Health Care, Obama.....

"For profit V. non-profit"

I don't understand the "we can't {the government} do it" mentality that prevades this board. The prevailing thoughts around here seem to be that private enterprise is better than the more goverment run {:eek:, notice i'm avoiding that bad word that starts with a S, he he} programs.

Who runs the police, fire and education systems?

Would it be better to let a haliberton type run these things?

How is the privativation of some prison services working?
Actually privatization is working quite well. And the government should be working more like corporations, outsourcing many functions (such as student loans) but instead they're taking those functions out of the private sector and transferring them to the public sector. Their bookkeeping gimmicks make it look like it saves money but they didn't account for the administrative expenses: new government employees with their expensive government benefits.

Privatize the IRS and it will become much more efficient. And customer service will improve.

Now there is room for both, here everyone pays for the education system though thier taxes. If you want little johnny to have more than the public system can offer you can sent him to private schools, at your own coin, no opting out of the pubic system allowed.

Same can work for healthcare, here the rich have a better option than the public system can offer. If i'm rich and am told i have cancer i can avoid our public systems delays and get an appointment much sooner in detroit.
But Canadians are clamoring for America to have the same inefficient health care program as they have, so I guess y'all are just pissed off that the rich Canadians are able to cross the border and not have to wait. Just keep pushing the Americans to wreck their system so we'll all have to wait. Except the very rich who can afford to go to Europe for their healthcare needs.

I gotta say, public education in this country is by and large a failure.

That is all. :)
As well as the others, not always due to services provided but due to unsustainable expenses for generous fringe benefits. And the Post Office is another example of a "broke" government enterprise. How about the DOT? Ever tried to get anything done with the Social Security Administration? Good luck!
 
Actually privatization is working quite well. And the government should be working more like corporations, outsourcing many functions (such as student loans) but instead they're taking those functions out of the private sector and transferring them to the public sector. Their bookkeeping gimmicks make it look like it saves money but they didn't account for the administrative expenses: new government employees with their expensive government benefits.

Privatize the IRS and it will become much more efficient. And customer service will improve.


But Canadians are clamoring for America to have the same inefficient health care program as they have, so I guess y'all are just pissed off that the rich Canadians are able to cross the border and not have to wait. Just keep pushing the Americans to wreck their system so we'll all have to wait. Except the very rich who can afford to go to Europe for their healthcare needs.


As well as the others, not always due to services provided but due to unsustainable expenses for generous fringe benefits. And the Post Office is another example of a "broke" government enterprise. How about the DOT? Ever tried to get anything done with the Social Security Administration? Good luck!
Ya that's it.:shake:
 
I'll go a step further on Government's "help"... IMO the government is the primary cause of the housing bubble and subsequent bust, as well as the financial turmoil we find ourselves in.

Why? Liberal policies pushing lenders to make risky loans to people who can't afford to buy a house because it's not fair that "everybody" can't have their own house. So money flows freely to people who don't have a hope to pay it back. Then the demand for houses grows so the price goes up. Since the price is high, it's very profitable for developers to build houses so there are tons of new housing starts. All of these new houses raise property values so the tax base goes up. Since the government has more money from the increased taxes, they spend it and commit to spend it forever.

Then reality hits home and people can't pay the loans for their houses. Then the financial sector crashes because they aren't getting paid. Since the houses already out there aren't being paid for, the construction companies tank because they can't sell new units they build. Then the construction workers are out of work and need additional government aid, but in the meantime the tax base has crashed.

I feel better already, I'm confident the government is going to take care of us...
 
I'll go a step further on Government's "help"... IMO the government is the primary cause of the housing bubble and subsequent bust, as well as the financial turmoil we find ourselves in.

Why? Liberal policies pushing lenders to make risky loans to people who can't afford to buy a house because it's not fair that "everybody" can't have their own house. So money flows freely to people who don't have a hope to pay it back. Then the demand for houses grows so the price goes up. Since the price is high, it's very profitable for developers to build houses so there are tons of new housing starts. All of these new houses raise property values so the tax base goes up. Since the government has more money from the increased taxes, they spend it and commit to spend it forever.

Then reality hits home and people can't pay the loans for their houses. Then the financial sector crashes because they aren't getting paid. Since the houses already out there aren't being paid for, the construction companies tank because they can't sell new units they build. Then the construction workers are out of work and need additional government aid, but in the meantime the tax base has crashed.

I feel better already, I'm confident the government is going to take care of us...
Well here liberals told the bank types that you had to have 25% down or you have to have morgage insurance, also you can't just walk away if your house falls in value.

Result, well my house has gone up in value at least 10% in each of the last 3 years, what housing crisis?
 
"For profit V. non-profit"

I don't understand the "we can't {the government} do it" mentality that prevades this board. The prevailing thoughts around here seem to be that private enterprise is better than the more goverment run {:eek:, notice i'm avoiding that bad word that starts with a S, he he} programs.

Who runs the police, fire and education systems?

Would it be better to let a haliberton type run these things?

How is the privativation of some prison services working?


Now there is room for both, here everyone pays for the education system though thier taxes. If you want little johnny to have more than the public system can offer you can sent him to private schools, at your own coin, no opting out of the pubic system allowed.

Same can work for healthcare, here the rich have a better option than the public system can offer. If i'm rich and am told i have cancer i can avoid our public systems delays and get an appointment much sooner in detroit.

But you have to have a strong public system that serves 90+% of the population, the words "pre-existing conditions" need to vanish and everyone, everyone has access to decent healthcare when needed.

Just my two cents, do i have a dog in this fight as i was recently asked? no, do i need one?

:beer:
The localities do, not the U.S. Government. If the U.S. Government ran every local police, rescue, and education system, oh my God.
 
The localities do, not the U.S. Government. If the U.S. Government ran every local police, rescue, and education system, oh my God.
Well of course you can take it down to the state level under a general guidelines umbrella, as they do here with the provinces.

:beer:
 
So whats the alternative? Who will pay for the bottom 25%, the heck with these poor folks?

Put a large private company in charge?


That's not a serious argument in its favor though. Obviously there really is no easy way to provide a service like this to everyone, but the bottom line is it is a (local/regionally) government-controlled program, and it is pretty sad.

Just a failure we all have to live with should we choose not to opt out for private schooling. :(
 
That's not a serious argument in its favor though. Obviously there really is no easy way to provide a service like this to everyone, but the bottom line is it is a (local/regionally) government-controlled program, and it is pretty sad.

Just a failure we all have to live with should we choose not to opt out for private schooling. :(
You know what, education and healthcare are not all that different, why should you pay taxes that send those 5 kids to school from that welfare mother? Acually 99% of the people that live in that nieghbourhood take more than they give. To heck with them, lets privatize education and if the bottom 25% can't pay the fees, well that's thier problem.

Anyone think that's a good idea?

:) :beer:
 
You know what, education and healthcare are not all that different, why should you pay taxes that send those 5 kids to school from that welfare mother? Acually 99% of the people that live in that nieghbourhood take more than they give. To heck with them, lets privatize education and if the bottom 25% can't pay the fees, well that's thier problem.

Anyone think that's a good idea?

:) :beer:
:beer:I think it's the best thing you ever wrote, and I like a lot of what you write!!:beer:
If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em!
 
Last edited:
You know what, education and healthcare are not all that different, why should you pay taxes that send those 5 kids to school from that welfare mother? Acually 99% of the people that live in that nieghbourhood take more than they give. To heck with them, lets privatize education and if the bottom 25% can't pay the fees, well that's thier problem.

Anyone think that's a good idea?

:) :beer:

:beer:I think it's the best thing you ever wrote, and I like a lot of what you write!!:beer:
If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em!

Great idea! The current system (welfare state) provides too much incentive for failure.
 
Well, at least now when we dial 911 for an emergency, we're not getting India, which we would if corporations ran the police department.

The government is better at running some things.

It's the pork that kills them.
 
I wonder if welfare will be deemed "too big to fail" and we get slammed for that, too.

the problem is Welfare has already failed by providing no insentive for the lazy to get back to work and protect the hardworking people that want to work
 
the problem is Welfare has already failed by providing no insentive for the lazy to get back to work and protect the hardworking people that want to work

I get spun up about it, but I know there are some people who need it/earned it, it's the abusers that drive me batty.
 
the problem is Welfare has already failed by providing no insentive for the lazy to get back to work and protect the hardworking people that want to work

And even worse, people who have been taught to work hard and not take a handout see their friends getting more from government handouts than they're getting from hard work. Helps bring others down to the lower level, sort of like the deterioration of the educational system.

My stepdaughter said to me a few days ago, "I'm tired of working so hard to pay my way when my friend is getting a better lifestyle from government handouts (foodstamps, welfare, medicaid, etc) so I'm just going to quit my job at the deli and go on welfare."
 
And even worse, people who have been taught to work hard and not take a handout see their friends getting more from government handouts than they're getting from hard work. Helps bring others down to the lower level, sort of like the deterioration of the educational system.

My stepdaughter said to me a few days ago, "I'm tired of working so hard to pay my way when my friend is getting a better lifestyle from government handouts (foodstamps, welfare, medicaid, etc) so I'm just going to quit my job at the deli and go on welfare."

Yup, and that's the kind of thing that drives me batty. There are people out there truly struggling and need these programs to feed their families while times are tough, and then there are people that take everything they can get so they can get more daytime television and McDonald's.

What's wrong with asking them to provide proof they ahve been looking for a job in order to maintain benefits after a certain time?

I look at the Octomom moron that just wanted to be famous, so she got insurance to cover insemination of all those eggs when there was no unearthly way she could afford the children, and my head starts to spin like I'm sniffing the gas coming into the cabin of Bazzle's ride
 
I look at the Octomom moron that just wanted to be famous, so she got insurance to cover insemination of all those eggs when there was no unearthly way she could afford the children, and my head starts to spin like I'm sniffing the gas coming into the cabin of Bazzle's ride

With Obamacare we'll be on the hook for lots more of these.
 
With Obamacare we'll be on the hook for lots more of these.

Boy that's the truth. I've really changed my mind about this. Originally I was in favor of a healthcare overhaul and reform, but then I see how once again it asks the middle class to foot the bill while the rich find a loop hole and the poor (not all the poor) take advantage
 
Interesting........

Obama Bypassing Senate For Medicare Chief

Dr. Donald Berwick Criticized By GOP



ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer


Posted: 4:30 pm PDT July 6, 2010Updated: 3:22 am PDT July 7, 2010
WASHINGTON -- Bypassing Republicans eager to grill an administration official over the new health care law, President Barack Obama is planning to appoint the head of Medicare and Medicaid without Senate hearings.
Obama intends to use a so-called recess appointment to put Dr. Donald Berwick in charge of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a White House official said Tuesday night. The appointment was expected Wednesday.
The decision means Berwick, an expert on patient care, can assume the post without being confirmed by the Senate, which is in recess for the July Fourth holiday. He could serve through next year without Senate confirmation.
Republicans had indicated they were prepared to oppose him over comments he had made on rationing of medical care and other matters. Democrats wanted to avoid a nasty confirmation fight that could reopen the health care debate. Berwick was nominated in April but no confirmation hearing had been scheduled.
"Many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer wrote in a post on the White House blog. "But with the agency facing new responsibilities to protect seniors' care under the Affordable Care Act, there's no time to waste with Washington game-playing."
The decision to use a recess appointment to skirt the Senate drew fire from Republicans even though the tool had been used frequently by presidents of both political parties. Obama last made a batch of recess appointments in March, and he was to make two other less prominent appointments Wednesday, one to a pension board and the other to a science post, the White House said.
"This recess appointment is an insult to the American people," Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said in a statement. "Dr. Berwick is a self-professed supporter of rationing health care and he won't even have to explain his views to the American people in a congressional hearing."
The Senate Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said, "The fact that this administration won't allow the man charged with implementing the president's plan to cut $500 billion out of Medicare to testify about his plans for the care of our nation's seniors is truly outrageous."
Berwick, 63, is a pediatrician, Harvard University professor and leader of a health care nonprofit organization who's drawn support from many quarters, including the American Medical Association, since his nomination to oversee the enormous Medicare and Medicaid health insurance plans for the elderly, poor and disabled.
He's been criticized by Republicans for a number of comments, including telling an interviewer last year: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."
Republicans have seized on that to cast Berwick as someone who would deny needed care based on cost, while supporters contend rationing already is done by insurance companies and Berwick simply wants transparency and accountability in medical decisions.
It's just those echoes of last year's acrimonious health care debate that Democrats would prefer not to replay on the Senate floor.
Medicare has been without an administrator since 2006, and the White House says the need to fill the post is critical because of its role in implementing the new health care law. Medicare is to be a key testing ground for numerous aspects of the new law, from developing new medical techniques to trying out new payment systems, and the White House says a permanent leader is key with deadlines approaching.
In addition to his professorship at Harvard, Berwick is the president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a nonprofit in Cambridge, Mass., that works to develop and implement concepts for improving patient care.
Also being appointed Wednesday are:
-Philip E. Coyle III as associate director for national security and international affairs at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
-Joshua Gotbaum as director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
 
Back
Top