wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



There's no "free health care" in the current or expected bill, so that's
just your musing or right-wing fear-induced.

This is what most fans think it is supposed to be and the models they
have been spinning (Canada, Japan, Scandinavia) reinforce that.
Actually the expansion of Medicaid from 133% to 150% of the poverty
level (house and senate versions) will make it free for a lot of
people.

Fans? No one I've heard of is spinning those systems. If you're talking
France (rated #1) or Germany or perhaps the UK, even then, no one is
spinning those, and they are much closer to ours, including what the bill
appears to do.


Canada gets mentioned every time this comes up and if you say France,
you are talking about "Free" medical care ... unless you pay taxes.
The problem is that level of taxation is politically impossible here
so it would just be rampaging debt.

Canada gets mentioned as a unlikely and not viable example for the US. The
French med system isn't free. Umm... most people pay taxes, except maybe the
very, very rich, and the very, very poor.


The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Which people? Those who don't have it, mostly want it. Sure, there are
always a few who choose or can afford not to have it.

It is mostly young people in mediocre jobs who don't buy insurance.
Those are the ones we need in the system if this is actually going to
be insurance.

Yes, but they could afford it if it's set up properly, which is where we
need to be.

Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to do
that.


The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're
talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just checking.

It will become a bread and butter issue when bread and butter become
more expensive (the carbon tax). Actually in the late 80s and early
90s, the deficit was an election issue (Ross Perot). It brought us
about 3 years of sound fiscal policy with the help of the 104th
congress.

I don't think you can credit Perot with "sound fiscal policy." He was
another wacko, smart business man that he was.

He was a whacko who drove the fiscal policy of Gingrich/Clinton that
got us close to even for a year or two. You could criticize Perot for
being an egotistical jerk but his charts were right on.

Gingrich?? His "Contract on America" was just a rehash of the same bs.
Clinton mostly got things under control.

Perot was unwilling to listen to anyone. Having a good chart means very
little.


I actually saw Perot once at EDS in Rockville Md, and he fired me for
having hair on my face. Too bad I didn't work for him.



Jobs will be an issue. If they continue to turn around, then the Dems
don't
have much to worry about.

I am just not sure what these people are going to do. We have exported
most manufacturing and we have several years worth of built and unsold
houses, condos and commercial buildings.

Yes, but the jobs situation is starting to turn around. If that
continues...

The problem is, guys who used to be making $60,000 and up, building
cars and houses are now back working... but for half that at some
menial job.



Ok, so what's your solution?

--
Nom=de=Plume