wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:59:34 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:32:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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

wrote in message
news:k07dj55knu2m5m920vva9hsjjagfg59qij@4ax. com...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


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.

In the US 43% of the low end pay no income tax and the high end up
paying around 15%. I don't see that changing anytime soon since the
congress is well bribed by the rich.

Nope... http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Nope what? If you are really rich you manage to keep most of your
income off of line 37 of your 1040 so that chart is bogus.
I am just citing Warren Buffett and he is probably more honest on his
taxes than your dentist, who is also in that top 1% column.

The numbers you quoted don't match, and if it's off the 1040, then it's
speculation. Where did Buffett say this?




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.

"Afford" is a relative term. They don't want to pay anything unless
they are sick and they think a couple hundred a month is too much for
something they don't plan on using.

I don't believe that most people who are uninsured prefer to stay that
way.
Can you cite the source for this?

Do you know a 20 something person who thinks health insurance is more
important than a nice car?

If you explain it to someone that age in a careful and complete way, then
yes she'll get it.


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.
... But they have convinced us driving a car is not a right, it is
just from the kindness of the government that we are allowed to drive.

Why do you think it's a right? Is it written into the Constitution? It's a
privilege that needs to be earned.


What are you talking about, driving or health care. The Constitution
is silent on both of them.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of
government.




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.

You can't underestimate the contribution Gingrich made for Clinton's
surplus. Ways and Means is a House function and that is where the
money comes from. They also control spending.

Gingrich did very little that he wasn't forced to do. Clinton called his
bluff as I recall.

Gingrich ran on a policy of fiscal responsibility and that was a big
part of the "contract"
They may have bickered on TV but Clinton and Gingrich were actually a
very effective team. Neither would have succeeded without the other.

BS. Read up... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America


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

Perot got the public ready to accept the fiscal responsibility
represented by the largest tax increase in history. That is how
Clinton managed a surplus. He also pointed out the problem we have
now, the amount of short term debt the government is carrying. If your
debt is mostly in short term paper you have no idea what the interest
rate will be when you have to roll it over ... or even if anyone will
buy it. If China suddenly decided to just go somewhere else with their
money and not renew their US paper we couldn't pay them what was due.
That is a lot more of a problem for us than global warming, terrorism
and the health care crisis combined. China calling in their cash would
be about as bad as that planet killing comet we are overdue for.

Oh come on... Perot never got much public support, and he quit and then
changed his mind.

It wasn't that Perot was a serious candidate, it was the questions he
made everyone else answer.

No one answered anything. He was mostly ignored.

You notice that after that, the rules were changed to ensure another
outsider could never get a seat at the table.
If you are not anointed by the Remocrat/Depublican oligarchy, you
can't enter the debates

Ah, so it's back to conspiracy theories? Or, the more likely answer is that
there hasn't been any viable third-party candidates.

Ok, so what's your solution?

Send about 5 million people to Navy Corpsman school and set them up in
storefront clinics doing triage for doctors, actually taking care of
about 20% of the patients.
You don't need 8 years of college to patch up wounds, give shots and
hand out a bottle of pills.

That's going to solve our economic woes? Hardly. And, yes our economy and
the heathcare crisis are interlinked.

It would be training for a job that can't be exported and it would
bend the health care cost curve. What else do you want?

The high school dropout who was making $60,000 on the line putting the
left front wheel on a Chevy is going to be in trouble, no matter what
we do.
Getting him a GED still won't get him UAW money.
That is the 60 year old "union bubble" that globalism popped.


Stop blaming the union for management's ill deeds. One immediate problem
with it is that it'll never happen. You're going to force people into the
school? Sure.


--
Nom=de=Plume