Health Care as a Human Right

[jreeves]

The for profit non-healthcare system in the US controlled by big pharma and insurance companies is a joke and an embarrassment around the world . Until we as people in this country decide to realize & understand that our society is and will be judged by history as to how we cared for our poor, young and old and that we dropped the ball and handed it over to greedy healthcare insurance co. CEO's(Kaiser-thanks Nixon) and sharholders and doctors who have all become filthy rich at the expense of our health.

The US is the most obese nation on earth and we rank very low on infant mortality rates. We need a universal health care system that will allow doctors to be doctors and treat patients and practice preventative medicine rather than stuff pills down their throat. Big pharma controls the FDA and the AMA so now doctors know little more than what they are allowed to know which seems not much more than writing a script for pills.

So long as health care is for profit, being run by insurance companies slaves to wall street, we will never have the so called best health care in the world, that other countries currently enjoy.

This will change when Obama becomes president however!

You liberals never cease to amaze me. You claim that big...this and big this controls everything...yet you always seem to leave out the proof. Just to stir emotions I suppose. Fact...Social Security will go bankrupt if nothing is done to save it (which will tons and tons of taxpayer money). Fact Universal Healthcare will cost billions of dollars....money that could used to save your other failed program(Social Security).

 

[Obama4Pres08]

You liberals never cease to amaze me. You claim that big...this and big this controls everything...yet you always seem to leave out the proof. Just to stir emotions I suppose. Fact...Social Security will go bankrupt if nothing is done to save it (which will tons and tons of taxpayer money). Fact Universal Healthcare will cost billions of dollars....money that could used to save your other failed program(Social Security).

I got your billions: cut the bloated military budget that is 500 billion dollars in half, take all the health care premiums people waste(er pay) to non-healthcare co.'s and add in their co-pays for all the overpriced pharma pills they gulp down and there is a great start to a budget for universal health care. Next question!(points to confused republican)



Thank you very much!

 

[jreeves]

I got your billions: cut the bloated military budget that is 500 billion dollars in half, take all the health care premiums people waste(er pay) to non-healthcare co.'s and add in their co-pays for all the overpriced pharma pills they gulp down and there is a great start to a budget for universal health care. Next question!(points to confused republican)

Thank you very much!

580 billion dollars "whole Dept. of Def." budget or 680 billion in social spending and you want to cut the Defense budget in half to fund another failed social program....LOL So lets see 250 billion dollars to keep our country safe. That sounds brillant...

 

[Obama4Pres08]

580 billion dollars "whole Dept. of Def." budget or 680 billion in social spending and you want to cut the Defense budget in half to fund another failed social program....LOL So lets see 250 billion dollars to keep our country safe. That sounds brillant...

oh yes because we NEED to spend half a trillion to stay safe right? Other countries spend far less than we do and are safe so why cant we do it? I know! Because then the military industrial complex will not keep making billions off making 100 million dollar f-22s to make us safe or billion dollar sea wolfs either.

ok now I get it!

You ARE brilliant.

You must have voted for WUBBUA right?

 

[jreeves]

oh yes because we NEED to spend half a trillion to stay safe right? Other countries spend far less than we do and are safe so why cant we do it? I know! Because then the military industrial complex will not keep making billions off making 100 million dollar f-22s to make us safe or billion dollar sea wolfs either.

ok now I get it!

You ARE brilliant.

You must have voted for WUBBUA right?

I'm sure the new 800 billion dollars in governmental spending will get people out of the cycle of poverty...Money well spent....All you do by throwing money at poverty is create more people seeking money from the government. The reasons other countries are able to spend far less money on their defense budgets is because they aren't a superpower. We are a target to Islamic extremist because our democracy is the most successful in the world. Go figure...

 

[Obama4Pres08]

I'm sure the new 800 billion dollars in governmental spending will get people out of the cycle of poverty...Money well spent....All you do by throwing money at poverty is create more people seeking money from the government. The reasons other countries are able to spend far less money on their defense budgets is because they aren't a superpower. We are a target to Islamic extremist because our democracy is the most successful in the world. Go figure...

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions
on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).


Next is it really so successful? We have terrible voter turn out compared to other nations.


And realize the new spending was signed into law by WUBBUA.


I will be here all week.

 

[jreeves]

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions
on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).


Next is it really so successful? We have terrible voter turn out compared to other nations.


And realize the new spending was signed into law by WUBBUA.


I will be here all week.

Wubbua didn't sign Obama's new 800 billion dollars he has proposed....hello is there anyone home??

 

[jreeves]

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions
on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).


Next is it really so successful? We have terrible voter turn out compared to other nations.


And realize the new spending was signed into law by WUBBUA.


I will be here all week.

Successful countries aren't defined by voter turnout

 

[Obama4Pres08]

Successful countries aren't defined by voter turnout

....nor can or should successful countries be defined on how large their military is also. The Roman empire had a great military, but fed people to the lions The US is the same: great military but feeds their people to corporate America (low wages,overworked and under insured and over-drugged) etc,ect

 

[jreeves]

....nor can or should successful countries be defined on how large their military is also. The Roman empire had a great military, but fed people to the lions The US is the same: great military but feeds their people to corporate America (low wages,overworked and under insured and over-drugged) etc,ect

There you go again, big bad corporate America....proof please....

 

[Diuretic]

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions
on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).


Next is it really so successful? We have terrible voter turn out compared to other nations.


And realize the new spending was signed into law by WUBBUA.


I will be here all week.

You've got an indirect democracy. You have a republic cos you ain't got a king (although that's debatable right now ) No the founders didn't like democracy (as they knew it, 18th Century style) but they'd be okay with the idea now that the fear of the tyranny of the majority has been dealt with in many other democracies by various forms of representation.

I can recommend the beef, there's plenty of it.

Don't forget to tip the waitresses.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It works for some people who can afford insurance or who can afford to pay medical bills. It does not work for those who have to choose between buying food or paying their insurance premium. I think that we have a good balance between socialism and capitalism. There is Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP for those who need help.

Those who are too poor to pay for their insurance premium are addressed in point #4. There is no need to put 85%+ of the country into socialized medicine in order to take care of the 15% who are indigent. BTW if we were to get rid of illegals who are swamping our hospitals, that percentage would probably be cut way, way down.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And you are a blind asswipe with Rush Limbaugh as your puppet master.

Actually, I fell ass-backwards into a job offered by an industry I did not know existed. I have a knack for datasystems and a niche was carved out for me based on their need and my capabilities.

But just because I was able to find an excellent job with a great company does not mean that everyone has that within their means. There are many factors that block people from achieving more, such as out-sourcing.

And you miss the point completely. I never said these things should be free. But because they are considered commodities, they are priced as if they are luxury items. A bag of apples is morfe expensive than a bag of chips. Why is this acceptable? I say make it affordable for low income households to survive.

Why is that wrong and why do you equate that to being a handout?

Which makes you cold hearted. You don't have any children of your own so you do not understand. You apparently are not poor or lower class so you do not understand. There are not enough jobs that pay a livable wage to go around. Are you suggesting we be more like China and not allow people to have children according to State regulations?

See, this is where you are a beligerent ass clown. I never said that Socialism is the be all end all answer to Capitalism. You want proof of a society inwhich Socialism was the model of success in order to accept just a little socialism mixed with capitalism here. That is narrow-minded and foolish.

We need to engage a social contract with our citizens. This does not mean a hand out or wealth distribution. But we must stop thinking of people as dead weight and unworthy of social programs. We must stop all of the money being handed over to already wealthy conglomerates.

This is where you become so stupid and beligerent that I cannot believe that someone like you actually exists.

No, the lower classes pay more in taxes than the upper classes - that is their rates are higher so they actually see more of a percentage taken from them. If you bothered to read what I said, when you rob Peter to pay Paul (as many lower class families are forced to do) that tax deduction becomes a rent check, or arrearage for heating, or car repairs, etc.

Again, you are proving that you do not understand.

But the rates would be higher. This doesn't solve that issue. You think competition will drive the rates down and it doesn't work that way. Millions went without insurance in MA alone, so that marketshare did not drive the rates down. Believe me, the rates have only risen steadily in the past 8 years.

It would be more like Cable TV. You can get the one cable company in your area, satelitte TV (if you are not renting) or go without. The rates for these services have not been driven down by the consumers.

To some degree, yes. Those barriers are called regulations. Do you want someone who is unqualified to operate on you, or diagnose medication to you? This can cause more problems than it solves. I think the answer lies within education, such as a reduced tuition rate for medical students.

Oh, so you feel that we should just revert to Anarchy?



Once again, given our higher standards and wealth, we can socialize healthcare and make it a modelfor the rest of the world. But I wasn't suggesting we socialize healthcare. I was stating very clearly that we should subsidize it so that everyone can afford it. The poor get free healthcare and the rich can afford private services. The working class are the one who suffer. Prove me wrong.

Until you can show me a similar size country that has had sustained success with socialism/socialized medicine you don't have a leg to stand on…

However, your mythical savior Obama is going solve everything, isn't he?

Why is a bag of apples more expensive than a bag of chips? Because it's cheaper to mass produce chips. Price fixing is bad for an economy because it is a false representation of what something is worth.

Why is it immigrants who don't even speak English or have a nickel to their name can come to our country and make it? It's because they work hard and make their own way to success. I'm not talking about those who come here looking for handouts. The freedom to work hard and make your way up the ladder of success is the American dream.

Socialism takes that away. Socialism takes away the incentive to work hard. People can just pretty much let the government take care of them and sit on their fat asses, collecting their government checks because it's been deemed by socialists that they have a "human right" to eat, have a warm house and health care too.

Have you ever met some of these "poor" people? For example, one guy I hired for day labor is getting a subsidized apt. for which he only pays $100 per month. His working for me for $10 an hour just about pays for his whole months rent in ONE day's work! Wish I had that kind of deal. The government is probably subsidizing at least $400 he otherwise would have to pay in this market. What a ripoff of hard working, tax-paying Americans! Obviously the guy is quite capable of working a job but he would rather work the system…and us hard-working Americans get to pay for freeloaders like this.

Socialized medicine will not be free for anyone except for the freeloaders. Government does not do anything efficiently. Therefore health care will become even more expensive than it is now.

You claim that the lower classes pay more in taxes than the upper classes. Wrong. The top 50% of taxpayers pay more than 96% of the taxes. The bottom half of income tax payers (those making $30,000 or less) only pay about 3% of the taxes. And you claim this is somehow a problem?
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Since you claim in your last paragraph that you don't think we should socialize health care then you must agree that we need to get the government out of the health care business and let the free markets work. If you want to expand something like charity vouchers for the qualified needy that is a completely different solution than what Hillary/Obama are proposing….they are basically pushing socialized medicine…so why do you plan to vote for one of them?

 

[mattskramer]

Those who are too poor to pay for their insurance premium are addressed in point #4.

What point number 4 are you talking about - Is it where you said, “Solidarity? That is a Socialist's term. Solidarity my ass. This is a country of INDIVIDUALS”?

There is no need to put 85%+ of the country into socialized medicine in order to take care of the 15% who are indigent. BTW if we were to get rid of illegals who are swamping our hospitals, that percentage would probably be cut way, way down.

I agree but we need government to help those who can't help themselves. I guess Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS is enough to help those who can’t help themselves.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What point number 4 are you talking about - Is it where you said, “Solidarity? That is a Socialist's term. Solidarity my ass. This is a country of INDIVIDUALS”?

I agree but we need government to help those who can't help themselves. I guess Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS is enough to help those who can’t help themselves.

Point 4: Address head-on the costs of treating the chronically ill - provide direct subsidies to purchase insurance.

As you say we already have government aid for health care...but it's obvious that government forms of health care do not work that well...I have no problem temporarily helping those in need while we shake out the bungled system we currently have....but eventually government aid should be reduced to a small fraction.

 

[Taomon]

Until you can show me a similar size country that has had sustained success with socialism/socialized medicine you don't have a leg to stand on…

Canada has done well. Is there flaws? Of course. The first flaw was that the ID cards did not have picture IDs so anyone could anyone else's card. That cost the government a lot of money. They fixed that by adding pictures on the ID cards and have trimmed down that cost.

Another flaw is that the funding is provincial instead of Federal. So smaller provinces have less funds to cover expenses. e have the same problem with our own public school systems. So inner-city schools get lower funding and therefore worse conditions and less programs than wealthier middle class suburbs.

But the idea of having a social safety net to cover the expenses of universal healthcare is a good idea, but it would require all of us valuing the well being of each other. Which is why I chose to offer making healthcare affordable through subsidies and price controls. You still have not explained why making a necessary service, like healthcare or education, affordable is a bad thing.

Perhaps all you have to go on is an unreasonable fear/loathing of socialism based on McCarthyesque propaganda being hammered into your head since birth.

However, your mythical savior Obama is going solve everything, isn't he?

He is not my savior, but it remains to be seen if he or anyone else can resolve our social issues like the economy, healthcare, education, and the war.

Why is a bag of apples more expensive than a bag of chips? Because it's cheaper to mass produce chips. Price fixing is bad for an economy because it is a false representation of what something is worth.

So you feel it is better to make necessary items unattainable for the poor and working classes? Mass production is not the problem, it is marketing. We know potato chips are bad, because of the additives. Foods like this are contributing to our poor health as a nation. These agri-businesses that pushed out all of our farmers has replaced our food with garbage. Now even foods like beef, chicken, broccoli and so on have poisons in them. We are inundated with marketing of the mass produced products. Every movie has a Fast-food/cereal/video game tie-in. That is not progress and blatant evidence that our best interests are not represented by our elected officials.

Why is it immigrants who don't even speak English or have a nickel to their name can come to our country and make it? It's because they work hard and make their own way to success. I'm not talking about those who come here looking for handouts. The freedom to work hard and make your way up the ladder of success is the American dream.

Right, and they live with multiple familes crammed into houses and apartments, work two or three crappy jobs, subsist on rice & beans, and ship most of that cash back home. Are you suggesting that we should follow this model? Should we go back to flop houses with shared bathrooms? Should we all work two or three crappy jobs and not be a part of our familes? What is wrong with earning a livable wage?

The problem is the cost of living is too high. We need to elevate the cost of living so that families who earn minimum wage (or just above) can afford to live.

We accept that the economy is a two income reality. Thanks to Reagan, mom & dad must work to survive. Okay, fine. But are you suggesting that we should work two or three jobs each if we are not worthy of a better paying job? Whose responsibility is it to raise they latchkey children?

Socialism takes that away. Socialism takes away the incentive to work hard. People can just pretty much let the government take care of them and sit on their fat asses, collecting their government checks because it's been deemed by socialists that they have a "human right" to eat, have a warm house and health care too.

That is a lie. Look at Russia: the only people sitting on their asses getting fat were the politicians & KGB chiefs. Everyone else worked hard, very hard. Socialism doesn't take away the incentive to work. You are very misinformed if you believe that.

Have you ever met some of these "poor" people? For example, one guy I hired for day labor is getting a subsidized apt. for which he only pays $100 per month. His working for me for $10 an hour just about pays for his whole months rent in ONE day's work! Wish I had that kind of deal. The government is probably subsidizing at least $400 he otherwise would have to pay in this market. What a ripoff of hard working, tax-paying Americans! Obviously the guy is quite capable of working a job but he would rather work the system…and us hard-working Americans get to pay for freeloaders like this.

So this guy represents all poor people? I have met many poor people. I was poor for years. All poor people are not lazy, that also is a lie that you are perpetrating.

I don't think you know any poor people. I was a manager for a few years. I know how difficult it is to motivate employees. I think your frustration is misdirected.

Socialized medicine will not be free for anyone except for the freeloaders. Government does not do anything efficiently. Therefore health care will become even more expensive than it is now.

And privatized healthcare is even less effective than anything the government can do. It won't become expensive, it will become effective. No more class distinction and economic sanctions for necessary medical care.

You claim that the lower classes pay more in taxes than the upper classes. Wrong. The top 50% of taxpayers pay more than 96% of the taxes. The bottom half of income tax payers (those making $30,000 or less) only pay about 3% of the taxes. And you claim this is somehow a problem?
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Actually, what I said was that the lower classes pay more of a percentage of their earnings. Perhaps I explained it wrong. So if you make one million a year, you pay maybe 20% in taxes (unless you have business deductions and tax shelters). If you earn 30 thousand for the year, you pay about 35-45% of your earnings to taxes. Sorry for the confusion.

Since you claim in your last paragraph that you don't think we should socialize health care then you must agree that we need to get the government out of the health care business and let the free markets work. If you want to expand something like charity vouchers for the qualified needy that is a completely different solution than what Hillary/Obama are proposing….they are basically pushing socialized medicine…so why do you plan to vote for one of them?

No, the free market doesn't work. I don't think you have read anything I have said. We need price controls and subsidies to make it affordable. We need zero restrictions for pre-existing conditions. We need a social safety net to cover the costs of the lower classes.

I think voucher systems are even more limiting than anything we have discussed here.

Try reading my words and thinking it through next time.

 

[mattskramer]

There you go again, big bad corporate America....proof please....

Does socialized health care pull stuff like this? The moment I read this my opinion of private health insurance companies went down 5 points – figuratively speaking – and my opinion on the possible positives for socialized medicine grew.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_he_me/health_net_damages;_ylt=AlIXK2hVTs.fdd3zH.2FsYdZ24cA

I mean, my gaud, its like: Yes, you gave us your premiums regularly. You were a good and faithful member. I know that we are a health insurance company and you were counting on us to help you if you get sick. Sorry that you have cancer. That’s just too bad. Good luck in paying your bills. Bye.

 

[jreeves]

Does socialized health care pull stuff like this? The moment I read this my opinion of private health insurance companies went down 5 points – figuratively speaking – and my opinion on the possible positives for socialized medicine grew.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_he_me/health_net_damages;_ylt=AlIXK2hVTs.fdd3zH.2FsYdZ24cA

I mean, my gaud, its like: Yes, you gave us your premiums regularly. You were a good and faithful member. I know that we are a health insurance company and you were counting on us to help you if you get sick. Sorry that you have cancer. That’s just too bad. Good luck in paying your bills. Bye.

Where is your point that socialized medicine will be any better? At least with private insurance companies there is legal recourse. With the Federal gov't you would probably wind up before some adminstrative judge, with no possibility of recovering any of your damages. A more pressing problem than that is, how in the hell can we fund this astronomical program when there are much greater needs. I really get sick and tired of new social proposals when Social Security is doomed for bankruptcy. How can politicians just act ho hum and not address the real problems of this country?

 

[mattskramer]

Where is your point that socialized medicine will be any better? At least with private insurance companies there is legal recourse. With the Federal gov't you would probably wind up before some adminstrative judge, with no possibility of recovering any of your damages. A more pressing problem than that is, how in the hell can we fund this astronomical program when there are much greater needs. I really get sick and tired of new social proposals when Social Security is doomed for bankruptcy. How can politicians just act ho hum and not address the real problems of this country?

I think that under socialized medicine there would be less of an incentive to cheat people. I think that this cancer-stricken lady who was nearly practically left to die in the streets by this corrupt and opportunistic private health insurance company exemplifies a real problem in America.

She probably lucked out in that the insurance company apparently didn’t bribe the judge.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Canada has done well. Is there flaws? Of course. The first flaw was that the ID cards did not have picture IDs so anyone could anyone else's card. That cost the government a lot of money. They fixed that by adding pictures on the ID cards and have trimmed down that cost.

Another flaw is that the funding is provincial instead of Federal. So smaller provinces have less funds to cover expenses. e have the same problem with our own public school systems. So inner-city schools get lower funding and therefore worse conditions and less programs than wealthier middle class suburbs.

But the idea of having a social safety net to cover the expenses of universal healthcare is a good idea, but it would require all of us valuing the well being of each other. Which is why I chose to offer making healthcare affordable through subsidies and price controls. You still have not explained why making a necessary service, like healthcare or education, affordable is a bad thing.

Perhaps all you have to go on is an unreasonable fear/loathing of socialism based on McCarthyesque propaganda being hammered into your head since birth.

If Canada's socialized medicine is so great, why would any sane Canadian purchase private insurance?

Let me clue you. The delays for care are widespread. In some cases people have died as a result of waiting too long. Those who are not on the "serious" lists find themselves waiting and suffering in pain.

The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute keeps track of Canadian waiting times for various medical procedures. According to the Fraser Institute's 14th annual edition of "Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (2004)," total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 17.7 weeks in 2003 to 17.9 weeks in 2004.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4271

I do not have "unreasonable" fear/loathing of socialism. One only has to look at the facts.

So you feel it is better to make necessary items unattainable for the poor and working classes? Mass production is not the problem, it is marketing. We know potato chips are bad, because of the additives. Foods like this are contributing to our poor health as a nation. These agri-businesses that pushed out all of our farmers has replaced our food with garbage. Now even foods like beef, chicken, broccoli and so on have poisons in them. We are inundated with marketing of the mass produced products. Every movie has a Fast-food/cereal/video game tie-in. That is not progress and blatant evidence that our best interests are not represented by our elected officials.

If marketing is "the problem" as you say, why are apples more costly than chips? I never see ads for bags of apples.

You appear to be one of those people who support the "food police". Where does it say in our Constitution that anybody has the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot eat? Don't you believe in indidividual freedom? If we go to socialized medicine the government will take away a lot of that because it will then have the power to dictate your lifestyle choices.

Right, and they live with multiple familes crammed into houses and apartments, work two or three crappy jobs, subsist on rice & beans, and ship most of that cash back home. Are you suggesting that we should follow this model? Should we go back to flop houses with shared bathrooms? Should we all work two or three crappy jobs and not be a part of our familes? What is wrong with earning a livable wage?

The problem is the cost of living is too high. We need to elevate the cost of living so that families who earn minimum wage (or just above) can afford to live.

We accept that the economy is a two income reality. Thanks to Reagan, mom & dad must work to survive. Okay, fine. But are you suggesting that we should work two or three jobs each if we are not worthy of a better paying job? Whose responsibility is it to raise they latchkey children?

Flop houses with shared bathrooms? Sounds like college days. Yes I am suggesting we follow this model. It appears that many immigrants also like this model as they keep on coming here for the privilege of living in a flophouse because they know it is only temporary. They know they can pursue a better life here. Believe it or not nobody has the "right" to be handed anything for free. You need to work for your supper. The government has no right to take from one person and give it to another person. I suppose you are going to call me hard-hearted again for saying that…too bad. That's how Americans learn the nitty gritty of life and to value their hard won freedoms. Socialism is a form of government servitude.

That is a lie. Look at Russia: the only people sitting on their asses getting fat were the politicians & KGB chiefs. Everyone else worked hard, very hard. Socialism doesn't take away the incentive to work. You are very misinformed if you believe that.

Would you have liked to work under Socialism in Russia? You'd work twice as hard and get half as much.

That's why the Socialist propaganda today is such a lie. They promise utopia (and for some for a while this seems true) but in reality you get hell in the end.

And privatized healthcare is even less effective than anything the government can do. It won't become expensive, it will become effective. No more class distinction and economic sanctions for necessary medical care.

Less effective than anything the govt. can do? What do you think of the effectiveness of Medicare? Now there's a great example of what the govt. can do. Not.

Today's health care is not as privatized as it should be. It should be privatized to the point where you and your doctor are making your health care decisions, not an insurance company. If you think an insurance company is bad for your health care, wait until the government takes over. You want politicians managing your health care?

No, the free market doesn't work. I don't think you have read anything I have said. We need price controls and subsidies to make it affordable. We need zero restrictions for pre-existing conditions. We need a social safety net to cover the costs of the lower classes.

I think voucher systems are even more limiting than anything we have discussed here.

Try reading my words and thinking it through next time.

I have been reading and thinking about your position. I don't buy it. You haven't provided any real proof that socialized medicine will work...you just have the heartfelt belief it will work.

IMO we don't "need" any of that stuff you claim we "need"...price controls and subsidies (other than for the core poor) are not necessary to provide our health care. Instead we need a health care system that is rid of government and insurance company interference. Once third parties get their grubby hands out of the sytem the market can work.

Take a look at WalMart. This is private enterprise at work without the price controls and subsidies. You can go there and buy $4 prescriptions. Believe it or not, that is helping a lot of poor and working class people. Going further, Walmart is also going to set up clinics at many of its stores. People will be able to go there and get everyday health care at a low cost. It will help take the pressure off regular clinics which should help everybody. A great boon to the poor and "disenfranchised" wouldn't you say? That's the free market at work.