Single-payer model actually inhibits improved health care

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Single-payer model actually inhibits improved health care (http://www.minnpost.com/community_voices/2009/06/25/9770/single-payer_model_actually_inhibits_improved_health_care )

By Craig Westover in MinnPost

There is one point about a single-payer health-care system on which Dr. Oliver Fein and I agree — there's not enough of a definition for the public to make an assessment about what a single-payer health-care system really is. In a recent MinnPost piece ["Medicare 2.0: Doctors group urges health care for all (http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/06/22/9666/medicare_20_doctors_group_urges_health_care_for_al l)," by Casey Selix], Fein, president of Physicians for a National Health Care Program, provides a set of six principles that "really define what single-payer is." Indeed they do. But when one examines logically the six principles Fein lays out, one realizes that as well-intentioned as is his desire for universal health care, the single-payer model can't get us there, it actually inhibits improved health care — and, ironically, to establish a manufactured "right" to health care a single-payer system destroys the unalienable right of individuals to make their own health-care decisions.

Let's look at Fein's principles in detail, contrasting them with a free-market health-care system, keeping in mind that the health care system we have today is NOT a free-market system but a heavily regulated managed-care system — single-payer-lite.

Fein's principles Nos. 1, 2 and 3 define the classic trade-off among access, quality, cost. His first principle of a single-payer system is "automatic enrollment, which would lead to universal coverage." His second principle is that "benefits ought to be really comprehensive … going from prevention, doctor, hospital, pharmaceuticals, to dental, metal health — all medically necessary services." Principle three is that "these things should be publically financed."

Every system — whether a manufacturing system, a sales system, the education system or the health care system — has the same three (and only three) outputs and addresses the same three questions: "How many of what kind at what cost? In health care, those three questions are expressed, "What quality of care (kind) can we provide at what cost to how many people?" Trade-offs are necessary to achieve the optimum (not perfect) system.

In a free-market health-care system, the optimum solution is determined by the pricing mechanism and individual choice. Each of the three variables is truly variable — that is given a market where physicians determine service and price and the individual is responsible for his care costs, a person might choose to have his annual check-up done by a local clinic rather than the Mayo Clinic. Given his family history, his doctor might decide he needs a specific procedure at a different interval than "the average patient." It is these kinds of individual decisions made by millions of individuals that create an optimum health care system.

'Variables' aren't variable
In Fein's single-payer model, the "variables" are not variable at all. One of the three variables is fixed (universal coverage); consequently, the other two must be consciously managed from outside the system. Everyone cannot receive comprehensive health care (however "comprehensive" is defined) except at very high cost (or with very high taxes). If costs are fixed (as they must be at some level) then all that remains to be managed is the definition of "comprehensive." That is why the Obama health plan calls for creation of a third-party board to determine the cost-effectiveness of specific medical treatment for specific classes of people and decide if the treatment will be covered. "Comprehensive" medical care means "quality" medical care is what government says it is, not necessarily what the patient wants.

Whereas in a free-market system millions of medical decisions are made with immediate cost and quality information available to doctors and patients, in a single-payer system, health-care decisions are governed by a relative few individuals necessarily making aggregate assumptions about individual patient situations because they cannot possibly have instant access to data required to make a decision about any individual patient.

That would be "you."

Trade-offs among access, quality and cost in a health-care system are inevitable even if Fein does not acknowledge them. In a single-payer system with universal coverage, at some point, someone other than you and your doctor will be making decisions that materially dictate and limit treatment options available to you and your family.

Fein's principle No. 4 is that single-payer eliminates "administrative waste" that results from having multiple payers. His principle No. 5 is that single-payer maximizes choice compared to "our present private insurance system." Before we can discuss those two principles it is necessary to debunk the misconception Fein implies — that our "present private insurance system" is equivalent to "free-market health care" and that the present managed-care system is the same as a "private health insurance system."

In free market, patients control the money
In a free-market health-care system, patients control the money that is spent on their health care. That money might be theirs, it might come from an insurance settlement, it might be a health-care voucher by a government program, but in each case, the patient decides how his money will be spent. In turn, in a free-market system, doctors determine what services they will provide and at what price. Doctors compete for individual patients on price and quality of care. Finally, in a free-market health-care system, insurance companies offer policies that meet the differing resources and tolerance for risk of individual consumers. They also have control of products and price. Insurance companies compete for customers based on price and comprehensiveness of coverage.

True health insurance (as opposed to prepaid medical care) has little to do with access to actual medical treatment. Health insurance, like any other insurance product, is concerned with asset protection. The purpose of health insurance is turning unpredictable and unaffordable expense into predictable, affordable expense. Insurance companies offer a variety of policies at different premium levels and deductibles that consumers will buy depending on their needs, resources and tolerance for risk.

In today's prepaid managed-care system, insurance companies control (via government regulation) which services will be covered and how much physicians will be paid for those services. Even Fein acknowledges that in today's regulated environment consumer choices are limited. Because a single entity controls both demand and supply of health care, there is no competitive pricing mechanism and consequently no accurate regulator on prices. Cost can't be controlled if there is no mechanism for determining price and demand at a price.... continued in next post ...

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Three outputs, three questions
Recall that any system has the same three outputs and addresses the same three questions — "How many of what kind at what cost? In a private health-insurance system, those three questions are expressed as "How many policies can be written, covering which situations at what cost?" In the current system, by law, "covering what situation" is mandated. Minnesota has more than 60 insurance mandates requiring specific coverage, for example. When one variable is fixed, the other two must be consciously managed from outside the system. Hence, on top of necessary administrative costs, we get unnecessary administrative costs imposed by regulation.

Because a third party, government, has fixed the extent of coverage, private companies are limited as to the policies they can provide and the price at which they can provide them. To keep costs down, they must either limit service provided or reduce payments to service providers. That does not change with the advent of a single-payer system. A single-payer system is not essentially different from the managed-care system we have today. The only difference is eliminating the regulated private health-care insurers and replacing them with a regimented bureaucracy.

That brings us back to Fein's single-payer health care principles Nos. 4 and 5: eliminating administrative waste and maximizing choice.

I'll forgo arguing with Fein's statistics on administration costs other than to say determining administrative cost depends a lot on what is included as "administration" and what isn't, and Fein's numbers are based on some fairly biased assumptions — as would be my assumptions to the contrary. However, the fundamental irony, as the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner points out, is that folks like Fein praise one of the greatest failings of socialized medicine, lack of administration, as if it were a virtue.

Administration is key
Economist Tyler Cowen notes administrative costs like monitoring, marketing and overhead costs of private insurance companies are what enable those companies to offer coverage for expensive medical treatments. Competing insurance companies spend money evaluating claims and setting pricing structures so that there is an accurate measure of what coverage actually costs relative to need. Without that review mechanism, it is impossible to limit health-care costs without reducing service. Without the consulting function of insurance agents, individuals will either buy more coverage than they need and pay more for it than they should, or find themselves underinsured and taking on more financial risk than warranted.

Tanner adds, "If European health-care systems appear to have lower administrative costs, it is because, rather than scrutinizing claims, they limit the overall amount they will spend on medical services. Of course, that just means they shift costs to patients who either must pay for medical services themselves, or deal with the costs of waiting." Going back to the access, quality, cost triumvirate, if claims are not reviewed then cost must be shifted or care limited, or "administrative saving" or the consequences of lax oversight must be passed to taxpayers.

In his principle No. 5, as he did with the definition of "comprehensive," Fein obscures the concept of "choice" in health care. "The program in the country with the most choice is Medicare," he writes. "You have the choice of physician, a choice of hospital; so, again, single payer would lead to increased choice."

Indeed, as Fein envisions single-payer, it would lead to increased choice compared to today's system. But remember, the system we have today is not a free market system, which by definition requires that patients control their health care dollars and choose their own physicians and by extension hospitals and other treatment facilities. The system we have today, thanks to government regulation, is a managed care system where different costs for "in-network" and "out-of-network" care are unavoidable because doctors are competing for pools of patients provided by health plans based on how little reimbursement they will take; doctors are not competing for patients based on value to the patient.

However, what Fein calls "choice" turns out to be anything but, as his principle No. 6 illustrates.

In his sixth principle, Fein again tries to reassure with the idea that a single-payer system really delivers health care through a "nonprofit, privately controlled system." Doctors, he says, "would not be employed by the government; hospitals would not be owned by the government. What you would have is public financing and collection of money by the single payer, but the private delivery system would continue."

Sort of like General Motors, I guess.

Choice, but not much of a choice
What Fein doesn't make clear is that while patients in a single-payer system might choose from among private doctors and private hospitals, there will be little difference among doctors and hospitals in the procedures and treatments they are allowed to perform. There is a big difference between choosing among McDonald's, Burger King and Subway (a free market) and "choosing" any (but only) McDonald's. Again, in a single-payer system at some level, medical choices for the individual must be made by a third party based on aggregate rather than individual considerations — you just can't get "a flame-broil Whopper Jr. for a buck" at Subway.

A second point Fein ignores in his choice argument is that with a single-payer system there is little to no motivation to innovate. Using Fein's Medicare analogy, the single-payer determines both service descriptions and reimbursement rates. Innovations, by the definition of "innovation," are not in the system. Medical innovations by their nature are, in initial stages, very expensive, and until perfected, produce unpredictable results. Where is the motivation to innovate if a) one must buck the system at one's own expense to put the procedure on the service schedule, and b) one will be able to price the innovation to compensate for developing it.

Removing the profit motive stifles innovation; that reduces choice, it does not increase it.

Concluding, Fein provides us with the single-payer analogy of Medicare for all. "So what we talk about is Medicare 2.0," he writes, "an expanded program of Medicare for all and an improved program that deals with many of these other programs. That would be the way a single-payer program would operate in the United States."

OK, let's assume Medicare provides "comprehensive" medical care at affordable cost (a debatable point). Why is that so? It is because the private health-care market picks up the tab for subsidized, below-market Medicare patient care; non-Medicare patients pay much more for the same services. When you extend Medicare to everyone, who is left to pick up the slack?

The dirty little secret today is that increasing numbers of physicians are simply not taking new Medicare patients. They continue to provide care as their patients age into Medicare, but the reimbursement rates for Medicare are so low that private physicians simply cannot afford to take on new Medicare patients. We're not talking the ever-available criticism of "greed." We are talking government reimbursements that are so low that they do not cover the cost of treatment and overhead, let alone any expectation of profit.

This situation points out another consequence of a single-payer system that Fein ignores: A Medicare-for-all scenario necessarily requires a nonvoluntary requirement on physicians to provide care irrespective of their own interests. The individual sovereignty of health-care providers, an unalienable right, must be sacrificed for the manufactured "right to health care." As must the patient's unalienable right to make his own health-care decisions.

Trade-offs would be imposed from on high
In his MinnPost interview, Fein has given us a clear picture of a single-payer system. What he has not offered is the trade-offs such a system must necessarily impose from on high by boards and bureaucrats, unlike in a free-market health care system where trade-offs are determined by individuals and their doctors. A single-payer system is a classic example of the dichotomy between freedom and perfection: A free society can never be perfect; a perfect society can never be free. The ultimate trade-off offered by a single-payment health care system is between the unfulfillable promise of perfection and the frustration of imperfection engendered by individual freedom.

In a true free-market system, not the heavily regulated managed-care health-care system we have today, individuals and their doctors decide how trade-offs will be made based on their individual situations. In a single-payer system, third-party government boards must necessarily make cost-based decisions about individual medical care based only on aggregate data. A free-market health-care system encourages innovation because innovators reap the rewards of their effort; a single-payer system discourages innovation because the system doesn't know how to value innovation. A free-market health-care system establishes an optimum (not perfect) relationship among access, quality and cost; a single-payer system providing universal coverage distorts market signals by the necessity to system control costs, and consequently misallocates costs and redefines "quality."

Ultimately the question that the public must answer vis-à-vis single payer health care is "Who do you want making decisions about health care for you and your family — you and your doctor, or somebody else?

Craig Westover, a senior policy fellow with the Minnesota Free Market Institute, is a contributing columnist to the Pioneer Press Opinion Page and a contributor to MinnPost.

I thought this was a pretty good article on the troubles with single-payer care from a fellow Minnesotan.

[Bob Jentges]

I thought this was a pretty good article on the troubles with single-payer care from a fellow Minnesotan.

The article was more than "pretty good", it was excellent because it made sense based on logic.

Some in this Forum keep crying "people are dying" because we do not have single payer health care; the usual liberal/progressive emotional approach to almost everything.

Democrats admit that even if their monstrosity of a bill including a "public option", not necessarily single payer YET, passes the cost will be about $1.6T over 10 years and only cover 1/3 of the uninsureds. A few statistics I came accross recently.

---26% of the uninsured are eligible for some form of public coverage such as Medicade, etc., now but do not make use of it.

---21% of the uninsured are not U.S. citizens i.e. legal or illegal immigrants.

---23% of the uninsuredhave family incomes greater than $75,000 per year.

---40% of the uninsured are in the 18/34 age demographic, many who feel they do not need health insurance coverage.

Investors Business Daily writes: "The notion that the uninsured are without health care is bogus as well. They consumed an estimated $116B worth of health care in 2008, according to the advocacy group Family USA."

[Bob Jentges]

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell063009.php3

Economist Tom Sowell, Phd is the best I have read when it comes to breaking complicated issues down into language almost anyone can understand.

This article expalins the difference between price and cost, and why Obama's claim of more coverage for less cost is blowing smoke.

[Dan Conner]

The article was more than "pretty good", it was excellent because it made sense based on logic.

Some in this Forum keep crying "people are dying" because we do not have single payer health care; the usual liberal/progressive emotional approach to almost everything.

Democrats admit that even if their monstrosity of a bill including a "public option", not necessarily single payer YET, passes the cost will be about $1.6T over 10 years and only cover 1/3 of the uninsureds. A few statistics I came accross recently.

---26% of the uninsured are eligible for some form of public coverage such as Medicade, etc., now but do not make use of it.

---21% of the uninsured are not U.S. citizens i.e. legal or illegal immigrants.

---23% of the uninsuredhave family incomes greater than $75,000 per year.

---40% of the uninsured are in the 18/34 age demographic, many who feel they do not need health insurance coverage.

Investors Business Daily writes: "The notion that the uninsured are without health care is bogus as well. They consumed an estimated $116B worth of health care in 2008, according to the advocacy group Family USA."

Well, here's one of those people you talk about, except that I'm not crying. You manage to do a lot of whining when asked to pay extra taxes to help people, but then you say you care...I guess only if it doesn't cost anything.

Since you like to point out websites, try these on. These aren't accountants trying to equate peoples' lives with dollars. These are physicians:

http://www.nhchc.org/singlepayer.html

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

http://debate-central.ncpa.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Single-Payer-Health-Insura-by-Allen-L-Roland-090310-964.html

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/44013

http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/002944.html

Besides, who's the whiner here? You do nothing but bellyache about the additional cost of healthcare, even though others die for the lack of it. No Bob, you are the crying baby here. You so selfishly hoard your money, you don't care what happens to others.

If you think that most everyone is covered for health insurance anyway, then what's you complaint? Then, there wouldn't be an additional cost, because they were covered anyway. However, you know the opposite is true. Millions are without health insurance, but that's fine with you because you're comfortable.

You say $1.6 trillion additional dollars...that's BS. There would be enormous cost savings through singlepayer. Many economist say there won't be any additional cost. Ask Paul Krugman, he's a Nobel Prize-winning economist.

[Dan Conner]

Well, here's one of those people you talk about, except that I'm not crying. You manage to do a lot of whining when asked to pay extra taxes to help people, but then you say you care...I guess only if it doesn't cost anything.

Since you like to point out websites, try these on. These aren't accountants trying to equate peoples' lives with dollars. These are physicians:

http://www.nhchc.org/singlepayer.html

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

http://debate-central.ncpa.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Single-Payer-Health-Insura-by-Allen-L-Roland-090310-964.html

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/44013

http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/002944.html

Besides, who's the whiner here? You do nothing but bellyache about the additional cost of healthcare, even though others die for the lack of it. No Bob, you are the crying baby here. You so selfishly hoard your money, you don't care what happens to others.

If you think that most everyone is covered for health insurance anyway, then what's you complaint? Then, there wouldn't be an additional cost, because they were covered anyway. However, you know the opposite is true. Millions are without health insurance, but that's fine with you because you're comfortable.

You say $1.6 trillion additional dollars...that's BS. There would be enormous cost savings through singlepayer. Many economist say there won't be any additional cost. Ask Paul Krugman, he's a Nobel Prize-winning economist. Oh, and here's another reference for you. A new article in the NY Times about insurance companies being the source of many of our healthcare woes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/business/01meddebt.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

[Bob Jentges]

Well, here's one of those people you talk about, except that I'm not crying. You manage to do a lot of whining when asked to pay extra taxes to help people, but then you say you care...I guess only if it doesn't cost anything.

Since you like to point out websites, try these on. These aren't accountants trying to equate peoples' lives with dollars. These are physicians:

http://www.nhchc.org/singlepayer.html

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

http://debate-central.ncpa.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Single-Payer-Health-Insura-by-Allen-L-Roland-090310-964.html

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/44013

http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/002944.html

Besides, who's the whiner here? You do nothing but bellyache about the additional cost of healthcare, even though others die for the lack of it. No Bob, you are the crying baby here. You so selfishly hoard your money, you don't care what happens to others.

If you think that most everyone is covered for health insurance anyway, then what's you complaint? Then, there wouldn't be an additional cost, because they were covered anyway. However, you know the opposite is true. Millions are without health insurance, but that's fine with you because you're comfortable.

You say $1.6 trillion additional dollars...that's BS. There would be enormous cost savings through singlepayer. Many economist say there won't be any additional cost. Ask Paul Krugman, he's a Nobel Prize-winning economist.

Where to begin!

For you to say "[I] so selfishly hoard [my] money, [I] don't care what happens to others" is a ridiculous, unfounded assertation. A caring person is one who does not want 27% of the people who have surgery to have to wait four months or more (Canada), or 38% (Britian) to wait that long. A caring person does not want patients to have to wait an average of 10 weeks to get a diagnostic MRI (Canada); longer for some tests like CAT Scans or PET Scans. A caring person appreciates the significantly increased life expectency for U.S. cancer patients, compared with those of Canada and Britian.

According to the Census Bureau 70% of Americans under 65 have health insurance through their employer, although some contribute a portion of the premium cost. To suggest "...there wouldn't be any cost..." to insure the remainder is not logical unless treatment was rationed, payments to providers were lowered, etc., as in government run health care. If the government mandated all employers to provide private health insurance for their employees, cost to the employers would obviously increase and they would find it necessary to lay-off employees. Larry Summers, who now is head of President Obama's National Economic Council, wrote in May 1989 "...wages can not fall to offset employers cost of providing a mandated benifit, so it is likely to create unemployment." A caring person is one who does not want to see people lose their jobs.

The $1.6T over 10 years was a CBO estimate. The Senate is tying themselves in knots trying to get it under $1T. If you want to accept Paul Krugman's position, the same Paul Krugman who recently said anyone that did not vote for Cap & Trade was "a traitor", so be it. With respect to his being awarded the Nobel Prize some time back does not make him an expert in everything eg. Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, just to name a couple.

I equate caring with cost, as Dr. Sowell suggests, not with price as others suggest.

[Dan Conner]

Where to begin!

For you to say "[I] so selfishly hoard [my] money, [I] don't care what happens to others" is a ridiculous, unfounded assertation. A caring person is one who does not want 27% of the people who have surgery to have to wait four months or more (Canada), or 38% (Britian) to wait that long. A caring person does not want patients to have to wait an average of 10 weeks to get a diagnostic MRI (Canada); longer for some tests like CAT Scans or PET Scans. A caring person appreciates the significantly increased life expectency for U.S. cancer patients, compared with those of Canada and Britian.

According to the Census Bureau 70% of Americans under 65 have health insurance through their employer, although some contribute a portion of the premium cost. To suggest "...there wouldn't be any cost..." to insure the remainder is not logical unless treatment was rationed, payments to providers were lowered, etc., as in government run health care. If the government mandated all employers to provide private health insurance for their employees, cost to the employers would obviously increase and they would find it necessary to lay-off employees. Larry Summers, who now is head of President Obama's National Economic Council, wrote in May 1989 "...wages can not fall to offset employers cost of providing a mandated benifit, so it is likely to create unemployment." A caring person is one who does not want to see people lose their jobs.

The $1.6T over 10 years was a CBO estimate. The Senate is tying themselves in knots trying to get it under $1T. If you want to accept Paul Krugman's position, the same Paul Krugman who recently said anyone that did not vote for Cap & Trade was "a traitor", so be it. With respect to his being awarded the Nobel Prize some time back does not make him an expert in everything eg. Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, just to name a couple.

I equate caring with cost, as Dr. Sowell suggests, not with price as others suggest.

Just to remind you of what you contended, "Investors Business Daily writes: "The notion that the uninsured are without health care is bogus as well. They consumed an estimated $116B worth of health care in 2008, according to the advocacy group Family USA." I again say that if you feel the uninsured use the enormous resources they do, then it shouldn't cost anymore to formally insure them, but then you know this is a bogus statement. The uninsured don't receive that care. If they did, there really wouldn't be any additional cost to cover them.

Wow! And now you are concerned about the waits for surgery? That isn't what I was hearing when I heard you crying and whining about the additional taxes you might have to pay. Maybe you are really saying let them all wait if you have to pay more taxes. That really doesn't show a caring person. Your allegation of caring is defeated by your lack of concern to get the uninsured insured and the underinsured fully insured. Unfortunately, care is simply a word and you are treating it as such. However, I think you need to remember that caring is actually an act described by a word.

Also, you forget about the statistics showing patients in America also wait for these services. Probably not significantly different that the countries you use. You are completely right - Paul Krugman is not an expert in everything, and neither are you or the people you choose to use. It's just that I used a notable economist with considerable credentials. Also, you forget that the healthcare systems in most of the industrialized nations are far better than ours, and in most cases, costing less than 1/2 our cost.

You further indicate that 70% of the working people under 65 have employer paid health insurnace? Is that another instance of your caring? You leave out about 1/3 of the under-age 65 population and you seem fine with that. How about all the working people (about 1/3) with no coverage? The reason single-payer would be less expensive is because the single-payer would help control costs. There wouldn't be exorbitant insurance premiums generating enormous profits and executive pay checks. The insurance company overhead is enormous, far exceeding the costs in foreign countries. And guess what...none of those insurance premiums generate one tiny bit of healthcare. We have created a middle-man (insurance companies) who have largely treated the healthcare industry as a cash cow.

So, will single-payer cost more? You betcha. However, will it cost more than the coverage we already have through insurance companies? No way! The cost will be significantly less than with insurance companies. Overhead will be greatly reduced and single-payer allows more control of costs. Face it insurance companies are one of the chief villains in the cost of medical care.

Now, talking about healthcare and the great care you have for your fellow man, must mean that you talk about coverage and leave the discussion of cost out of it. Do you ask how much a life-saving surgical procedure costs before you allow a doctor to do it? I think not. If you are concerned about others, discuss what you propose to do to better take care of them, then we can all have the discussion about how much it will cost. Conflating them now only conflicts the whole issue. To lament the cost, as you choose to do, only emphasizes your lack of concern for others. As you say in your last sentence...you equate care with cost. Well, I hope you follow that for youself, when a very costly life-saving procedure is needed to save your life. You better not hope that fellow soldiers feel that way when one of their comrades is wounded and needs to be recued. You better hope that it doesn't happen that a fireman considers cost when he is called on to save a person from a burning building, when a policeman is called on to rescue a person from a dangerous situation. Attaching a cost to those, and healtcare for others, doesn't illustrate caring. It really only illustrates the reverse - uncaring.

[Bob Jentges]

Just to remind you of what you contended, "Investors Business Daily writes: "The notion that the uninsured are without health care is bogus as well. They consumed an estimated $116B worth of health care in 2008, according to the advocacy group Family USA." I again say that if you feel the uninsured use the enormous resources they do, then it shouldn't cost anymore to formally insure them, but then you know this is a bogus statement. The uninsured don't receive that care. If they did, there really wouldn't be any additional cost to cover them.

Wow! And now you are concerned about the waits for surgery? That isn't what I was hearing when I heard you crying and whining about the additional taxes you might have to pay. Maybe you are really saying let them all wait if you have to pay more taxes. That really doesn't show a caring person. Your allegation of caring is defeated by your lack of concern to get the uninsured insured and the underinsured fully insured. Unfortunately, care is simply a word and you are treating it as such. However, I think you need to remember that caring is actually an act described by a word.

Also, you forget about the statistics showing patients in America also wait for these services. Probably not significantly different that the countries you use. You are completely right - Paul Krugman is not an expert in everything, and neither are you or the people you choose to use. It's just that I used a notable economist with considerable credentials. Also, you forget that the healthcare systems in most of the industrialized nations are far better than ours, and in most cases, costing less than 1/2 our cost.

You further indicate that 70% of the working people under 65 have employer paid health insurnace? Is that another instance of your caring? You leave out about 1/3 of the under-age 65 population and you seem fine with that. How about all the working people (about 1/3) with no coverage? The reason single-payer would be less expensive is because the single-payer would help control costs. There wouldn't be exorbitant insurance premiums generating enormous profits and executive pay checks. The insurance company overhead is enormous, far exceeding the costs in foreign countries. And guess what...none of those insurance premiums generate one tiny bit of healthcare. We have created a middle-man (insurance companies) who have largely treated the healthcare industry as a cash cow.

So, will single-payer cost more? You betcha. However, will it cost more than the coverage we already have through insurance companies? No way! The cost will be significantly less than with insurance companies. Overhead will be greatly reduced and single-payer allows more control of costs. Face it insurance companies are one of the chief villains in the cost of medical care.

Now, talking about healthcare and the great care you have for your fellow man, must mean that you talk about coverage and leave the discussion of cost out of it. Do you ask how much a life-saving surgical procedure costs before you allow a doctor to do it? I think not. If you are concerned about others, discuss what you propose to do to better take care of them, then we can all have the discussion about how much it will cost. Conflating them now only conflicts the whole issue. To lament the cost, as you choose to do, only emphasizes your lack of concern for others. As you say in your last sentence...you equate care with cost. Well, I hope you follow that for youself, when a very costly life-saving procedure is needed to save your life. You better not hope that fellow soldiers feel that way when one of their comrades is wounded and needs to be recued. You better hope that it doesn't happen that a fireman considers cost when he is called on to save a person from a burning building, when a policeman is called on to rescue a person from a dangerous situation. Attaching a cost to those, and healtcare for others, doesn't illustrate caring. It really only illustrates the reverse - uncaring.

Your post #6 was apparrently made while I was preparing my post # 7 and I did not see it until now, so I will address it now. I scanned through the link and found it very similar to Karen Tumalty's brother's situation which was addressed weeks ago in the Forum. I fail to see why it is the insurance company's fault, if in order to pay a reduced premium someone chooses a policy with limited coverage and low policy limits i.e. "a limited benifit plan". That is known as personal risk management. I can have empathy for someone when it didn't work-out for them, but as I have said before, you get what you pay for. You probably know that not reading an insurance policy contract is not a legal excuse for not knowing what coverage one purchases.

The CBO cost estimate is "bogus"; the Family USA estimate is "bogus"; it seems everything you disagree with is "bogus" regardless of the source.

The remainder of your post is nothing more than a rehash of what you have said many times before and I have addressed many times before. I have made my points, and I will not waste time on a nice day like this repeating them.

[Dan Conner]

Your post #6 was apparrently made while I was preparing my post # 7 and I did not see it until now, so I will address it now. I scanned through the link and found it very similar to Karen Tumalty's brother's situation which was addressed weeks ago in the Forum. I fail to see why it is the insurance company's fault, if in order to pay a reduced premium someone chooses a policy with limited coverage and low policy limits i.e. "a limited benifit plan". That is known as personal risk management. I can have empathy for someone when it didn't work-out for them, but as I have said before, you get what you pay for. You probably know that not reading an insurance policy contract is not a legal excuse for not knowing what coverage one purchases.

The CBO cost estimate is "bogus"; the Family USA estimate is "bogus"; it seems everything you disagree with is "bogus" regardless of the source.

The remainder of your post is nothing more than a rehash of what you have said many times before and I have addressed many times before. I have made my points, and I will not waste time on a nice day like this repeating them.In many case3s, your posts have been poorly researched, at best, and intentionally inaccurate, at worst. You are so determined to present your reactionary point of view that you publish any information as fact, even though they are worng. I remember a debate about your uninformed position about Federal unions. I thought it was noteworthy that you were not only wrong, but you didn't want to accept the truth in formulating your very warped opinion.

As far as not accepting Family USA is concerned, I would need to know a lot more about how they researched their data. In too many cases you accept someone working out of their garage doing national research as valid.

Also, you address one link, nearer the end by the way, and you don't address any other others pointing out advantages of single-payer? I guess you have no good answer...as usual. As far as one with insurance not covering procedures is concerned... I guess being financially comfortable like you, has allowed a certain amount of disconnect. Many people buying inadequate health insurance coverage is because they can't afford the great coverage like you have. Or, their employer doesn't offer health care. They must take reduced coverage. And reading the contract? I would venture a bet that most everyone doesn't read every contract they sign, including attorneys. They are tedious, in very small print, and many times intentionally misleading or confusing. While you are right that they didn't read the contract, it's ridiculous to say someone deserved bankruptcy because of it.

It's unfortunate the insurance companies prey upon policyholders by finding any reason, not matter how frivolous, to deny coverage to someone, inorder to increase an executive's bonus. Pre-existing conditions is a common insurance dodge, no matter how frivolous. Also, there is denying a person because they didn't tell the truth on some paperwork, because they inadvertently left something blank, misspelled, etc.

I think insurnace companies need a Federal healthcare insurance policy to compete with. You have long touted the superiority of business over Government, so what's your problem? Are you admitting insurnace companies can't effectively compete with Government? Don't you think it's about time that is validated? What's your problem with that? Certainly, your insurnace companies will prevail?

Frankly, I think insurance companies are going to get their clocks cleaned because they are bloated with unjustified overhead.

[Dan Conner]

Your post #6 was apparrently made while I was preparing my post # 7 and I did not see it until now, so I will address it now. I scanned through the link and found it very similar to Karen Tumalty's brother's situation which was addressed weeks ago in the Forum. I fail to see why it is the insurance company's fault, if in order to pay a reduced premium someone chooses a policy with limited coverage and low policy limits i.e. "a limited benifit plan". That is known as personal risk management. I can have empathy for someone when it didn't work-out for them, but as I have said before, you get what you pay for. You probably know that not reading an insurance policy contract is not a legal excuse for not knowing what coverage one purchases.

The CBO cost estimate is "bogus"; the Family USA estimate is "bogus"; it seems everything you disagree with is "bogus" regardless of the source.

The remainder of your post is nothing more than a rehash of what you have said many times before and I have addressed many times before. I have made my points, and I will not waste time on a nice day like this repeating them.In many cases, your posts have been poorly researched, at best, and intentionally inaccurate, at worst. You are so determined to present your reactionary point of view that you publish any information as fact, even though they are worng. I remember a debate about your uninformed position about Federal unions. I thought it was noteworthy that you were not only wrong, but you didn't want to accept the truth in formulating your very warped opinion.

As far as not accepting Family USA is concerned, I would need to know a lot more about how they researched their data. In too many cases you accept someone working out of their garage doing national research as valid.

Also, you address one link, nearer the end, by the way, and you don't address any other others pointing out advantages of single-payer? I guess you have no good answer...as usual.

As far as one with insurance not covering procedures is concerned... I guess being financially comfortable like you, has allowed a certain amount of disconnect. Many people buying inadequate health insurance coverage is because they can't afford the great coverage like you have. Or, their employer doesn't offer health care. They must take reduced coverage. And reading the contract? I would venture a bet that most everyone doesn't read every contract they sign, including attorneys. They are tedious, in very small print, and many times intentionally misleading or confusing. While you are right that they didn't read the contract, it's ridiculous to say someone deserved bankruptcy because of it.

It's unfortunate the insurance companies prey upon policyholders by finding any reason, no matter how frivolous, to deny coverage to someone, inorder to increase an executive's bonus. Pre-existing conditions is a common insurance dodge, no matter how frivolous. Also, there is denying a person because they didn't tell the truth on some paperwork, because they inadvertently left something blank, misspelled, etc.

I think insurnace companies need a Federal healthcare insurance policy to compete with. You have long touted the superiority of business over Government, so what's your problem? Are you admitting insurnace companies can't effectively compete with Government? Don't you think it's about time that is validated? What's your problem with that? Certainly, your insurnace companies will prevail?

Frankly, I think insurance companies are going to get their clocks cleaned because they are bloated with unjustified overhead.

[Bob Jentges]

In many cases, your posts have been poorly researched, at best, and intentionally inaccurate, at worst. You are so determined to present your reactionary point of view that you publish any information as fact, even though they are worng. I remember a debate about your uninformed position about Federal unions. I thought it was noteworthy that you were not only wrong, but you didn't want to accept the truth in formulating your very warped opinion.

As far as not accepting Family USA is concerned, I would need to know a lot more about how they researched their data. In too many cases you accept someone working out of their garage doing national research as valid.

Also, you address one link, nearer the end, by the way, and you don't address any other others pointing out advantages of single-payer? I guess you have no good answer...as usual.

As far as one with insurance not covering procedures is concerned... I guess being financially comfortable like you, has allowed a certain amount of disconnect. Many people buying inadequate health insurance coverage is because they can't afford the great coverage like you have. Or, their employer doesn't offer health care. They must take reduced coverage. And reading the contract? I would venture a bet that most everyone doesn't read every contract they sign, including attorneys. They are tedious, in very small print, and many times intentionally misleading or confusing. While you are right that they didn't read the contract, it's ridiculous to say someone deserved bankruptcy because of it.

It's unfortunate the insurance companies prey upon policyholders by finding any reason, no matter how frivolous, to deny coverage to someone, inorder to increase an executive's bonus. Pre-existing conditions is a common insurance dodge, no matter how frivolous. Also, there is denying a person because they didn't tell the truth on some paperwork, because they inadvertently left something blank, misspelled, etc.

I think insurnace companies need a Federal healthcare insurance policy to compete with. You have long touted the superiority of business over Government, so what's your problem? Are you admitting insurnace companies can't effectively compete with Government? Don't you think it's about time that is validated? What's your problem with that? Certainly, your insurnace companies will prevail?

Frankly, I think insurance companies are going to get their clocks cleaned because they are bloated with unjustified overhead.

Your saying my posts are "...poorly researched...intentionally innacurate..." as loud and often as you want does not make it true. Saying what I said about Federal Unions during an earlier "debate" was not "wrong". The crux of what I said was is an employee is either a member of a union or they are not.

Your comment: "In too many cases [I] accept someone working out of their garage doing national research as valid" without citing even one (of "too many") examples is off-the-wall even for you. When I cited the statistic about health care received by uninsureds in 2008 I quoted the publication, which referred to the source as "an advocacy group". I expect they are an advocate for the family, as opposed to the insurance industry, but that is not relevant to the statistic itself.

I read all the links in your previous post. The reason I did not specifically comment on most of them is because I considerd them the same old, same old opinions from the same old, same old sources. I do not see that you addressed all the points in my previous post(s) in this thread. I have no objection to your picking and choosing what you want to address; my points remain for others to read and/or address if they so choose, and so do yours.

I agree that "...most everyone doesn't read every contract they sign...". But if they do not, they have no complaint when the contract does not include language they thought it did or, includes language they did not think it did. If they read the contract but did not understand it, they should have consulted with someone with expertise in the specific type of contract involved. I do not like to see anyone need to go through bankruptcy, but words in contracts have meanings and law has meaning.

The problem with having health care reform with both a public option and a private option is that it is difficult to compete when one of your competitors is also the official. Soon private health care would be driven out of business and there will be no competition. Health care can be reformed and costs reduced without government run health care for persons not on Medicade or Medicare, both of which presently have monumental unfunded liabilities.

It seems to me the difference between you and me on many issues is that I place trust in people and resist excessive government control of people.

[Dan Conner]

Your saying my posts are "...poorly researched...intentionally innacurate..." as loud and often as you want does not make it true. Saying what I said about Federal Unions during an earlier "debate" was not "wrong". The crux of what I said was is an employee is either a member of a union or they are not.

Your comment: "In too many cases [I] accept someone working out of their garage doing national research as valid" without citing even one (of "too many") examples is off-the-wall even for you. When I cited the statistic about health care received by uninsureds in 2008 I quoted the publication, which referred to the source as "an advocacy group". I expect they are an advocate for the family, as opposed to the insurance industry, but that is not relevant to the statistic itself.

I read all the links in your previous post. The reason I did not specifically comment on most of them is because I considerd them the same old, same old opinions from the same old, same old sources. I do not see that you addressed all the points in my previous post(s) in this thread. I have no objection to your picking and choosing what you want to address; my points remain for others to read and/or address if they so choose, and so do yours.

I agree that "...most everyone doesn't read every contract they sign...". But if they do not, they have no complaint when the contract does not include language they thought it did or, includes language they did not think it did. If they read the contract but did not understand it, they should have consulted with someone with expertise in the specific type of contract involved. I do not like to see anyone need to go through bankruptcy, but words in contracts have meanings and law has meaning.

The problem with having health care reform with both a public option and a private option is that it is difficult to compete when one of your competitors is also the official. Soon private health care would be driven out of business and there will be no competition. Health care can be reformed and costs reduced without government run health care for persons not on Medicade or Medicare, both of which presently have monumental unfunded liabilities.

It seems to me the difference between you and me on many issues is that I place trust in people and resist excessive government control of people.While this is off post, I feel it is important to again correct you. You implied there was something wrong with the way Government treated its employees because of the higher percent of employees belonging to unions. I explained to you why union membership was higher (no dues obligation even though a "closed shop") in the Government. You never acknowledged that. Instead, you continued to imply mistreatment of employees, even though it was explained there was another reason for the higher membership.

Your poor research should have discovered this critical difference between Government and private sector union membership, but again you not only failed to research that, but you kept on insisting the percentage was higher and Government treatment worse. Apparently, you have a limited ability to reasonably conclude because you only use a simplistic statistic. It doesn't take any intelligence to read and regurgitate a statistic, but it does require reasonable analysis to draw a proper conclusion. However, I don't think you are in the business of drawing correct conclusions. You only want to justify a twisted point of view. So, don't give me the the BS that you tried to state employees are only a member or not. That's total BS. I could say you are a man or not and be factually correct, but it means nothing. You said you were concerned about how Government treats its employees and used the union statistic as a pathetically poor justification for that view. You are also, apparently, unable to admit wrong.

That's right. You covered that when you said advocacy group. Hardly a bastion of objectivity. However, I wouldn't imagine you being too objective either. You write a "my View" letter in the paper stated that global warming was a "myth." Not too much objectivity. Frankly, I think you are a 14th century many stuck in the 21st century. You don't comment because you consider what I say as the same old thing....hummmmmmm. I think you better look in the mirror, as well, if you want to see a broken record. You continue the same reactionary propaganda.

Wow! I again surprised at your lack of legal acumen. Courts have previously ruled in many cases that a contract was voided because of the inconspicuousness of contract clauses. They have ruled that companies have been responsible for informing the customer in a more obvious manner about critical elements of coverage. Policies have been contramanded by the courts when companies have appeared to intentionally tried to conceal adverse factors of entitlement/coverage. In many cases, the courts have ruled that it was the responsibility of the company to more fully explain/disclose contract provisions.

Difficult competing when one of the competitors is also an "official?" What the heck does that mean? That really explains a lot! I thought everyone is potentially an official. Aren't authorized agents of an insurance company an insurance "official?" Your point here is very ambiguous, misleading and unsubstantiated by any facts or statistics, but then this is only typical of your views. Can't compete with officials? That is gobboldygook which says nothing. They can't compete because they spend millions lobbying Congress, contributing millions to election campaigns, holding Congressional junkets around the world and various health spas, paying a large number of executives millions of dollars every year, and hiring hundreds of people, whose only real work is to find a reason to deny people coverage. That sure isn't efficient. You're right, they can't compete using their business model.

My views are not because of a wish for Government "controlling" people. I think you have a hard time explaining your views. I certainly don't think you are capable of explaining mine. You aren't standing as any "white knight" of freedom for people. Instead, you want business to "control" people. So, we argue over who exercises better control of people and their lives. You prefer profiteering, non-competing oligarchies who are looking to cheat people out of their health and money as the preferred steward of the people. I prefer a Government where everyone is empowered, through their right to vote, to affect the change they desire. That's just a short description of Democracy. You know, representative Government? I guess you prefer the fascist society where companies/corporations control everyone's life.

[Bob Jentges]

While this is off post, I feel it is important to again correct you. You implied there was something wrong with the way Government treated its employees because of the higher percent of employees belonging to unions. I explained to you why union membership was higher (no dues obligation even though a "closed shop") in the Government. You never acknowledged that. Instead, you continued to imply mistreatment of employees, even though it was explained there was another reason for the higher membership.

Your poor research should have discovered this critical difference between Government and private sector union membership, but again you not only failed to research that, but you kept on insisting the percentage was higher and Government treatment worse. Apparently, you have a limited ability to reasonably conclude because you only use a simplistic statistic. It doesn't take any intelligence to read and regurgitate a statistic, but it does require reasonable analysis to draw a proper conclusion. However, I don't think you are in the business of drawing correct conclusions. You only want to justify a twisted point of view. So, don't give me the the BS that you tried to state employees are only a member or not. That's total BS. I could say you are a man or not and be factually correct, but it means nothing. You said you were concerned about how Government treats its employees and used the union statistic as a pathetically poor justification for that view. You are also, apparently, unable to admit wrong.

That's right. You covered that when you said advocacy group. Hardly a bastion of objectivity. However, I wouldn't imagine you being too objective either. You write a "my View" letter in the paper stated that global warming was a "myth." Not too much objectivity. Frankly, I think you are a 14th century many stuck in the 21st century. You don't comment because you consider what I say as the same old thing....hummmmmmm. I think you better look in the mirror, as well, if you want to see a broken record. You continue the same reactionary propaganda.

Wow! I again surprised at your lack of legal acumen. Courts have previously ruled in many cases that a contract was voided because of the inconspicuousness of contract clauses. They have ruled that companies have been responsible for informing the customer in a more obvious manner about critical elements of coverage. Policies have been contramanded by the courts when companies have appeared to intentionally tried to conceal adverse factors of entitlement/coverage. In many cases, the courts have ruled that it was the responsibility of the company to more fully explain/disclose contract provisions.

Difficult competing when one of the competitors is also an "official?" What the heck does that mean? That really explains a lot! I thought everyone is potentially an official. Aren't authorized agents of an insurance company an insurance "official?" Your point here is very ambiguous, misleading and unsubstantiated by any facts or statistics, but then this is only typical of your views. Can't compete with officials? That is gobboldygook which says nothing. They can't compete because they spend millions lobbying Congress, contributing millions to election campaigns, holding Congressional junkets around the world and various health spas, paying a large number of executives millions of dollars every year, and hiring hundreds of people, whose only real work is to find a reason to deny people coverage. That sure isn't efficient. You're right, they can't compete using their business model.

My views are not because of a wish for Government "controlling" people. I think you have a hard time explaining your views. I certainly don't think you are capable of explaining mine. You aren't standing as any "white knight" of freedom for people. Instead, you want business to "control" people. So, we argue over who exercises better control of people and their lives. You prefer profiteering, non-competing oligarchies who are looking to cheat people out of their health and money as the preferred steward of the people. I prefer a Government where everyone is empowered, through their right to vote, to affect the change they desire. That's just a short description of Democracy. You know, representative Government? I guess you prefer the fascist society where companies/corporations control everyone's life.

Your post was off thread (not off post) but dazzeling none the less.

Your tortured explaination about government union membership i.e. being a member but not being required to pay membership dues, etc., etc., in earlier posts in a different thread, as well as in your above post is to me probably the most dazzeling part of your post. But please save me from having to read another expalination.

Not unexpectedly you turned the advocacy issue upside down. The group was advocating for the "family", explaining that in the United States uninsured people do get health care even if they do not have health insurance. But as I stated previously, who they were advocating for is not the issue; the results of their study is the issue.

I am pleased you read the recent My View, so you probably also read the "Comments" about it in the electronic edition. Had you read the link with the electronic edition you might have learned the EPA report indicated the earth has been in a cooling cycle since 2001. I am not "stuck in the 14th century" but many fear that if anything close to the House Cap & Trade bill passes into law, that may be where we are headed. I expect the committee is meeting or has met to consider a response and if one is written I will be watching to see whose name it goes out under. Today's print edition had a couple Your View letters that I found interesting; maybe you did not. They might warrant answers too, if there are answers.

Courts render contracts nul-and-void when they determine the pertinant contract language is ambigious.

If you do not understand my sports metaphore about the difficulty of competing when "...one of your competitors is also the official", maybe you would ask one of your friends to explain it to you. It is not worth my time.

Your phrase "steward of the people" is frightning to those who prefer freedon and liberty. This weekend we will celebrate Independence Day, not Dependence Day, at least not yet! I will suspend my exchange with you in this thread (not post) with the rhetorical question: How much of the United States economy should the government control. Remember it's just rhetorical, but I think at least worth some thought by those that read it.

[Dan Conner]

Your post was off thread (not off post) but dazzeling none the less.

Your tortured explaination about government union membership i.e. being a member but not being required to pay membership dues, etc., etc., in earlier posts in a different thread, as well as in your above post is to me probably the most dazzeling part of your post. But please save me from having to read another expalination.

Not unexpectedly you turned the advocacy issue upside down. The group was advocating for the "family", explaining that in the United States uninsured people do get health care even if they do not have health insurance. But as I stated previously, who they were advocating for is not the issue; the results of their study is the issue.

I am pleased you read the recent My View, so you probably also read the "Comments" about it in the electronic edition. Had you read the link with the electronic edition you might have learned the EPA report indicated the earth has been in a cooling cycle since 2001. I am not "stuck in the 14th century" but many fear that if anything close to the House Cap & Trade bill passes into law, that may be where we are headed. I expect the committee is meeting or has met to consider a response and if one is written I will be watching to see whose name it goes out under. Today's print edition had a couple Your View letters that I found interesting; maybe you did not. They might warrant answers too, if there are answers.

Courts render contracts nul-and-void when they determine the pertinant contract language is ambigious.

If you do not understand my sports metaphore about the difficulty of competing when "...one of your competitors is also the official", maybe you would ask one of your friends to explain it to you. It is not worth my time.

Your phrase "steward of the people" is frightning to those who prefer freedon and liberty. This weekend we will celebrate Independence Day, not Dependence Day, at least not yet! I will suspend my exchange with you in this thread (not post) with the rhetorical question: How much of the United States economy should the government control. Remember it's just rhetorical, but I think at least worth some thought by those that read it. I guess I couldn't resist replying to your off-post reply. Also, it would help if you learn how to spell dazzling. Spend a little more time studying the dictionary instead of you fascist propaganda.It is a little hard to believe you support anything that really advocates for families, so I am not inclined to believe the propaganda you present. Remember, you are the guy who cares, unless it costs.

At this point, I have little knowledge of the cap and trade proposal and I don't know that I am interested. However, considering that your only consideration is how much things cost you, I doubt you look at the issue very objectively. I'm just not from your fascist world. You made a sports metaphor? I didn't see any reference to it, or maybe I should say you did a poor job of presenting it. Government the official? Hardly. Millions are complaining that health insurnace companies have been operating in a fairly lawless environment. And that's too bad. Maybe if they viewed their jobs more as helping people than profiting off pain, suffering and death, those "rules" wouldn't be necessary. Besides Government would be operating with those same rules---see Schumer's proposal.

Now you again recant words about another subject, like contracts. You say ambiguous? Courts have also determined contracts void because of intentional ambiguity. No matter, because you were wrong again. Don't you get sick of morphing your statements, especially in your supposed area of expertise? It wouldn't hurt for you to spend some more time in legal training.

Your freedom involves the perpetuation of needless death for people who can not get adequate medical treatment. That is hardly freedom. I think what you really mean is the freedom to deprive a sizable portion of our population to even enjoy the right to live. Your freedom and liberty only causes others to be enslaved. That's not appropriate today.

[Bob Jentges]

After a refreshing long weekend-off I have decided to lift my self-imposed suspension from commenting in this THREAD with one brief off THREAD comment about "my friends" attempt to address a statement in my post #15.

What I said was: " Courts render contracts nul-and-viod when they determine the pertinant language is ambigious." To that, suggesting I was wrong, "my friend" responded by saying: "Courts have also determined contracts void because of intentional ambiguity."

In comparing those two statements I think a clear thinking person would understand why I find it so very difficult to discuss issues with "my friend". But for the benifit of "my friend" let me simply say that when I used the word "ambigious" I did not preface it with intentional or unintentional, so my statement is more encompasing than his i.e. it includes any and all ambiguity in pertinant contract language whether it be unintentional (which it almost always is) or intentional which the writer of the contract would certainly want to avoid for obvious reasons which I will not go into now.

To get back on THREAD, not much, if any, of the previous discussion has been about present government run insurance like Medicare and Medicad. Both are important to certain people, but I think an analysis of how they are run might give some insight to what might happen if we had government run insurance for all.

First, In 1965, when Medicare was implimented the government promised Part A would cost $9B by 1990. The actual cost was $66B. Based on that experience it might be reasonable to expect that the governments projected future cost to taxpayers of government run health care for all might be grossly underestimated.

Second, the government could try to control esculating health care costs by price fixing (a practice used in Medicare and Medicad now), which many beleive would have the effect of reducing access to quality care and/or rationing.

Third, since private primary health insurance has become almost impossible for persons over age 65 to obtain now, that will most likely be what eventually happens in all age demographics under a health care program with a so-called public option, let alone a total government run health care program.

Fourth, at a Senate Hearing it was pointed out that the fraud rate in private insurance was 1/10th of 1%, while it was about 25 times that in Medicare and Medicad.

Reform of our health care system is needed, but it can be done without getting the government involved in running all or part of the program.

I could go on, but that should be sufficient to get the Angry Man Unleashed Show (which was dwindling away for lack of participation) back in business, at least temporarily. Ready-Fire-Aim!

[Dan Conner]

After a refreshing long weekend-off I have decided to lift my self-imposed suspension from commenting in this THREAD with one brief off THREAD comment about "my friends" attempt to address a statement in my post #15.

What I said was: " Courts render contracts nul-and-viod when they determine the pertinant language is ambigious." To that, suggesting I was wrong, "my friend" responded by saying: "Courts have also determined contracts void because of intentional ambiguity."

In comparing those two statements I think a clear thinking person would understand why I find it so very difficult to discuss issues with "my friend". But for the benifit of "my friend" let me simply say that when I used the word "ambigious" I did not preface it with intentional or unintentional, so my statement is more encompasing than his i.e. it includes any and all ambiguity in pertinant contract language whether it be unintentional (which it almost always is) or intentional which the writer of the contract would certainly want to avoid for obvious reasons which I will not go into now.

To get back on THREAD, not much, if any, of the previous discussion has been about present government run insurance like Medicare and Medicad. Both are important to certain people, but I think an analysis of how they are run might give some insight to what might happen if we had government run insurance for all.

First, In 1965, when Medicare was implimented the government promised Part A would cost $9B by 1990. The actual cost was $66B. Based on that experience it might be reasonable to expect that the governments projected future cost to taxpayers of government run health care for all might be grossly underestimated.

Second, the government could try to control esculating health care costs by price fixing (a practice used in Medicare and Medicad now), which many beleive would have the effect of reducing access to quality care and/or rationing.

Third, since private primary health insurance has become almost impossible for persons over age 65 to obtain now, that will most likely be what eventually happens in all age demographics under a health care program with a so-called public option, let alone a total government run health care program.

Fourth, at a Senate Hearing it was pointed out that the fraud rate in private insurance was 1/10th of 1%, while it was about 25 times that in Medicare and Medicad.

Reform of our health care system is needed, but it can be done without getting the government involved in running all or part of the program.

I could go on, but that should be sufficient to get the Angry Man Unleashed Show (which was dwindling away for lack of participation) back in business, at least temporarily. Ready-Fire-Aim!

Again, another correction...I have enclosed a quote from the above person's earlier post about what he said about people and their health insurance policies, "I agree that "...most everyone doesn't read every contract they sign...". But if they do not, they have no complaint when the contract does not include language they thought it did or, includes language they did not think it did. If they read the contract but did not understand it, they should have consulted with someone with expertise in the specific type of contract involved. I do not like to see anyone need to go through bankruptcy, but words in contracts have meanings and law has meaning." I guess this is another illustration of caring. There was no mention here that courts have ruled insurance contracts missleading and overruled their restrictions. This places the burden on the policyholder. Apparently this poster feels insurance companies share no blame in the health insurance fiasco. I guess he considers them the poor waif surrounded by a pack oif policyholder wolves. I suppose he wants AIG insurnace executives to continue their bonuses for their fine work.

The above post implies someone should have read the contract or tough...bankruptcy or not. He forgets about insurance company responsibility to serve a customer's need...for a price. They got their price and then they try to duck the customer need. And disconnect? He says the policyholder should have read the contract and/or consulted with someone with insurnace policy expertise. I think this poster must be from Mars. It sure wasn't a realistic statement. He asks people with limited education or limited abilites to read a fine-print contract full of legalese and if they don't understand it consult with a expert? Again, this was a laughable response. I guess the poster assumes again that the poor, who many times can't afford any health insurance, have a ready supply of health care consultants at their fingertips waiting on their beckon call. This post is so unrealistic that I might think there might be some illegal drugs being used.

He tries to tell me "what I said was..." He must be suffering from serious lapses of memory. I just told him above what he said. I quoted it. I suggest he do a better job of reading his own posts. If the posts were more logical and thought through, he actually might make a meaningful contribution to the healthcare debate.

[Bob Jentges]

Again, another correction...I have enclosed a quote from the above person's earlier post about what he said about people and their health insurance policies, "I agree that "...most everyone doesn't read every contract they sign...". But if they do not, they have no complaint when the contract does not include language they thought it did or, includes language they did not think it did. If they read the contract but did not understand it, they should have consulted with someone with expertise in the specific type of contract involved. I do not like to see anyone need to go through bankruptcy, but words in contracts have meanings and law has meaning." I guess this is another illustration of caring. There was no mention here that courts have ruled insurance contracts missleading and overruled their restrictions. This places the burden on the policyholder. Apparently this poster feels insurance companies share no blame in the health insurance fiasco. I guess he considers them the poor waif surrounded by a pack oif policyholder wolves. I suppose he wants AIG insurnace executives to continue their bonuses for their fine work.

The above post implies someone should have read the contract or tough...bankruptcy or not. He forgets about insurance company responsibility to serve a customer's need...for a price. They got their price and then they try to duck the customer need. And disconnect? He says the policyholder should have read the contract and/or consulted with someone with insurnace policy expertise. I think this poster must be from Mars. It sure wasn't a realistic statement. He asks people with limited education or limited abilites to read a fine-print contract full of legalese and if they don't understand it consult with a expert? Again, this was a laughable response. I guess the poster assumes again that the poor, who many times can't afford any health insurance, have a ready supply of health care consultants at their fingertips waiting on their beckon call. This post is so unrealistic that I might think there might be some illegal drugs being used.

He tries to tell me "what I said was..." He must be suffering from serious lapses of memory. I just told him above what he said. I quoted it. I suggest he do a better job of reading his own posts. If the posts were more logical and thought through, he actually might make a meaningful contribution to the healthcare debate.

In case there was doubt Dan, you were the "my friend" I was referring to in my post, albeit with a touch of sarcasm like politicians often use when debating issues on the House or Senate floor. In any event I think it is a little more civil than the "above person" or "him above" you used in your reference to me.

If I recall correctly a while back when I suggested you refer back to a prior post and read it again you said you did not go back to previous posts for information. Maybe the circumstances are different now, but it seems you returned to my post #12 for your bold print quote, and to my post #14 (repeated in my post #15) for the other quotes you reference in your post #16. Taken in context, I stand by both my statements. The first dealt with the individuals responsibility to read contracts they enter into, or if he/she does not understand the contract seek appropriate advice from someone that has expertise in the area. The second dealt with a court of law interpreting whether or not contract language was ambigious. Best you stay in your "caring" mode because when you drift into trying to analyze something you seem to have difficulty, "my friend".

There was an interesting letter to the editor in the Pioneer Press this morning.
My work experience did not involve health insurance so the letter writers points were new to me. I would recomend going to twincities.com to read the actual letter. For those chosing not to do that but still interested, I will
paraphrase a couple of points the writer made:
---The Minnesota Legislature requires all health insurance companies be non-
profits.
---Minnesota's non-profit health insurance companies, according to reports
on file with the State, pay out a bit more than 91% of premiums to cover
the cost of providing care. They spend about 7%-8% of premiums to
cover administrative costs. That leaves about 1%-2% left over.

I have not done a fact check on accurracy, but since the writer referred to himself as a lecturer on the subject I will take him at his word, for the purpose of this Forum.

[Dan Conner]

In case there was doubt Dan, you were the "my friend" I was referring to in my post, albeit with a touch of sarcasm like politicians often use when debating issues on the House or Senate floor. In any event I think it is a little more civil than the "above person" or "him above" you used in your reference to me.

If I recall correctly a while back when I suggested you refer back to a prior post and read it again you said you did not go back to previous posts for information. Maybe the circumstances are different now, but it seems you returned to my post #12 for your bold print quote, and to my post #14 (repeated in my post #15) for the other quotes you reference in your post #16. Taken in context, I stand by both my statements. The first dealt with the individuals responsibility to read contracts they enter into, or if he/she does not understand the contract seek appropriate advice from someone that has expertise in the area. The second dealt with a court of law interpreting whether or not contract language was ambigious. Best you stay in your "caring" mode because when you drift into trying to analyze something you seem to have difficulty, "my friend".

There was an interesting letter to the editor in the Pioneer Press this morning.
My work experience did not involve health insurance so the letter writers points were new to me. I would recomend going to twincities.com to read the actual letter. For those chosing not to do that but still interested, I will
paraphrase a couple of points the writer made:
---The Minnesota Legislature requires all health insurance companies be non-
profits.
---Minnesota's non-profit health insurance companies, according to reports
on file with the State, pay out a bit more than 91% of premiums to cover
the cost of providing care. They spend about 7%-8% of premiums to
cover administrative costs. That leaves about 1%-2% left over.

I have not done a fact check on accurracy, but since the writer referred to himself as a lecturer on the subject I will take him at his word, for the purpose of this Forum.

Well, I can gladly refer to you as "my friend", as sarcastic as that may sound. Unfortunately, a little honesty will be lost for the sake of political correctness. I'm glad "my friend" is so in tune with political correctness - hardly a conservative value. Frankly, I don't believe it is any more "civil."

I guess I surprised "my friend" that I do periodically review prior posts and see how they compare to newly morphed statements. "My friend" basically framed his answer to healthcare bankruptcies by saying insurance companies that dodge payments, means only tough luck for policy holders. Then, "my friend" said policyholders should have read the contract or hired an expert consultant. There is a serious disconnect here. People who already can not afford anything but basic health insurance are now expected to hire consultants? Not a very practical or considerate idea. Certainly not a very caring decision. It seems some have forgot that insurnace companies, government, etc. are all only here to serve people. Without people and without serving people, they are not needed

Context? Now "my friend" asks his quotes to be considered in "context?" I think "my friend" needs to look up the meaning of "context" before he uses it. This even goes back to the Federal union issue. "My friend" states he was only making a point of the percentage of Federal union workers? That is a bunch of baloney, if I ever heard it. Then I would say, "So what?" What's your point? "My friend" specifically inferred it might have something to do with the way Federal employees were treated. Then, when that point was adequately refuted because private and public unions are like comparing "apples and oranges", "my friend" then dodges his previous statement and says he was only throwing out a meaningless number. What a waste of time. I guess the sun will set earlier and earlier until the end of December. With that and a buck, "my friend" can buy a cup of coffee.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Wow! I didn't read through this thread in its entirety, but I strongly assert that capitalism has no place in determining health care for all. It should be a basic human right, regardless of wealth, race, gender, etc... I find it absolutely ridiculous that lobbyists (insurance, pharma, etc) spend absurd amounts of money wooing Washington ($1million per DAY) to keep their cash cow (our health care debacle) pumping out milk money. Single payer health care as I see it is affordable. Not only would the COSTS be trimmed along with profit margins, employers and individuals would have less out of pocket health care cost thereby giving them more spending power which would boost our economy. Perhaps this is simplified, but it seems a heck of a lot more logical than the scenarios that the anti-health-insurance-for-all-ers like to lay out... I too think Paul Krugman has very good points. And just for the record, I would put Jimmy Carter and Al Gore up against Reagan, Nixon, and Bush anytime!

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Wow! I didn't read through this thread in its entirety, but I strongly assert that capitalism has no place in determining health care for all.

This sounds great, but with no profit motive there is very little real incentive to improve anything. There are four ways to spend money:


You spend your money on something for yourself.
You spend your money on something for someone else.
You spend someone else's money on something for yourself.
You spend someone else's money on something for someone else.

With #1, you have an incentive to get the most value at the lowest cost. With #2, you will still try to get good value and low cost, but the recipient's assessment of the value may well be less than yours. With #3, you have little incentive to get a low cost, but still have incentive to get high value. With #4, you have little incentive to get either high value or low cost.

Most private spending is #1, most public spending is #4. That's why government programs are always over budget and so woefully inefficient. As one small example, did you know that in the 1840s someone started an illegal competitor to the USPS monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company) on mail delivery and so quickly undercut the USPS that they were forced out of business by the government in just 6 years? They offered free local mail delivery even! Yet here we are 170 years later, insisting on letting the government do a job that UPS or FedEx (or someone else) would be happy to do for less money.

This is also the reason why taxes keep going up year after year and why the size of government keeps growing year after year -- they are so inefficient that they must continually take more money from the private sector to finance their operations. Did you know that the U.S. income tax was originally levied on less than 1% of the population and that the top bracket was 7%? And for that matter, we managed to do without the income tax completely for the first 120 years of our existence. This is also why the 'temporary' tax to help pay for the civic center in Mankato will probably never go away.

When pharmaceutical and other medical companies spend their own money on R&D that will benefit them, they have incentive to do their R&D as cheaply as possible and get what they need out of it (#1, above). When a publicly funded agency does R&D, they work until their budget is exhausted (or perhaps longer) and what the R&D results in doesn't really matter to them (#4, above). They could spend $10 million researching a new drug that a private company would have abandoned after sinking $1 million and deciding to invest its money elsewhere. When a private company spends public grant money on research (#3) they are more efficient but still wasteful. It's easier to get a $10 million grant than it is to actually earn it by pleasing consumers with your products.

Also, when money is involved, it is in the health care recipient's interest to conserve. "Is another MRI really needed?" "Can I live without a hip replacement even though I'm 95?" Obviously this doesn't happen much in the U.S. because nearly all of our health care money flows through third-party payers, so it seems to the end consumer that we're spending other people's money for most of our health care.

It should be a basic human right, regardless of wealth, race, gender, etc...

Health care is not a right. Life, liberty, and property ownership are rights -- you have a right not to be killed, enslaved, or stolen from. Health care is a responsibility.

You are responsible for your health care, and for the health care of your dependents. You are not responsible for my care, nor anyone else. Health care takes resources to produce. It costs money. If I have a 'right' to health care, then you are saying that I have a 'right' to your resources and money.

If you feel that no human should go without adequate health care (as I do), then see to it that they are provided for ... but please don't use other people's money to do it. If you use other people's money, you've moved from a #2 spender to a #4 spender, and the result is that costs go way up and value goes way down.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that lobbyists (insurance, pharma, etc) spend absurd amounts of money wooing Washington ($1million per DAY) to keep their cash cow (our health care debacle) pumping out milk money.

I agree, the health care industry is deeply in bed with the government. When you get into bed with the government, you should not be surprised to find yourself afflicted with the diseases she spreads. When politicians stop doing Big Pharma billion dollar favors in exchange for million dollar campaign donations, health care costs will plummet.

Single payer health care as I see it is affordable. Not only would the COSTS be trimmed along with profit margins

Costs will not be trimmed, as we are still spending other people's money on goods and services. Aren't they estimating it will cost $1 trillion to cover those 40+ million uninsured people? When was the last time the federal government ever came in under budget on anything?

One of the easiest changes would be to stop giving tax incentives for employer-based health care, and to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. When health care is tied to employment, that makes it extremely expensive for the unemployed and self-employed, and it makes people more reluctant to change jobs. I'd probably enjoy working 3 part-time jobs instead of one full-time, but I can't because I need a full-time job for the insurance. What if car insurance were tied to having a full-time job?

, employers and individuals would have less out of pocket health care cost thereby giving them more spending power which would boost our economy.

Merely spending money doesn't actually boost the economy. The economy grows when people save their resources and invest it in improving things. I recommend the illustrated book How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't (http://freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf).

Perhaps this is simplified, but it seems a heck of a lot more logical than the scenarios that the anti-health-insurance-for-all-ers like to lay out... I too think Paul Krugman has very good points. And just for the record, I would put Jimmy Carter and Al Gore up against Reagan, Nixon, and Bush anytime!

Krugman is a Keynesian economist, and the Keynesians believe that all problems can be solved by the government creating little pieces of green paper and dumping it onto the economy. Politicians absolutely LOVE Keynesians because it gives them a way to spend money on their constituents and donors without raising taxes to pay for things. The real tax, of course, is hidden: inflation. The government creates more money out of thin air, which dilutes the value of the money you already own, and prices rise as a result. At the grocery store, you think, oh crap, prices are going up again ... but in reality it's that your (hidden) taxes are going up again. Did you know that our dollar has lost 96% of its value since the Federal Reserve was established in 1913, ostensibly to protect the value of the dollar? That's not exactly a good track record, which is why I was pleased that Tim Walz signed on as a co-sponsor to H.R. 1207, a bill to conduct a full audit the Federal Reserve for the first time in its 96-year history. As Henry Ford said, "If the people of the nation understood our banking and monetary system, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

[Dan Conner]

This sounds great, but with no profit motive there is very little real incentive to improve anything. There are four ways to spend money:


You spend your money on something for yourself.
You spend your money on something for someone else.
You spend someone else's money on something for yourself.
You spend someone else's money on something for someone else.

With #1, you have an incentive to get the most value at the lowest cost. With #2, you will still try to get good value and low cost, but the recipient's assessment of the value may well be less than yours. With #3, you have little incentive to get a low cost, but still have incentive to get high value. With #4, you have little incentive to get either high value or low cost.

Most private spending is #1, most public spending is #4. That's why government programs are always over budget and so woefully inefficient. As one small example, did you know that in the 1840s someone started an illegal competitor to the USPS monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company) on mail delivery and so quickly undercut the USPS that they were forced out of business by the government in just 6 years? They offered free local mail delivery even! Yet here we are 170 years later, insisting on letting the government do a job that UPS or FedEx (or someone else) would be happy to do for less money.

This is also the reason why taxes keep going up year after year and why the size of government keeps growing year after year -- they are so inefficient that they must continually take more money from the private sector to finance their operations. Did you know that the U.S. income tax was originally levied on less than 1% of the population and that the top bracket was 7%? And for that matter, we managed to do without the income tax completely for the first 120 years of our existence. This is also why the 'temporary' tax to help pay for the civic center in Mankato will probably never go away.

When pharmaceutical and other medical companies spend their own money on R&D that will benefit them, they have incentive to do their R&D as cheaply as possible and get what they need out of it (#1, above). When a publicly funded agency does R&D, they work until their budget is exhausted (or perhaps longer) and what the R&D results in doesn't really matter to them (#4, above). They could spend $10 million researching a new drug that a private company would have abandoned after sinking $1 million and deciding to invest its money elsewhere. When a private company spends public grant money on research (#3) they are more efficient but still wasteful. It's easier to get a $10 million grant than it is to actually earn it by pleasing consumers with your products.

Also, when money is involved, it is in the health care recipient's interest to conserve. "Is another MRI really needed?" "Can I live without a hip replacement even though I'm 95?" Obviously this doesn't happen much in the U.S. because nearly all of our health care money flows through third-party payers, so it seems to the end consumer that we're spending other people's money for most of our health care.



Health care is not a right. Life, liberty, and property ownership are rights -- you have a right not to be killed, enslaved, or stolen from. Health care is a responsibility.

You are responsible for your health care, and for the health care of your dependents. You are not responsible for my care, nor anyone else. Health care takes resources to produce. It costs money. If I have a 'right' to health care, then you are saying that I have a 'right' to your resources and money.

If you feel that no human should go without adequate health care (as I do), then see to it that they are provided for ... but please don't use other people's money to do it. If you use other people's money, you've moved from a #2 spender to a #4 spender, and the result is that costs go way up and value goes way down.



I agree, the health care industry is deeply in bed with the government. When you get into bed with the government, you should not be surprised to find yourself afflicted with the diseases she spreads. When politicians stop doing Big Pharma billion dollar favors in exchange for million dollar campaign donations, health care costs will plummet.



Costs will not be trimmed, as we are still spending other people's money on goods and services. Aren't they estimating it will cost $1 trillion to cover those 40+ million uninsured people? When was the last time the federal government ever came in under budget on anything?

One of the easiest changes would be to stop giving tax incentives for employer-based health care, and to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. When health care is tied to employment, that makes it extremely expensive for the unemployed and self-employed, and it makes people more reluctant to change jobs. I'd probably enjoy working 3 part-time jobs instead of one full-time, but I can't because I need a full-time job for the insurance. What if car insurance were tied to having a full-time job?



Merely spending money doesn't actually boost the economy. The economy grows when people save their resources and invest it in improving things. I recommend the illustrated book How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't (http://freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf).



Krugman is a Keynesian economist, and the Keynesians believe that all problems can be solved by the government creating little pieces of green paper and dumping it onto the economy. Politicians absolutely LOVE Keynesians because it gives them a way to spend money on their constituents and donors without raising taxes to pay for things. The real tax, of course, is hidden: inflation. The government creates more money out of thin air, which dilutes the value of the money you already own, and prices rise as a result. At the grocery store, you think, oh crap, prices are going up again ... but in reality it's that your (hidden) taxes are going up again. Did you know that our dollar has lost 96% of its value since the Federal Reserve was established in 1913, ostensibly to protect the value of the dollar? That's not exactly a good track record, which is why I was pleased that Tim Walz signed on as a co-sponsor to H.R. 1207, a bill to conduct a full audit the Federal Reserve for the first time in its 96-year history. As Henry Ford said, "If the people of the nation understood our banking and monetary system, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

I'm not going to get into every point of yours. There are just too many to cover. First, the profit motive is not necessary to improve things. In many cases, the profit motive leads to deterioration. It turns the focus from making better mouse traps to making more money. If you just follow basic economics, the most profitable busioness enterprise is a monopoly, but the monopoly decays over time because quality and innovation decline because of the overwhelming desire to maximize profits.

Besides, your theory is wrong on the face. Europe has taken most of the profit motive out of healthcare and they have significantly improved it over that in the US. By the way, that's for less than 1/2 the cost.

Also, I suggest more study is needed to learn about Keynsian economics. It's all about supply and demand, not political donations. Also, it is Keynsian economics that served our country so well from 1930 to 1980. It was supply side economics that lead our country into the ditch. I think Reagan and Bush can take a bow for destroying our economy. That's because they departed from Keynsian economics.

[Dan Conner]

This sounds great, but with no profit motive there is very little real incentive to improve anything. There are four ways to spend money:


You spend your money on something for yourself.
You spend your money on something for someone else.
You spend someone else's money on something for yourself.
You spend someone else's money on something for someone else.

With #1, you have an incentive to get the most value at the lowest cost. With #2, you will still try to get good value and low cost, but the recipient's assessment of the value may well be less than yours. With #3, you have little incentive to get a low cost, but still have incentive to get high value. With #4, you have little incentive to get either high value or low cost.

Most private spending is #1, most public spending is #4. That's why government programs are always over budget and so woefully inefficient. As one small example, did you know that in the 1840s someone started an illegal competitor to the USPS monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company) on mail delivery and so quickly undercut the USPS that they were forced out of business by the government in just 6 years? They offered free local mail delivery even! Yet here we are 170 years later, insisting on letting the government do a job that UPS or FedEx (or someone else) would be happy to do for less money.

This is also the reason why taxes keep going up year after year and why the size of government keeps growing year after year -- they are so inefficient that they must continually take more money from the private sector to finance their operations. Did you know that the U.S. income tax was originally levied on less than 1% of the population and that the top bracket was 7%? And for that matter, we managed to do without the income tax completely for the first 120 years of our existence. This is also why the 'temporary' tax to help pay for the civic center in Mankato will probably never go away.

When pharmaceutical and other medical companies spend their own money on R&D that will benefit them, they have incentive to do their R&D as cheaply as possible and get what they need out of it (#1, above). When a publicly funded agency does R&D, they work until their budget is exhausted (or perhaps longer) and what the R&D results in doesn't really matter to them (#4, above). They could spend $10 million researching a new drug that a private company would have abandoned after sinking $1 million and deciding to invest its money elsewhere. When a private company spends public grant money on research (#3) they are more efficient but still wasteful. It's easier to get a $10 million grant than it is to actually earn it by pleasing consumers with your products.

Also, when money is involved, it is in the health care recipient's interest to conserve. "Is another MRI really needed?" "Can I live without a hip replacement even though I'm 95?" Obviously this doesn't happen much in the U.S. because nearly all of our health care money flows through third-party payers, so it seems to the end consumer that we're spending other people's money for most of our health care.



Health care is not a right. Life, liberty, and property ownership are rights -- you have a right not to be killed, enslaved, or stolen from. Health care is a responsibility.

You are responsible for your health care, and for the health care of your dependents. You are not responsible for my care, nor anyone else. Health care takes resources to produce. It costs money. If I have a 'right' to health care, then you are saying that I have a 'right' to your resources and money.

If you feel that no human should go without adequate health care (as I do), then see to it that they are provided for ... but please don't use other people's money to do it. If you use other people's money, you've moved from a #2 spender to a #4 spender, and the result is that costs go way up and value goes way down.



I agree, the health care industry is deeply in bed with the government. When you get into bed with the government, you should not be surprised to find yourself afflicted with the diseases she spreads. When politicians stop doing Big Pharma billion dollar favors in exchange for million dollar campaign donations, health care costs will plummet.



Costs will not be trimmed, as we are still spending other people's money on goods and services. Aren't they estimating it will cost $1 trillion to cover those 40+ million uninsured people? When was the last time the federal government ever came in under budget on anything?

One of the easiest changes would be to stop giving tax incentives for employer-based health care, and to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. When health care is tied to employment, that makes it extremely expensive for the unemployed and self-employed, and it makes people more reluctant to change jobs. I'd probably enjoy working 3 part-time jobs instead of one full-time, but I can't because I need a full-time job for the insurance. What if car insurance were tied to having a full-time job?



Merely spending money doesn't actually boost the economy. The economy grows when people save their resources and invest it in improving things. I recommend the illustrated book How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't (http://freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf).



Krugman is a Keynesian economist, and the Keynesians believe that all problems can be solved by the government creating little pieces of green paper and dumping it onto the economy. Politicians absolutely LOVE Keynesians because it gives them a way to spend money on their constituents and donors without raising taxes to pay for things. The real tax, of course, is hidden: inflation. The government creates more money out of thin air, which dilutes the value of the money you already own, and prices rise as a result. At the grocery store, you think, oh crap, prices are going up again ... but in reality it's that your (hidden) taxes are going up again. Did you know that our dollar has lost 96% of its value since the Federal Reserve was established in 1913, ostensibly to protect the value of the dollar? That's not exactly a good track record, which is why I was pleased that Tim Walz signed on as a co-sponsor to H.R. 1207, a bill to conduct a full audit the Federal Reserve for the first time in its 96-year history. As Henry Ford said, "If the people of the nation understood our banking and monetary system, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."


I really do pity people that think money (i.e. pieces of printed paper) are what motivates the goodness in this world. I say to all the die hard Americana Capitalists... how's it going so far? I suppose if you are comfortable, you say fine. But I look at the big picture. Compassion, and I mean real compassion, not the tag line of some miserly conservative, is in short supply. To them I say, why don't you LIVE a little and quit fretting over precious dollars and instead DO SOMETHING to make the world a better place for everyone.

In terms of pharma companies, I don't have time to tell you all of the nasty schemes they have been up to... While there are certainly valuable pharmaceuticals, the majority are glorified, mass marketed placebos targeting the largely uniformed public that is led to believe they NEED pills to fix them. I can site MANY examples of pharma companies jeopardizing or willfully hurting people for money (i.e. Bayer knowingly shipping AIDS tainting drugs to Europe for hemophiliacs which killed 100'[s of not 1000's of people - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cphkD-9NUe8). I could go on but I will save it for another night - my family is calling. No amount of rationalizing or justifying is going to convince me otherwise. To think that someone could pursue life, liberty, and happiness without their health is just plain foolery. I wish you a happy and healthy weekend.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

First, this forum would be more readable if you and Bob didn't regularly quote-box the entire post you are replying to. Just quote the paragraphs or lines relevant to what you are answering. Also, it makes it a little more obvious what sections you are choosing not to reply to. Just a friendly request, take it or leave it.

I really do pity people that think money (i.e. pieces of printed paper) are what motivates the goodness in this world. I say to all the die hard Americana Capitalists... how's it going so far? I suppose if you are comfortable, you say fine.

Lots of things motivate goodness, Dan, but the desire to improve one's own life by providing things that other people want is the most effective motivator in existence. We provide things for others and they provide things for us in a voluntary mutual exchange. 'Greed', among other factors, is what drives people to produce, what drives them to create, what drives them to make life better for other people.

In America we have FAR from an actual free market. Government leaves its mark on everything here. I hate to be one of those "b-b-but pure Communism has never been tried!" types, but it really torques me when people try to blame the free market or "capitalism" for our current troubles. Our income tax code alone is what, 80,000 pages now? Congress has difficulty producing a bill under a thousand pages long. How can you call that a free market?

Even our monetary system, the very foundation of our economy, is tied to numerous government and Federal Reserve rules. It is illegal to sell goods and services in currencies or money other than the U.S. Dollar, for example. This literal monopoly on money gives politicians more ability to abuse it. Real "money" is not printed pieces of paper, as you say, but the value those papers represent. In the U.S., our currency is no longer backed by assets, but by the "full faith and credit of the United States" which really means that dollars are backed by both by momentum and by the strength of the U.S. economy.

And yes, I place a lot of the blame for our troubles on Republicans as well, so don't take me for a typical conservative fanboy. Bush I and II were disasters for the Republican party. Even Reagan, probably the most popular conservative ever, talked the talk but seldom actually got government out of the way of the free market.

But I look at the big picture. Compassion, and I mean real compassion, not the tag line of some miserly conservative, is in short supply. To them I say, why don't you LIVE a little and quit fretting over precious dollars and instead DO SOMETHING to make the world a better place for everyone.

Dan, there is nothing compassionate about forcibly and anonymously taking one person's money or property and giving it to someone else, regardless of how needy the recipient may appear or how wealthy the first person may be. This is exactly what tax dollars are. Explain to me how this is compassion. Please.

I do plenty to 'do something' to make the world a better place. I work every day at my job, I buy the products and services that other people produce for me, and I give all I can to charitable causes. Don't presume that I am a miserable little scrooge unwilling to see the plight of others and take pity on them. I take pity with MY money, not with yours. Who among us is more compassionate?

In terms of pharma companies, I don't have time to tell you all of the nasty schemes they have been up to... While there are certainly valuable pharmaceuticals, the majority are glorified, mass marketed placebos targeting the largely uniformed public that is led to believe they NEED pills to fix them. I can site MANY examples of pharma companies jeopardizing or willfully hurting people for money (i.e. Bayer knowingly shipping AIDS tainting drugs to Europe for hemophiliacs which killed 100'[s of not 1000's of people - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cphkD-9NUe8). I could go on but I will save it for another night - my family is calling. No amount of rationalizing or justifying is going to convince me otherwise.

As you may have noticed, I have very little respect for Big Pharma and the health insurance industry. I believe, as you do, that there is much evil therein. But as I said in my previous post, they are all in bed with the government. They are about as un-free market as you can get. Medical care is already perhaps the most socialized and legislated sectors of the economy. They use the government to protect and insulate themselves from angry consumers while they carry on all of these dangerous practices. I explained in one of the other health care threads why so many drugs are mass-market garbage. I personally believe that healthy living and natural remedies should be tried long before resorting to the chemical concoctions of these companies. The difficulty is that there is little money available to do clinical studies on natural remedies effectiveness, because it doesn't make Big Pharma any money.

To think that someone could pursue life, liberty, and happiness without their health is just plain foolery.

I never suggested that they could. We both agree that health care is important, we just disagree on how people should obtain it. I think that government-provided health care is inefficient, subject to abuse, and intrinsically immoral, and you think that government-provided care is what an enlightened society will do for its less fortunate.

I wish you a happy and healthy weekend.

You as well. I'm heading to North Mankato Fun Days for some good old capitalist fun in the taxpayer-funded parks and streets. :D

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

I'm not going to get into every point of yours. There are just too many to cover.

Oops, missed this post of yours earlier. I hit "view last post" instead of "first unread".

I'll assume for the moment that you didn't find any flaws in my reasoning in those other points, and thus you have no need to respond to them. :p

First, the profit motive is not necessary to improve things. In many cases, the profit motive leads to deterioration. It turns the focus from making better mouse traps to making more money. If you just follow basic economics, the most profitable busioness enterprise is a monopoly, but the monopoly decays over time because quality and innovation decline because of the overwhelming desire to maximize profits.

Monopolies last only so long as a) no one else is willing or able to provide a better product at a lower price, or b) they use political power to prevent their competition from becoming a threat. Without the competition held at bay by political forces rather than market forces, the monopoly has reduced incentives to improve their product or offer it at a lower price. Government protection is what allows monopolies to continue.

How, exactly, will they make more money if they don't make better mousetraps?

Besides, your theory is wrong on the face. Europe has taken most of the profit motive out of healthcare and they have significantly improved it over that in the US. By the way, that's for less than 1/2 the cost.

I'll address Europe later ... that's a big subject and I'm tired.

Also, I suggest more study is needed to learn about Keynsian economics. It's all about supply and demand, not political donations. Also, it is Keynsian economics that served our country so well from 1930 to 1980. It was supply side economics that lead our country into the ditch. I think Reagan and Bush can take a bow for destroying our economy. That's because they departed from Keynsian economics.

I know plenty about Keynesian economics, thank you. Ostensibly it is about supply and demand, but it actually relies heavily on massive government intervention at every turn. The Federal Reserve, a Keynesian poster child, has nothing to do with supply and demand and everything to do with central planning and constant tweaking that throws the marketplace into a perpetual roller coaster ride as the Fed continually oversteers in response to complex market situations. To use a silly analogy, the Fed is trying to control a 747 with an automotive steering wheel. The economy is way too complex and nuanced for the Fed's giant thumb to be mucking about meddling with things.

Reagan and Bush did not depart from Keynesian economics in the least. Nor did Clinton, nor will Obama, nor have any U.S. presidents since before the Great Depression.

[Dan Conner]

Lots of things motivate goodness, Dan, but the desire to improve one's own life by providing things that other people want is the most effective motivator in existence. We provide things for others and they provide things for us in a voluntary mutual exchange. 'Greed', among other factors, is what drives people to produce, what drives them to create, what drives them to make life better for other people.

Motivating goodness? I think you better evaluate the use of goodness here. It equally motivates evil. I think you appropriately label it as greed. Let's see, there is the want of pornography, sex slaves, drug use, murder for profit, fraud, embezzlement, etc., just to name a few. The procurer of these things might look at this as improving their lives, but it sure isn't for people being abused at the other end. And by the way, it isn't just greed that motivates. Many vounteer to fight and die in wars in an unselfish act...not greed. That is the highest price one might pay. There is absolutely no greed there. Also, every poll that is taken of employees in the workplace rank money far down the scale as "motivators" on the job. They are far more motivated by a feeling of contributing and being valued as a member of a team.

While money is a motivator, it is a low level one, and one that is prone to as many bad, or worse, side effects as positive ones. Even the Bible discusses the evil of money. So, I disagree with you money as a motivator theory.

In America we have FAR from an actual free market. Government leaves its mark on everything here. I hate to be one of those "b-b-but pure Communism has never been tried!" types, but it really torques me when people try to blame the free market or "capitalism" for our current troubles. Our income tax code alone is what, 80,000 pages now? Congress has difficulty producing a bill under a thousand pages long. How can you call that a free market?

You are right here. The US isn't entirely a "free market" economy. There are no pure "communist" or "socialist" nations either. So what's the point? You're pointing out that none of these economies are pure. Who knows, we're all probably a lot closer to each other than you think. I would certainly hope and expect that Government leaves its mark. I want my food inspected, my roads built, my laws enforced, and business controlled to avoid poisoning, pollution, and needless death and destruction caused by your "greed."

It was the unregulated ("free," in your words) that caused the last collapse. Private and quasi-public banks were allowed to run unregulated leading to the largest financial collapse in American history. It was much like the collapse in 1929. The Glass-Steagal Act, which was enacted to prevent these bank collapses, was repealed in the early 1990's, leading to the collapse we now have. Our economy collapsed because of not enough oversight, not because of the oversight.

Dan, there is nothing compassionate about forcibly and anonymously taking one person's money or property and giving it to someone else, regardless of how needy the recipient may appear or how wealthy the first person may be. This is exactly what tax dollars are. Explain to me how this is compassion. Please.

I'm afraid too much selfishness is shown above. Have you ever served in the military? You are familiar with the draft, right? That forcibly and anonymously takes away your most valuable resource...your life. To equate that with money is picayune and petty. In the history of the world, all governments, capitalist, communist, fascist, etc. have forcibly and anonymously taken money and property to give to someone else. So, what's new here? Maybe there is a place for people who want to use the vast resources of a country, but not pay for them. However, I believe that if you want to be a part of SOCIETY, you have to contribute to it. Otherwise leave the society. Maybe there is a way to become a "mountain man?" If you want to prosper by your own hands do so, but not at the cost of everyone else. It is for this selfish idea that we have taxes. Many people want to benefit from society, but not contribute to it. Therefore we have taxes. It helps level the playing field.

I do plenty to 'do something' to make the world a better place. I work every day at my job, I buy the products and services that other people produce for me, and I give all I can to charitable causes. Don't presume that I am a miserable little scrooge unwilling to see the plight of others and take pity on them. I take pity with MY money, not with yours. Who among us is more compassionate?

Well, welcome to the world of everyone else. You work...good, you buy things...good, you give to charity...good. You forgot one more...you pay taxes...good. These are the things everyone does already, so...good.

One point I think you have pointed out that is the perspective I think you bring to this arguement is that you feel that your personal desire to work and buy things is the unselfish thing you do for society. I don't. I view them as things we do for ourselves, not everyone else. ONly things you do for others is what determines whether you are selfish or not. And by the way, the US has one of the lowest charitable contribution rates in the industrialized world. I guess that's more people, who believe that charity starts and ends at home.

Fine, take pity with your money...most everyone does. Nothing unique there. Also, the unique ability of the Government to do things private charities can't is what needs tax dollars. I propose they be used. Don't be concerned about little 'ol me, I'll manage to get by with a little more taxes. You probably can too...or do I detect a lack of charity in you?

As you may have noticed, I have very little respect for Big Pharma and the health insurance industry. I believe, as you do, that there is much evil therein. But as I said in my previous post, they are all in bed with the government. They are about as un-free market as you can get. Medical care is already perhaps the most socialized and legislated sectors of the economy. They use the government to protect and insulate themselves from angry consumers while they carry on all of these dangerous practices. I explained in one of the other health care threads why so many drugs are mass-market garbage. I personally believe that healthy living and natural remedies should be tried long before resorting to the chemical concoctions of these companies. The difficulty is that there is little money available to do clinical studies on natural remedies effectiveness, because it doesn't make Big Pharma any money.

I think you watch too many conspiracy theory stuff. Pharma in bed with government? If so, it is because big pharma has bribed their way to the seat of power. If you think big pharma is not free market, then you need to prove you point here. Also, being "in bed" with Government needs to be proved. These are just baseless claims. If not, then show me credible proof otherwise.

I think there is an alarming amount of paranoia above. I really worry about these kinds of baseless statements. You are a conspiratorialist person. You mix up Governmment with the abuses of business. You want natural medicines, then have at it. Eat all the carrots you want and don't take any drugs, but haven't you already contradicted yourself? Here you rail against the money made by "big pharma", but you said earlier that "greed" is good. You work, you buy, and everyone is happy? That's a Keynesian idea by the way. I think you have to re-evaluate your ideas for consistency.

I never suggested that they could. We both agree that health care is important, we just disagree on how people should obtain it. I think that government-provided health care is inefficient, subject to abuse, and intrinsically immoral, and you think that government-provided care is what an enlightened society will do for its less fortunate.

Let's just say we disagree here. Everything is subject to abuse. We have a system that is widely acknowledged as a failure. It is inefficient, loaded with abuses, and in many cases immoral. I propose change from this failed privately run system to a government-run one. If the Government-run system fails, then you and me can change that too. I surely hope you vote. That's our way of changing things. Too much of what you say about Government and healthcare represents a fear of change...any change. You seem to be more comfortable with the known, even if it is screwed-up, than to risk the unknown (change).

[Dan Conner]

Here are some cases detailing the superiority of other countries' healthcare compared to the US:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/international-health-care_n_230961.html

[Dan Conner]

Below is a link to Wendell Potter, a former executive for CIGNA and Humana, who left the helath insurnace industry because of their lies and deceit. He is now a proponent of single-payer health insurance. He says the insurance company lines about the government getting between patient and doctor is all BS. There are numerous blogs about Mr. Potter on that website.

In addition, he said there are mony other insurnace company executives and employees who have left because they felt the insurnace companies lie and no longer want to help people with their insurnace needs.

http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/bios.php/Wendell_Potter

[Dan Conner]

The was a very insightful and informative PBS show on Bill Moyers Journal about the failed health insurance system in the US. It discussed the health insurance industry's lies meant to discredit Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" and the tactics they would use to blunt the affects of the movie. Fortunately, one of their own executives, Wendell Potter (VP of Communications for CIGNA), made light of the program and revealed the insurance company lies.

Wendell Potter said that Michael Moore was accurate in his presentation of the US health insurance situation and how much better things were in other countries.

You can obtain a transcript of that show at: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript4.html

P.S. Wendell Potter is now a proponent of a Government single-payer system.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Nice work Dan! It all boils down to this, and I welcome anyone's debate... I fear for a civilization that strongly favors profits over people. That is the beginning of our downfall if it doesn't change. Be honest with yourselves and illuminate!

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Town Hall meeting with Rep. Tim Walz on this might be instructive to the debate. http://is.gd/1RVpm

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

I fear for a civilization that strongly favors profits over people. That is the beginning of our downfall if it doesn't change. Be honest with yourselves and illuminate!

Liz, profits benefit people. Get the idea out of your head that profits are evil, because it simply isn't true. BOTH parties in a voluntary exchange "profit" from the exchange or they wouldn't do it. One side gets a monetary profit (they bought a widget for $10 and sold it for $12) while the other side gets a tangible or intangible non-monetary profit (they bought a widget and sold an hour of their time to their employer for $12), and their employer bought an hour for $12 and so on. Both sides profit in every voluntary transaction.

Grocery stores do not provide food for you because they love people. Your mechanic doesn't fix your car because he cares for the human race. You don't go to your job every day because it warms your soul. They do it and you do it because you profit from it. How often would you go in to work if they didn't pay you? Why should medical care providers be the exception?
Even charitable giving is a profitable exchange. The charity gets your $50 or 5 hours of volunteer time, and you get to feel good about something (or impress your friends, etc.).

As medical care becomes less profitable, fewer people go into medical care, and then there are shortages of care, or lower quality care. When you make the end result (health care) artificially cheaper by having taxpayers soak up much of the cost, people over-consume. When you remove profit from the equation, rationing and lower quality results every time.

It is your job to find ways to profit. Sell widgets, or repair widgets, or design better widgets, whatever. Do it better than the next person and you will profit. When you make money selling widgets, you can use that money to buy other people's whatzits and doodads. It's a giant chaotic circle of buying and selling and everybody profits. Even the poorest people today are still far wealthier than many of the richest people just a couple of centuries ago.

If you really, truly want health care to be available to everyone, work harder to profit more, which you can then donate to help others. Even if you don't donate anything, you will still help people get cheaper health care because you will have raised the average standard of living for the whole economy a tiny fraction. Profits are what created all the miracles of modern medicine we have which save so many lives.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Jonathan. Not to speak for Liz, but I think you may have missed her nuance. I don't think she is against all profit, but rather is troubled by a world that overemphasizes profit. Liz, am I on target here?

These discussions are easier when we don't "inject the extreme" into someone's nuanced statement.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Jonathan. Not to speak for Liz, but I think you may have missed her nuance. I don't think she is against all profit, but rather is troubled by a world that overemphasizes profit. Liz, am I on target here?

These discussions are easier when we don't "inject the extreme" into someone's nuanced statement.

Perhaps, but I don't think I'm really being extreme. Most people associate the word 'profit' with a fat old stooge with $ signs in his eyes and a stack of money in front of him, but no one remembers that people gave him that stack of money because he produced something they wanted more than the money, and so long as the profits are gained through legitimate voluntary exchanges, profits are beneficial and praiseworthy.

However, in many cases profits are gained through politically-forced exchanges, which are not true profits but legalized theft sanctioned by a plurality of voters. Nearly all companies work for voluntary-exchange profits, but many (especially the very large ones) also work for political-exchange profits, due to the fact that our nation has gradually changed from a constitutional republic into a corporatist democracy. When it's easier to get money by lobbying the government than by pleasing customers, we have a serious problem on our hands.

Wal-mart, for example, makes a ton of money by providing extremely cheap products to people by optimizing and consolidating their supply chain and shipping and inventory methods. These are improvements that benefit the whole economy. However, they also use their heft to get city councils to grant them tax advantages and even seize land for them through eminent domain. Part of their profit is deserved and good for the economy, part is undeserved and bad for the economy. Our goal should be to create a government that encourages the good profits and makes the bad profits not worth chasing. Many of our problems are traceable to corporations (and unions and other organizations) blending themselves into government operations and getting laws passed that benefit them and hurt their competitors. We need to identify and undo these laws. Voters don't have any real power any more, so it's a tough road ahead if we really want to take our country back.

I'm not really emphasizing profit to the detriment of other things like charity and family and so on. It should just be that people seek enough profit to live their lives as they see fit. I could work twice as many hours and earn a lot more money, but then I'd never get to see my family, so those extra hours aren't really profitable to me at all. There's no point in me chasing dollars all day long because then I've wasted my life in the process. Some people DO want to chase dollars all day, and that's up to them.

Does that make sense?

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

I understand where you're coming from more now. Maybe Liz will chime in.
I may sound crass with this, but the reason corporations and others have more influence than voters is because they've "worked" to gain it, don't you think? They've organized, fundraised, convinced investors to give them money. Are the bad guys really the corporations? or are we less influential as voters because of our own unwillingness to do the hard work that democracy demands? What restrictions on corporations would you suggest to give voters more power and influence?

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

I understand where you're coming from more now. Maybe Liz will chime in.
I may sound crass with this, but the reason corporations and others have more influence than voters is because they've "worked" to gain it, don't you think? They've organized, fundraised, convinced investors to give them money. Are the bad guys really the corporations? or are we less influential as voters because of our own unwillingness to do the hard work that democracy demands? What restrictions on corporations would you suggest to give voters more power and influence?

The restriction is already in place -- you may have heard of it: The United States Constitution.

If we actually followed the Constitution, corporations would have very little political power, other than to persuade their employees (and perhaps customers) to vote for one candidate or the other. And even then, it wouldn't really matter a great deal who was elected (on the Federal level, anyway), because the Constitution gives pretty clear guidelines for what they can and can't do.

Instead, politicians are commodities bought and sold by the lobbyists and big donors, and all sorts of laws and regulations are passed that benefit one company or another at the expense of everyone else. Perhaps 90% of what the Federal government does is unconstitutional, is costing our economy trillions of dollars every year, and is largely responsible for our roller coaster business cycle and the current meltdown.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I am not against making a buck, but it has become extreme in corporate America - I think Joe and I might be in agreement here (?). Funny that you should bring up Wal-Mart, which receives $1Billion a year in government subsidies so it can squeeze out local businesses and sell us lots of imported crap from China. While it is affordable, it is also the epitomy of what happens when profits encourage monopolies and control. "Wal Mart uses taxpayer dollars to create jobs that tend to be poverty-wage, part-time and lacking in adequate healthcare benefits. That a company with $9 billion in profits can wrest job subsidies from state and local governments shows that the candy store game has gotten out of control." - Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First.

Anyway, I suppose that is a bit off topic. Back to healthcare. Fear seems to be the motivating factor for opposition to public healthcare. And from what I have seen on the news lately, the opponents to public healthcare are throwing all they can think of at it. Old people being consulted on how to die? How ridiculous!?!? Wanting to have a say in end of life decisions is a good thing. Repubs and Dems alike are reluctant for a public plan because they are propped up by the healthcare industry. Did you know that the VA is rated one of the best medical plans? Just ask Bill Kristol! :) And most seniors would freak if the gov't took Medicare away...

[Liz Ratcliff]

And another thing... :) Profit is fine, but not when it is at the expense of another's welfare, which is the case with much of the profits we hear about in the news. It is completely out of control. I hope that doesn't sound extreme - I am referring to health insurance companies and Wall Street. And when is it ever enough? Bernie Madoff wasn't alone. And there are still more like him out there. There are some people living such an opulent life, while deserving none of it because it is actually harming others. So in that respect, not all profit is good profit. Ethics and profit are uncommon partners in this day and age. While I know there are ethical capitalists out there, I feel they are in short supply.

In terms of humanity, the dollar makes us weak. Too many are quick to sell out another if it will deepen their pockets. Ok, so I am stepping off my soapbox now. Joe, I hope I didn't make you regret sticking up for me (which I really appreciate). I am not an extremist. In fact, I am an entrepenuer. I like profit - enough to pay my bills and live a full life. But a full life for me isn't dictated by profit and I wouldn't change that for all the money in the world!

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Did you even read anything I wrote?

[Liz Ratcliff]

The restriction is already in place -- you may have heard of it: The United States Constitution.

If we actually followed the Constitution, corporations would have very little political power, other than to persuade their employees (and perhaps customers) to vote for one candidate or the other. And even then, it wouldn't really matter a great deal who was elected (on the Federal level, anyway), because the Constitution gives pretty clear guidelines for what they can and can't do.

Instead, politicians are commodities bought and sold by the lobbyists and big donors, and all sorts of laws and regulations are passed that benefit one company or another at the expense of everyone else. Perhaps 90% of what the Federal government does is unconstitutional, is costing our economy trillions of dollars every year, and is largely responsible for our roller coaster business cycle and the current meltdown.

agreed, and that is exactly why the free market doesn't work. Too much corruption...
not only are the corrupt politicians to blame, I think equal blame would likely fall on the lobbyists and the corporations paying to play... if you take the profit out of healthcare, the corporations lose power...

[Liz Ratcliff]

Jonathan, I do apologize for not recognizing the common ground we have. The difference is that I don't like to leave people to their vices when it hurts others. Perhaps you don't either, but I see health insurance as taking advantage of everyone, especially those in dire need. While you and I might value life more than dollars, I fear that many in influential positions do not. Therefore, I think government implemented safety nets would be a good thing. And in order to keep them on the up and up, I promote active civic involvement, which we clearly do not have enough of...

Have a terrific evening and thanks for the great conversation!

[Bob Jentges]

There are many health care threads in the Forum so it was difficult for me to decide which thread to use to post this. But since this one seemed to be most directly adverse to a government-run program and since the article I will cite prefers government essentially remove itself from health care entirely. I chose it.

The article was written by Harry Browne, Libertarian Party candidate for president in '96 & '00. Admittedly he did not receive many votes back then, but it would be interesting to see how many people would agree with him now on the health care issue. His solution to health care reform is:

"1) End Medicare, so that seniors and everyone else can have lower
health care costs again, as well as access to all treatments and tests a
doctor thinks advisable.
2) End Medicade, to stop the sensless waste of money by corrupt state
medical agencies.
3) End the federal regulation that has driven so many charity hospitals and
free clinics out of business.
4) Repeal all the state and federal laws that tell insurance companies
what benifits to include in their policies.
5) Make medical expenses deductable on your income tax returns, so your
employer can raise your salery instead of providing insurance--letting
you choose the health care system most appropriate for you, deducting
the cost directly from your income tax."

His plan, or even parts of it, almost certainly will not be implimented so we will never know whether it would work. But I seriously doubt trying to insure everybody for everything without increasing all premiums and/or taxes, and at the same time not increase the deficit will come to pass either.

[Dan Conner]

There are many health care threads in the Forum so it was difficult for me to decide which thread to use to post this. But since this one seemed to be most directly adverse to a government-run program and since the article I will cite prefers government essentially remove itself from health care entirely. I chose it.

The article was written by Harry Browne, Libertarian Party candidate for president in '96 & '00. Admittedly he did not receive many votes back then, but it would be interesting to see how many people would agree with him now on the health care issue. His solution to health care reform is:

"1) End Medicare, so that seniors and everyone else can have lower
health care costs again, as well as access to all treatments and tests a
doctor thinks advisable.
2) End Medicade, to stop the sensless waste of money by corrupt state
medical agencies.
3) End the federal regulation that has driven so many charity hospitals and
free clinics out of business.
4) Repeal all the state and federal laws that tell insurance companies
what benifits to include in their policies.
5) Make medical expenses deductable on your income tax returns, so your
employer can raise your salery instead of providing insurance--letting
you choose the health care system most appropriate for you, deducting
the cost directly from your income tax."

His plan, or even parts of it, almost certainly will not be implimented so we will never know whether it would work. But I seriously doubt trying to insure everybody for everything without increasing all premiums and/or taxes, and at the same time not increase the deficit will come to pass either.
Well, I think it was predicable this solution coming from a Libertarian. At least he's true to the basic philosophy of Libertarianism. However, I disagree with his solutions.

1. End Medicare? The vast majority of Americans are very happy with Medicare and don't want it changed, or even more emphatically, eliminated. This guy is 180 degress out of kilter here. Medicare's intent and achievement over time has been the reduction of healthcare costs. Medicare was able to reduce costs because it is such a large healthcare consumer. That means large consumer dealing with large providers. Medicare has greatly reduced medical costs. That's pretty common knowledge and widely accepted. If you want I will furnish several non-partisan links supporting that

2. End Medicaid? He says it is corrupt and wasteful? Where is your/his evidence supporting widespread corruption and waste? I don't believe that. However, I would be able to furnish links showing widespread corruption and waste in healthcare, outside Medicare or Medicaid. This item was mentioned as if private healthcare is void of corruption? That's patently false. Much of the corruption and waste reported today, in the healthcare debate details the abundant corruption, fraud, and waste in the private healthcare system, not Medicare and Medicaid.

3. It is patently false that Government regulation has restricted free clinics. They are used today, even more than in the past. In fact, Keith Olbermann has raised over $1 million in the last 2 weeks to implement free medical clinics in Louisiana and Arkansas. There have been numerous free clinics held around the nation over the years. In fact, I thought it was particularly noteworthy that in the last couple of years, attendance at these free health clinics have soared. It seems that all sorts of people have lost their health insurance coverage, or could not afford the care, even though they have health insurance. This Libertarian item was completely bogus and false.

4. This guy is really off base trying to "deregulate" the healthcare industry. The run-away corruption, fraud and waste in the private insurance industry to date is because there has not been enough regulation and control. Health insurance companies need more, not less regulation. I think he is trying to dress up a pig on this one.

5. I don't know where this guy has been most of his life, but health care expenses are currently deductible on income taxes. Besides, Libertarians want to eliminate income taxes - then what is the purpose of his deduction?

Bob, I believe I understand why this guy received so few votes. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Eliminating Medicare/Medicaid killing 2 programs with enormous public support AND with less waste and fraud than is in the private system. Also, there are more free clinics in our country today than ever before because of the enormous number of people with no health insurance, or who have insurance, but can't afford the deductibles or co-insurance. So, where are the obstacles set by Government? Did he enumerate them or just talk through his hat? The writer then confuses deregulation with less corruption? He couldn't be more wrong. It is the insurance industry who have taken advantage of people because there was NOT enough regulation. It is without question and appropriate that insurance companies will be more closely regulated in the future. Then, this guy stipulates income tax deductibility for health insurnace that already exists? He is either very uninformed, doesn't do his own income taxes, or he is being disingenuous. Health insurance companies need more state and federal control laying out minimum standards of coverage. Today, they play too many games to avoid insuring the peoiple who need it the most.

[Bob Jentges]

FYI, Forum Member Matt Christionson had a very comprehensive My View article published in The Free Press this morning i.e. Health Plans Will Backfire". I think it is "spot on", but recomend people read it for themselves.

[Dan Conner]

FYI, Forum Member Matt Christionson had a very comprehensive My View article published in The Free Press this morning i.e. Health Plans Will Backfire". I think it is "spot on", but recomend people read it for themselves.No, I haven't read Matt's column yet, but I did read several interesting letters to the editor in Saturday's and Sundays papers that were spot on. One was by Joseph Dusek, entitled "Universal Health Care the Moral Thing to Do". On Sunday other interesting letters were written by Mark Friedman, entitled "Public Option Wouldn't End Private Health Insurnace, "Society Needs Diversity fo Thought, New Thought", by Andrew Johnson, and most telling, a response written by Nick A. Frentz, entitled "Lawsuit Caps Won't Bring Savings." These were relevant to the healthcare debate today, particularly the one by Frentz. The article pointed out that lawsuit caps would directly save only 1/2 of 1%, but cost more than that in increased medical care. The letter goes a long way to debunk the lawsuit cap. Also, I feel it a pure diversion from instituting real competition in the healthcare insurance industry. The insurance industry is now too corrupt

[Matt Christianson]

No, I haven't read Matt's column yet, but I did read several interesting letters to the editor in Saturday's and Sundays papers that were spot on. One was by Joseph Dusek, entitled "Universal Health Care the Moral Thing to Do". On Sunday other interesting letters were written by Mark Friedman, entitled "Public Option Wouldn't End Private Health Insurnace, "Society Needs Diversity fo Thought, New Thought", by Andrew Johnson, and most telling, a response written by Nick A. Frentz, entitled "Lawsuit Caps Won't Bring Savings." These were relevant to the healthcare debate today, particularly the one by Frentz. The article pointed out that lawsuit caps would directly save only 1/2 of 1%, but cost more than that in increased medical care. The letter goes a long way to debunk the lawsuit cap. Also, I feel it a pure diversion from instituting real competition in the healthcare insurance industry. The insurance industry is now too corrupt

While I'll agree that tort reform may only have a small impact, it is the right thing to do. And I would not take the opinion of a lawyer on this issue since he, a personal injury lawyer, would stand to lose a lot of money if tort reform was properly executed.

[Bob Jentges]

While I'll agree that tort reform may only have a small impact, it is the right thing to do. And I would not take the opinion of a lawyer on this issue since he, a personal injury lawyer, would stand to lose a lot of money if tort reform was properly executed.

I read the article by Nick Frentz too. In fact I made a complementary "Comment" in the online edition of The Free Press.

Although Nick is of the opinion (as you suggest expectedly so) that we do not need tort reform, I took Nick's article as a compliment to Minnesota's present situation with respect to malpractice. He even said health care reform "...gives everybody another chance to take a look." A much more reasonable approach than the guy who said to me when I suggested it in this
Forum some some time back that the idea was a "non-idea idea"!

Refreshing to know that there are people out there with differring opinions that are open to debate.

[Dan Conner]

While I'll agree that tort reform may only have a small impact, it is the right thing to do. And I would not take the opinion of a lawyer on this issue since he, a personal injury lawyer, would stand to lose a lot of money if tort reform was properly executed.I understand that, but then I think you should more closely scruitinize positions taken by insurnace companies, who also have a very vested interest in the outcome of healthcare reform. In fact, all material produced by interested special interests should be carefully scruitinized. It was not long ago that health insurnace companies produced a bogus healthcare study and used it to make their case. However, later the polling group admitted the study was not good, but was done at the direction of the healthcare insurnace companies.

I think it is more important to look at the facts presented by the parties, and then attempt to corroborate them. You know, like responsible journalism.

While 1/2 of 1 percent is tiny in the scheme of our health insurance picture, it certainly can be considered, as long as fixes with greater savings are looked at first. This problem shoudl be triaged with most cost savings implemented first.

[Dan Conner]

I read the article by Nick Frentz too. In fact I made a complementary "Comment" in the online edition of The Free Press.

Although Nick is of the opinion (as you suggest expectedly so) that we do not need tort reform, I took Nick's article as a compliment to Minnesota's present situation with respect to malpractice. He even said health care reform "...gives everybody another chance to take a look." A much more reasonable approach than the guy who said to me when I suggested it in this
Forum some some time back that the idea was a "non-idea idea"!

Refreshing to know that there are people out there with differring opinions that are open to debate.That still holds Bob.

[Matt Christianson]

I understand that, but then I think you should more closely scruitinize positions taken by insurnace companies, who also have a very vested interest in the outcome of healthcare reform. In fact, all material produced by interested special interests should be carefully scruitinized. It was not long ago that health insurnace companies produced a bogus healthcare study and used it to make their case. However, later the polling group admitted the study was not good, but was done at the direction of the healthcare insurnace companies.

I think it is more important to look at the facts presented by the parties, and then attempt to corroborate them. You know, like responsible journalism.

While 1/2 of 1 percent is tiny in the scheme of our health insurance picture, it certainly can be considered, as long as fixes with greater savings are looked at first. This problem shoudl be triaged with most cost savings implemented first.

And I agree with that which is why, as today's My View explains, I don't think those savings be adequately procured, through the proposed legislation.

[Dan Conner]

And I agree with that which is why, as today's My View explains, I don't think those savings be adequately procured, through the proposed legislation.I thought you might be overlooking the "Your Views" section fo the paper in a letter written by John Bipes, entitled, "U.S. Health Care is Not World's Best". In paragraph 7 he says it very well when he said we are unwilling to accurately report of take hints from our international neighbors. Also, I thought he dealth very well with the selfishn ess issue in the eighth paragraph. Good column John!

I think Matt forgets that when the President promised the reformed healthcare would be budget neutral, he meant that sufficient taxes would be raised to pay for the additional costs of the health reform. I agree that EVERYONE should be insured, but we will settle for whatever is required to get better health insurnace coverage. Healthcare reform, whenever it is passed, won't be hasty. If has been deliberated and stalled for decades.

I don't think Matt has to worry about being impoverished. That's a intended for dramatic affect. I say GO HEALTH REFORM GO!!! The sooner ther better. We all need to contribute to something other than ourselves.

[Matt Christianson]

I don't have time to read such nonsense as piddly little letters to the editor when my glowing face dominates the page!! j/k
Yes additional taxes will be raised...medical device makers, insurance companies and small businesses...that's in the article...which is the problem. This is what will ultimately drive up premiums and health costs even further, at least at a faster rate then they would otherwise. That too is the problem. We acheive nothing if we do not procure savings. This is going to be an orgy of taxing and spending that WILL NOT acheive the desired intent of the legislation. Mark my words.
Also I meant impoverished as a nation. The massive deficits are hurting our economy. I recommend reading the artice in the commentary section of the star trib (Oct 26th) on the failure of Keynesian economics. I'm just another layoff away and a couple of mortgage payments away from being impoverished too. More taxes levied on my company may just make them decide to trim a little fat. ( Not that I'm the fat, but in a union the low man on the totem pole is the fat to be cut first.)
One more point....why does everyone need to be insured? I'll give my answer quickly...to ensure that another dependant class is created in order to cement a larger permanent voting base for the Democrats. Conspirency theory? Maybe..but it make me wonder sometimes...

[Bob Jentges]

Makes me "wonder sometimes" too Matt.

Although some might be of the opinion that elected federal officials are intent on passing legislation that benifits the people of the United States (and many certainly seem to be), I wonder if too many of them are more interested in power over and control of the electorate!

[Dan Conner]

I don't have time to read such nonsense as piddly little letters to the editor when my glowing face dominates the page!! j/k
Yes additional taxes will be raised...medical device makers, insurance companies and small businesses...that's in the article...which is the problem. This is what will ultimately drive up premiums and health costs even further, at least at a faster rate then they would otherwise. That too is the problem. We acheive nothing if we do not procure savings. This is going to be an orgy of taxing and spending that WILL NOT acheive the desired intent of the legislation. Mark my words. I totally disagree, but I think we're going to get an opportunity to see. While I shed enormous tears for medical device makers and insurance companies, I trust they and the American public will learn to survive in an environment of healthcare for everyone. Also I meant impoverished as a nation. The massive deficits are hurting our economy.I think your concern would have been better timed if I had heard more conservatives wailing during the made-up reasons for the Iraqi war, the running of banks and insurance companies into the ground, and compulsive spending of President Bush. Now, when something is impending for the benefit of all, you have monetary concerns? I recommend reading the artice in the commentary section of the star trib (Oct 26th) on the failure of Keynesian economics. It isn't Keynesian economics that caused our economic problems. It forecast the problem. It was "supply-side" ecopnomics, started by Ronald Reagan that caused the problem. I think you only have to go as far as watching Congressional testimony of Alan Greenspan, who admitted to a failure of his economic philosophy as the cause. And he was a "supply sider." It is Paul Volker, who is an seconomic advisor for Obama, and was an Fed Chairman during Reagan, who has pronounced the lack of oversight of banks as the prime reason for failure. You seem to correctly recognize we are in a problem, but misplace the blame. I'm just another layoff away and a couple of mortgage payments away from being impoverished too. More taxes levied on my company may just make them decide to trim a little fat. ( Not that I'm the fat, but in a union the low man on the totem pole is the fat to be cut first.)
One more point....why does everyone need to be insured? Becuase being able to live is not dependence, it's a human right. I think you might change your tune if you are laid off and someone in your family becomes seriously ill, needing medical care. Then, when someone in your family is denied needed life-saving surgery or treatment, you might change your mind, but who knows maybe you won't care? I think everyone in our country who has a desire to live should have a crack at life, with all the technology and care available. I'll give my answer quickly...to ensure that another dependant class is created in order to cement a larger permanent voting base for the Democrats. Is this the same motivations for conservatives in the abortion issue...more voters? I thought life was important for conservatives? Oh, maybe that expires after birth.Conspirency theory? There's more of that fear...Maybe..but it make me wonder sometimes... Matt, I think you have to lower your level of fear. At least to a level that energizes you to take positive actions to resolve the problem. If our nation had been so paralyzed after Pearl Harbor, we would have lost the war. What is that saying....,"when the going gets tough the tough get going?" I think that fear (energy) has to be changed into the iron will of selflessness, not just more of the me-me or mine-mine. Our country won World War II because we worked together for each other. It didn't come about because millions worried about how "dependent" others were. I think we all have our plates full worrying about improving ourselves, without sitting in judgement of others. I think there's a biblical statement for that too...

[Dan Conner]

Makes me "wonder sometimes" too Matt.

Although some might be of the opinion that elected federal officials are intent on passing legislation that benifits the people of the United States (and many certainly seem to be), I wonder if too many of them are more interested in power over and control of the electorate! More fear! You really are a person living in fear. I guess you think we all plot against you and are out to get you. You know, that's a personality trait precariously close to paranoia. I suggest that you need to watch that you don't get carried away with that. I admire people of means who take stands to defend the rights of life for the less fortunate among us. They could live in a selfish world caring only about themselves, but they care about others and wish top improve our nation. I certainly don't admire the self-serving among us. We all have a tendency to be selfish, it is truly admirable that those who have so much, fight for others with so little. I believe selfishness might elevate individuals, but if is invariably at the expense of others--many times referred to as decadence. Certainly, not a quality compatitble with an enduring nation.

[Matt Christianson]

I totally disagree, but I think we're going to get an opportunity to see. While I shed enormous tears for medical device makers and insurance companies, I trust they and the American public will learn to survive in an environment of healthcare for everyone.
OK I guess I was mistaken that a liberal person would be opposed to higher taxes and higher costs for every party involved....businesses, employees, and consumers. I thought that the main intention of the legislation was not only insuring everyone but also bringing down costs of healthcare. That's not fear mongering that's an enonomics 101.
I think your concern would have been better timed if I had heard more conservatives wailing during the made-up reasons for the Iraqi war, the running of banks and insurance companies into the ground, and compulsive spending of President Bush. Now, when something is impending for the benefit of all, you have monetary concerns?
Again, like I said earlier, Bush did a woeful job at monetary policy. I've had monetary concerns for as long as I knew what monetray policy was. Which brings me to your next point....
It isn't Keynesian economics that caused our economic problems. It forecast the problem. It was "supply-side" ecopnomics, started by Ronald Reagan that caused the problem. I think you only have to go as far as watching Congressional testimony of Alan Greenspan, who admitted to a failure of his economic philosophy as the cause. And he was a "supply sider." It is Paul Volker, who is an seconomic advisor for Obama, and was an Fed Chairman during Reagan, who has pronounced the lack of oversight of banks as the prime reason for failure. You seem to correctly recognize we are in a problem, but misplace the blame.
I'm not saying that Keynesian theory is the main reason for the mess we're in. Blame can be spread all over the place. I am saying that the Keynes model is proven time after time to prolong a recession rather than expedite the recovery. I don't usually leave links so I hope you take the time to read this article for the star tribune yesterday...
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/65843747.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
Becuase being able to live is not dependence, it's a human right. I think you might change your tune if you are laid off and someone in your family becomes seriously ill, needing medical care. Then, when someone in your family is denied needed life-saving surgery or treatment, you might change your mind, but who knows maybe you won't care? I think everyone in our country who has a desire to live should have a crack at life, with all the technology and care available.
And NEVER imply that I would not care about my own families' well being. They are why when we were getting streched thin about a year ago I took a second job and was working 70 hours every week M-F. I don't work my rear end off for anyone else but my family, others I care for, or, perhaps charities I choose to support or volunteer for. THAT is my point. From Ayn Rand's 'Anthem," I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me. And to earn my love, my brothers must do more than to have been born. I do not grant my love without reason, nor to any chance passer-by who may wish to claim it. I honor men with my love. But honor is a thing to be earned

[Dan Conner]

I totally disagree, but I think we're going to get an opportunity to see. While I shed enormous tears for medical device makers and insurance companies, I trust they and the American public will learn to survive in an environment of healthcare for everyone.
OK I guess I was mistaken that a liberal person would be opposed to higher taxes and higher costs for every party involved....businesses, employees, and consumers. I think everyone who pays taxes is opposed to higher taxes. The question is whether we think it is more important to continue depriving people of life-saving medical care or pay more taxes. If those were the only two alternatives, I would spport increqasing taxes. Everyone should have a shot at life. However, the choices are no so easy. There is a way we can have a blend of several aspects. Health care can be given to all people, costs can be reduced, and taxes can be raised either on everyone, or a certain group of people. There is also an almost infineite variation in any of these. I thought that the main intention of the legislation was not only insuring everyone but also bringing down costs of healthcare. That's not fear mongering that's an enonomics 101. You're right, that is the intention. The fear comes in with the dramatic hyperbole about all the things people think they do to our freedom. That's unjustified fear.
I think your concern would have been better timed if I had heard more conservatives wailing during the made-up reasons for the Iraqi war, the running of banks and insurance companies into the ground, and compulsive spending of President Bush. Now, when something is impending for the benefit of all, you have monetary concerns?
Again, like I said earlier, Bush did a woeful job at monetary policy. I've had monetary concerns for as long as I knew what monetray policy was. Which brings me to your next point....Were you railing against these policies then? If not, why not?
It isn't Keynesian economics that caused our economic problems. It forecast the problem. It was "supply-side" economics, started by Ronald Reagan, that caused the problem. I think you only have to go as far as watching the Congressional testimony of Alan Greenspan, who admitted to a failure of his economic philosophy as the cause. And he was a "supply sider." It is Paul Volker, who is an economic advisor for Obama, and was an Fed Chairman during Reagan, who has pronounced the lack of oversight of banks as the prime reason for failure. He also discredited "supply side economics. You seem to correctly recognize we are in a problem, but misplace the blame.
I'm not saying that Keynesian theory is the main reason for the mess we're in But that is what you said.. Blame can be spread all over the place. I am saying that the Keynes model is proven time after time to prolong a recession rather than expedite the recovery.I totally disagree. Keynesian economics is basically the economics of supply and demand. And it will be demand the determines when and how fast we exit this recession. No increased demand, no exit. It is supply side economics that got us into the fix. It believs the key to prosperity is manipulating interest rates, allowing unfettered capitalism, and the generated prosperity will evendtually "trickle down" to the rest of us. That's why it was called "trickle-down" economics. I don't usually leave links so I hope you take the time to read this article for the star tribune yesterday...
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/65843747.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
Becuase being able to live is not dependence, it's a human right. I think you might change your tune if you are laid off and someone in your family becomes seriously ill, needing medical care. Then, when someone in your family is denied needed life-saving surgery or treatment, you might change your mind, but who knows maybe you won't care? I think everyone in our country who has a desire to live should have a crack at life, with all the technology and care available.
And NEVER imply that I would not care about my own families' well being. They are why when we were getting streched thin about a year ago I took a second job and was working 70 hours every week M-F. I don't work my rear end off for anyone else but my family, others I care for, or, perhaps charities I choose to support or volunteer for. THAT is my point. From Ayn Rand's 'Anthem," I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me. And to earn my love, my brothers must do more than to have been born. I do not grant my love without reason, nor to any chance passer-by who may wish to claim it. I honor men with my love. But honor is a thing to be earnedThere are many many people working multiple jobs who can't afford healthcare. I think if you had been watching the news either on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, you would have been able to watch anecdotal stories of many people who could not afford healthcare. Then, there were also stories of people who were insured, but the insurance company dropped them once they were confronted with major medical bills, or denied because of trumped up "pre-existing" condition reasons, or denied because they made an error years prior on their application. There was just an interview on CNN last night with a lady, who worked for a health insurnace company, who was drugged and raped, but the insurnace company denied payment of the HIV treatments recommended by the doctor because the treatments were too expensive. So they called the rape a "pre-existing condition". The doctor said the HIV was important because it was unknown whether the rapist might have transmitted AIDES. I don't think this the way you would have liked your daughter treated? TGhiks lady had insurance. Then there are stories of people working incredible hours, like 80 hours a week and not being able to afford health insurnace. How about the single parent who also has children to care for at home. She can't realisticially work 80 hours a week. Then, society would condemn her for neglecting her children. It's a whale of a lot easier for a father to work many hours, when they have a spouse to share duties with. There are thousands, if not millions, of other horror stories.It's as I have written before, we need to better consider the plight of others that are in a far worse shape. Just think how lucky you are, you have the time, personal computer, and internet access to write to the paper and the Forum. Many many others do not.

[Matt Christianson]

ANd I suppose that the anecdotal stories will cease to occur once Obama's pious hand touches the healthcare bill when signing it into law. I'm sure the blind will see and the lepers will be healed while a chorus of angels will sing rejoices. I know that no one has ever fallen through the cracks while using Medicaid, Medicare, or the VA system. Sorry to be facetious but I'm just trying to be realistic.

[Dan Conner]

ANd I suppose that the anecdotal stories will cease to occur once Obama's pious hand touches the healthcare bill when signing it into law. I'm sure the blind will see and the lepers will be healed while a chorus of angels will sing rejoices. I know that no one has ever fallen through the cracks while using Medicaid, Medicare, or the VA system. Sorry to be facetious but I'm just trying to be realistic.I hear exactly what you are saying. Yes, there will still be people jilted in the new system. However, the numbers will be greatly reduced. The people cheated out of their due coverage will not happen out of malice or profit, but because people "fell through the cracks", as you said. You can define that as incompetence or normal "screw-ups", but those "screw-ups" are subject to review. The Federal program will offer levels of appeals that aren't afforded by private insurance companies. I think the most important factor to keep in mind is that a Federal healthcare plan is intended to help people...all people. The private insurance plan is intended to make a profit. I think it is important to realize that nothing here, on the face of the earth, is perfect, but the intent to be that is very important. The intent of health insurance is to be as profitable and as beneficial to company executives as possible. That is also very important. Serving customers is lost there.

[Matt Christianson]

It's as I have written before, we need to better consider the plight of others that are in a far worse shape. Just think how lucky you are, you have the time, personal computer, and internet access to write to the paper and the Forum. Many many others do not.

I have by own plight to worry about.

[Dan Conner]

I have by own plight to worry about.I think we all worry about ourselves. That's human. However, we need to start worrying about others, as well. You know, those forgotten ones have a tendency to come back to bite us in the future (e.g., Al Qaeda, N. Korea, Mexico, etc.). The French even had a very nasty revolution.

We don't live in a country of 300,000,000 islands. Have you ever been in the military? Have you ever volunteered for community service? I think it is a good idea. It gets us to think outside ourselves and more for each other (community). If we all do that, then I think we will each have less to worry about. I sure think it will look far better that history writes that the US was a selfless country, not a selfish one. I also think we will be more appreciated among the league of nations.

[Bob Jentges]

Matt, it has been almost three day's and you have not posted a reply to post #61. Believe me I find no fault with that! I only mention it because I would not make this post if I thought I was interloping into a discussion between you and the person that made post #61.

When Jonathon started this thread it was about "Single Payer", which is pretty much out of the picture (I think) for now, but the public option seems to still be alive. I read an October 31 AP article: "After all the fuss, public health plan covers few". The article goes on to say estimates are that of Americans younger than 65, only about 2% would sign-up for the so-called "consumer option" F/K/A "public option".

Some might say: See, it's just an option. To that (without fear but with concern--words have meanings) I say the heart of the plan is that when people lose their private health insurance for one reason or another they will be forced into the "consumer option", which will eventually evolve into single payer. In fact I heard part of the Pelosi proposal read yesterday that said a short time after passage and if signed into law, the bill prevents individuals from purchasing private health insurance. I have no source to cite for that, but If one had nothing else to do (including sleep) for a week or so they could read the almost 2000 page monstrosity and find out for themselves.

I recall the Democrats (including President Obama) repeatedly saying the Republicans have no plan but saying "no" to the Democrat's proposal. I have also heard Republicans saying they have plans but since the Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the U.S. House they are never given a hearing. I took a little time to research which position was accurate. I found House Republicans have submitted about 30 "plans" over the past year. If one is interested you could look them up for details under H.R. 77; 109; 198; 270;
321; 464; 502; 544; 817; 1068; 1118; 1441; 1458; 1468; 1658; 1891; 2520;
2607; 2692; 2784; 2785; 2786; 2787; 3141; 3217; 3218; 3356; 3372; 3400;
3438; 3454; 3478.

One can form their own opinion about why none of the above recieved much, if any, coverage in the mainstream media. It will be interesting to follow how many, if any, Republican Ammendments will be given consideration when the Pelosi proposal goes to the House floor in the next few weeks.

As far as the U.S. Senate is concerned I know their were at least two Republican proposals and one bi-partisan proposal filed, but they were not given consideration by the Democrat controlled committee's. Additionally, almost all Republican Ammendments were voted down in committee's on a party line basis.

[Matt Christianson]

Why would they want to consider any good ideas? Or ,for that, matter, any ideas based on sound free market practicalities? They have a seed they wish to plant and a harvest they wish to sow. If not, now, then futher down the road. Unfortunately for us all, the fruit has the foul taste of Socialism.

[Dan Conner]

Matt, it has been almost three day's and you have not posted a reply to post #61. Believe me I find no fault with that! I only mention it because I would not make this post if I thought I was interloping into a discussion between you and the person that made post #61.

When Jonathon started this thread it was about "Single Payer", which is pretty much out of the picture (I think) for now, but the public option seems to still be alive. I read an October 31 AP article: "After all the fuss, public health plan covers few". The article goes on to say estimates are that of Americans younger than 65, only about 2% would sign-up for the so-called "consumer option" F/K/A "public option".

Some might say: See, it's just an option. To that (without fear but with concern--words have meanings) I say the heart of the plan is that when people lose their private health insurance for one reason or another they will be forced into the "consumer option", which will eventually evolve into single payer. In fact I heard part of the Pelosi proposal read yesterday that said a short time after passage and if signed into law, the bill prevents individuals from purchasing private health insurance. I have no source to cite for that, but If one had nothing else to do (including sleep) for a week or so they could read the almost 2000 page monstrosity and find out for themselves.

I recall the Democrats (including President Obama) repeatedly saying the Republicans have no plan but saying "no" to the Democrat's proposal. I have also heard Republicans saying they have plans but since the Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the U.S. House they are never given a hearing. I took a little time to research which position was accurate. I found House Republicans have submitted about 30 "plans" over the past year. If one is interested you could look them up for details under H.R. 77; 109; 198; 270;
321; 464; 502; 544; 817; 1068; 1118; 1441; 1458; 1468; 1658; 1891; 2520;
2607; 2692; 2784; 2785; 2786; 2787; 3141; 3217; 3218; 3356; 3372; 3400;
3438; 3454; 3478.

One can form their own opinion about why none of the above recieved much, if any, coverage in the mainstream media. It will be interesting to follow how many, if any, Republican Ammendments will be given consideration when the Pelosi proposal goes to the House floor in the next few weeks.

As far as the U.S. Senate is concerned I know their were at least two Republican proposals and one bi-partisan proposal filed, but they were not given consideration by the Democrat controlled committee's. Additionally, almost all Republican Ammendments were voted down in committee's on a party line basis.Here's more conservative misinformation. I don't know if that is from ignorance or a willful intent to mislead people, but I looked at each and every House Resolution enumerated by Bob Jentges.

Two House Resolutions (817 & 1068) had nothing to do with a health care plan and was about prohibiting funds for transferring prisoners from Guantanamo to Georgia and amending the Internal Revenue Code to tax financial transactions to recoup TARP funds. One had nothing to do with the general public and applied only to military use of TRICARE. All the rest of the House Resolutions were for changes in tiny tiny fragments of the health care system and did not represent any kind of healthcare plan, except HR 2520, authored by Paul Ryan. That House Resolution was for comprehensive solutions to the healthcare system. However, there were only 10 cosponsors for that bill. Considering there are about 176 Republicans in the House of Representatives, that hardly represents even a consensual Republican plan that Republicans support. 10 is a long way from the 176 in the House Republican party. So, I go back to my statement that the Republicans have been, and still are the party of "no." To think Republicans came up with only one plan, that wasn't even supported in the party, is hardly a Republican plan. Also, you are wrong about Republicans saying other plans are submitted. In fact, Rep Boehner, in a TV interview only a few days ago could not enumerate any Republican plan. In his stammering reply, he said he would have to research the issue and get back to the press later. Real good plan. It must be a stealth plan, even hiding from the House leadership.

The House proposed comprehensive healthcare plan prevents people from signing up for the government option, unless they fall into a very small and particularized group. Not the opposite. That's even born out by your second paragraph above stating only 2% of the people would be able to sign up for the government option. Many speculate, and I feel, this was a capitulation to health insurance companies. I have not read, nor do I agree there is anything in the legislation preventing anyone from signing up for private insurance. The restrictions are quite the opposite.

You lament the reading of a 2000-page bill. I find if naive that you would think that such a comprehensive change in a sector (economy) of the economy that consumes over 17% of our GDP could be written in a few pages. However, if Republicans stopped obstructing and demanding changes and additions to the bill, it probably could be short.

I think it is a disingenuous deflection of fault to the "mainstream" media to wonder why they are not reporting or covering Republican plans for healthcare. I think any reasonable mind might conclude that it is because there is no such plan. Recommending tiny tiny tweaks to current healthcare practices and IRS codes hardly represents a "Plan", unless there is NO plan. And that's exactly what it is...no Republican plan! I would agree there is Republican game playing and manipulation, but no plan, except keep the failing status-quo.

I am surprised about your concern for Republican amendments being considered. Are you not aware of the parlimentary process and procedures? If you are, they will get the consideration those procedures allow. Just like that allowed by the Republicans when they controlled the House and Senate. Amendments are voted on too. It's amazing to hear of your concerns for minority rights when the Republican rammed through legislation any way they could, even if the Democrats had to be "gamed." Now, the shoe is on the other foot and you become egalitarian.

I have no idea about Republican proposals in the Senate, and I, like most everyone in an out of Government, am not aware of them either. That's because there isn't any. I'm sure for the same reasons that exists in the house... no proposals, or one proposal, not even supported by the Republican party.

I realize that cosponsors are not required, but they are often used to signify the extent and breadth of support. There is not enough time in the House and Senate to be bothered deliberating and debating bills not suppoorted by anyone.

[Dan Conner]

Why would they want to consider any good ideas? Or ,for that, matter, any ideas based on sound free market practicalities? They have a seed they wish to plant and a harvest they wish to sow. If not, now, then futher down the road. Unfortunately for us all, the fruit has the foul taste of Socialism.I think you need to look closer at your "seeds" and compare them closely to the roots of Fascism. I don't think that is a direction where our country needs to go Italy and Germany tried that before, without many positive results.

[Matt Christianson]

I think you need to look closer at your "seeds" and compare them closely to the roots of Fascism. I don't think that is a direction where our country needs to go Italy and Germany tried that before, without many positive results.

Socialism and Facism are rooted from the same seed.

[Matt Christianson]

Matt, it has been almost three day's and you have not posted a reply to post #61. Believe me I find no fault with that! I only mention it because I would not make this post if I thought I was interloping into a discussion between you and the person that made post #61.

When Jonathon started this thread it was about "Single Payer", which is pretty much out of the picture (I think) for now, but the public option seems to still be alive. I read an October 31 AP article: "After all the fuss, public health plan covers few". The article goes on to say estimates are that of Americans younger than 65, only about 2% would sign-up for the so-called "consumer option" F/K/A "public option".

Some might say: See, it's just an option. To that (without fear but with concern--words have meanings) I say the heart of the plan is that when people lose their private health insurance for one reason or another they will be forced into the "consumer option", which will eventually evolve into single payer. In fact I heard part of the Pelosi proposal read yesterday that said a short time after passage and if signed into law, the bill prevents individuals from purchasing private health insurance. I have no source to cite for that, but If one had nothing else to do (including sleep) for a week or so they could read the almost 2000 page monstrosity and find out for themselves.

I recall the Democrats (including President Obama) repeatedly saying the Republicans have no plan but saying "no" to the Democrat's proposal. I have also heard Republicans saying they have plans but since the Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the U.S. House they are never given a hearing. I took a little time to research which position was accurate. I found House Republicans have submitted about 30 "plans" over the past year. If one is interested you could look them up for details under H.R. 77; 109; 198; 270;
321; 464; 502; 544; 817; 1068; 1118; 1441; 1458; 1468; 1658; 1891; 2520;
2607; 2692; 2784; 2785; 2786; 2787; 3141; 3217; 3218; 3356; 3372; 3400;
3438; 3454; 3478.

One can form their own opinion about why none of the above recieved much, if any, coverage in the mainstream media. It will be interesting to follow how many, if any, Republican Ammendments will be given consideration when the Pelosi proposal goes to the House floor in the next few weeks.

As far as the U.S. Senate is concerned I know their were at least two Republican proposals and one bi-partisan proposal filed, but they were not given consideration by the Democrat controlled committee's. Additionally, almost all Republican Ammendments were voted down in committee's on a party line basis.

I too read each and every one of the H of R bills mentioned by Bob, even the ones I'm sure he mistakenly numbered, and found it revealing that these plans are ignored by the media and tossed aside without adequately debating the merits and demerits of the plans. True, most of these plans make what appears to be small adjustments to IRS tax code and insurance regulations but these plans could be the beginning of real change that would positvely affect everyone involved with or without insurance.

[Bob Jentges]

I too read each and every one of the H of R bills mentioned by Bob, even the ones I'm sure he mistakenly numbered, and found it revealing that these plans are ignored by the media and tossed aside without adequately debating the merits and demerits of the plans. True, most of these plans make what appears to be small adjustments to IRS tax code and insurance regulations but these plans could be the beginning of real change that would positvely affect everyone involved with or without insurance.

Matt, just a few additional points:

1) House Democrat Leader Stenny Hoyer said recently there probably would be no Republican Ammendments allowed during the House floor debate, but they would allow a vote on a Rebublican substitute. With the overwhelming Democrat majority that has two chances of passing---slim & none!

2) the Ryan/Nunes proposal is said to be the main Republican proposal in the House. But I do not know if that is what will be offered as the Republican "substitute".

3) Regarding the length of the Pelosi House proposal (about 2000 pages) I think it is relevant that the entire U.S. Constitution (the bedrock or our entire government) is less than 20 pages.

4) The Wall Street Journal had an article today about the Pelosi proposal entitled: "The Worst Bill Ever". It opines that we simply can not afford it. I would recommend everyone read the article and judge for themselves. The link, which may expire soon is:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html

5) In the Senate the Coburn/Burr proposal is probably the best known Republican proposal, and the bi-partisan proposal in the Senate is Wyden/Bennett.

I think you are spot on when you suggest the way to handle something as large as 17% of GDP is by "small adjustments".

[Matt Christianson]

This is an interesting quote from the story...
"The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth" Sounds good, right? But where is the money going to come from!!???!!

Now that was an enlightening article. I rarely print articles but this one is an exception. I'll have to read it several more times to absorb the enormity of it. I hope everyone takes the time to read this one.

[Dan Conner]

Socialism and Facism are rooted from the same seed.I think you better look m,ore closely. Fascism and Socialism aren't even close. I suggest you look it up. Hopefully, you will do a better job than Bob did researching Republican health care plans.

[Dan Conner]

I too read each and every one of the H of R bills mentioned by Bob, even the ones I'm sure he mistakenly numbered, and found it revealing that these plans Matt - they ain't healthcare plans. I think you need to consult with a dictionary about what the meaning of "plan" is. I think you are using a word without knowing the meaning of it.are ignored by the media Appropriately so. No plan there. and tossed aside without adequately debating the merits and demerits of the plansanother incorrectly use of the word "plan".. True, most of these plans??? make what appears to be small adjustments to IRS tax code and insurance regulations but these plans could be the beginning of real change that would positvely affect everyone involved with or without insurance.I guess I now know more about what problems Republicans have in healthcare, wars, economy, etc. They consider a bill requiring that employer purchased healthcare benefits be used in the determination of minimum wage (HR77), as a way to lower the minimum wage, a "plan." Apparently, that was such a good Republican plan it gained absolutely NO co-sponsors. Offering continuity of TRICARE for military (HR270) as a comprehensive plan? Expanding SCHIP through premium assistance as a comprehensive plan? Allowing unused flexible health spending to carryover (HR544) as a comprehensive plan? Matt, I realize you will agree with anything Republicans will do for healthcare as a "plan", even when House of Representatives Republican leadership don't know it's a "plan." They have just continued the legislative bandaids, used for years in the past, for a system that has failed dramtically over the years. In other words, it is continuing the failure. Now I know why Republicans so vehemently supported President Bush. They either like failure to continue, or they don't know what success is.

Republicans have accused Obama of failing in the economy when it posted 3.5% growth in GDP. This is another indicator that they don't know what successes are and failure is. I'm afraid Republicans have been wrong on just about everything done in the last 10 years. They dread succeess and embrace failure. They pick party leaders like Sarah Palina and Rush Limbaugh. Who knows, maybe Sarah can also see Rush Limbaugh from her porch? Heaven knows her conservative values have been a raving success in her family. A daughter having premarital sex, a baby out of wedlock, senselessly demeaning a potential husband for her daughter Bristol, carrying on a childish vendetta with him in the media, quitting in the middle of her first term as governor, in one of the lowest population states, favorability ratings in the nation and state that have plummeted like a rock, now, not even receiving reluctant endorsements from her former running mate, McCain, being accused in a bi-partisan investigation of ethics violations, as governor of Alaska, etc., etc. Yeah, she's really someone to look up to. Lots of logic behind that support? I think that is why the party is starting to fragment. Soon, Republicans will only be the super-conservatives and they will have driven the moderates out of the party. Then, they can linger with 20% of the constituency. Keep it up.

Please become more knowledgeable about the facts. Itty bitty legislative proposals, called House Resolutions, to bandaid existing healthcare procedures, does not a comprehensive healthcare reform plan make. And then, if you are going to claim it is a Republican "plan", then please have some Republicans support the plan. Right now it's just Republican BS.

Also Matt, I give the media credit for having the intelligence to recognize that an itty-bitty legislative adjustment is not a plan. I would have thought you would recognize that too. If you think these are plans, then where does it say so, and frankly what is the plan? HR77 is called a resolution, not a plan, and there was nothing embodied in any of the proposals, bar one, that was a plan. Then, don't you think it would be smart that the guy with the plan persuade other Republicans to support it? How can it be a Republican plan without Republican support, or even Republican knowledge of the plan?" Boehner said the Republicans are working on a "plan" that will be released shortly, so I guess this House Republican leader didn't know about the plethora of Republican "plans" out there. No one else does iether, except for an exceedingly small group of conservatives in Mankato.

Just more Republican "smoke and mirrors" with appearance over substance, but good try. First, find out about the meaning of "Plan."

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

I think you better look m,ore closely. Fascism and Socialism aren't even close. I suggest you look it up. Hopefully, you will do a better job than Bob did researching Republican health care plans.

At its root, fascism and socialism are quite close, in that both call for a high level of government control over the means of production. With fascism, the means of production are privately owned but publicly controlled. With socialism, the means of production are publicly owned and controlled.

[Dan Conner]

At its root, fascism and socialism are quite close, in that both call for a high level of government control over the means of production. With fascism, the means of production are privately owned but publicly controlled. With socialism, the means of production are publicly owned and controlled.I'm getting tired of referring you, Matt, and Bob to the dictionary, but you do need to better know the definition of the words when you use them. You are wrong! Again, using the second edition of the American Heritage Dictionary, fascism is defined as; " 1. A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government, usually headed by a DICTATOR, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." Socialism is defined as, "AQ social system in which the producers possess both the political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."

In other words, fascism represents the power of one over many, and socialism represents the power of many over all. Big difference. Now, I understand that fear and propaganda have caused many to believe both are evil, but I think people have to objectively understand what they are before your minds close.

[Matt Christianson]

I'm getting tired of referring you, Matt, and Bob to the dictionary, but you do need to better know the definition of the words when you use them. You are wrong! Again, using the second edition of the American Heritage Dictionary, fascism is defined as; " 1. A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government, usually headed by a DICTATOR, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." Socialism is defined as, "AQ social system in which the producers possess both the political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."

In other words, fascism represents the power of one over many, and socialism represents the power of many over all. Big difference. Now, I understand that fear and propaganda have caused many to believe both are evil, but I think people have to objectively understand what they are before your minds close.


The dictionary is only the beginning of the story when you are referring to complex political, social, and econmic systems like facism, socialism, and capialism. I hope you would be a little more well read that the American Heritage Dictionary. I don't suppose you think Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Chavez were/are dictators??

The assertion that Socialism and Facism are opposites is not accurate. This is mainly a theory drummed up by early Communists in Russia, like Stalin, to promote hatred of Germany in the lead up to the start of WWII. They accused the Germans as being part of the “bourgeois” class in order to legitimize the war on Germany after the Nazis violatated the terms of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact when they invaded the Soviet controlled side of Poland. It was an action to promote nationalism in a distraught populace. AMerican progressives, closly tied to the facists in the 1920's and 30's, took this assumption and ran with it all the way to present day.

Selected points in the Nazi Party platform ca. 1920. Sourced from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/1708-ps.asp

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Sounds a little like Socialism to me…

Facist Nazi ideologist George Strasser, in the 1920’s said “We are Socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with it’s exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral ways of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!”

It certainly sound like he equates facism to socialism. I guess this wasn't in the dictionary.

[Matt Christianson]

I guess I now know more about what problems Republicans have in healthcare, wars, economy, etc. They consider a bill requiring that employer purchased healthcare benefits be used in the determination of minimum wage (HR77), as a way to lower the minimum wage, a "plan." Apparently, that was such a good Republican plan it gained absolutely NO co-sponsors. Offering continuity of TRICARE for military (HR270) as a comprehensive plan? Expanding SCHIP through premium assistance as a comprehensive plan? Allowing unused flexible health spending to carryover (HR544) as a comprehensive plan? Matt, I realize you will agree with anything Republicans will do for healthcare as a "plan", even when House of Representatives Republican leadership don't know it's a "plan." They have just continued the legislative bandaids, used for years in the past, for a system that has failed dramtically over the years. In other words, it is continuing the failure. Now I know why Republicans so vehemently supported President Bush. They either like failure to continue, or they don't know what success is.

Republicans have accused Obama of failing in the economy when it posted 3.5% growth in GDP. This is another indicator that they don't know what successes are and failure is. I'm afraid Republicans have been wrong on just about everything done in the last 10 years. They dread succeess and embrace failure. They pick party leaders like Sarah Palina and Rush Limbaugh. Who knows, maybe Sarah can also see Rush Limbaugh from her porch? Heaven knows her conservative values have been a raving success in her family. A daughter having premarital sex, a baby out of wedlock, senselessly demeaning a potential husband for her daughter Bristol, carrying on a childish vendetta with him in the media, quitting in the middle of her first term as governor, in one of the lowest population states, favorability ratings in the nation and state that have plummeted like a rock, now, not even receiving reluctant endorsements from her former running mate, McCain, being accused in a bi-partisan investigation of ethics violations, as governor of Alaska, etc., etc. Yeah, she's really someone to look up to. Lots of logic behind that support? I think that is why the party is starting to fragment. Soon, Republicans will only be the super-conservatives and they will have driven the moderates out of the party. Then, they can linger with 20% of the constituency. Keep it up.

Please become more knowledgeable about the facts. Itty bitty legislative proposals, called House Resolutions, to bandaid existing healthcare procedures, does not a comprehensive healthcare reform plan make. And then, if you are going to claim it is a Republican "plan", then please have some Republicans support the plan. Right now it's just Republican BS.

Also Matt, I give the media credit for having the intelligence to recognize that an itty-bitty legislative adjustment is not a plan. I would have thought you would recognize that too. If you think these are plans, then where does it say so, and frankly what is the plan? HR77 is called a resolution, not a plan, and there was nothing embodied in any of the proposals, bar one, that was a plan. Then, don't you think it would be smart that the guy with the plan persuade other Republicans to support it? How can it be a Republican plan without Republican support, or even Republican knowledge of the plan?" Boehner said the Republicans are working on a "plan" that will be released shortly, so I guess this House Republican leader didn't know about the plethora of Republican "plans" out there. No one else does iether, except for an exceedingly small group of conservatives in Mankato.

Just more Republican "smoke and mirrors" with appearance over substance, but good try. First, find out about the meaning of "Plan."

I'll try to refine my vernacular(check the dictionary) to suit you Dan. It must take you a while to get throught all of these posts if you continually check your dictionary. My point is... I guess I'll quote myself..."most of these plans(sorry, Dan...proposals, bills, angle, bid, big idea, design, idea, layout, motion, offer, outline, overture, pass, picture, pitch, plan, proffer, program, project, proposition, recommendation, scenario, setup, tender, terms) make what appears to be small adjustments to IRS tax code and insurance regulations but these plans(strike that word from the record) could be the beginning of real change that would positvely affect everyone involved with or without insurance." ...not complete overhaul of the system causing ruination of the economy and a new unsustainable entitlement program that we CANNOT afford! We have no money.
I don't know what Sarah Palin or her children have to do with your response. Maybe start a new thread called "innappropriate rants" and put your ravings there.

[Dan Conner]

I'll try to refine my vernacular(check the dictionary) to suit you Dan. It must take you a while to get throught all of these posts if you continually check your dictionary. My point is... I guess I'll quote myself..."most of these plans(sorry, Dan...proposals, bills, angle, bid, big idea, design, idea, layout, motion, offer, outline, overture, pass, picture, pitch, plan, proffer, program, project, proposition, recommendation, scenario, setup, tender, terms) make what appears to be small adjustments to IRS tax code and insurance regulations but these plans(strike that word from the record) could be the beginning of real change that would positvely affect everyone involved with or without insurance." ...not complete overhaul of the system causing ruination of the economy and a new unsustainable entitlement program that we CANNOT afford! We have no money.
I don't know what Sarah Palin or her children have to do with your response. Maybe start a new thread called "innappropriate rants" and put your ravings there.Again, you are not using words correctly. You are referring to House Resolutions not plans. While there was one "plan" for comprehensive healthcare reform, it garnered little Republican support. Rep. Boehner (a Republican) said the Republican party is working on a healthcare plan (proposal), but he has acknowledged there is none as yet. That's your own party talking, not me. It is ridiculous to call some legislative itty bitty procedural change, a plan. If so, heaven help us, if that is the limit of Republican planning. You are still confusing legislation as a "plan." You need to go back to the dictionary. You use inaccurate and inappropriate words to describe something.

There goes your fear thing again. Calling major change in our broken healthcare system "ruination?" That's illustrates an irrational fear on your part. All experiences around the world would point to a vast improvement of our economy and society. I think you have to lower your fear here.

Do you remembver some time back, when you were considering leaving our country, except that you couldn't afford to? That's a manifestation of fear...bigtime. I think you have to be more accepting oif change...any change. Try it, it might be good for you. If not, that too can be changed.

I'm surprised you so quickly gave up your racist comparisons of Republicans vs. Democrates. I guess you ran out of Democrats, huh? Can't even address Rush's biggotry? The NFL owners did.

What astouds me is the self-righteousness among Republicans, who have lead our country in a disastrous direction these last many years, and now claim to have answers to our healthcare and other economic problems. Why should one listen to your "rants", as you would call them, when virtually everything implemented on your behalf, failed. Total abject failure! Now, you claim to have the only answers? It would seem that you would want to sit back and watch another approach that might work, because yours sure didn't. You had your way and totally screweed things up. Now, it's someone else's turn. Hopefully, with better ideas than the old status-quo.

[Matt Christianson]

Do you remembver some time back, when you were considering leaving our country, except that you couldn't afford to? That's a manifestation of fear...bigtime. I think you have to be more accepting oif change...any change. Try it, it might be good for you. If not, that too can be changed.

I'm not going to respond to the other garbage but I just wanted clarification on the above quote. I haven't slightest idea to what you are referring.

[Dan Conner]

The dictionary is only the beginning of the story when you are referring to complex political, social, and econmic systems like facism, socialism, and capialism. I hope you would be a little more well read that the American Heritage Dictionary. I don't suppose you think Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Chavez were/are dictators??

The assertion that Socialism and Facism are opposites is not accurate. This is mainly a theory drummed up by early Communists in Russia, like Stalin, to promote hatred of Germany in the lead up to the start of WWII. They accused the Germans as being part of the “bourgeois” class in order to legitimize the war on Germany after the Nazis violatated the terms of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact when they invaded the Soviet controlled side of Poland. It was an action to promote nationalism in a distraught populace. AMerican progressives, closly tied to the facists in the 1920's and 30's, took this assumption and ran with it all the way to present day.

Selected points in the Nazi Party platform ca. 1920. Sourced from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/1708-ps.asp

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Sounds a little like Socialism to me…

Facist Nazi ideologist George Strasser, in the 1920’s said “We are Socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with it’s exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral ways of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!”

It certainly sound like he equates facism to socialism. I guess this wasn't in the dictionary.Matt, here you go again. First, Stalin was the leader of a communist country. And, an imperfect communist nation, at that. Just as we are an imperfect democracy. In any event, Russia under Stalin was communist. Lenin, Castro, and Chavez were also leaders of communist nations, not socialist. If one fears, then it is important that, at least, the proper object be identified to fear. While almost every nation probably has some characteristics of all types of government, they are defined by a prevalent characteristic. for the USSR and Cuba that's communism. I really don't know about Venezuela. Since they pretty much have a head-of-state that is pretty much a dictator and he is perpetuated by a strong incitement to nationalism, I would say it is most likely fascist. However, political scientists probably could make a better determination than me.

Socialism and Fascism are close to as opposite as you can get, but I would certainly consider whatever objective references you have that show they are close. I'm sorry, but I can't take your word for it, or the disconnected word from an ancient biased speech, because you are wrong way too much. You might as well also state that socialism and fascist were "drummed up" by the dictionary, as well. I guess you consider Hitler close to socialism? If so, I've got some swamp land for you. Also, "bourgeois means: "Historically, they were a social class of people, characterized by their ownership of capital and the related culture. They were a part of the middle or merchant classes of European feudalism, where their power came from employment, education, and wealth, as distinguished from those whose power came from being born into an aristocratic family of land owners. The bourgeoisie emerged from late feudal and early modern towns, through the control of long distance trade and petty manufacture.

In contemporary capitalist societies, the term bourgeois is often used as a metaphor for the rich or influential or their lifestyle and values.

Frankly, I don't know what warped references for history you are reading, but I suggest you read the correct references for history. As far as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is concerned, it was mainly an non-aggression pact between the two countries. However, there was a mutual agreement for "spheres of influence" in Northern Europe. Here is an explanation from Wikipedia: "It was a Non-Aggression Pact between the two countries and pledged neutrality by either party if the other were attacked by a third party. Each signatory promised not to join any grouping of powers that was "directly or indirectly aimed at the other party." It remained in effect until 22 June 1941 when Germany implemented Operation Barbarossa, invading the Soviet Union.

I really don't know what the rest of your story is. Russia went to war with Germany because Germany invaded them. The facist nation (Germany) was the aggressor here. They had no choice but to go to war, or they would be a new conquest for Germany. Germany set about the invasion in an effort to accommplish the conquest before winter, but it took longer than planned and winter blunted the chance. Eventually, Germany retreated, losing hundreds of thousand of soldiers. However, Russia lost MILLIONS during the German invasion. There have been estimates of up to 20 million people killed during the German invasion. I suggest you become more informed about history. Germany was in full operation of its blitzkreig before Russia could muster sufficient resistance. In fact, Russia again instituted its "scorched earth" policy that defeated an early invasion by Napoleon. However, Russia was fighting for their existence not as part of some world conquest.

In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol dividing Northern and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence, anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries. Thereafter, Germany and the Soviet Union invaded their respective sides of Poland, dividing the country between them. Part of eastern Finland was annexed by the Soviet Union after an attempted invasion. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and eastern and northern Romania."

This is a long way away from the fact that communist and Nazi's are alike. I think you have been confused by a lot of manipulative literature/talk by people who know little. Also, entering into non-aggression pacts was a common practice used by Germany. I think you need to do a lot more research on issues, words and their meanings. Accepting a speech from an extremely biased and ancient (1920?) source is irrelevant. Afterall, President Bush said there was Al-Qaeda and WMD in Iraq. That speech wasn't very believable either.

[Matt Christianson]

Matt, here you go again. First, Stalin was the leader of a communist country. And that was an imperfect communist nation. Just as we are an imperfect democracy. However, Russia had many qualities of a fascist nation. In any event, Russia under Stalin was communist. Lenin, Castro, and Chavez were also leaders of communist nations, not socialist. If one fears, then it is important that, at least, the proper object be identified to fear.

Socialism and Fascism are close to as opposite as you can get, but I would certainly consider whatever objective references you have that show they are close. I'm sorry, but I can't take your word for it because you are wrong too much. You might as well also state that "drummed up" by the dictionary, as well. I guess you consider Hitler close to socialism? If so, i've got some swampland for you. Also, "bourgeois" is a term coined in communism, not socialism. I guess II should again refer you to a dictionary to look up the meaning of communism. You have them all mixed up.

I really don't know what the rest of your story is. Russia went to war with Germany because Geermany invaded them. They had no choice but to go to war, or they would be a new conquest for Germany. Germany set about the invasion in an effort to accommplish the conquest before winter, but it took longer than planned and winter blunted the chance. Eventually, Germany retreated, losing hundreds of thousand of soldiers. However, Russia lost MILLIONS during the German invasion. There have been estimates of up to 20 million people killed during the German invasion. I suggest you become more informed about history. Russia had no aspirations of invading anyone, at that time. They were fighting for their existence.

Frankly, I don't know what warped references for history you are reading, but I suggest you read more accepted references. As far as the Molotov_Ribbentrop Pact is concerned, it was mainly an non-aggression pact between the two countries. However, there was a mutual agreement for "spheres of influence" in Northern Europe. Here is an explanation from Wikipedia: "It was a Non-Aggression Pact between the two countries and pledged neutrality by either party if the other were attacked by a third party. Each signatory promised not to join any grouping of powers that was "directly or indirectly aimed at the other party." It remained in effect until 22 June 1941 when Germany implemented Operation Barbarossa, invading the Soviet Union.

In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol dividing Northern and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence, anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries. Thereafter, Germany and the Soviet Union invaded their respective sides of Poland, dividing the country between them. Part of eastern Finland was annexed by the Soviet Union after an attempted invasion. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and eastern and northern Romania."

This is a long way away from the fact that communist and Nazi's are alike. I think you have been confused by a lot of manipulative literature/talk by people who know little.

"

So Socialism and Communism are not related in your mind. If I were you I'd check your sources. Expand your base of knowledge and reference beyond Wikipedia and the dictionary. It's true that Germany broke the terms of the pact but Russia was stirring up hatred of Germany in the minds of its people for years prior to that. Open a book.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Dan, this short video may help to explain where we're coming from when we say that socialism and fascism are fairly close together:

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment

[Dan Conner]

So Socialism and Communism are not related in your mind. If I were you I'd check your sources. Expand your base of knowledge and reference beyond Wikipedia and the dictionary. It's true that Germany broke the terms of the pact but Russia was stirring up hatred of Germany in the minds of its people for years prior to that. Open a book.Sure, I think they are related, but in case you forget, you said fascism and socialism are related. That's about as wrong as you can get. Sometimes I question your ability to correctly interpret what I write, and even what you write. You said fascism and socialism are very much alike. Now, you've switched to socialism and communism are alike? Make up your mind. You are now sending confused messages like Bob.

Your story about the relationship between Geremany and Russia is total BS. Germany never invaded Russia because Russia said Germans were bourgoeis. That is silly. Germany invaded Russia because Germany wanted to conquer the world. It only seemed fitting that, if you are looking to conquer the world, you best start in Europe, where Germany is. Then, it's a little hard to conquer Europe, when the largest country in Europe (Russia) sits immediately to your East unconquered. It was conquest, plain and simple. What you have been told about bourgeois is total bunk, B.S., garbage, or whatever you call it. And just for your information, Germany conquered all of Poland in WWII. It wasn't split with Russia.

Frankly, I think you need to read some history books and get away from the propaganda tripe you're reading.

[Matt Christianson]

Sure, I think they are related, but in case you forget, you said fascism and socialism are related. That's about as wrong as you can get. Sometimes I question your ability to correctly interpret what I write, and even what you write. You said fascism and socialism are very much alike. Now, you've switched to socialism and communism are alike? Make up your mind. You are now sending confused messages like Bob.

Your story about the relationship between Geremany and Russia is total BS. Germany never invaded Russia because Russia said Germans were bourgoeis. That is silly. Germany invaded Russia because Germany wanted to conquer the world. It only seemed fitting that, if you are looking to conquer the world, you best start in Europe, where Germany is. Then, it's a little hard to conquer Europe, when the largest country in Europe (Russia) sits immediately to your East unconquered. It was conquest, plain and simple. What you have been told about bourgeois is total bunk, B.S., garbage, or whatever you call it. And just for your information, Germany conquered all of Poland in WWII. It wasn't split with Russia.

Frankly, I think you need to read some history books and get away from the propaganda tripe you're reading.

First of all, my contention the entire time was that Socialism, Facism and Communism are closely related to one another. If you decide to reinterprtet and revise history to your suiting then by all means, go ahead. Just don't try to pass it off as fact.

Your story about the relationship between Geremany and Russia is total BS. Germany never invaded Russia because Russia said Germans were bourgoeis. That is silly. I guess I'll have to question you interpretation skills here. I never said this at all. Russia knew for a good decade that war with Germany was enevitable so this is why they drummed up hatred of Germany by contending that Fasicm is the antithisis to Communism.

After the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed(it was billed as a non-agression pact between the 2 countries but during these negotioations secret plans were drawn up dividing Poland between the 2 countries)Poland was invaded by Germany from the west and by Russia from the east. They stayed on their agreed upon sides until Germany broke the terms of the pact by invading the Russian controlled side of Poland.(referenced in many history books. For my specific source refer to "Ivan's War" by Catherine Merridale)

Do you even know what the term bourgeious means? It's a Communist term meaning owners of capital. Russia used this term to refer to Germans because they wanted to imply that the German people were 'rich capitalists' when in fact the German government controlled those assets givng its people a sense of ownership when in fact, that was a facade. They seized asssets at will to fund their visions of grandiose utopia and world domination.

[Dan Conner]

First of all, my contention the entire time was that Socialism, Facism and Communism are closely related to one another. If you decide to reinterprtet and revise history to your suiting then by all means, go ahead. Just don't try to pass it off as fact.

Your story about the relationship between Geremany and Russia is total BS. Germany never invaded Russia because Russia said Germans were bourgoeis. That is silly. I guess I'll have to question you interpretation skills here. I never said this at all. Russia knew for a good decade that war with Germany was enevitable so this is why they drummed up hatred of Germany by contending that Fasicm is the antithisis to Communism.

After the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed(it was billed as a non-agression pact between the 2 countries but during these negotioations secret plans were drawn up dividing Poland between the 2 countries)Poland was invaded by Germany from the west and by Russia from the east. They stayed on their agreed upon sides until Germany broke the terms of the pact by invading the Russian controlled side of Poland.(referenced in many history books. For my specific source refer to "Ivan's War" by Catherine Merridale)

Do you even know what the term bourgeious means? It's a Communist term meaning owners of capital. Russia used this term to refer to Germans because they wanted to imply that the German people were 'rich capitalists' when in fact the German government controlled those assets givng its people a sense of ownership when in fact, that was a facade. They seized asssets at will to fund their visions of grandiose utopia and world domination.Matt, I am very sorry for your ignorance here. I suggest you refer to most any history book. They will all explain how the invasion of Russia caused those two countries to fight. You didn't even get what the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was about. I'm not reinterpreting history, I'm relating it to you. I assume you are too young to understand WWII, but It would benefit you to read some authoritative references about the war, its chronology, and the geopolitical implications.

I not only vehemently disagree with you, but I am telling you you are wrong...dead wrong. Now, we can get into a silly arguement, or you can do some reading. Your knowledge on this subject is sorrowfully lacking. You might even talk to an older person in the community, who remembers WWII and ask him why Russia and Germany fought. As far as Russia knowing for 10 years before about a German invasion...I sincerely doubt it. It was he (Hitler) that ordered the invasion of Russia. It had nothing to do with the laughable silliness that they were called "bourgeois". Do you really think a nation declares war on another because someone called them bourgeois? Come on. This is silly and illogical. It was about world dominance. And Russia didn't need to incite their people to fight Germany. Germany incited the Russians.

Russia never had to incite any of their people about Germany. Don't you understand that when a foreign country invades, killing your countrymen, raping you women, lotting your cities, and burning them down, that that might cause a war? It isn't because anyone taught anyone in Russia silly things about what Germans thought of them. That's ridiculous and poorly thought out. However, I would challenge you to produce who, or whatever, said such a stupid thing about Russia inciting war with Germany. They too would need to study some history. Russia did not want to fight Germany. I don't know where you get the information you use, but it is really "off-the -wall."

As far as Poland is concerned, so Russia and Germany had a pact that they each manipulated to serve their ends - the conquest of Poland. At the time, it was far better to take a piece of Poland than have to fight each other. So, what does that prove? We have allied with Muslims, Communists, Fascists...anything, when in our national interests. We made deals with the Iranians to sell them technologically advanced missiles as part of a deal to get our embassy people back, but that doesn't make us close to an Islamic Republic, does it? Come on, use some common sense here. We dealt with South Africa, but that doesn't make us apartheid. We've dealt with countless dictators and royalty, but that doesn't make us a monarchy or a dictatorship.

And finally, the war between Germany and Russia didn't start over Poland. Hitler wanted it all (all of Europe), not just a parcel of Poland. Hitler wanted Poland, Russia, France Norway, Finland, Great Britain, etc., etc. Russia and Germany were the two power brokers in Eastern Europe. Russia only tried to guarantee herself a piece of the pie and assurance Germany would not attack her.

Also, I hate to correct you again, but "bourgeois" is not a "communist" word. It is a French word. The term was French, long before it was used by Russia. Also, it meant the controlling wealthy in a country, but not the aristocracy. Also, the term was used way back before Hitler even lead Germany. It was used in the Russian Bolshevik Revolution starting in 1917, long before Hitler's rise to power. However, that wasn't a war against Germans. That was a Russian civil war. That Russian civil war was fought to get rid of the oppressive Czarist rule in the nation, not Fascists. You have your facts muddled.

Man am I perplexed at the inane arguement you are making...whatever that is? You fail to make a point here. What are you trying to prove? I think you better go back to the drawing boards because I fail to see how you can prove anything when you are wrong about most of the facts. You're trying to build your castle on sand. You better rethink your whole arguement, whatever that is.

[Matt Christianson]

You either don't know what you're talking about or you simply have a serious lack of reading comprehension. I suppose you remember WWII well. What were you? about 5 maybe 10 at the time? So that makes you an authority for being alive at that time?. I've read dozens of books on the subject and I know what I'm talking about. Wikipedia and the dictionary dont count. I've never said that the war started over the incitement of Russia on its own people. Thats foolish and I dont know how you're reading this. Russia used propaganda to instill fear in its people. Fear of Germany, facism, the US, capitalism, and basically the rest of the outside world. This did not cause the war but it helped to contribute toward the hatred of Germany by the Russians people. If you knew anything of the rhetoric practiced by both sides against one another leading up to the war you'd realize that a conflict was inevitable between a power hungry Hitler and the behemouth Russia who had been preparing for a major defensive conflict by expanding its armed forces greatly and military hardware.
And I explained the Molotov-Ribbentrop quite adequately. It divied up Poland between the 2 countries as well as the establishment of the nonagression pact. Its quite simple. When the treaty was signed it caused great appallment among the Russian soldiers and civilians. This was, obviously, because they were conditioned for years to hate the Germans and all they stood for as i stated in the previous paragraph. They were mortifed that their governemnt signed a 'peace agreement' with their sworn eneimies. They were obviously right for suspecting the Germans because only about a month had passed in 1939 when Germany invaded Russian territory ie the Russian side of Poland. I realize that this was part of the German plan because Hitler was set on dominating the world. YES GERMANY STARTED THE CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA. Is that clear enough for you??!! Of course once the Germans invaded Russian controlled poland and Russia itself that was all the motivation the people needed to defend themselves.
Maybe you get your info from you high school history book. Thats not the type of book I'd suggest reading. I'd try comprehensive history written by respected unbiased scholars of history Try the aforementioned Catherine Merridale or Simon Sebag Montefiore if you wish to learn a little more about the early history of the USSR and the lead up to WWII.
And I'm sorry I didnt get the word origin of "bourgeious" correct. I guess I should have checked the dictionary. It was a term used by the Russian Communists to describe enemies of their ideals. And again, I never contended the Germany invaded Russia because they were called this name. Thats a ludicrous distortion of my words. I also never said that Russia started the war. Reread my posts.

you also said...Also, the term was used way back before Hitler even lead Germany. It was used in the Russian Bolshevik Revolution starting in 1917, long before Hitler's rise to power. However, that wasn't a war against Germans. That was a Russian civil war. That Russian civil war was fought to get rid of the oppressive Czarist rule in the nation, not Fascists. You have your facts muddled. This is out of left field. You are correct in your historical assesment but you're referring to things I never wrote.
I am beginning to think you are intentionally misinterpreting my words hoping people wont check back to my post in order to make me look like a fool. If that's the case, I have now completely lost my last shred of respect for you.

Let's just drop it. I think we slightly strayed from health and healthcare. We're both apparantly too bull headed to let the slightest misstated fact(or what I see as your misstated facts and what you see as mine) get through. The next thing we'll be doing is correcting each others spelling. Then we'll both be very busy.

[Bob Jentges]

Matt, I agree with your suggestion/offer in the final paragraph of your post #84 to Dan to end the discussion of WWII history in that it is probably not something that belongs in this "Single payer model actually inhibits improved health care" thread. But my experience in this Forum leads me to suggest Dan will soon be (he may be working on it now) sending a reply attempting to goad you into continuing the WWII history discussion. He just can not seem to help himself!

He seems to insist on posting the last word in almost every thread he posts in. I say that from memory, but if one wanted to waste the time it could be checked. From my perspective I have found it best just to allow that, even if I strongly disagree with his last post, because continuing to reply to him would be like being on a perpetual motion machine; he will not stop!

Although certainly nothing to brag about, I have read each and every one of his 663 posts in the Forum. I think allows me to form a general opinion on the style, tone, ideology, and accurracy of his writings. I note you suggest he might have "...a serious lack of reading comprehension". I have said something similar about him in the Forum in a number of my prior posts. You also suggest he might be "...intentionally misrepresenting [your] words hoping people won't check back to [your] prior post in order to make [you] look like a fool." Matt, I have said the same thing and it was the main reason I continued to reply to his lengthy, rambling, repiticious, emotional, illogical, insulting posts that from my perspective accomplish little more than to distort and misinterpret what I had said.

[Dan Conner]

You either don't know what you're talking about or you simply have a serious lack of reading comprehension. I suppose you remember WWII well. What were you? about 5 maybe 10 at the time? So that makes you an authority for being alive at that time?. I've read dozens of books on the subject and I know what I'm talking about. Wikipedia and the dictionary dont count. I've never said that the war started over the incitement of Russia on its own people. Thats foolish and I dont know how you're reading this. Russia used propaganda to instill fear in its people. Fear of Germany, facism, the US, capitalism, and basically the rest of the outside world. This did not cause the war but it helped to contribute toward the hatred of Germany by the Russians people. If you knew anything of the rhetoric practiced by both sides against one another leading up to the war you'd realize that a conflict was inevitable between a power hungry Hitler and the behemouth Russia who had been preparing for a major defensive conflict by expanding its armed forces greatly and military hardware.
And I explained the Molotov-Ribbentrop quite adequately. It divied up Poland between the 2 countries as well as the establishment of the nonagression pact. Its quite simple. When the treaty was signed it caused great appallment among the Russian soldiers and civilians. This was, obviously, because they were conditioned for years to hate the Germans and all they stood for as i stated in the previous paragraph. They were mortifed that their governemnt signed a 'peace agreement' with their sworn eneimies. They were obviously right for suspecting the Germans because only about a month had passed in 1939 when Germany invaded Russian territory ie the Russian side of Poland. I realize that this was part of the German plan because Hitler was set on dominating the world. YES GERMANY STARTED THE CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA. Is that clear enough for you??!! Of course once the Germans invaded Russian controlled poland and Russia itself that was all the motivation the people needed to defend themselves.
Maybe you get your info from you high school history book. Thats not the type of book I'd suggest reading. I'd try comprehensive history written by respected unbiased scholars of history Try the aforementioned Catherine Merridale or Simon Sebag Montefiore if you wish to learn a little more about the early history of the USSR and the lead up to WWII.
And I'm sorry I didnt get the word origin of "bourgeious" correct. I guess I should have checked the dictionary. It was a term used by the Russian Communists to describe enemies of their ideals. And again, I never contended the Germany invaded Russia because they were called this name. Thats a ludicrous distortion of my words. I also never said that Russia started the war. Reread my posts.

you also said...Also, the term was used way back before Hitler even lead Germany. It was used in the Russian Bolshevik Revolution starting in 1917, long before Hitler's rise to power. However, that wasn't a war against Germans. That was a Russian civil war. That Russian civil war was fought to get rid of the oppressive Czarist rule in the nation, not Fascists. You have your facts muddled. This is out of left field. You are correct in your historical assesment but you're referring to things I never wrote.
I am beginning to think you are intentionally misinterpreting my words hoping people wont check back to my post in order to make me look like a fool. If that's the case, I have now completely lost my last shred of respect for you.

Let's just drop it. I think we slightly strayed from health and healthcare. We're both apparantly too bull headed to let the slightest misstated fact(or what I see as your misstated facts and what you see as mine) get through. The next thing we'll be doing is correcting each others spelling. Then we'll both be very busy.Well, why don't you better explain what you meant by Russians using the bourgeois word to incite Russians to fight Germans? I would love to hear the rationale for that one. I'm sure that was a significant development in Europe. I'm not intentionally doing anything other than explaining you are dead wrong and that you keep changing your story the more you find out you are wrong. Not to mention that this whole subject is unrelated to single-payer healthcare. Don't talk about me making you look like a fool. I wasn't the one who made you look that way.

It is amazing that you quibble over my "nit-picking" or correcting your "slightest misstated fact", but you have to remember those mistated facts have been the cornerstones of your beliefs. You have implied as much. Otherwise, what were you interjecting them for? Now, if the facts upon which you base your beliefs are a bunch of BS, then what are your beliefs? I don't think I have to tell you. I think you have been twisted by manipulative people, who have persuaded you to believe as they do, and they have used facts that might sounds good, but have no basis in fact. I suggest you research these issues on your own to decide on your own. You have been mislead. Either that, or you are so hopelessly prejudiced about the healthcare issue that you only read or surmise facts and statistics to support your point of view. You are hanging your beliefs and life on toilet paper. It might feel good, but I wouldn't depend on it to lift you to knowledge and enlightened decisions.

[Dan Conner]

Matt, I agree with your suggestion/offer in the final paragraph of your post #84 to Dan to end the discussion of WWII history in that it is probably not something that belongs in this "Single payer model actually inhibits improved health care" thread. But my experience in this Forum leads me to suggest Dan will soon be (he may be working on it now) sending a reply attempting to goad you into continuing the WWII history discussion. He just can not seem to help himself!

He seems to insist on posting the last word in almost every thread he posts in. I say that from memory, but if one wanted to waste the time it could be checked. From my perspective I have found it best just to allow that, even if I strongly disagree with his last post, because continuing to reply to him would be like being on a perpetual motion machine; he will not stop!

Although certainly nothing to brag about, I have read each and every one of his 663 posts in the Forum. I think allows me to form a general opinion on the style, tone, ideology, and accurracy of his writings. I note you suggest he might have "...a serious lack of reading comprehension". I have said something similar about him in the Forum in a number of my prior posts. You also suggest he might be "...intentionally misrepresenting [your] words hoping people won't check back to [your] prior post in order to make [you] look like a fool." Matt, I have said the same thing and it was the main reason I continued to reply to his lengthy, rambling, repiticious, emotional, illogical, insulting posts that from my perspective accomplish little more than to distort and misinterpret what I had said.Just the last correct word. Bob, you are of the same ilk. You kabitz, name-call, and whine, and then run to a cadre of supporters or managers of this link in such a dependent way, to seek whatever assistance you can get. I believe you have received as you have given. By the way, don't forget you have compared the US to general failures in world history, like the Roman Empire. The longest lasting and most pervasive empire ever. It lasted over 2000 years. The US has been around for a little over 200. I would think most wise people would feel it an enormous accommplishment if we are as successful as ancient Rome was.

My overall point here, is if you base your thinking and philosophies on total errors of fact, then how valid is your thinking and philosophy? It kind of follows, doesn't it? Or do you conclude that it doesn't make any diufference what the facts are, only what you believe? I have offered plenty of opportunity for you to amend what you have incorrectly said, but you have only declined to redefine what you said. So apparently, my original interpretation was correct. You just can't admit that you were wrong. On one psot, you became totally indignant that I had attacked your wife, when I never had. Talk about misinterpreting. I don't recollect getting an apology from you either. You base beliefs on misinformation and errors. Not a very good base for your beliefs.

I realize you want to shelter Matt because he apparently believes as you do, but I do give Matt credit for trying to think for himself. He is thinking critically and he does admit error. That means learning. I realize you are hopeless. You cling hard to ignorance and misinformation particularly when it justifies selfishness.

[Dan Conner]

Matt--

After thinking, I thought it would be good to send you this post. I understand Bob is doing his level best to drive whatever wedges he can. He's good at that. I just think he needs to do a better job defending his own ideas. The corrections I have made, to the facts you have used, I feel are important. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but not their own facts. If you were to tell me that you believe something on faith, I can't argue with that. I might try to persuade you differenntly, but you are entitled to your beliefs/opinion. However, I don't believe you, me, or anyone else is entitled to your own facts. Factual errors need to be corrected, lest it lead to community misinformation. I'm sure you are aware of all the baloney circulating on the internet? Too many people believe in some of that baloney.

Therefore, when arguing, discussing, or whatever with me, I think it is important to discuss beliefs as beliefs, supported by facts or not. However, when one uses "facts" to support their beliefs, be assured I will try to correct you, if I think you are wrong. The late senator Daniel Moynihan famously said that people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. If you say you believe in Jesus Christ, I accept that, but don't base that support on the "shroud of Turin" being an impression of Him. That is not factual, yet. I think it is important to discuss the links of real facts to your beliefs, but there should ba factual sources to resolve that. Meanwhile, if you choose to disregard all the facts and stick to your belief, you are so entitled. In that case, I think it is important to say, something like you don't care about the facts, I believe... Guess what? That ends the argument.

In too many cases, in this Forum, there are others who senselessly argue over the facts, even when they know they are wrong. Then, they either deny they said it or they morph what they said, without making any new statement. That's just "smoke and mirrors" to me. If I am factually wrong, I will admit it. I expect that same thing of others. When I debate Bob, I will correct his facts and he will deny he said that, but he won't clarify or restate it. Consequently, he leaves his misinformation out there. As I have told him, I will always correct his factual errors. Whether it be the Roman Empire, the fall of Communist Soviet Union, or otherwise. You can not make a valid argument based on the wrong facts.

[Matt Christianson]

Listen, when it comes to the dicussion on the lead up to WWII I have not been wrong. I have been stating nothing but facts. I believe you may have misunderstood the things I was saying,. Perhaps that was my fault for not writing clearly enough. If that's true then I apologize. The things you stated about the run up to the war were accurate but it was really annoying when you, intentionally or not, misrepresented/misread what I was stating. These wern't my opinions. It was in fact quite true. You and I were both stating facts and I was attempting to provide context for those facts. I think we both realize when war is imminent both sides try to gain support for the war effort from the their respective populations. This does not cause war. It gives leaders what they see as the moral authority to go to war. So, in the case of WWII both Germany and the USSR were conditioning their peoples to loathe each other. Again not to cause war but it was just another step in winning support for any future conflict.
I do apologize for the tone I have taken with you, Dan. You just kept pushing the envelope and distroting my words until it frustrated me. And I am appalled at the way you treat other members in this forum with outright insults and denigrating rhetoric. I am only responding to the tone you have set in this forum. I hope you too can admit your mistakes and try act with a little more respect as I too will try to do. This is the lat time I will appeal to your good sense and ask you to try to bring a better tone to this forum.

To end, I guess if think I am a fool and my ideals are BS then I will completely ignore whatever you choose to say from no on any subject. Debate is an exercise in futility if respect is thrown by the wayside and personal attacks and insults rule the day.

[Matt Christianson]

Matt, I agree with your suggestion/offer in the final paragraph of your post #84 to Dan to end the discussion of WWII history in that it is probably not something that belongs in this "Single payer model actually inhibits improved health care" thread. But my experience in this Forum leads me to suggest Dan will soon be (he may be working on it now) sending a reply attempting to goad you into continuing the WWII history discussion. He just can not seem to help himself!

He seems to insist on posting the last word in almost every thread he posts in. I say that from memory, but if one wanted to waste the time it could be checked. From my perspective I have found it best just to allow that, even if I strongly disagree with his last post, because continuing to reply to him would be like being on a perpetual motion machine; he will not stop!

Although certainly nothing to brag about, I have read each and every one of his 663 posts in the Forum. I think allows me to form a general opinion on the style, tone, ideology, and accurracy of his writings. I note you suggest he might have "...a serious lack of reading comprehension". I have said something similar about him in the Forum in a number of my prior posts. You also suggest he might be "...intentionally misrepresenting [your] words hoping people won't check back to [your] prior post in order to make [you] look like a fool." Matt, I have said the same thing and it was the main reason I continued to reply to his lengthy, rambling, repiticious, emotional, illogical, insulting posts that from my perspective accomplish little more than to distort and misinterpret what I had said.

Thank you Bob, and I agree that it's quite clear that you have been insulted in heavyhanded manner throughout the entirity of ths forum. I think you could say the sky is blue at this point only to be attacked for not saying its light blue...and sometimes cloudy. I admire how you deal with it by avoiding stooping to his level and sticking to the debate. I think we can all learn from you. All 3 of us.

[Dan Conner]

Listen, when it comes to the dicussion on the lead up to WWII I have not been wrong. I have been stating nothing but facts. I believe you may have misunderstood the things I was saying,. Perhaps that was my fault for not writing clearly enough. If that's true then I apologize. The things you stated about the run up to the war were accurate but it was really annoying when you, intentionally or not, misrepresented/misread what I was stating. Then, what were you stating and where is the reference for your "fact?"These wern't my opinions. It was in fact quite true. You and I were both stating facts and I was attempting to provide context for those facts. I think we both realize when war is imminent both sides try to gain support for the war effort from the their respective populations. I don't think it was necessary for Russia to get the support of its people when Germany invaded. Eventually when the Germans laid seige to Stalingrad every Russian realized they were fighting for their survival. No incitement needed.This does not cause war. It gives leaders what they see as the moral authority Invasion was their moral authority. That's more than enough moral authority.to go to war. So, in the case of WWII both Germany and the USSR were conditioning their peoples to loathe each other. I saw no evidence of specifically focused hate toward one another. No more than any disagreements between adjacent countries of differing governments. Again not to cause war but it was just another step in winning support for any future conflict. If this is true then Russia was also preparing its people for war with France, Great Britain, Northern EWurope and Scandinavia.
I do apologize for the tone I have taken with you, Dan. You just kept pushing the envelope and distroting my wordsMatt, there is no intent to distort your words, only an attempt to verify your facts. I would appreciate evidence of what you are saying. until it frustrated me. And I am appalled at the way you treat other members in this forum with outright insults and denigrating rhetoric.I hear what you say Matt, but we all only have to look to each other. Others have reaped what they sowed. I will be civil when the other party is civil. I am only responding to the tone you have set in this forum. I hope you too can admit your mistakes and try act with a little more respect as I too will try to do.That's great! I will try to do the same. Let's remind each other from time to time. This is the lat time I will appeal to your good sense and ask you to try to bring a better tone to this forum.This is an example of unecessary harsh tone. It is totally unproductive and threatening. There is no need to reconcile tone by showing a poor threatening tone. It is unimportant whether this appeal is your first, last, or otherwise. That has no bearing on anything.

To end, I guess if think I am a fool and my idealsMatt, you continue to read what I have said with some kind of "filters". I have been criticizing your FACTS and not your ideas. Didn't you read where I said your ideas are questionable when you use the wrong facts? So, just substantiate your facts or acknowledge they might not be correct. Then, we can continue with your idea. are BS then I will completely ignore whatever you choose to say from no on any subject. Debate is an exercise in futility if respect is thrown by the wayside and personal attacks Matt, I think you are confusing attacking your facts as attacking you. That is easily reconciled. You can't prove it and you are wrong, or you prove it and I'm wrong. If it isn't what you meant, then better stating it in a way you did intend.and insults rule the day.Matt, I waiting to be informed. I see many references to Lenin referring the the Bougeois of Germany and all the rest of Europe, but nothing that it was being used as a tool to get Russians to hate exclusively Germans. I would appreciate it if you would show me the reference where Russia used allegations of Bourgeois as a tool to get the Russian people to hate Germany and willing to make war with Germany. I can not find that. Where did you see it? Everything I have learned was that it was the invasion of Russia by Germany that caused the two countries to go to war. I did not see anything about Russia focusing on Germany when using Bourgeois. Besides, I am extremely skeptical that use of a word would cause a nation to go to war with another. If that were the case, we would have been to war with most every country in the world

If you are implying there was a bigger plot by Lenin than that, then where did you find that? I see no evidence of it whatsoever. There were vague and generalized allegations about all the rest of Europe, but not Germany specifically. That's like us calling the USSR communist, or them calling us capitalist. Big deal.

[Matt Christianson]

Matt, I waiting to be informed. I see many references to Lenin referring the the Bougeois of Germany and all the rest of Europe, but nothing that it was being used as a tool to get Russians to hate exclusively Germans. I would appreciate it if you would show me the reference where Russia used allegations of Bourgeois as a tool to get the Russian people to hate Germany and willing to make war with Germany. I can not find that. Where did you see it? Everything I have learned was that it was the invasion of Russia by Germany that caused the two countries to go to war. I did not see anything about Russia focusing on Germany when using Bourgeois. Besides, I am extremely skeptical that use of a word would cause a nation to go to war with another. If that were the case, we would have been to war with most every country in the world

If you are implying there was a bigger plot by Lenin than that, then where did you find that? I see no evidence of it whatsoever. There were vague and generalized allegations about all the rest of Europe, but not Germany specifically. That's like us calling the USSR communist, or them calling us capitalist. Big deal.

[I HAVE NEVER IMPLIED OR SAID THAT THE WAR STARTED OVER RHETORIC!! I DON'T KNOW HOW PLAINER I CAN SAY IT. Thats about the 5th time I've stated that. Do I need to buy billboard space?. My reference, this is for the 3rd time, for one, is Ivan's War by Catherine Merridale.

I also specifically said once before that the word 'bourgeois' was used to describe essentially the rest of the outside world. You do realize that Russian Communism was a constant game of propoganda throughout its existence? They attempted to use the rhetoric to instill fear in its citizentry of the outside world and to convince them the Communism was the 'true way' of life. . They had to try something because I'm sure the Russian people as a whole weren't buying it while they were standing in line starving to death. I'm not suggesting that it[propoganda] was used soley against Germany or solely to justify any war. If you knew anything of the firebrand rhetoric, not simple disagreements, you'd realize that the leaders of each country were preparing for a conflict. The Russian government contracted with film producers to make such movies as Sergei Eisenstein's 'Alexander Nevsky' which was "an anti facist parable of Russian victory of German invaders." Also Evim Dzigan produced the movie 'If There Is War Tomorrow' released in 1938 (like the aforementioned title), "foretold Russia's victory of a future invasion" over German Facists. If that isn't preparing the populace for war through outright propoganda then I guess don't know any better. The above quotes are again from Ivan's War, which happens to be the last book I've read on the subject and freshest in my memory. I'd be happy to loan you my copy. Let's stop beating this dead horse and boring everyone else. If you have anything else to question me on then by all means just send me personal messages on the subject and I could enlighten you.

[Bob Jentges]

Thank you Bob, and I agree that it's quite clear that you have been insulted in heavyhanded manner throughout the entirity of ths forum. I think you could say the sky is blue at this point only to be attacked for not saying its light blue...and sometimes cloudy. I admire how you deal with it by avoiding stooping to his level and sticking to the debate. I think we can all learn from you. All 3 of us.

Matt, although I think you instinctivly understand this but since Dan suggested it was the case, I want to make it clear to anyone that might read this that I am not trying to "shelter" (his word) you from anything or anyone! I have never met you. I have never talked with you. All I know about you is what I have read in this Forum, and that is sufficient for me to conclude that you do not need shelter from me when expressing or defending your principled opinions whether in this Forun or in articles in the hard copy of The Free Press.

I also want to make it clear that Dan's suggestion that I "...run to a cadre of supporters or managers of this link in such a dependent way to seek whatever assistance [I] can get" is groundless and has no basis in fact. I expect he meant to say Forum rather than "link", but who knows or cares. Anyway, I have never asked any member of this Forum to support my opinions, but I am gratefull that some regular contributors (or should I say former regular contributors) seem to have opinions similar, not identical but similar, to mine.

There. I have had my say. I will now take my place with the handfull of other Forum contributors who have exercised the good judgement to resist posting replies to Dan's virulent, hate-filled offerrings herin. We can, and maybe finally have, learned from the children i.e. the most effective way to deal with a bully is to isolate him or her!

[Dan Conner]

[I HAVE NEVER IMPLIED OR SAID THAT THE WAR STARTED OVER RHETORIC!! I DON'T KNOW HOW PLAINER I CAN SAY IT. Thats about the 5th time I've stated that. Do I need to buy billboard space?. My reference, this is for the 3rd time, for one, is Ivan's War by Catherine Merridale.

I also specifically said once before that the word 'bourgeois' was used to describe essentially the rest of the outside world. You do realize that Russian Communism was a constant game of propoganda throughout its existence? They attempted to use the rhetoric to instill fear in its citizentry of the outside world and to convince them the Communism was the 'true way' of life. . They had to try something because I'm sure the Russian people as a whole weren't buying it while they were standing in line starving to death. I'm not suggesting that it[propoganda] was used soley against Germany or solely to justify any war. If you knew anything of the firebrand rhetoric, not simple disagreements, you'd realize that the leaders of each country were preparing for a conflict. The Russian government contracted with film producers to make such movies as Sergei Eisenstein's 'Alexander Nevsky' which was "an anti facist parable of Russian victory of German invaders." Also Evim Dzigan produced the movie 'If There Is War Tomorrow' released in 1938 (like the aforementioned title), "foretold Russia's victory of a future invasion" over German Facists. If that isn't preparing the populace for war through outright propoganda then I guess don't know any better. The above quotes are again from Ivan's War, which happens to be the last book I've read on the subject and freshest in my memory. I'd be happy to loan you my copy. Let's stop beating this dead horse and boring everyone else. If you have anything else to question me on then by all means just send me personal messages on the subject and I could enlighten you.Well, Matt, here's your direct quote: "The assertion that Socialism and Facism are opposites is not accurate. This is mainly a theory drummed up by early Communists in Russia, like Stalin, to promote hatred of Germany in the lead up to the start of WWII. They accused the Germans as being part of the “bourgeois” class in order to legitimize the war on Germany after the Nazis violatated the terms of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact when they invaded the Soviet controlled side of Poland. It was an action to promote nationalism in a distraught populace. AMerican progressives, closly tied to the facists in the 1920's and 30's, took this assumption and ran with it all the way to present day." Well, I would like you to explain this ...accused the Germans as being part of the "bourgeois" class in order to legitimize the war on Germany...??? The Germans made war on Russia, not the other way around. Germany violated the Pact when they invaded Russia.

The ridiculous statement, and it is your statement, that American progressives closely tied to Facists in the 1920's and 1930's ran with it all the way to the present day?? More BS. Now you're claiming progressives are Facists? Before you accuse progressives, or anyone else, of being Facists, I suggest you better prove it first. Also, the above recollection of the war is wrong. You still have not substantiated anything you said. You make wild accusations with no proof. If you want to accuse me, as a progressive, of being Facist, you better have you act together. And you don't... just more senseless shouting.

[Dan Conner]

That is what I was reacting to Matt. Too many wild accusations. I quoted you in the above post.

[Matt Christianson]

Well, Matt, here's your direct quote: "The assertion that Socialism and Facism are opposites is not accurate. This is mainly a theory drummed up by early Communists in Russia, like Stalin, to promote hatred of Germany in the lead up to the start of WWII. They accused the Germans as being part of the “bourgeois” class in order to legitimize the war on Germany after the Nazis violatated the terms of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact when they invaded the Soviet controlled side of Poland. It was an action to promote nationalism in a distraught populace. AMerican progressives, closly tied to the facists in the 1920's and 30's, took this assumption and ran with it all the way to present day." Well, I would like you to explain this ...accused the Germans as being part of the "bourgeois" class in order to legitimize the war on Germany...??? The Germans made war on Russia, not the other way around. Germany violated the Pact when they invaded Russia.

The ridiculous statement, and it is your statement, that American progressives closely tied to Facists in the 1920's and 1930's ran with it all the way to the present day?? More BS. Now you're claiming progressives are Facists? Before you accuse progressives, or anyone else, of being Facists, I suggest you better prove it first. Also, the above recollection of the war is wrong. You still have not substantiated anything you said. You make wild accusations with no proof. If you want to accuse me, as a progressive, of being Facist, you better have you act together. And you don't... just more senseless shouting.

You seem to be not reading the entire sentence in that post. Allow me to highlight. "The assertion that Socialism and Facism are opposites is not accurate. This is mainly a theory drummed up by early Communists in Russia, like Stalin, to promote hatred of Germany in the lead up to the start of WWII. They accused the Germans as being part of the “bourgeois” class in order to legitimize the war on Germany after the Nazis violatated the terms of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact when they invaded the Soviet controlled side of Poland." And I admit I was not as clear as I needed to be but I more than adequately explained myself in the subsequent posts after your obsessive incessent pestering.
I assume you know how to read so again... Most of my info was gathered from Ivan's War by Catherine Merridale. That's the forth time I've mentioned that now. It was printed in 2006 and most of her historical information was obtained by interviewing Russians who lived during that time and the wealth of top secret papers that were released and continue to be released after the fall of Communism in Russia. The rest of her info was gathered from other books written by other historians. THAT IS MY SOURCE.

I refer you to another book entitled Liberal Facism by Jonah Goldberg if you wish to learn how closely the progressives were tied idealogically to the Fasists in the 20's and 30's. I'm not saying they were Nazi's or antisemetic, nor am I saying they were facists. But they freely exchanged ideas with the facists during that time. And no i dont think you're a facist dan. Just relax.

Go ahead and read these books and then if you still think I'm wrong or making it up then say so. Right now you haven't a leg to stand on disputing these cold hard facts.

This is is now over. I know you can't leave without the last word so go ahead with more insults and misleading inaccurate analysis over my chosen words. I just don't give a rip anymore about what you think on this subject. I know when I'm right and I am right. And I'm sure anyone with a lick of sense and education within this forum can back me up.

[Bob Jentges]

Have not seen a post from you in the past few day's, Matt, possibly for the same reason I have not posted. I thought maybe if I made an attempt to get this thread back on topic you might consider responding to what I consider one of the best comon sense opinion pieces I have seen on the health care debate. It seems to track with what you, Jonathan and me have been espousing.

We lived in a suburb of Milwaukee for a time and used to subscribe to the Journal Sentinal so I check it on the internet on occassion and happened to see the 11/14/09 article.

I am not anti-government but do not think it proper for anybody to look to the government as their "daddy", just like I consider myself enviromentally conscious but do not consider the earth my "mother" .

In spite of what the mainstream media and intellectuals push at us
I think most American's have a core and abiding belief that we are supposed to take care of ourselves, our families, and our neighbors. We should not rely on the government to do that. Maybe seeing what happens when an overwhelming majority of progressives/liberals are elected to Congress will wake-up voters for the 2010 elections.

I hope the link is still online should you decide to check out the article.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/70022537.html

[Matt Christianson]

This statement in that article is of exceptional importance:
This is not to call instead for rugged individualism. None of us go it alone in this world. We get help from spouse, family, friends, neighborhood, congregation, village - all the voluntary associations of essentially co-equal parties that a free society fosters. But the trend of decades has been for government to replace them, function by function, to the detriment of society.
I love how its always assumed conservatives 'go it alone.' Its reasonable for us not to seek assistance from the government, such as welfare programs, but of course we are all beneficiaries of some sort of assistance(moral, fellowship,etc) from the communites of which we choose to be a part. The above paragraph sums it up perfectly. One's circle of friends and mutual realtionships does not, or should not, need to include a faceless monolithic federal government from whom we may or may not derive such benefits.

[Dan Conner]

This statement in that article is of exceptional importance:
This is not to call instead for rugged individualism. None of us go it alone in this world. We get help from spouse, family, friends, neighborhood, congregation, village - all the voluntary associations of essentially co-equal parties that a free society fosters. But the trend of decades has been for government to replace them, function by function, to the detriment of society.
I love how its always assumed conservatives 'go it alone.' Its reasonable for us not to seek assistance from the government, such as welfare programs, but of course we are all beneficiaries of some sort of assistance(moral, fellowship,etc) from the communites of which we choose to be a part. The above paragraph sums it up perfectly. One's circle of friends and mutual realtionships does not, or should not, need to include a faceless monolithic federal government from whom we may or may not derive such benefits.I have never assumed conservative go-it alone. I generally find that conservatives constantly complain about taxes, Government helping people, and then they thoroughly and completely stick their "noses" in the public trough like everyone esle. Volunteerism has never come close to meeting the needs of desperate people. That is a necessary role for Government. However, I will challenge you to get off the "dole" to prove you can actually do it by yourself. Otherwise, you are just needlessly whining. You can't cut-it without Government. Unless you stay off our roads, haven't used the police and fire protection, meat inspectors, agricultural assistance, airports, air traffic control, mass transit, sewer, water, schools, military, national parks, and on and on. You sound like one that when you get what you want out of Government, you want to deny others of getting anything else. I don't think I have to tell you what personality that describes.

I don't worry. You haven't done it alone by any standard of measurement. In fact, you are terribly dependent on the rest of us. Now, just learn to return the favors from everyone else.

[Matt Christianson]

Of course police and fire protection, meat inspectors, air traffic control, mass transit/roads, sewer, water, schools, and the military are nessesary functions of government. I never said that there isn't a role for the federal or state government. Nor have I ever implied that I am not willing to pay taxes for such functions. I have only debated over issues that I and many others see as well outside the scope of federal reach.

[Dan Conner]

Of course police and fire protection, meat inspectors, air traffic control, mass transit/roads, sewer, water, schools, and the military are nessesary functions of government. I never said that there isn't a role for the federal or state government. Nor have I ever implied that I am not willing to pay taxes for such functions. I have only debated over issues that I and many others see as well outside the scope of federal reach.OH, now you define the role of Government as one which only satisfies your needs, but to hell with everyone else? The role of Government isn't decided by us individually. It is decided as a nation, which coincidently, brings in the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the POTUS. They are our representatives. Many times they adhere to the will of their constituents. In many many other instances they represent the will of the electorate because that's why people voted for them.

I think you make a specious argument about the role of Government. You acknowledge the things I mentioned as a role of Government, but now, somehow, you appoint yourself as the ultimate arbitrator to determine what a proper role of Government is. Well, people have already decided when Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, SSI, unemployment insurnace, etc.,etc., were established. You are sounding like you make rules only tro suit yourself and that all other rules are invalid? Guess what? You don't decide (thank goodness) what the rules are for others. This country belongs to 300,000,000 people, not just you.

[Matt Christianson]

OH, now you define the role of Government as one which only satisfies your needs, but to hell with everyone else? The role of Government isn't decided by us individually. It is decided as a nation, which coincidently, brings in the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the POTUS. They are our representatives. Many times they adhere to the will of their constituents. In many many other instances they represent the will of the electorate because that's why people voted for them.

I think you make a specious argument about the role of Government. You acknowledge the things I mentioned as a role of Government, but now, somehow, you appoint yourself as the ultimate arbitrator to determine what a proper role of Government is. Well, people have already decided when Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, SSI, unemployment insurnace, etc.,etc., were established. You are sounding like you make rules only tro suit yourself and that all other rules are invalid? Guess what? You don't decide (thank goodness) what the rules are for others. This country belongs to 300,000,000 people, not just you.

Now thats what I call a distortion of my words to suit your arguement. Your baseless broad generalizations of what I think is ridiculous. Where I have have argued against Medicare, SS, Medicaid, or unemployment insurance? These programs too are, at this point, nessesary. They were established at a time of great need and they aren't going anywhere. What I have specifically argued over in regards to Medicare is that the program needs some streamlining. That does not include price controls on services that drive up costs for everyone else. That very thing is what is being debated in the current health legislation in terms of cutting Medicare payments. That, in effect, is imposing price controls on the health industry.
Once you start these all encompassing programs it's nearly impossible to end them, much less reign them in. That is my point. How can we justify another extrodinarily costly social program when we can barely sustain the ones we currently have?

[Bob Jentges]

How can we justify another extrodinarily costly social program when we can barely sustain the ones we currently have?

Matt, here is a quote from part of a comment posted by Greg Burneske in this mornings online edition of The Free Press, lending some light on the probable eventual cost issue.

"When Medicare was launched in 1965, Part A was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990, but ended up costing $67 billion. ...When Medicare's home benifit was added in 1988, it was projected to cost $4 billion in 1993, but ended up costing $10 billion. When Massachusetts Commenwealth Care was put into place in 2006, it was expected to cost about $725 million annually, but the expected cost for 2009 is now almost $1 billion."

Mr. Burnesky indicated he took the data from a June 2009 Cato Institute study.

I believe the Pelosi House proposal has been scored by CBO at over $900 billion, but the Heritage Foundation projects the cost at near $3 trillion for the next decade. The CBO recently scored the Reid Senate proposal at $849 billion (not including at least $200 billion in loopholes), and there has been no independent analysis if that proposal yet. I think history tells us that both the Pelosi and Teid proposals are likely to end up costing significantly more than the present scoring. To believe either of these proposals will be defecit neutral seems foolish to me.

I think the national debt is somewhere in the area of $12 trillion now! To repeat your question, Matt: "How can we justify another...?" To me the answer is obvious, we can not. We must not saddle our children and grandchildren with this kind of debt.

I am not suggesting we repeal Medicare now, because as you say it entrenched in our society for as long as it can be financially sustained. But to continue to add social entitlement program after social entitlement program when we can not afford what we have now, simply does not make sense to me!

If anyone is thinking about suggesting I drop Medicare (or for that matter Social Security), do not waste your time; that has already been addressed a handfull of times in this Forum. I will not address it again.

[Dan Conner]

Now thats what I call a distortion of my words to suit your arguement. Your baseless broad generalizations of what I think is ridiculous. Where I have have argued against Medicare, SS, Medicaid, or unemployment insurance? These programs too are, at this point, nessesary. They were established at a time of great need and they aren't going anywhere. What I have specifically argued over in regards to Medicare is that the program needs some streamlining. That does not include price controls on services that drive up costs for everyone else. That very thing is what is being debated in the current health legislation in terms of cutting Medicare payments. That, in effect, is imposing price controls on the health industry.
Once you start these all encompassing programs it's nearly impossible to end them, much less reign them in. That is my point. How can we justify another extrodinarily costly social program when we can barely sustain the ones we currently have?I'm glad that you now acknowledge the Government does have a role in improving and promoting the genertal welfare. I'm also glad you agree Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment are necessary. Then, I would like to know on what basis you argue that natiuonal healthcare is not Constitutional? Why have you engaged on a Constitutional argument then? Why didn't you state at the beginning that you didn't want new programs? That's not a Constitutional argument! Instead, you are concerned about cost. It all comes down to you not wanting to pay any more.

I think you have been missing the explanations offered by Obama. He has advocated changes in healthcare to REDUCE costs, not increase them. He has repeatedly said that the rapidly rising costs of healthcare is UNSUSTAINABLE!!! Now, you can complain about taxes, but that complaint is small compared to the time when you will no longer be able to afford healthcare insurance. The President wants change in healthcare to REDUCE your costs!! The only way insurance companies will reduce insurance costs is through competition. Insurance companies have shown they don't adequately compete with each other. Most states are dominated by virtual healthcare insurance company monopolies. They not only need to better compete with each other, they need to compete with an outsider, like the Government. Since the Government option is as it says, an option, people are not forced to take it. If they like their private insurance, keep it. If they don't, they'll be offered an alternative. However, everyone must have insurance so they will all participate in the system. If they can pay for insurance, they must do it so we don't have to pay for unnecessaary emergency room visits and they don't forego less costly preventative treatments.

The President and Congress have already stipulated that the insurance companies will compete on a "level playing field." What more do they want? Are insurnace companies afraid of competition? If so, then maybe they are not competing now?

This goes back to the ethical argument about if healthcare should even be a for-profit industry. Using the past and current health insurance situation to make a reasoned decision, they would indicate that healthcare is not suitable for the profit motive. People have died so that an insurance company executives can receive bigger bonuses. Profits have been made at the expense of peoples' health and lives. And I'm sorry, but no corporate executive or insurnace company stockholder's prosperity is worth one human life. I think most reasonable people would agree.

While I think single-payer health insurance would be the most cost-effective replacement to private health insurance, the Government option is a great improvement over our present profitable private health insurance situation. I think it will go a long way toward saving more lives, and in a more cost-effective manner. So, if you really are concerned about the cost of healthcare to the general public, you would support single-payer or the Government option. Both will save you and me money, not cost us more. If you remember, it was the President who stated we can not long sustain the rise in healthcare costs. The present system is NOT sustainable. That's why the Government option is necessary.

[Dan Conner]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health reform bill comes in at $849 billion, and will reduce the federal budget deficit by $127 billion in the first 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office says, according to a senior Democratic aide.

For more information...http://www.politico.com

Not bad cost for 10 years. And a $127 Billion surplus? Great!!

[Bob Jentges]

Matt, in the event my post #103 @ 2:37 pm today was burried before you saw it, I updated (edited) it at 6:15 pm after I heard about the Reid Senate proposal.

[Matt Christianson]

Thanks Bob, I see it.

[Matt Christianson]

I'm glad that you now acknowledge the Government does have a role in improving and promoting the genertal welfare. I'm also glad you agree Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment are necessary. Then, I would like to know on what basis you argue that natiuonal healthcare is not Constitutional? Why have you engaged on a Constitutional argument then? Why didn't you state at the beginning that you didn't want new programs? That's not a Constitutional argument! Instead, you are concerned about cost. It all comes down to you not wanting to pay any more.

I think you have been missing the explanations offered by Obama. He has advocated changes in healthcare to REDUCE costs, not increase them. He has repeatedly said that the rapidly rising costs of healthcare is UNSUSTAINABLE!!! Now, you can complain about taxes, but that complaint is small compared to the time when you will no longer be able to afford healthcare insurance. The President wants change in healthcare to REDUCE your costs!! The only way insurance companies will reduce insurance costs is through competition. Insurance companies have shown they don't adequately compete with each other. Most states are dominated by virtual healthcare insurance company monopolies. They not only need to better compete with each other, they need to compete with an outsider, like the Government. Since the Government option is as it says, an option, people are not forced to take it. If they like their private insurance, keep it. If they don't, they'll be offered an alternative. However, everyone must have insurance so they will all participate in the system. If they can pay for insurance, they must do it so we don't have to pay for unnecessaary emergency room visits and they don't forego less costly preventative treatments.

The President and Congress have already stipulated that the insurance companies will compete on a "level playing field." What more do they want? Are insurnace companies afraid of competition? If so, then maybe they are not competing now?

This goes back to the ethical argument about if healthcare should even be a for-profit industry. Using the past and current health insurance situation to make a reasoned decision, they would indicate that healthcare is not suitable for the profit motive. People have died so that an insurance company executives can receive bigger bonuses. Profits have been made at the expense of peoples' health and lives. And I'm sorry, but no corporate executive or insurnace company stockholder's prosperity is worth one human life. I think most reasonable people would agree.

While I think single-payer health insurance would be the most cost-effective replacement to private health insurance, the Government option is a great improvement over our present profitable private health insurance situation. I think it will go a long way toward saving more lives, and in a more cost-effective manner. So, if you really are concerned about the cost of healthcare to the general public, you would support single-payer or the Government option. Both will save you and me money, not cost us more. If you remember, it was the President who stated we can not long sustain the rise in healthcare costs. The present system is NOT sustainable. That's why the Government option is necessary.

First of all I'm not arguing about the constitutionality of the aforementioned programs. Others have but I have not taken up serious debate on the issue. My thoughts has been that those programs are at their root voluntary and the current health reform bill is mandatory. That's one of the basis' of my argument against the current proposal.
As Bob stated earlier there is NO WAY that this is going to be budget neutral. Obama and his cohorts are lying. It uses unrealistic assumptions of Medicare cuts for one, and a host of other numbers games to make it appear neutral.
And we've been over your competition point ad nauseum. No one can effectively compete with an entity[the government option] that has no profit motive and is more then willing to operate a staggering deficit.

[Bob Jentges]

I read a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation this morning estimating the Reid health care reform proposal will result in $370 billion in higher taxes. Thats just taxes, not potential increase in insurance premiums, cuts in Medicare, etc.,etc. Still, by their own admission the Democrat Senate proposal will only insure 94% of Americans. Now, before exposing citizens to somewhere in the area of $1 trillion, about 85% of Americans have health insurance. There must be a less costly way of insuring the 9% difference!

If anyone is interested in reading the pdf of the 2074 (good grief) page Reid proposal it can be found at biggovernment.com/ and clicking on item #1.

I do not intend to read all of it; I have already read/heard/seen enough to realize it includes too many provisions I do not support, as well as provisions some, including me, consider unconstitutional. But if there are some who favor the Reid proposal, except those that might favor it because of blind party loyalty, maybe reading at least portions of the proposals would be enlightening.

If you prefer not to read all, or any of the pdf and have way too much time on your hands (I do not) you might consider watching the Senate floor debate where people who have read very little, if any of it will pontificate for it's passage. That is if the Democrats can muster the 60 votes necessary to begin debating the 2074 pages.

[Dan Conner]

First of all I'm not arguing about the constitutionality of the aforementioned programs. Others have but I have not taken up serious debate on the issue. My thoughts has been that those programs are at their root voluntary and the current health reform bill is mandatory. That's one of the basis' of my argument against the current proposal.
As Bob stated earlier there is NO WAY that this is going to be budget neutral. Obama and his cohorts are lying. It uses unrealistic assumptions of Medicare cuts for one, and a host of other numbers games to make it appear neutral.
And we've been over your competition point ad nauseum. No one can effectively compete with an entity[the government option] that has no profit motive and is more then willing to operate a staggering deficit.I think you better re-evaluate. Medicare and Social Security are not voluntary. That's why you have FICA taxes. In fact, most all of the Government programs are mandatory. You pay a mandatory tax for roads, etc. I don't agree with Obama lying and I am puzzled about how you think you have so much insight to think he is. I question the judgement of those who thought Bush was a truth teller, or voted in "lock-step" with him. The health care proposal isn't budget neutral. It will run a surplus at the end of 10 years. An even bigger surplus after 20.

[Matt Christianson]

I think you better re-evaluate. Medicare and Social Security are not voluntary. That's why you have FICA taxes. In fact, most all of the Government programs are mandatory. You pay a mandatory tax for roads, etc. I don't agree with Obama lying and I am puzzled about how you think you have so much insight to think he is. I question the judgement of those who thought Bush was a truth teller, or voted in "lock-step" with him. The health care proposal isn't budget neutral. It will run a surplus at the end of 10 years. An even bigger surplus after 20.

Well why then do you egg on others in this forum imploring them to opt out of SS and Medicare? Is it because FICA taxes are mandatory and participation in these programs is voluntary when one becomes eligible for such benefits? Seriously, I'd like to know.

[Matt Christianson]

I don't agree with Obama lying and I am puzzled about how you think you have so much insight to think he is. I question the judgement of those who thought Bush was a truth teller, or voted in "lock-step" with him. The health care proposal isn't budget neutral. It will run a surplus at the end of 10 years. An even bigger surplus after 20.

The $130 billion surplus is only made possible from 1 trillion dollars in cuts to Meidcare and Medicaid, something that would be surprising if Congress actually makes these cuts when the time comes. Again, in the past, Congress has never realized cuts in these programs thanks to public and special interest pressure. Furthermore, a cost that is kept seperate from these estimates, is the one that will shield Medicare docs from steep payments cuts. That will cost $210 billion erasing the suppossed surplus.
The other issue with the estimates is that they are derived from 10 years of tax collecting, but only six years of service, according to the analysis by the CBO.
The CBO also estimates that after full implementation of the program in 2014, the following 10 years (2014-2024)the cost will be $2.5 trillion.

[Bob Jentges]

I read a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation this morning estimating the Reid health care reform proposal will result in $370 billion in higher taxes. Thats just taxes, not potential increase in insurance premiums, cuts in Medicare, etc.,etc. Still, by their own admission the Democrat Senate proposal will only insure 94% of Americans. Now, before exposing citizens to somewhere in the area of $1 trillion, about 85% of Americans have health insurance. There must be a less costly way of insuring the 9% difference!

If anyone is interested in reading the pdf of the 2074 (good grief) page Reid proposal it can be found at biggovernment.com/ and clicking on item #1.

I do not intend to read all of it; I have already read/heard/seen enough to realize it includes too many provisions I do not support, as well as provisions some, including me, consider unconstitutional. But if there are some who favor the Reid proposal, except those that might favor it because of blind party loyalty, maybe reading at least portions of the proposals would be enlightening.

If you prefer not to read all, or any of the pdf and have way too much time on your hands (I do not) you might consider watching the Senate floor debate where people who have read very little, if any of it will pontificate for it's passage. That is if the Democrats can muster the 60 votes necessary to begin debating the 2074 pages.

In the event some missed my post early this morning, and also because I made a few revisions I am quoting it and including it with this post.

If you looked and did not find any tort reform provision in the Reid proposal that is because there was none, in spite of an AP poll this morning indicating 54% for and 32% against some form of tort reform.

[Dan Conner]

Well why then do you egg on others in this forum imploring them to opt out of SS and Medicare? Is it because FICA taxes are mandatory and participation in these programs is voluntary when one becomes eligible for such benefits? Seriously, I'd like to know.Yes, exactly. You have to contribute via payroll taxes, but you can elect not to receive benefits, if you want. That means just not filing for them, or you can donate them to the Federal deficit.

[Dan Conner]

The $130 billion surplus is only made possible from 1 trillion dollars in cuts to Meidcare and Medicaid, something that would be surprising if Congress actually makes these cuts when the time comes. Again, in the past, Congress has never realized cuts in these programs thanks to public and special interest pressure. Furthermore, a cost that is kept seperate from these estimates, is the one that will shield Medicare docs from steep payments cuts. That will cost $210 billion erasing the suppossed surplus.
The other issue with the estimates is that they are derived from 10 years of tax collecting, but only six years of service, according to the analysis by the CBO.
The CBO also estimates that after full implementation of the program in 2014, the following 10 years (2014-2024)the cost will be $2.5 trillion.Oh, you are very wrong again. The reason for the surplus at the end of the year is because of savings in Medicare and tax increases. The Medicare tax rate will increase for couples earning over $250,000/YEAR. There willbe no cuts in Medicare or Medicaid benefits, but there will be reductions in unnecessary/duplicative, abusive, and potentially fraudulent procedures, yielding significant savings. However, Medicare will continue the same coverage. Reductions will occur because of flaws in the law/program.

The second 10 years is expected to yield about a $650,000,000,000 surplus to further reduce the debt. The cost for the first 10 years was pegged at about $850 billion by CBO.

[Bob Jentges]

In the event some missed my post early this morning, and also because I made a few revisions I am quoting it and including it with this post.

If you looked and did not find any tort reform provision in the Reid proposal that is because there was none, in spite of an AP poll this morning indicating 54% for and 32% against some form of tort reform.

Matt, I expect you read my post #109 in this thread and had no comment, and I think I understand why. But it is still available for review and comment by other members if they have disagreement and chose to indicate why.

In addition to the AP poll cited in my above quote, in the 22 Rasmussen polls from July 10 & 11 thru November 13 & 14 only once (Sept 13 &14) did those in favor of the health care reform proposals in Congress out number (on a % basis) those opposed. Quite differrent from what one in this Forum has been trying to tell us. But when people accept the claim that the second 10 years of the Reid proposal (should it become law) is "...expected to yield about a $650,000,000,000 surplus to further reduce the debt", the polls certainly will turn around. I for one and not that naive, and if Harry Reid has a sand dune in his home state that he will sell I am not interested!

If one accepts the polls I mention herin, could it be that the majority of we the people are about to become victims (favorite Democrat word) of the tyranny of the majority in Congress?

In retiring from the Forum for the day, and from reading some responses to questions you posed to Dan, one could come to the following conclusion: People who contribute to FICA via payroll taxes but elect not to receive benifits when they become eligible are "selfless", but those that elect to receive their benifits are "selfish"!

[Dan Conner]

Matt, I expect you read my post #109 in this thread and had no comment, and I think I understand why. But it is still available for review and comment by other members if they have disagreement and chose to indicate why.

In addition to the AP poll cited in my above quote, in the 22 Rasmussen polls from July 10 & 11 thru November 13 & 14 only once (Sept 13 &14) did those in favor of the health care reform proposals in Congress out number (on a % basis) those opposed. Quite differrent from what one in this Forum has been trying to tell us. But when people accept the claim that the second 10 years of the Reid proposal (should it become law) is "...expected to yield about a $650,000,000,000 surplus to further reduce the debt", the polls certainly will turn around. I for one and not that naive, and if Harry Reid has a sand dune in his home state that he will sell I am not interested!

If one accepts the polls I mention herin, could it be that the majority of we the people are about to become victims (favorite Democrat word) of the tyranny of the majority in Congress?

In retiring from the Forum for the day, and from reading some responses to questions you posed to Dan, one could come to the following conclusion: People who contribute to FICA via payroll taxes but elect not to receive benifits when they become eligible are "selfless", but those that elect to receive their benifits are "selfish"!While there is another who writes in the Forum and says that he wants to take Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid from everyone who receives it, except....himself, of course. That is the epitomy of selfishness. Deprive everyone else, but continue to take those benefits for yourself. Oh, and then there is that same person, who decides that it is better to let people without health insurance die, than pay any additional tax or suffer any changes to his own benefits. Again, the epitomy of selfishness. Again, the same person who rationalizes his own selfishness by telling everyone that laws enacted to help others in our country are unconstitutional. A person who so lives in such fear and paranoia that they must proselytize others to their perversion lest they even fear being alone in their feeling. It is that person who eagerly sticks their nose in the public trough while trying to deny others of that opportunity. You know that attitude of "to hell with you, I've got mine."

It's a sad state in our nation, when someone with such an overpowering feeling of selfishness, divides our nation by taking everything they can get, while working to deprive others. The dog-eat-dog world. It seems to me that if that feeling continues in too many in our country, we shall never win another war, cure another ill, or right another wrong. It only means bickering, fighting and division. Truly a sad and sorry affair.

What has happened to the attitude of trying to float everyone's boat? Give everyone a chance at life? Well, I guess he would rather be a big cog in a little gear than a small cog in a big gear. In other words, he is content with his selfishness.

[Matt Christianson]

First of all, I have never observed Bob writing one time that he wants to do away with Medicare or Social Security while keeping it for himself. Thats a ludicrous claim and misinterpretation/misrepresentation of what Bob actually was arguing. You know that, Dan, and so should all others who observe our back and forths.
This is not about selfishness or selflessness. This is about a costly program (even with the supposed deficit reductions,if you believe any of that claim) during a time our economy cannot take any more taxation at any level. It will cost jobs, it will impose fines upon people who can ill-afford it, it will jail people who do not bow down to the over-zealous idol of a government, and it will raise costs across the board. Insurance, medical treatment...you name it. Our economy is still, though improving, in a tenuous circumstance and we must act a little more prudently. I agree, reform is needed. But sane, reserved, commonsense reform is the only solution. This chimera we have before us is anything but.

[Bob Jentges]

First of all, I have never observed Bob writing one time that he wants to do away with Medicare or Social Security while keeping it for himself. Thats a ludicrous claim and misinterpretation/misrepresentation of what Bob actually was arguing. You know that, Dan, and so should all others who observe our back and forths.
This is not about selfishness or selflessness. This is about a costly program (even with the supposed deficit reductions,if you believe any of that claim) during a time our economy cannot take any more taxation at any level. It will cost jobs, it will impose fines upon people who can ill-afford it, it will jail people who do not bow down to the over-zealous idol of a government, and it will raise costs across the board. Insurance, medical treatment...you name it. Our economy is still, though improving, in a tenuous circumstance and we must act a little more prudently. I agree, reform is needed. But sane, reserved, commonsense reform is the only solution. This chimera we have before us is anything but.

Matt, you have been reading and writing in this Forum long enough to realize that Dan's "misinterpretation/misrepresentation" of what me and many others write is SOP for him. As far as what he says about me personally, I think it might be the related to an unhealthy fixation because my principles of individual responsibility and limited government differ so greatly from his, and I am willing to stand on those principles.

A recent example of his "misintrepretation/misrepresentation" is when he accused me of falsely saying he attacked my ailing wife and refusing to apologize to him for what he called a false accusation. I think that was a reaction to my admonishing him for being critical of the parenting skills of my long deceased parents, who I am certain nether he or any of his acquaintances knew anything about. I hesitate to bring this issue up again because it really is not something that should be open for discussion in this Forum, but something happened recently that brought the matter back to my attention. A fellow from Southern California contacted me asking if I would write an article for his political web site. Old "narcissistic" me agreed to do it!

When researching my posts in this Forum for some ideas for the article I happened to come across those where the exchanges I think Dan was referencing took place. If I was at the correct posts where Dan says I made those remarks, in my opinion calling what I wrote accusing him of attacking my ailing wife is just as "ludicrous" as his comments you referenced in your recent post.

Talk about "misinterpretation/misrepresentstion", that was one of his better efforts at his specialties; emotion and personal insults. But if someone can quote me saying what Dan says I said in that regard and direct me to the thread and post I will take a look.

To me the fact that he did not address any of the actual health care related issues in my posts #'s 103, 109, 113, &116 is telling. Not that I care because none of the posts were specifically directed to him anyway. But since he chose to comment on those posts at all, maybe something less personal and/or emotional would have added more to the discussion of health care reform.

[Dan Conner]

First of all, I have never observed Bob writing one time that he wants to do away with Medicare or Social Security while keeping it for himself. Thats a ludicrous claim and misinterpretation/misrepresentation of what Bob actually was arguing. You know that, Dan, and so should all others who observe our back and forths.
This is not about selfishness or selflessness. This is about a costly program (even with the supposed deficit reductions,if you believe any of that claim) during a time our economy cannot take any more taxation at any level. It will cost jobs, it will impose fines upon people who can ill-afford it, it will jail people who do not bow down to the over-zealous idol of a government, and it will raise costs across the board. Insurance, medical treatment...you name it. Our economy is still, though improving, in a tenuous circumstance and we must act a little more prudently. I agree, reform is needed. But sane, reserved, commonsense reform is the only solution. This chimera we have before us is anything but.

I'm sorry you missed it, but he said it several times. In fact, as a result of him wishing to terminate the program, it prompted me to suggest he withdraw. However, he declined. It is fine that you want to stand up and defend him, but I think he is a big boy and he should be able to do that himself. If he wants to "dish it out" he needs to learn to take it. I think he is a little old to be hiding behind others.

It isn't too difficult to misinterpret a simple statement that someone wants to stop Medicare. That is as he stated it. Then, when I suggest he could show that great independence, he touts, by declining the benefits for himself and setting a fine independence example, he declined. I guess he only wanted everyone to show their independence, not just him, or a few others of his ilk.

I could liken his arguement by saying we should all go to war by fighting in the military, but I won't do it until everyone else does it first. Not very genuine or selfless. It is a ridiculous and selfish argument to suggest that Medicare be terminated for everyone, when one knows it is totally impractical and not supported by the vast majority of recipients. Repeated polls have shown people like Medicare. In fact, many of the "tea-partiers" held posters protesting the Government option for healthcare reform because they didn't want the Government to "mess" with their Medicare. I guess they didn't know that Medicare is a Government program that is changed by Government all the time.

His ridiculously selfish suggestion to terminate Medicare is further demonstrated when he equates a human life with additional taxes. Did he feel the same way about paying a lot more money to send quality bullet-proof vests to the soldiers fighting in Iraq? They cost more in taxes. Would he suggest they learn to be less dependent? I guess he feels life is less important than money, at least in terms of medical care. I disagree. And I feel that is a selfish attitutde, not wanting to help people because it might cost something. I guess I would respond by asking, "What would Jesus do?" Maybe a more important question would be, "What would Jesus think?" Life shouldn't be equated with money. Another indicator of selfishness is when one receives a benefit you have suggested should be terminated for everyone and then complains about how much of a bill it pays. He receives a benefit he feels is illegal" by his silly interpretation of the Constitution, but continues to take that "Illegal" benefit for himself. Then he complains because it didn't pay more of the hospital bill. To me that adds even more to the selfishness. He sets even a poorer example for everyone by complaining that there wasn't more food in that trough where he stuck his nose. That even sounded greedy. However, when I explained Medicare appeal procedures for him to use to have those payments re-evaluated, he declined. So, I guess he wanted to complain, without following a prescribed procedure for "making things right", and, instead, have a program terminated for everyone. It was like he was looking for a reason to complain. Heck many private health insurance policies don't even have formal appeal procedures. I'm sorry, but I see a lot of selfishness there, both on his part and by insurance companies. If the Government had acted as selfishly, as let's say he, then wouldn't it have said for Bob to not complain in his dependent state and instead seek relief and help in the community? Maybe there would be non-profit, or religious organization, that could help pay for part of the bill he disputed? Also, there is his attitude about he doesn't want any more people given health insurnace, if it is going to affect his benefits. I'm sorry, but again selfish.

Also, I don't think you are understanding the larger debate here. The President did not only propose healthcare reform to help the uninsured. He also proposed it to save money. While a single-payer plan would have saved the most money, the compromise Government option should help save some money used in healthcare. Also, pre-existing conditions and costly illnesses won't be a reason to deny people. It will be a humanitarian plan that saves our economy money.

I thought it very interesting that GM (also others) has several plants in Canada making cars. The labor in Canada is more. Taxes in Canada are higher. However, the savings in health insurance allows GM to make cars cheaper than in the US. Go figure! Almost all of that due to healthcare costs in the US. Obama has been saying that our country will better prosper by being more competitive in the world marketplace when offering universal healthcare coverage. The ironic part of all that is that Canada has less infant mortality and longer life for its people. In other words, we are paying a lot more for a lot less.

I think people need to ask more community/national questions using "we" instead of "me." Too many worry only about themselves and not about others.

[Bob Jentges]

Matt, you have been reading and writing in this Forum long enough to realize that Dan's "misinterpretation/misrepresentation" of what me and many others write is SOP for him. As far as what he says about me personally, I think it might be the related to an unhealthy fixation because my principles of individual responsibility and limited government differ so greatly from his, and I am willing to stand on those principles.

A recent example of his "misintrepretation/misrepresentation" is when he accused me of falsely saying he attacked my ailing wife and refusing to apologize to him for what he called a false accusation. I think that was a reaction to my admonishing him for being critical of the parenting skills of my long deceased parents, who I am certain nether he or any of his acquaintances knew anything about. I hesitate to bring this issue up again because it really is not something that should be open for discussion in this Forum, but something happened recently that brought the matter back to my attention. A fellow from Southern California contacted me asking if I would write an article for his political web site. Old "narcissistic" me agreed to do it!

When researching my posts in this Forum for some ideas for the article I happened to come across those where the exchanges I think Dan was referencing took place. If I was at the correct posts where Dan says I made those remarks, in my opinion calling what I wrote accusing him of attacking my ailing wife is just as "ludicrous" as his comments you referenced in your recent post.

Talk about "misinterpretation/misrepresentstion", that was one of his better efforts at his specialties; emotion and personal insults. But if someone can quote me saying what Dan says I said in that regard and direct me to the thread and post I will take a look.

To me the fact that he did not address any of the actual health care related issues in my posts #'s 103, 109, 113, &116 is telling. Not that I care because none of the posts were specifically directed to him anyway. But since he chose to comment on those posts at all, maybe something less personal and/or emotional would have added more to the discussion of health care reform.

Matt, if you choose to reply to Dan's post #120 it can be found immediatly following my post #119, which I quote above.

As you can see in my #119 comment about his suggestion I accused him of "attacking" my "ailing wife", I wrote "... if someone can quote me as saying what Dan says I said in that regard and direct me to the thread and post I will take a look." No such direction yet!

Then in his post #117 Dan said I want "...to take Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid from everyone who receives it except ... himself, of course." When you said in your post #118 you never saw my writing such a "ludicrous claim", in his post #120 Dan says: "Sorry you missed it, but he said it several times." To that claim by Dan I say, if anyone can direct me to a thread and posts where I said that (just once, not many times) I will take a look. I wait with baited breath!

Stuff like those things is why I finally came to my senses and refuse to respond direct to anything Dan posts in this Forum. The way I see it, in order to have a constructive dialog all parties must say something of substance, without getting personal, and when one drifts off into never-never land the other must try to clear the record. I will not waste my time defendending myself against "misinterpretations/misrepresentations" of what I write, especially when they involve personal matters, at least not by responding direct to the misinterpreter/misrepresenter. I do not expect others to be put in that position either. But I do intend to continue making posts in this Forum.

[Dan Conner]

Matt, if you choose to reply to Dan's post #120 it can be found immediatly following my post #119, which I quote above.

As you can see in my #119 comment about his suggestion I accused him of "attacking" my "ailing wife", I wrote "... if someone can quote me as saying what Dan says I said in that regard and direct me to the thread and post I will take a look." No such direction yet!

Then in his post #117 Dan said I want "...to take Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid from everyone who receives it except ... himself, of course." When you said in your post #118 you never saw my writing such a "ludicrous claim", in his post #120 Dan says: "Sorry you missed it, but he said it several times." To that claim by Dan I say, if anyone can direct me to a thread and posts where I said that (just once, not many times) I will take a look. I wait with baited breath!

Stuff like those things is why I finally came to my senses and refuse to respond direct to anything Dan posts in this Forum. The way I see it, in order to have a constructive dialog all parties must say something of substance, without getting personal, and when one drifts off into never-never land the other must try to clear the record. I will not waste my time defendending myself against "misinterpretations/misrepresentations" of what I write, especially when they involve personal matters, at least not by responding direct to the misinterpreter/misrepresenter. I do not expect others to be put in that position either. But I do intend to continue making posts in this Forum.Well, for those lost ones waiting for a reply about where they accused me of attacking their spouse, here it is: "My wife is a Stage IV cancer survivor. You were aware of that from a different thread before your writing this morning, which to me makes what you wrote even more despicable." I thought this was pretty pointed, and most importantly wrong. Now, I challenge the accuser to find out where I attacked his spouse. This is a direct quote. However, I am totally surprised the accuser can't remember making the accusation. Maybe it shows the little regard he has for what he writes. Apparently, his opinions so morph over time, he can't remember what he has said, particularly accusations.

While I have extracted the statement exactly as Bob wrote it, I don't propose to do his work for him and show him where he said it, unless he acknowledges that he can't find it. I suggest he search for the remark, like I did. If Bob can't find it, I will help and tell him the thread and post #.

Then, I suggest he read his other posts about the other statements he made. Maybe it is "old age" that is causing him to forget what he says, but I think he needs to do some of the work himslef to look and see what he says. I should not have to recount Bob's words. He should be able to do that himself. However, if he is incapable of finding a reference for the above, he can ask me for the references and I will give them to him. Otherwise, I don't propose to do his research for him. He fails enough doing that for himself.

Also, I think Bob no longer directly replies to me because he gets embarrassed being wrong so many times. Well, I guess I would feel the same way, if I were embarrassed that many times. However, I am perfectly comfortable being a "Pocahontas" to save the Captain Johns Smith (Bob). Bob, let me know when you can't find the references about denying Medicare and I will help you. I found several. However, I know you like referring to post numbers, but I suggest you better familiarize yourself with what's in them. Also, it is probably a good time for you to work atr not becoming so dependent on me.

[Bob Jentges]

For those interested, the quote: "My wife is a Stage IV cancer survivor. You were aware of that before your writing this morning, which to me makes what you wrote even more despicable", is what I was referring to in paragraphs two and three of my November 17 post #119 in the Single-payer...thread.

I think trying to spin that stand alone quote into my saying I was accusing someone of "attacking" my "ailing wife" is preposterous! Maybe someone could tell us what Dan wrote in his "writing earlier [that] morning". Then maybe we could put things in perspective. I have not looked back that far to check since November 17 when I accidently came across the quote (which I think was made weeks, even months ago) while researching some of my Forum posts in order to prepare the article I was asked to write for a California political web site. I do not intend to search further unless someone can give me reasonable assurance what I find in a specific thread in a specific post could reasonably be construed as me accusing Dan of "attacking" my "ailing wife". I am almost certain I said no such thing. From memory, I think what I referred to as Dan's earlier "writing this morning" probably dealt with his suggestion that we (my wife and me) drop Medicare knowing the expenses we were incurring related to cancer treatment. But that's just from my memory, and I will admit age 72 is "old".

With respect to the Medicare, Social Security, etc., issues, I guess Dan dosen't understand that the way it works is the person that makes the claim has the burdon of proof. If he follows his usual tactic he will turn that around and say it is my duty to prove I did not say something i.e. prove a negative. But I had some time on my hands this evening and since Dan did not provide much information on it in his post, I did spend a little time researching the repeal of Medicare, Social Security, etc., accusation issues. In the Building a better health care thread, my post #69 I see I quoted from an opinion article where the author of the article wrote that and other things. That was not me saying that; it was me quoting another opinion writer. In fact, in the paragraph immediatly following I said: "That recomendation does not seem likely or realistic either,..."

Also, in the Single-payer... thread, my post #42 quotes Harry Browne, Libertarian Party presidential candidate in '96 and '00 who gave his solution to health care reform as "End Medicare...End Medicaid...End federal regulation...Repeal all the state and federal laws that tell insurance companies what benifits to include in their policies", etc., etc. Again that was not me saying that; it was me quoting Harry Browne. In fact, in the paragraph immediatly following my quoting Browne I said: "His plan, or even parts of it will almost certainly not be implemented..."

Unless someone can point me to a specific thread and specific post where I personally said what Dan is accusing me of saying about repealing Medicare, etc., I have spent all the time I intend to spend addressing Dan's bogus personal allegations.

[Dan Conner]

For those interested, the quote: "My wife is a Stage IV cancer survivor. You were aware of that before your writing this morning, which to me makes what you wrote even more despicable", is what I was referring to in paragraphs two and three of my November 17 post #119 in the Single-payer...thread.

I think trying to spin that stand alone quote into my saying I was accusing someone of "attacking" my "ailing wife" is preposterous! Maybe someone could tell us what Dan wrote in his "writing earlier [that] morning". Then maybe we could put things in perspective. I have not looked back that far to check since November 17 when I accidently came across the quote (which I think was made weeks, even months ago) while researching some of my Forum posts in order to prepare the article I was asked to write for a California political web site. I do not intend to search further unless someone can give me reasonable assurance what I find in a specific thread in a specific post could reasonably be construed as me accusing Dan of "attacking" my "ailing wife". I am almost certain I said no such thing. From memory, I think what I referred to as Dan's earlier "writing this morning" probably dealt with his suggestion that we (my wife and me) drop Medicare knowing the expenses we were incurring related to cancer treatment. But that's just from my memory, and I will admit age 72 is "old".

With respect to the Medicare, Social Security, etc., issues, I guess Dan dosen't understand that the way it works is the person that makes the claim has the burdon of proof. If he follows his usual tactic he will turn that around and say it is my duty to prove I did not say something i.e. prove a negative. But I had some time on my hands this evening and since Dan did not provide much information on it in his post, I did spend a little time researching the repeal of Medicare, Social Security, etc., accusation issues. In the Building a better health care thread, my post #69 I see I quoted from an opinion article where the author of the article wrote that and other things. That was not me saying that; it was me quoting another opinion writer. In fact, in the paragraph immediatly following I said: "That recomendation does not seem likely or realistic either,..."

Also, in the Single-payer... thread, my post #42 quotes Harry Browne, Libertarian Party presidential candidate in '96 and '00 who gave his solution to health care reform as "End Medicare...End Medicaid...End federal regulation...Repeal all the state and federal laws that tell insurance companies what benifits to include in their policies", etc., etc. Again that was not me saying that; it was me quoting Harry Browne. In fact, in the paragraph immediatly following my quoting Browne I said: "His plan, or even parts of it will almost certainly not be implemented..."

Unless someone can point me to a specific thread and specific post where I personally said what Dan is accusing me of saying about repealing Medicare, etc., I have spent all the time I intend to spend addressing Dan's bogus personal allegations. I have quoted you, and it wasn't in the thread or post # you are talking about. You better start reading your own posts. It was in the States Rights thread and post #62. There you go again, morphing what you say. You make obvious statements and accusations that you later deny. I haven't spun anything. I simply quote what you said. You falsely make clear literal accusations, but you are foolish enough to accuse me of "spinning?" You must communicate in code or something. It must be the code of inverse meanings. You make clear statements that you deny... I would love to hear from you, your interpretation of what that sentence meant. Now that I have given you the thread and post, you can read your whole quote and get over your amnesia. You use the word "spin?" Well, I sure would like to hear what you really meant. Man, you are full of BS. Well, guess what, your ALMOST being certain you didn't say it is more BS. Remember ALMOST is really only relevant for such things as horseshoes and atom bombs. You made the accusation, and I gave the reference. I even responded to your accusation, and you never bothered a reply , apology, clarification, or anything.

As far as terminating Medicare for people, you made that statement several times, but I'm not going to furnish those places for you because you appear unable to locate places where you make these flippant statements. And I tire of doing your work for you. Don't blame your reactionary hero references for making your statements. You heartily supported them. In fact, you argued in favor of them in succeeding posts. I suggest that you refrain from hiding behind everyone when making your statements. You have tried to use Joe, you have huddled with and hid behind Matt and Jonathon, and now you blame writers of your extreme right-wing ilk. Bob, you have to take some responsibility for something, particularly when you are such a staunch advocate that others take responsibility for themselves. I suggest you live more in the do as I do world and a lot less in the do as I say world. You want people to be independent and self-sufficient? Then, you better be more of that yourself. It would certainly help if you led the way, instead of asking others to do that.

You know your talk is cheap and means virtually nothing, especially if you lack the conviction to follow your own ideals. Don't preach your propaganda for others, when you neither have the ability or inclination to follow your own BS.

Also, I don't think you need to tell me about the way Social Security works. I think I am far more aware of that than you, lest you forget me having to explain how Medicare appeals and withdrawing of Social Security and Medicare works. As far as what I think you mean by burdon (sp), which I think should be spelled burden, it very much depends on the issue. While I hate taking you back to "school" on Social Security, I think you should request a pamphlet be mailed to you, explaining the program, or actually look at the Social Security website before you make more silly statements about burdens of proof. You seem to talk confidently about things you know little about.

If you want me to furnish references where you advocate terminating Medicare, let me know. I will dig up a few. Of course, you will probably claim you didn't make thiose statements too. You seem to be a person who say a lot, nothing of which you mean.

[Matt Christianson]

For those of you not wanting to dig back into the States Rights thread...

"You have stooped to the old tactic of when you can not win the debate on policy or substance, get personal.

I thought for a few hours about whether I should even respond to your post, but I think your tirade so lacks civility I will respond, against my better judgement.

Regarding your suggestion that I refuse Medicare, that is not an option for us at this time. I think you know this, but there is a regulation (government I believe) that Medicare is primary over my private supplemental policy insurance coverage. Since I am eligible for Medicare the regulation mandates the supplemental policy is limited to paying only for medical services over and above what Medicare would pay, whether I have Medicare or not.

My wife is a Stage IV cancer survivor. You were aware of that from a different thread before your writing this morning, which to me makes what you wrote even more despicable. Her medical expenses over the past 7 years of her couragous and inspiring battle have been enormous! Medicare denying payment (rationing) of certain treatment recommended by Mayo Clinic oncologist's has been a significant out-of-pocket expense. The same regulation (government I believe) prevents our supplemental policy from paying for the recommended treatment for which Medicare denied payment. Before she was eligible for Medicare that same insurer (Blue Cross/Blue Shield)was our primary carrier and paid for the recommended treatment Medicare now denys payment for.

We are dissappointed about the cancer situation, but not complaining. Life has been good to us and is still good. We were conservative people before the cancer and continue with that philosophy. However, we try to balance between and seperate principles from stupidity when it comes to payment of my wife's medical expenses.

I trust the compassionate person you claim to be will understand. But if not and you want to continue to call me a hypocrite, that is your prerogative "

I implore anyone to tell me where Bob has "... want[ed] to take Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid from everyone who receives it, except....himself, of course." as Dan stated earlier.

You, Dan, accuse Bob of reading into your statements or filling in gaps or what-have-you. It's clear that you are doing exactly what you are accusing Bob of.

You seem to be confused or delusional yourself. What advanced age have you reached now?

[Dan Conner]

For those of you not wanting to dig back into the States Rights thread...

"You have stooped to the old tactic of when you can not win the debate on policy or substance, get personal.

I thought for a few hours about whether I should even respond to your post, but I think your tirade so lacks civility I will respond, against my better judgement.

Regarding your suggestion that I refuse Medicare, that is not an option for us at this time. I think you know this, but there is a regulation (government I believe) that Medicare is primary over my private supplemental policy insurance coverage. Since I am eligible for Medicare the regulation mandates the supplemental policy is limited to paying only for medical services over and above what Medicare would pay, whether I have Medicare or not.

My wife is a Stage IV cancer survivor. You were aware of that from a different thread before your writing this morning, which to me makes what you wrote even more despicable. Her medical expenses over the past 7 years of her couragous and inspiring battle have been enormous! Medicare denying payment (rationing) of certain treatment recommended by Mayo Clinic oncologist's has been a significant out-of-pocket expense. The same regulation (government I believe) prevents our supplemental policy from paying for the recommended treatment for which Medicare denied payment. Before she was eligible for Medicare that same insurer (Blue Cross/Blue Shield)was our primary carrier and paid for the recommended treatment Medicare now denys payment for.

We are dissappointed about the cancer situation, but not complaining. Life has been good to us and is still good. We were conservative people before the cancer and continue with that philosophy. However, we try to balance between and seperate principles from stupidity when it comes to payment of my wife's medical expenses.

I trust the compassionate person you claim to be will understand. But if not and you want to continue to call me a hypocrite, that is your prerogative "

I implore anyone to tell me where Bob has "... want[ed] to take Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid from everyone who receives it, except....himself, of course." as Dan stated earlier.That is stated other places in his numerous posts, but he'll have to find it. I found them.

You, Dan, accuse Bob of reading into your statements or filling in gaps or what-have-you. It's clear that you are doing exactly what you are accusing Bob of. Obviously, you haven't searched his many posts to find his Medicare statements. I think you need to look again. They are there. However, I'm not going to do your work for you while you sit back and ask that I tell you where Bob says what he says. I think he needs to find that for himself.

You seem to be confused or delusional yourself. What advanced age have you reached now?First, there are several areas where Bob has stated that he would like to see Medicare terminated. I have already furnished his reference where he wrongfully accused me of maligning his wife and I refuse to continue to document what he said. He should know what he said, and if not, I would hope he has the ability to look, just like I do. Maybe it would be a good idea for him to read his past posts to see what he says. I'm telling you he has said that he advocates for terminating Medicare. I will document what I say, but franlky, I'm tired of documenting what he said.

Also, he was wrong in the above quote. While Medicare is primary payer after one no longer has work-related health insurance, it is not limited to pay what Medicare doesn't. There are many people uninsured for Medicare, but have private health insurance. Their health insurance is not limited by a hypothetical Medicare coverage. Medicare only becomes primary when there is no work connection any longer. Before that, it was the employer private health insurnace. Otherwise, there is no artificial limit of coverage for private insurnace. However, I suggest Bob check with his private insurer. I think they are cheating him or others, if that is what they are saying. They can pay whatever they like, not limited by Medicare, but it sure sounds like they are dodging a bullet by blaming Medicare and telling policy holders so. I suggest Bob read the "fine print" in his policy, like he recommends for others. The private insurnace chooses to limit what they pay. Just thin for a minute...why would the Government limit, or even care, how much a private policy pays toward medical care? Government would like to have private insurance pay all the bill, if they want. It was the insurance lobby that insisted Medicare be primary after an employment relationshi, with employer health insurnace, terminates.

[Bob Jentges]

For those of you not wanting to dig back into the States Rights thread...

"You have stooped to the old tactic of when you can not win the debate on policy or substance, get personal.

I thought for a few hours about whether I should even respond to your post, but I think your tirade so lacks civility I will respond, against my better judgement.

Regarding your suggestion that I refuse Medicare, that is not an option for us at this time. I think you know this, but there is a regulation (government I believe) that Medicare is primary over my private supplemental policy insurance coverage. Since I am eligible for Medicare the regulation mandates the supplemental policy is limited to paying only for medical services over and above what Medicare would pay, whether I have Medicare or not.

My wife is a Stage IV cancer survivor. You were aware of that from a different thread before your writing this morning, which to me makes what you wrote even more despicable. Her medical expenses over the past 7 years of her couragous and inspiring battle have been enormous! Medicare denying payment (rationing) of certain treatment recommended by Mayo Clinic oncologist's has been a significant out-of-pocket expense. The same regulation (government I believe) prevents our supplemental policy from paying for the recommended treatment for which Medicare denied payment. Before she was eligible for Medicare that same insurer (Blue Cross/Blue Shield)was our primary carrier and paid for the recommended treatment Medicare now denys payment for.

We are dissappointed about the cancer situation, but not complaining. Life has been good to us and is still good. We were conservative people before the cancer and continue with that philosophy. However, we try to balance between and seperate principles from stupidity when it comes to payment of my wife's medical expenses.

I trust the compassionate person you claim to be will understand. But if not and you want to continue to call me a hypocrite, that is your prerogative "

I implore anyone to tell me where Bob has "... want[ed] to take Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid from everyone who receives it, except....himself, of course." as Dan stated earlier.

You, Dan, accuse Bob of reading into your statements or filling in gaps or what-have-you. It's clear that you are doing exactly what you are accusing Bob of.

You seem to be confused or delusional yourself. What advanced age have you reached now?

Matt, you beat me to digging back in the States Rights thread, and thank you for quoting the entirety of what I said in my post #62; it saved me some time!

Additionally, if anyone but three of us is still reading the Forum they might be interested in looking at what Dan said in his post #61 in the States Rights thread. What he said there is what I was resopnding to in my post #62. Interesting how a little perspective/context makes Dan's preposterous allegation that I accused him of "attacking" my "ailing wife" beyond preposterous!

Reading Dan's post #124 reply to my #123 again demonstrates his inability, or maybe refusal to comprehend the written word if it does not follow his template. EXAMPLES:

1) I did not say the "My wife is a Stage..." quote could be found in my November 17 post #119. In post #119 I simply said that quote was something I accidently came accross when researching my posts in the Forum while preparing the article I was asked to write. Almost anyone who read paragraphs two and three in #119 should have seen that.

2) I was not trying to tell Dan "about the way Social Security works". I would expect that someone who spent many years working in SSA should know how it works. What I was saying was two-fold: First, that because Dan claimed I "...want[ed] to take Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid from everyone who receives it, except...himself, of course", the burden of proving that claim rested with him; he made the claim. (burden of proof is a legal phrase) The burden was not on me to prove I did not say it i.e. prove a negative. Since Dan did not cite any thread or post to reference as proof of his allegation, I took a little time looking through threads/posts that might provide at least some evidence, if not proof, that Dan's allegations had any merit.

Moreover, with respect to the Medicare, etc., allegations I did find two posts where I quoted others who put forth suggestions like that. I discussed those in my post #123, and then stated my opinion that they "...did not seem likely or realistic..." and "...will almost certainly not be implemented...".

I think the "attacking" allegation has been completly debunked! Maybe he can now try to tell us he did not indirectly insult my long deceased parents parenting ability. I can meet my burden of proof that he did. It can be found in the final paragraph of his November 13 post #99 in the States Rights thread: "Well, parents can't be successful all the time teaching children like you to share."

I will take the position their is no merit to his Medicare, etc., allegations unless and until Dan can meet his burden of proof there.

I am beginning to wonder if Dan is actually "confused or delusional". I think his continuous misunderstanding/misrepresenting/making-up what others say out of thin air, combined with his claimed compassion provides a very good "mask" for evil demonstrated toward those who disagree with his philosophy. OOPS---there went a "black helicopter"!

Matt, you have opened yourself up for another barrage of hate-filled attacks, but you know what you are doing and will handle it in an appropriate fashion.

[Dan Conner]

You beat me to digging back in the States Rights thread, and thank you for quoting the entirety of what I said in my post #62; it saved me some time!

Additionally, if anyone but three of us is still reading the Forum they might be interested in looking at what Dan said in his post #61 in the States Rights thread. What he said there is what I was resopnding to in my post #62. Interestong how a little perspective/context makes Dan's preposterous allegation that I accused him of "attacking" my "ailing wife" beyond preposterous!

Reading Dan's post #124 reply to my #123 again demonstrates his inability, or maybe refusal to comprehend the written word if it does not follow his template. EXAMPLES:

1) I did not say the "My wife is a Stage..." quote could be found in my November 17 post #119. In post #119 I simply said that quote was something I accidently came accross when researching my posts in the Forum while preparing the article I was asked to write. Almost anyone who read paragraphs two and three in #119 should have seen that.

2) I was not trying to tell Dan "about the way Social Security works". I would expect that someone who spent many years working in SSA should know how it works. What I was saying was two-fold: First, that because Dan claimed I "...want[ed] to take Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid from everyone who receives it, except...himself, of course", the burden of proving that claim rested with him; he made the claim. (burden of proof is a legal phrase) The burden was not on me to prove I did not say it i.e. prove a negative. Since Dan did not cite any thread or post to reference as proof of his allegation, I took a little time looking through threads/posts that might provide at least some evidence, if not proof, that Dan's allegations had any merit.

Moreover, with respect to the Medicare, etc., allegations I did find two posts where I quoted others who put forth suggestions like that. I discussed those in my post #123, and as stated my opinion that they "...did not seem likely or realistic..." and "...will almost certainly not be implemented...".

I think the "attacking" allegation has been completly debunked! Maybe he can now try to tell us he did not indirectly insult my long deceased parents parenting ability. I can meet my burden of proof that he did. It can be found in the final paragraph of his November 13 post #99 in the States Rights thread: "Well, parents can't be successfuk all the time teaching children like you to share."

I will take the position their is no merit to his Medicare, etc., allegations unless and until Dan can meet his burden of proof there.

I am beginning to wonder if Dan is actually "confused or delusional". I think his continuous misunderstanding/misrepresenting/making-up what others say out of thin air, combined with his claimed compassion provides a very good "mask" for evil demonstrated toward those who disagree with his philosophy. OOPS---there went a "black helicopter"!

Matt, you have opened yourself up for another barrage of hate-filled attacks, but you know what you are doing and will handle it in an appropriate fashion.I thought it interesting how Bob blames me for making allegations about his wife, that I never made. WOW!! He must have a very paranoid mind to see that. I suggested numerous times that he could withdraw from Medicare, but that is "he". I think his paranoia is affecting his judgement here. Not only did I not say anything about his wife, I hope that he recognizes that "he" is even the wrong sex. I told Bob he could withdraw, not his spouse. I thought that was pretty plain language, but to some... Hopefully, everyone does read my post 61 and find that "subliminal" reference to his spouse. To think that Bob questions other peoiple's ability to interpret the written word.....?

[Bob Jentges]

Matt, you beat me to digging back in the States Rights thread, and thank you for quoting the entirety of what I said in my post #62; it saved me some time!

Additionally, if anyone but three of us is still reading the Forum they might be interested in looking at what Dan said in his post #61 in the States Rights thread. What he said there is what I was resopnding to in my post #62. Interesting how a little perspective/context makes Dan's preposterous allegation that I accused him of "attacking" my "ailing wife" beyond preposterous!

Reading Dan's post #124 reply to my #123 again demonstrates his inability, or maybe refusal to comprehend the written word if it does not follow his template. EXAMPLES:

1) I did not say the "My wife is a Stage..." quote could be found in my November 17 post #119. In post #119 I simply said that quote was something I accidently came accross when researching my posts in the Forum while preparing the article I was asked to write. Almost anyone who read paragraphs two and three in #119 should have seen that.

2) I was not trying to tell Dan "about the way Social Security works". I would expect that someone who spent many years working in SSA should know how it works. What I was saying was two-fold: First, that because Dan claimed I "...want[ed] to take Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid from everyone who receives it, except...himself, of course", the burden of proving that claim rested with him; he made the claim. (burden of proof is a legal phrase) The burden was not on me to prove I did not say it i.e. prove a negative. Since Dan did not cite any thread or post to reference as proof of his allegation, I took a little time looking through threads/posts that might provide at least some evidence, if not proof, that Dan's allegations had any merit.

Moreover, with respect to the Medicare, etc., allegations I did find two posts where I quoted others who put forth suggestions like that. I discussed those in my post #123, and then stated my opinion that they "...did not seem likely or realistic..." and "...will almost certainly not be implemented...".

I think the "attacking" allegation has been completly debunked! Maybe he can now try to tell us he did not indirectly insult my long deceased parents parenting ability. I can meet my burden of proof that he did. It can be found in the final paragraph of his November 13 post #99 in the States Rights thread: "Well, parents can't be successful all the time teaching children like you to share."

I will take the position their is no merit to his Medicare, etc., allegations unless and until Dan can meet his burden of proof there.

I am beginning to wonder if Dan is actually "confused or delusional". I think his continuous misunderstanding/misrepresenting/making-up what others say out of thin air, combined with his claimed compassion provides a very good "mask" for evil demonstrated toward those who disagree with his philosophy. OOPS---there went a "black helicopter"!

Matt, you have opened yourself up for another barrage of hate-filled attacks, but you know what you are doing and will handle it in an appropriate fashion.

Matt, I made my above post at 8:15 am and made a few spelling and grammer corrections at 8:26 am. Dan was able to quote my origional post and submit a (short for him) reply (post #128) before my edit hit the system. Get a life!

I have often said Dan likes to try to turn around what others write. He did it again in post #128. He said: "...Bob blames me for making allegations about his wife, that I never made." That is exactly the opposite of what I have been saying from the start---I last said such a claim by Dan was "...beyond preposterous." (post 127) Amazing!

Dan's use of the word "paranoid" made me smile. It seemed like an attempt to link with my phrase "black helicopter". Weak link, but considering the source the best one might expect.

It's half time of the Gopher game (9-0 IA) so I did a little more research on the repeal Medicare, etc., issue. I scrolled back a few posts from post #61 in the States Rights thread and found that in my post #57 I said: "Medicare (although effectively broke) has done good things for many people, but that in itself does not mean it was Constitutional when it was passed or is Constitutional now. Nobody has the courage to challenge, and maybe that is a good thing with respect to Medicare." I think that comment, combined with the comment's about the articles where I quoted other opinion writers in my post quoted above, seem to reflect the opposite of what Dan is accusing me of wanting with respect to Medicare. Amazing!!

I read Dan's post #126 directed to you. The second sentence in the final paragraph does not make sense. Also, the only things I was incorrect about in my States Rights post #62 was that I thought it was a government law/regulation that made Medicare primary over our private supplemental policy, since we retired, and that it was a government regulation that prevented our private supplemental policy from making payment for doctor recommended tests/medical treatment Medicare would not cover, which the supplemental covered as our primary coverage before we were eligible for Medicare.

That is about all I have to add to my post #127 quoted above for now. Back to the game. I coached in Iowa for three years, but my loyalty to Gopher football was always strong. Go Gophers!

[Matt Christianson]

Speaking of which...it's time to fire Brewster and bring in a coach that can call a game!!

[Dan Conner]

Matt, you beat me to digging back in the States Rights thread, and thank you for quoting the entirety of what I said in my post #62; it saved me some time!

Additionally, if anyone but three of us is still reading the Forum they might be interested in looking at what Dan said in his post #61 in the States Rights thread. What he said there is what I was resopnding to in my post #62. Interesting how a little perspective/context makes Dan's preposterous allegation that I accused him of "attacking" my "ailing wife" beyond preposterous!

Reading Dan's post #124 reply to my #123 again demonstrates his inability, or maybe refusal to comprehend the written word if it does not follow his template. EXAMPLES:

1) I did not say the "My wife is a Stage..." quote could be found in my November 17 post #119. In post #119 I simply said that quote was something I accidently came accross when researching my posts in the Forum while preparing the article I was asked to write. Almost anyone who read paragraphs two and three in #119 should have seen that.

2) I was not trying to tell Dan "about the way Social Security works". I would expect that someone who spent many years working in SSA should know how it works. What I was saying was two-fold: First, that because Dan claimed I "...want[ed] to take Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid from everyone who receives it, except...himself, of course", the burden of proving that claim rested with him; he made the claim. (burden of proof is a legal phrase) The burden was not on me to prove I did not say it i.e. prove a negative. Since Dan did not cite any thread or post to reference as proof of his allegation, I took a little time looking through threads/posts that might provide at least some evidence, if not proof, that Dan's allegations had any merit.

Moreover, with respect to the Medicare, etc., allegations I did find two posts where I quoted others who put forth suggestions like that. I discussed those in my post #123, and then stated my opinion that they "...did not seem likely or realistic..." and "...will almost certainly not be implemented...".

I think the "attacking" allegation has been completly debunked! Maybe he can now try to tell us he did not indirectly insult my long deceased parents parenting ability. I can meet my burden of proof that he did. It can be found in the final paragraph of his November 13 post #99 in the States Rights thread: "Well, parents can't be successful all the time teaching children like you to share."

I will take the position their is no merit to his Medicare, etc., allegations unless and until Dan can meet his burden of proof there.

I am beginning to wonder if Dan is actually "confused or delusional". I think his continuous misunderstanding/misrepresenting/making-up what others say out of thin air, combined with his claimed compassion provides a very good "mask" for evil demonstrated toward those who disagree with his philosophy. OOPS---there went a "black helicopter"!

Matt, you have opened yourself up for another barrage of hate-filled attacks, but you know what you are doing and will handle it in an appropriate fashion.Now you are getting laughable Bob. I will make this last attempt to reason with you, even though I don't think that might be possible. You have a talent for turning a debate to the ridiculous. Too much of your paper thin ego seems affected and twisted with a serious paranoia. I am concerned about your paranoia. It seems to affect your ability to comprehend and seriously colors your interpretation of the written word.

You seem infatuated with post #119, 123, and 124, none to which I referred. Then, you neglect to address the one I detailed. Now you morph your whining "poor me" debate to another quote of mine. Amazingly, you accurately quoted me, but again allowed your paranoia to twist the interpretation to extrapolate a slight of your parents? In fact, I probably comiserate with them. It was like I said, parents can't always be successful teaching their children to share. No slight of them, only a sympathetic feeling for their thwarted effort to better teach you to share. I guess we all must have regrets for some things.

Then you said this, "I would expect that someone who spent many years working in SSA should know how it works." You have such an uncanny ability to state the obvious. Now, to describe your writing so benighly is farcical. You probably intended it as a compliment, right? It seems to be getting pretty deep over where you are.

You have repeatedly said you would like Medicare to be terminated. You seven felt it was illegal (unconstitutional). You used extreme right-wing people to illustrate your point that it should be terminated. Then, when I confronted you by telling you that you could withdraw from the program, you said you wanted to continue it because you paid for it and you are eligible for it. Well, I would respond that everyone else you receives it has earned it, paid for it, or is eligible for it, as well. So, you want to receive it, but want the program terminated. How can anyone deduce anything but that you want to take the benefit from everyone else who really want it, but keep your because you earned it. I further pointed out that you could even set the example for your termination hypothesis, by declining benfits and withdrawing from the program. Again you declined. I even alluded to your "conundrum". I guess I would recap what you said to be, "Please terminate Medicare, but I want to still receive my Medicare benefits. You consider the benefit illegal, but are apparently complicit in the "crime." Do you understand what I am driving at Bob, or should a restate it again for you. Maybe I need to try many different approaches to get you to understand. Let me know. "Debunked?" You haven't even said anything to refute what I said before.

I don't know if your obsession with being "attacked" is paranoia, narcissism, or a blend of the two. You seems so offended while you use descriptions of confused, delusional, evil, making things up, etc. That was just in one paragraph above. Remember, I have said before, you better be able to take it if you chose to dish it out. I guess I was wrong. You now try to hide behind Matt and even your deceased parents. Can't you stand up by yourself? You seem to be so dependent on the support of others. You readily deflect statements of your flaws onto others. I think you stated earlier that you are now 72. I would think you could stand on your own, without deflecting criticism of you onto your parents, Matt or Jonathon. Matt hasn't done anything to bring anything on himself. He has forcefully represented his point of view, as I have mine. You make statements that you morph or later run from and then accuse me of attacking your ailing wife or parents. Well, just for the record Bob, those remarks were directed to and about you, not anyone else. Now get over it. Trying to pull on the "heartstrings" of readers by trying to persuade them I am attacking your wife and parents, is pretty transparent and juvenile.

[Bob Jentges]

Speaking of which...it's time to fire Brewster and bring in a coach that can call a game!!

I agree with you, Matt. But unfortunatly for us I think he will be with us for one more year.

I have always been skeptical of "snake oil salesman" type coaches. Most of them can sell the gullible for a short time (like I think Brewster did some) but when that wears-off and they must produce results, as opposed to rhetoric/hyperbible, they fall short.

He was touted as a "great recruiter" but he has not shown me much yet. His O line is overweight, can not run block, and pass protection is questionable at best. Since they lost #7 to injury it is evident that the receivers can not run routes to get open and when they do get open they can't catch the ball.

If I listen to his radio show tomorrow morning and I hear him say the 12-0 loss this year is a big step forward from the 55-0 loss last year I will tune to a different station.

With respect to Dan's last post this afternoon, I do not directly reply direct to him anymore. Even if I still did I would not reply to that one. I see it as nothing more than a rambling gobbledegook of personal insults with no evidence, let alone proof, to suport any of what he repeats over and over, post after post, even after he has been provided with proof that demonstrates what he alleges is not based in fact.

But on the bright side, I think he has taken a liking to you!