Looking at the terms used in the lounge you are correct but looking past that parochial view the point is as fastd pointed out the expansion of government in this administration and also the last, is not the road that conservatives want to travel. None the less Jim Jones and Nazi labels is just name calling and counter productive, to whom ever is using it.

Very well stated. What Thomas Jefferson and the Framers envisioned was a Federal Government with very limited and discreet powers, specifically defined in the Constitution. Jefferson wrote after leaving office:

"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. To preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes..."

The solution was never envisioned as an expansion of government to save the auto industry or float a "public option" on healthcare. The solution was for people to work (or go without) and the government to operate within its means. It was never planned that we borrow more than our tax base could repay. We are now borrowing money and running up a national debt that will eventually break our country. Then our creditors will overrun us at the first sign of a falter. As of January this year, we owe China $772B and over 25% of our Treasurey securities are in the hands of foreign governments. And they keep ignoring the GAO...print the money and roll on.

fstd, "statism", OK, at least a new term devoid for the time being of a darker meaning and insinuation. :) I would certainly prefer to not get hung up on definitions or name calling as it does distract from the important topics at hand.

Look, I'm not a real smart guy, don't claim to be. I don't pretend to have any or even some of the answers to these very complex issues. Most of the time I'm just going with my gutt, and I've learned to trust it!

Take the "statism" of the GM bankruptcy. My "gut" tells me the Gov did the right thing, but I don't know... Rather than let them just file straight up and down BK, they stepped in. I think that was the right thing to do, based on wide spread impact of so many other related industries. I'm not a Union guy, never have been, but they cannot be ignored either. What was the best solution? I don't have a degree in economics or the data to make that call.

Same for many of these programs, a LOT of us are going with our "gut" on these issues. That's why it's important to get as many of the facts together as we can and discount the inflamatory rhetoric.

Also, you are too liberal to make the call.

:) You wouldn't know a Liberal if you saw one. Heck you think even Computerworks is a Liberal, clearly your very confused on that issue.

Actually, I don't think ComputerWorks is a liberal but you are one and nothing seems to get through to you relating to Obama. The country can be destroyed by Zero and you are sitting there doing nothing but supporting that effort or wondering if what is happening is OK but not taking a position, even on GM, wondering probably until it's too late for all of us.

Ex,

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

If you want to create sound policy and be an advocate for anything, "going by your gut" is probably the worst mistake that one can make. The Framers were all students of history and lived in environment of tyranny; they understood what they were doing in a context that few American's realize. However, if you read the minutes and transcripts from the Constitution Convention you would get a feel for this. They wanted to limited Federal Government because they knew it was a beast and needed to keep it in check. Please don't think that allowing the Fed Gov to take more and more control is a good thing.

"Going by your gut" more often than not results in the creation of incentives that run counter to a goal. History provides all kinds of examples: prohibition in the 30's, tax policy from the beginning of time, and on and on. The main problem with the Government as policy maker is that if they are wrong, there typically is no mechanism to fix it. If private health insurance companies are wrong, there are other better run health insurance companies, laws, other industries, that can step in to "right the ship."

You said that you think Obama did the right thing with GM & Chrysler; probably because your gut tells you. It is hard to say exactly what will happen in the long run, however, the damage that he did to the economy, and the individual companies is terrible on a lot of different levels. A couple of quick points: the new companies are still saddled with higher pension costs than all of their competitors; if there were a true bankruptcy, these costs would have been addressed; instead, Obama gave 53% of Chrysler to the pension members! Meanwhile, we stiffed the senior lenders; while this may have satisfied those who think investors should get screwed before the pension members, it has done incalculable damage to the credit markets as investors have no idea what kind of bankruptcy protection they will get in the future. If Obama left it alone, GM & Chrysler would have done what hundreds and thousands of companies have done before them; they would have restructured their debt, worked it all out and they would still be making cars. Obama thinks he helped this company but really he made them less competitive going forward and hurt US manufacturing capacity. The "gut" can be a very tricky thing.





Many policies are created without regard for the

I knew you were not basing your arguments on centered thoughts (and the informed thoughts of others). This is not meant to be an insult in anyway. Trusting your gut on issues like this is what a LOT of people do. Emotions. Feelings. And they have nothing to do with what is going on. Statism IS a dark word with many bad implications. Statism is extreme socialism. And it is where we are headed.

Everytime you accept something from the government, you give up a little freedom. Over time, it accumulates. Then one day you note that many of your actions are "regulated". Take 401Ks. Its YOUR money. But there are rules in place that keep you from doing what you want with it, right? Why? Because you traded your freedom for a tax break. Now the government has some control over you. Look at churches and their tax exempt status. Guess what. Preachers cannot talk about politics from the pulpit. Why? Because they traded that freedom for a tax break! I could go on and on.

You need to read Ernie. Read Atlas Shrugged. Big fat book. It will open your eyes. If after that, you still feel the same way, then fine.

People in this country are using the government to get what they ordinarily could not get on their own without hard work. And the politicians patronize them for political power.

Wake Up Uhmericuh!

Jaysus...he's said several times he's read the damn book! :LOL:

Well that sums up my point exactly. Maybe the GM deal was OK, maybe not, I don't know, the jury is still out on that one. The folks that made that decision had access to considerably more data than any of us. At this point, I think it was a good call, just my opinion based on the data I do have available. Some say they should have just flat out let them fail, I disagree.

Uhmericuh? And that implies? Man, you just don't get it. The Nazi inside you once again rears it's ugly head. Which strongly suggests your not a "smart guy"! By the way, "Altlas Shrugged", well, Jamo covered that. :)

Back to the topic at hand, HEALTH CARE REFORM:
Few, if any, around here, have actually read the 1,000 page bill. Your forming your opinions largely on what others are saying, what you percieve to be the final end product, we have little else to go on, in other words, your GUT! We don't know WHAT the end product will be yet, maybe a public option, for instance, maybe not. Discussion like this and in other forums can and will have an impact on the final product, that's a good thing. Depending on how it's structured, some will like it, some won't, maybe I will, maybe I won't. I'll reserve judgement on it until the issues become more clear, until the bill has been given more time. I DO support some kind of public option!

It's clear we need some kind of Governement over sight into how health care is managed. The HMO's, drug companies, etc CANNOT be counted on to regulate themselves.

They already are regulated...

Like Social Poverty (SS) and Medifraud it just another revenue stream that congress can divert money from.

It also won't be a "public option" it will be a mandate. Try opting out of SS, the Black SUV's will be stopping by shortly.

Ex,

Don't confuse opposition to the several bills floating around out there with going with our collectively guts.

It is checks and balances; it is fear of government monopoly (the worst kind of monopoly).

You are correct that no ones knows what the bill will ultimately look like at this point; many of us are reacting to bits and pieces from various bills; that doesn't mean we can't form our own opinions and be very scared of the government killing the quality of health care.

GM: It is was too simplistic to think that without Obama, GM would shutter all of its plants, not make cars, fire all of its employees, go completely out of business. That hardly ever happens, especially not to manufacturers who still make a relevant product.

Again, government does require something more of its citizens than going with their guts; the Constitution is a good place to start (and end). It is a tremendous testament to the past and the future; you would do well to understand it better than you do right now; you would honor the American's who have spilled their blood protecting it and you and your family; you would be able to forget about "liberal" and "conservative", "democrat" and "republican" labels; you could rise above it all. Learn about the foundation of our Republic and you will feel much better about your understanding of your ancestors, and how to apply the lessons that they tried to teach us...

I lived in Washington D.C. for eight years, went to Georgetown University, gave talks there as an invited speaker. I am well versed in the Constitution thank you. I say I am not a smart man because I have associated with a number of truly genius level folks. It tends to alter your self perception... :)

That answers a lot of questions Ernie.
I was thinking it was all due to Maui Wowie.

Well crap, at least we are debating with a card carrying liberal instead of the poser kind....:LOL:

Bullsh!t, you are sandbagging all of us.;)

You're willing to agree to a new health care system that nobody knows how it will turn out? Without knowing the details?

If the Government assigned spouses, would you agree to marry, for life, without ever meeting the person? If the Government institutes any plan, we are married to it for life.

The Government already significantly oversee's HMO's. It's called Medicare. Most, if not all, insurance companies use Medicare guidelines as a basis to develop their own benefit packages, because people for the most part expect that.

The FDA is a major thorn in all drug companies' side's. The US market is one of the hardest to get into because of the more extensive testing/studies required by drug companies. There are many drugs that are used in Europe for years before they are allowed to be used in the US. ? Thalidomide

Do you think we should allow the government (poilticians) to self regulate themselves? We do.


I see alot of studies/reports talking about healthcare here in the US, comparing it to other countrues. You can make any study show whatever you want it to show, and often I find it hard to find a study or essay by someone/somebody that may have real credibility, that I can really believe in.

To compare care, you must first determine a focus of attention, one that can provide credible facts that one can make a reasonable assessment and conclusion. After thinking about healthcare for a while, I thought it would be good to see how different countries treat/handle ESRD ( end stage renal disease ), people with kidney failure, who are a large population, who go on to require long term expensive medical treatment, dialysis and kidney transplants. Often, these people have other significant co-morbid conditions that often lead to their demise, and in general, they are a very sick population, often disabled, do not work, and I think would be a good test to evaluate any health care system on how effective it is in handling the very sick.

I thought this was a good essay comparing how the US and other countries treat ESRD, as well as an analysis of the associated statistics, the manipulation of them, and the relevence of them, interpreted by an expert in that field, as unbiased as I think you can get.

http://www.aakp.org/aakp-library/Com...ates-Overseas/

Basically, the conclusion is that US care of ESRD is basically superior to all other developed countries, leading in tranplantation and life expectancy in the very sick and elderly.

Do you really want another system?

Sorry, I missed the part about him reading the book.

It is a mystery to me how one could read that book, and still be whole hog into Obamanomics. But, that's the way it appears.

Looks like the fate of this bill is becoming clearer every day. And for that glimmer of hope, I am grateful.

Mike

Learn something new every day.

Interesting article.

http://www.aakp.org/aakp-library/Com...ates-Overseas/


After thinking about it for a while, somethiing occurred to me, certain statements in that essay:

"Europe Rations ESRD Treatment by Age, Gender and Co-Morbidity

Skewed selection and transplant rates are factors that make dialysis survival appear good on paper. International comparisons ignoring selection factors and attributing differences in survival to technique are meaningless. An inspection of the 1995 registry report of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EDTA) affirms the persistent exclusion of older uremic patients by stating, "The median age of ESRD patients in the UK in 1992 was 60 years, while in Sweden it was 66 years, in France 63 years and in Germany 62 years. Study of international registries reveals an economic influence on rationing limits for ESRD programs worldwide. Rationing is a kind term for restricting admission to dialysis.




In essence, other countries do not treat the elderly population who are in renal failure, and allow them to be "uremic". In other words, these people in renal failure are not treated with dialysis, are allowed to die from renal failure. Un-*uckin-believeable !

Clearly, treatment for ESRD patients is a product of governmental policies and economic pressures. Treatment of renal failure in the United Kingdom under performs countries in Western Europe and the United States. As recently as April 2000, Shaldon, a UK home hemodialysis pioneer, wrote, "Most distressing is the appalling state of dialysis availability in the United Kingdom. Although, successive governments since 1964 have refused to budget adequately for the needs of the renal services, the conspiracy of silence entered into by the medical profession seems to be equally responsible. As long as primary care doctors, acting as indoctrinated gatekeepers, refuse to refer elderly patients to renal units for dialysis, nephrologists can continue to claim that they accept all patients referred to them."

This means the primary care physicians are pre-screening the renal failure patients, to determine who are the best to be sent to the nephrologists for dialysis, and others who are not, and are "allowed" to die from renal failure. Again Un-*uckin-believable !

There is no doubt that outside the United States, many women, the elderly and racial minorities die untreated. In Eastern Europe, after the Berlin Wall fell, it became evident that ESRD therapy, though equivalent in survival to that reported for Western Europe, was restricted to Communist Party members or the otherwise rich and powerful. This means that a low ESRD treatment rate can hide deaths due to renal failure.


Did you read that first line?



The contrast between death rates in the United States and the truly spectacular outcome of dialysis units in France is repeatedly cited as evidence of American deficiency. Especially lauded is the unmatchable "landmark" longevity reported in Tassin, France. In 1983, Drs. Laurent, Calemard and Charra analyzed 373 hemodialysis patients. They found a remarkable survival rate of 75 percent at 10 years and 65 percent at 15 years. Although supposedly "an unselected population," there were actually only 15 patients (four percent) who had diabetes while another 15 (four percent) had systemic disease. What was the fate of uremic people in Tassin who were not accepted for dialysis (diabetic, very old, extensive systemic disease)? Obviously, they died, uncounted in any ESRD survival statistics. By providing dialysis to healthier patients, France and other European countries built a superior survival rate. American survival rates can never match this, as all American patients are accepted into our dialysis system.



Did you notice than in the US, ALL PEOPLE IN RENAL FAILURE ARE TREATED WITH DIALYSIS . NOT SO IN OTHER COUNTRIES, WHERE A FRACTION OF THE PEOPLE IN RENAL FAILURE ARE TREATED WITH DIALYSIS. THIS MEANS THE ONES NOT TREATED ARE ALLOWED TO DIE !!! UN-*UCKIN -BELIEVEABLE.

Good post Anthony, slight clarification, I'm not willing to blindly accept anything. The proposals on the table need time to come to fruition.

Thalidomide, sure caused a ton of birth defects before they got that drug worked out. FDA was right to hold off on it. My X (PhD research chemist) worked on that drug, it's a xiral compound. Think right and left hands, right hand works well, left hand causes birth defects. How to separate right from left? Not easy. Thats xiral separation techinque(s). I'm not a smart man, so I have no idea how the heck she does stuff like that. I felt better when I found out only a handful of people in the world actually do understand it. :)

We have a great health care system, needs "tweaking" to make it better.

Footnote: xiral is actually spelled chiral or chiralaty. I just screwed up and used the short cut name (how dumb is that). :D

Ex,

There is a difference between being "well versed" in the Constitution and understanding and respecting it. Heck, Obama taught classes about it and swore to defend it when he became President; that hasn't stopped him from disregarding it.