 3 things you have cited have to do with fathers being absent from the home? What does a low wage job have to do with carelessly sticking your dingus in a girl you met at the mall?

LOL! You actually think that there wasn't such a spike? Have you ever read or seen anything about the Depression outside the Waltons? The fact is, accurate records were not kept till the 50s but there is plenty of evidence of spikes especially in crime.

The murder rate of the 1930s was not equaled until the 70s and 80s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

But I wanted to answer this question of yours: What did we ever do before the New Deal? "Prior to Social Security, it was common to see old people starving in the streets after they retired. Social Security largely eliminated this shameful sight."

Did you say welfare increases poverty?

Poverty rates (Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P-60 series.)

1959   22.4%
1960   22.2  < recession year
1961   21.9
1962   21.0
1963   19.5
1964   19.0  < Johnson's Great Society begins (watch the poverty rate drop faster.)
1965   17.3
1966   14.7
1967   14.2
1968   12.8
1969   12.1
1970   12.6  < recession year
1971   12.5
1972   11.9
1973   11.1
1974   11.2  < recession year
1975   12.3  < recession year> (The 1975 SUN-PAC decision legalized corporate political action committees, and corporate activism in Washington soared. Corporate lobbyists wasted no time scaling back the New Deal and the Great Society.)
1976   11.8  < individual benefits level off, decline > Watch the poverty level rise.
1977   11.6
1978   11.4
1979   11.7
1980   13.0  < recession year
1981   14.0  < Reagan-era cuts in individual benefits
1982   15.0  < recession year
1983   15.2
1984   14.4
1985   14.0
1986   13.6
1987   13.4
1988   13.0
1989   12.8
1990   13.5  < recession year
1991   14.2  < recession year
1992   14.8
1993   15.1

"Conservatives object that this [drop in poverty] has been accompanied by enormous social costs: rising crime, teenage motherhood, child poverty, the disintegration of families, the deterioration of the black community, etc. But there are more compelling explanations for these trends than the modest increases in welfare. As for the rise of crime, Dr. Brandon Centerwall has produced one of the most famous studies, which found that the mere introduction of television into a region causes its crime rate to double as soon as the first television generation comes of age. (13) As for teenage motherhood, many would be surprised to learn it was actually a greater problem in the 50s, not the 80s. (14) Child poverty can be tied to single motherhood, but the reasons why these mothers are poor is because women are still paid less than men, and half of all fathers who are supposed to pay child support don't honor their commitments. (15) The divorce rate has doubled since the 60s, but this is a sociological trend, not an economic one. Polls show that more marriages are happier today than in the 50s, largely because men and women are no longer trapped in bad marriages by the stigma of divorce. (16) As for the deepening despair of large parts of the black community, much of this can be traced to "white flight" (and job flight) from the inner cities, as well as the redlining of neighborhood districts, which has left blacks fighting for survival in economically depressed ghettoes. The point is that conservatives face an insurmountable challenge if they wish to turn welfare into a "black box" that explains all of America's social problems."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarepoverty.htm

Yeah, that's how it must look from your ivory republican tower.

Your non-answer is answer enough.

Thank you. And thanks for supporting Michael Jackson.

Maybe Irwin those who live in denial about the actual economic circumstances of families and the daily difficulties they face, have yet to realize, the various programs continue to increase, even with the stringent rules created by both Parties, to try to save some bucks to use it for corporate welfare instead. 

Locally, the news includes requests for donations to food banks who are running out of food as the result of increased demand and because the rules allow the entities who are required to take the applications for assistance on a variety of levels are allowed 45 days to respond.  It isn't only those who are usually considered the "impoverished," but many that would typically be considered among the "middle class" who are joining the lines at the food banks, in some cases choosing to do so, while they try to continue to hold onto their homes, fill the tank and feed their children.

No doubt some who might observe the lines, will go back to the Reagan propaganda of the past about "Welfare Cadillacs."  But, for those people, to continue to work in a location where, at a time of hardship, because of the increase of fuel costs, the public transportation availability, not really great to begin with, has now increased the prices
so it has become for some almost as costly as a local commute.

The issue are complex, but the bottom line may be to ask the question, if 8 years of this Administration has created a recession or a Hoover level Depression. BYW, the
Sacramento area is one of the largest foreclosure locations in the nation.  Was it all irresponsible individuals or those such as the various lenders who made equally irresponsible choices?  Will the result of a bail out for those lenders really be anything other more corporate welfare?

Give it up Irwin.

Conservative ideology will never admit that government can be successful at anything but war.

Name me something where government shows efficiency and I'll be happy to discuss.

neue regel, I just gave you a great one. Try Head Start.  Do you read are or you illiterate too?

Imagine that every time our economy tanks, a repubican is president.

Herbert Hoover - Great Depression
Dwight Eisenhower - 1957 Recession
Richard Nixon - 1971 Recession
Gerald Ford - stagflation in 1973
Ronald Reagan - "Black Monday," Oct. 19, 1987
George H. W. Bush - 1991 Recession
George W. Bush - 2001 recession and 2008 recession

Obviously you're unaware of the economic effects of the G.I. Bill or the creation of the interstate highway system on post-World War II America.  I'm also curious which country has ever successfully educated most its citizens privately.  There are certainly other examples, but I'll let you chew on these for a while.  As a fierce advocate of school reform I certainly see plenty of places where we could do better, but has any nation done as well without governmental assistance in this vital need?

I live near Downtown Los Angeles.  Everyday I see more and more people, old ,young and middle aged starving on the streets.  It's like a damn parade of filthy, mumbling, shopping cart pushing transients walking down the street with a big urine stain on their tattered pants and crapping on the sidewalk.  Social Security is an abysmal failure because of government mis-management.  The new deal was nothing short of departmentalized socialism.  Our government is nothing more then departmentalized socialism.


  I educate my kids privately and successfully....My wife is a school teacher for the Los Angeles Unified School District.  I have met and am friends with at least 50 other teachers and/or employees of L.A.U.S.D.  Not one of them....not one..... who has kids, has them enrolled in a public school.....Not one.  You know why?  Because  public schools are hazardous.  filled with gangland kids created by the welfare system and drug prohibition , who's prison mentalities and violent nature make for a poor learning environment.  The government dropped the ball long ago...probably right after they connected Maine to California with 2 lanes of asphalt and concrete.  Every promise concerning education is broken...for example, when California voted on the Lottery we were told, "vote for the lottery, the funds will go to our schools"...What a load of crap.  This has been going on for decades.  The government does certain things right...Education is not one of them.

Not bad. Of course government uses private resources as well to maintain.


Have you read any of 'The Head Start Impact Study First Year Findings?' We average spending $7000 per Head Start child. THAT is your example of government success?

...wow...


Exactly. What sane one of us would hire someone to manage our assets with the same results our government gets us with SS?

Not even WAR actually.

Your sneering joke was not an argument and was treated accordingly. Your failure to answer the argument above your pathetic joke, you know the one based on census bureau statistics, shows you are a clueless dogmatic ideologue who regurgitates nonsense you can't defend on the merits.

Wasn't a joke. You said...

I asked you what not having a job has to do with getting a girl pregnant.


My argument and the findings of the Congressional panel was that welfare has been destructive to the family. Your statistics didn't address that so I felt no need to answer it.

The overhead of Medicare is about 4%. The overhead of private health insurance companies is between 10 and 20 percent.

Social Security is the most successful and popular government program ever. It has pulled and is pulling millions of people out of poverty. It is funded at least through 2041, and with a minor tweek, such as increasing the income cap on contributions to $250,000, will be sound into infinity.

The return on the assets is what U.S. government bonds return. Or maybe you want to put it all into, say, Enron stock?

I would prefer to put my money in a well diversified mutual fund and return about 10-12%.

Ditto.

LOL... omfg.. this is a pyrimid scam perpatrated on millions of americans.

In 2020 how many people will be working for every person collectig SS?

in 1970 how many were working for each person collecting?

Its a SCAM... SS is nothimg more then the state being robin hood.... robbing from the workers to provide for those not working.

And? Would you rather they... starved, or something?

Wouldn't we all? Good luck with that 10-12%. Also, would you still be willing to do that if it means that you plunge millions of retirees into poverty? Or would you rather just borrow the trillion or so that would be needed to replace the SS contributions?

  You're conflating and confusing a number of issues here.  First the lottery is sham and I won't stoop to defend that regressive tax.  Second, California's schools were among the best in the nation prior to Proposition 13 and a decline in year to year funding has hurt them.  Third, no school, even a great one,  is a panacea that can magically make violent neighborhoods a paradise on Earth.

Disparities between rich and poor school districts exist and LAUSD is clearly atrocious and it will continue to be while we have a system that weights rational career decision-making overwhelmingly in favor of teachers moving to better-paying and less stressful jobs in suburban areas.  That is true whether you go to L.A., St. Louis, Washington D.C. or virtually any other urban area in the U.S.  I seem to decry the injustice of it at least once a week, but that still doesn't address the issue of public or private.  The Bronte sisters of 19th century literary note attended cut-rate private schools(by our definition of the term) in Britain during an era without support for universal schooling on the government's dime and their experiences showed a system less equal in access to a quality education than our own.  Can you identify a nation which has achieved universal or near universal access to schooling without governmental support for at least half of the kids?  If not, merely reciting the ills of our own system(which are numerous) doesn't make the alternative likely to be any better.

The "greed is good, I've got mine, screw you" typical attitude of the GOP indoctrinated continues with the usual Social Security crap, but becomes even worse.

neue regal, you're  a big boy with some kids right? How did you acquire them? Need some information related to the birds and bees?  Unless, there is an epidemic of virgin births it takes two to tango. Unemployment, unless one has reached the point of complete starvation doesn't limit  the human sex drive.  In reality, unemployment might even allow more time and/or energy to the usual dual participants required to procreate.  Taking away contraception, as McCain would do,  or even the availability of a condom, doesn't end the activity.  Surely daddy, you must be aware of that fact of life.  Maybe your attitude toward women which contains, IMHO, considerable misogyny might be one reason for some of your attempted points about how pregnancy occurs, why, when or by whom?  

Maybe you should broaden your knowledge past the small bubble you appear to reside in.  Even though you would prefer to keep every penny you earn, in reality even the GOP despised contribution to the Social Security system has been one of those additional FDR New Deal creations that has worked and kept many of the elderly out of abject
poverty. Is it for the "greed is good gang" one that is efficient?  Perhaps not in it's current form.  Even I agree there are reasonable ways to reform that system, but since it's creation it has been the goal of your chosen Party to decimate it totally. Maybe your too young to remember the much heralded Gingrich Contract For (or some might suggest on) America. The decimation of Social Security, though not in those terms was a factor.   Then there are those of your persuasion who would steal food out of the mouths of babes and the elderly if it would add to your "portfolio."  

It's not so much you feel no personal responsibility for any othera than those you may have accepted the obligation as a parent to care for, but live in complete denial a social contract should even exist.  If you don't understand what the "social contract" might be, google it.  

No problem. The DJ has averaged 12% any given 10 year period since its inception. It's a done deal.


No. Let's get creative and find a way to get the government out of the retirement business.

"...those not working." You mean, like, retired people?
More than 9-in-10 retirees now get Social Security benefit payments each month. For two-thirds of the elderly, Social Security is their major source of income. For a third of the elderly, Social Security is virtually their only income.

“Social Security is one of the greatest achievements of the American government, and one of the deepest commitments to the American people. For more than six decades it has protected our elderly against poverty and assured young people of a more secure future. It must continue to do this important work for decades to come.”
--President George W. Bush http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10055.html
(Of course the lying s.o.b. tried to destroy it, but that's just George being a Republican).

Yes  IaM ...I'm afraid Bonzo would.(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:wWuCABuQ-CKh2M:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/07/chimp2.jpg) Chimps can be mean.

Once again, when it comes to anything Federal, we find you leading with your gut, shouting from ignorance and swinging wildly off the barstool.

1. Um, yeah, Social Security is for retirees not "the poor."

2. It has made the difference between a nation where dying in poverty was the greatest fear of old age and turning into a nation where the best looked-after segment of the population is the elderly. It would be nice if we looked a bit more after kids, rather than endlessly condemning their their parents and as a result condemning their kids.

3. Since there is no "failure" your cries of mismanagement are moot.

4. The homeless you see around you are mostly below retirement age, have mental disease and/or drug addictions. They are there because people like you care more about bitching about taxes and screeching about government than trying to do something to help your fellow Americans.

Conservative ideology states that you get hold of the government so you can destroy it. Governments across the world are plenty efficient at many things, especially health care. But Republicans would get elected, destroy it, then say, look how inefficient.

My best friend's wife took ill in Canada. She saw a doctor immediately for 35 dollars.

At home, when she wanted to see a doctor, she had to make multiple calls to make an appointment and they saw her three days later. she pays 700 dollars a month in health insurance and the doctor visit cost $125 dollars. That's efficient?

The prescription drug plan? That's a typical Republican government program. Less than a tenth of those who are eligible have signed up. Why? The program is so bafflingly complex, few can figure out what they are signing up for. Why so complex? Because of the government? Wrong. Because of private industry. To give private industry a stake in the plan, they had to come up with something so convoluted that no one can figure it out. In other countries, there is one step: the government covers the cost.

Why is it better when government covers the cost? We pay wildly more for medical care than anywhere in the world. Why? The free market. When a government is the purchaser, they can use an economy of scale to force the price down. You friends at the Pharma companies wouldn't want that.

Saying that 'conservative ideology' destroys government to show it inefficient is not a convincing argument. Case in point...education, which is controlled almost exclusively by liberals. If there has ever been less bang for the buck, nothing jumps to mind.

Your friend's wife seemed to have done well. Others aren't as lucky, it seems.

http://presidential-race.net/universal-healthcare-failure-documented-canada/

ps: I'm not closed to the idea of a universal health care system. It's possible that it could work but I have some doubts.

Take away monetary gain from medicine and see what happens to medical school applications....we see this trend in Anesthesiology residencies every 3-5 years when the market gets saturated....what will likely happen when medical school applications drop is you'll see an influx of foreign medical school graduates to come fill the void...and then you can get an interpreter just to communicate with your physician.

Irwin, this insult dealt a shattering blow to my ego, well done.  But I did note some problems with it...ummm, first, I don't drink.  Thus, I don't often find the opportunity to "swing off barstools".  Second, Depending on my mood I might lead with my groin, but I try to play down my gut as much as possible.  As far as "shouting from ignorance", I rarely shout, and it's usually "at" ignorance, not "from".  I'm guessing you confused the word "ignorance" with "Irwin",  No problem, its a natural mistake.
  So, good job on the insult, just work on your facts a little more.



Yes, I know.


Do I sense some sour grapes here, Irwin?


Irwin, Social Security, is not the problem.  The problem is the misappropriation of Social security funds. The money collected for decades from current retirees, along with the interest payed on said funds, is gone....spent elsewhere.  Current retiree payments are now being funded by S.S. wage deductions of the current work force.  Do you not see a problem here, Irwin?  If S.S. were a private company, they would of already gone bankrupt and those responsible for spending the funds would be in jail.

I do not have exact statistics. Just from looking I'd say half of the ones I see are at or above retirement age.  And I will bet that nearly 99% are addicts.   As to your theory that they are homeless because of people like me , may I remind you that I do not decide where my tax dollars go and the local crack dealers are not buying ammo and prostitutes with any of my hard earned money.   Once again you have jumped to the wrong conclusions based on false assumptions manufactured by an overactive imagination controlled by an under active intellect. 

Once again,Irwin,  you are smart enough to know how to speak, but not intelligent enough to know what to say.

Hasn't been a problem in France and Germany. But then what do they know? So what if they get as good or better health results that we do for about half the cost? They're Socialists right? Can't have that!

We already have an artificially restricted supply because there aren't as many doctors produced in our schools in a year as we need.  That is part of why we have so many foreign born doctors.

That might be a brilliant response if it weren't for the fact we are not like France or Germany....we are not like them for a host of reasons......

The "we're not like them" argument. Are we not like Canadians? Britons? Bullshit. We are not special aliens who need wildly inflated health care to survive.

It cannot be helped that you do not see the differences.....perhaps someone else will take you up as a special case...I've got better things to do.

Perhaps you will try to sling that crap with someone more gullible. We are NOT different.

Patton, perhaps you can explain why the US is such a special case?

Off the top of my head in no particular order:

-Because Americans, generally and more than most, want the option to pay more for the comforting idea that means they will get more, regardless of whether or not this is true. There. I said it.

-Canada is one of the worst performing models of health care. I am not going to parrot the rightwing socialist paranoid rantings I've heard that it's "going under" because we've heard that for 50 years and it's no more true today. The real reason Canada's health care is one of the worst performers is because of the sheer distances involved when it comes insuring everyone has access to the same level of care. Look at Belgium, Spain and the UK. The distances between remote communities and the nearest city (where supplies are kept and doctors are made) are dwarfed by the sheer expanse between remote communities in Canada and the same nearest cities. This transportation plus low population is a heavy burden on the system. Many will claim the same thing about European countries - that there is a vast distance between isolated communities and an urban center but I don't think those people are really thinking about it. How can the distance between a 'remote' UK village and the nearest urban center be anything near comparable to Canada 4-5 UK's could fit in Western Canada alone? There's no comparison. The US is also vast in this sense.

-The state-to-state system already in place in the US would create a buerocratic nightmare to start.


Ahk

I never said the US was a special case.....just Irwin.

You seriously can't find the differences between the US and Canada/UK?

I must have seriously overestimated your abilities.

My apologies.

Primary is the fact that our conservative, free market hertitage blinds so many of our citizens to any alternatives that involve government.
There's also the fact that we speak different languages.
Other than that, I don't see any differences that would prevent us from using government provided health insurance like we already do for our population over 65.

As for Akh's objections, Germany is a federation of states just like the U.S., so that is not a real issue. Our federal systems such as Social Security work just fine across state lines.
Geographical distance is a little hard to swallow as a significant obstacle to health insurance. How is it any easier for private insurance companies? Remember, we're not talking government-provided health care, like England. We're talking government-provided health insurance. Canada's system is one of the worst of the univeral health insurance countries, I agree, and not a model we should follow. And yet they still deliver health care to all of their citizens much more efficiently and every bit as effectively as we.
Ahk's point that Americans just seem to want to pay more, regardless of the results, is hard to dispute. We sure do. Just ask Patton.

Well....I'm impressed....that's a start and admission we are different.

I'm sure if you chose to look further, you'd find even more differences.

Good job.

Not one difference that can prevent national health. Yes, we have a party of corrupt theives that want to destroy government and sell it off for scrap. But they will be dealt with sooner or later.

Population density in the US and just about everwhere else is much much higher than in Canada, especially east of the Mississippi and the West coast.

While this long thread has a variety of possible solutions to a number of problems, I'm sure because of Patton's interest in his profession, he tends to regularly turn topic toward universal health care, a topic he never fails to argue against.  But, like me, I suspect he bears little personal cost for his.  Just noting this factor as I quickly "drive by" on a busy Saturday.

  Cass, yes, Patton knows which side his bread is buttered on.  I am all for universal health care IF we can vote on a apportioned tax to take care of payment, and, the government is not allowed to siphon off funds for other things.  Also, the way that it works now is those in the medical field take advantage of the system by charging the maximum they possibly can when paid by the government for services.  This has to end because the new system will surely flounder in a sea of over charges if those in the medical field are not kept in check.  A system of universal health care will be a very difficult job to manage because of greed and exploitation.  I'm afraid we have a very tough job ahead of us.

My future is secured.....do with healthcare want you want....I'm sure I'm the only one here who actually works it.

You cannot build your fancy engine without the nuts and bolts....take away monetary gain from choosing the profession, and watch the nuts and bolts walk into other professions....then you can build it with foreign parts.

Do you really think anything on your wish list will happen. US politicians are more corrupt than any other nation. You cannot trust any of them to do the right thing. But it frightens me that Democrats are so gullable and quick to believe and not think for yourselves. So for your plan: the government is not allowed to siphon off funds for other things, medical field take advantage of the system by charging the maximum they possibly can when paid by the government for services. This has to end. Good luck with that. I think this best describes the current US judicial, executive and legislative branches:

Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said Friday that Edwards' infidelity may affect both parties' images.
"The questions are going to be asked, does this hurt Republicans or Democrats, or the political impact. And the truth is that it's going to hurt everybody, because right now, in an uncertain world, we're looking to see who we can trust to lead the country, and this lessens, I think, faith in political leadership in general," he said Friday.

Not True! I work for a very large Biomedical Company myself(not quite as big as J&J but you see my companies products every time you go to the doctor).

I am not sure how universal health care would affect my company. would we be selling more product because more people are seeing the doctor or would the government eventually step in and regulate our industry as well. We manufacture everything from syringes, glassware, test tube, blood analyzers, etc. And thats where i come in. I fix the stuff when it breaks at the customers site. Our customers include universities, hospitals, clinics, and pharmaceuticals.

Additionally I don't think a requirement to offer health insurance will effect my company directly because they already do. Indirectly our customers may be effected and may not buy that nice and shiny new instrument.

I should have made myself clear.....I'm a certified factory mechanic.....I don't make the rags I use to wipe my hands on......you do.


Obviously.

  Cass, I was trying to avoid saying this, but machioveli said it for me.  I have very little faith in anything the feds attempt.  That said, I fear that any type universal health care will lead to a complete wash out.

 Right now isn't the system a wash out for 46 Million uninsured Americans? 
Besides Obama is talking about universal health insurance not universal health care.

I know of no reason that this would be so. I know of no evidence that this is so. Therefore, I doubt that this is so.


I would imagine any fallout would hurt McCain more than Obama:

I'm sorry... but could you explain the distinction?

Seriously... I can't see it...

My mistake. I meant government-provided health insurance v. government-provided health care. Great Britain has the latter. Doctors and nurses are government employees. That's not the way to go.

Insurance dictates reimbursement.....Medicare/Medicaid (government insurance) reimburse absurdly low that many specialty phycisians refuse to accept Medicare.....Medicare is useful for Primary Care (check ups, physicals, prescription refills, etc)....but get cancer where you need to enlist several specialties (Oncology, Surgery, Radiology)....the hunt begins for those who will accept low payments.

There should be no surprise that Physician Owned Specialty Hospitals are a new phenomena and will continue increase their numbers......and they DON'T accept Medicare/Medicaid.

The former sounds like a health insurance voucher program.

I could get into that...

It is the way to go. The NHS was the greatest health system in the world, in its heyday.

There are lots of differences. For example, the sheer volume of right-wing propaganda that passes for journalism in the US is unrivaled (particularly the McCarthy era). Thus Americans accept the Thatcher/Reagan principle that all government activity must fail.

But that is just propaganda. I see no actual reason why universal health insurance can't work in the US. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Give me the fundamentals of the plan like costs, benefits, co-pays, premiums, coverages, services covered, pre-existing ilness clauses, caps, catastrophic illness coverage, etc, etc.....and I'll be glad to pick it apart.

"Pie in the sky" fantasises will be ignored.

Well, since Obama's plan is the topic of discussion:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

Your "Pie-in-the-sky-position-paper" didn't answer one single question....and so is ignored.

I guess he is entitled to his "wish list"........wishes need not be justified.

Germany.
France.

Pick those apart.

Oh, that's right, their systems wouldn't work here because they speak a funny language.

And "round and around" we go....on the JPN "spin machine".........

In your "drive by" posting style....you missed the discussion earlier:


Well....I'm impressed....that's a start and admission we are different.

I'm sure if you chose to look further, you'd find even more differences.

Good job.

Here (http://www.itsallpolitics.com/forum/index.php?topic=2562.msg61545#msg61545)

Did you even read it? It has most of the details you asked for. The rest should be covered by:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

I did read it...and like I said....he didn't answer my questions....we can dissect this scam together....

Lets start with my first question:

How much will his plan cost US taxpayers?

His "wish list" has nothing in there.

Your turn.

Thanks....Other than phasing out the Bush Tax cuts.....how else will it be paid for....what are these pie-in-the-sky "realized" gains?

How much are they worth?

What if the Bush tax cuts are voted to remain?

Where do the "realized benefits" come from?

What economic implications are to be seen with these gains...for example, will gains come from "outsourcing?"

While you work on those...next question:

Benefits.

For those without insurance now...what benefits will they get....what co-pay, etc?

That's not fair. Stick to one issue at a time.

Okay....we'll stay with the first topic.

Other than phasing out the Bush Tax cuts.....how else will it be paid for....what are these pie-in-the-sky "realized" gains?

How much are they worth?

What if the Bush tax cuts are voted to remain?

Where do the "realized benefits" come from?

What economic implications are to be seen with these gains...for example, will gains come from "outsourcing?"

We're gonna have to raise taxes Patton. The fact that people find this a surprise, despite the 6 year war and reconstruction project with Iraq (with the prospect of war with half a dozen other countries), is depressing. Furthermore, with the expansion of government under President Bush, it's not entirely crazy to suggest we have to find a way to pay for it.

Then you throw in the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Behr Sterns bail outs PLUS the tax rebates, individual mortgage bail outs and "trickle down" tax cuts to the upper percentile of income earners...

... coupled with our rather deflated GDP growth...

... and it's no wonder we haven't raised taxes already.

So even if you say Obama's plans will be expensive (which I agree, they will be) you have to step back and wonder how we're paying for the stuff we're doing now.

We're gonna have to raise taxes, Patton... and part of it has to do with the fact that we haven't done so already.

A cursory search gives us:



With the Democrats controlling both houses?


See above.


No mention of outsourcing from what I can see.

On top of all the other things you listed...you just want to volountarily ADD his plan to the top of the heap with NO CLUE on costs and the effects of those costs....I get it.

Whereas you want to continue with an unfair system that patently doesn't work...I get it.

In any case, there is plenty on costs in the two documents I linked you, if you bothered to read them in any detail.

Are you talking to me or IamMe?

Have you read this "study?"

I haven't because you provided no link, so I couldn't scrutinize it.

Who's going to pay for the "conversions?"

We've had automation in medicine for years now....what if a company/hospital refuses to automate?

Is it cost effective for small groups to automate?

Who pays for their conversions?

What does the study say about "reduced hospital stays, avoidance of duplicative and unnecessary testing, more appropriate drug utilization, and other efficiencies" of hospitals already utilizing "automation?"


That was my question.


Automation?.....sounds like "inflating tires" to me.


Hmmmm.

Because both are easy fixes that in the end actually save money?

I wish government would check it's tire pressure more often, then...

I suppose you have the answers on automation I posted above?

Or was that a chip-shot from the peanut gallery to show everyone how witty you are?

At first, it was a cheap shot (much like your comment was), but I didn't notice the questions.

If IamMe doesn't answer them, I would be willing to take a crack at them... but right now I'm about to go to dinner.

How much more efficient, on average, is government-provided health insurance than private health insurance? It must be an impressive figure, because the cost is far less.

We dysfunctional Americans pay half again as much as everyone else because of the stubborn opposition of conservative ideologues who refuse to admit the obvious: that the reason we're paying half again as much as everyone else, while getting middling results, is because of our silly reluctance to put government in charge of providing health insurance for all of us.

(By the way, isn't Patton's sudden concern for balancing the budget touching?)

The quote is from the documents I linked you earlier, both of which cite their sources.


This is it, these are the holes you have found? Yes it is cost effective in the long term for small groups to automate.

Why would a hospital refuse to automate?

As for who pays for it, I don't know, I would have to search through the documents, which I don't have time for right now, but I would presume the hospitals themselves would.


Nothing, since the report is about automation.