|
On December 19 2009 02:23 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 02:11 Mindcrime wrote:On December 19 2009 00:48 Undisputed- wrote:On December 18 2009 15:37 Bosu wrote:
I can't imagine how people can be against health care reform. How can people be so evil that they don't believe millions of americans should get good health care. Why are you so evil that you condone stealing on a nation wide level. The money has to come from somewhere, obama doesn't just have a magic endless chest of money. Forced charity = theft Do you build your own roads? Roads are terrible example. Many roads have been private. Quite a few others are toll. The most successful example of public constructed transportation system was the Erie canal done by New York. Most other ventures into transportation systems (railroads and canals) on the national and state level were disasters. The current system of roads in the US would be considered if it was considered a capital venture, but the account is recognizing as a loss and shuffling around tax money to hide that the road system costs a lot of money.
Terrible example of what? What do you think I was trying to say?
|
On December 19 2009 03:18 Neobick wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 03:12 Foucault wrote:
I'm just saying europeans see the issue too black/white and mix in their previous views on America in the argument.
Also it's typical scandinavian to be "concerned" about the well-being of poor people in other parts of the world when they don't have to do anything about it themselves. It's called hypocrisy and not knowing what you're talking about. Whats the hypocrisy?, Because you only care about your wallet doesnt mean all of us want to rape everything for cash. Humanity should help each other. It says more about yourself than me honesty. Greed isnt good Gordon Gekko, cooperation is..
Moral high ground = argument is invalid
|
On December 19 2009 03:17 Mystlord wrote:Thank {CC}StealthBlue  Lieberman sucks and should be impeached for being the most inconsistent turd to ever exist. Even his own party is turning against him.
Lieberman is a great American don't hate!
|
On December 19 2009 03:28 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 03:17 Mystlord wrote:On December 19 2009 03:15 Caller wrote:
oh dear god
who revived this thread Thank {CC}StealthBlue Lieberman sucks and should be impeached for being the most inconsistent turd to ever exist. Even his own party is turning against him. Lieberman is a great American don't hate!
Well, he's certainly not a lowest bound ...
|
I can't take Undisputed seriously. He's got to be a troll copy/pasting talking points from freepers or worldnutdaily.
|
On December 19 2009 03:28 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 03:17 Mystlord wrote:On December 19 2009 03:15 Caller wrote:
oh dear god
who revived this thread Thank {CC}StealthBlue Lieberman sucks and should be impeached for being the most inconsistent turd to ever exist. Even his own party is turning against him. Lieberman is a great American don't hate!
Lieberman was W's lap dog for 8 years. He's no independent, and certainly no liberal. Guy is blatantly conservative. Which in general represents some combination of lack of education, religion, and greed. Fuck Lieberman.
|
God either side of the debate you are on this thread is like screaming at a wall.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On December 19 2009 03:18 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 03:13 Mystlord wrote:On December 19 2009 03:00 Undisputed- wrote:On December 19 2009 02:46 Neobick wrote:On December 19 2009 02:37 Undisputed- wrote:On December 19 2009 01:55 RoyW wrote:
There is no reasonable opposition to a nationalised healthcare system.
It is in everyone's best interest. Silly Euros, go live in your socialist utopia and leave us out of it. Undisputed, then you cant commentate anything besides your national affairs? So I will search for every instance that you comment on Iran, Iraq, Europe, China, Cuba, France and any other non-US national affairs. Some people are just too much! Seems like a lot of Europeans here have such a strong opinion on the subject of our healthcare system and how we should change it to be more like them. As if they need to justify why it's so much better and to drag us with. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/10/gop.congress/61% oppose it, obviously we don't want it. Can't wait for the 2010 elections. Don't give us that. You're only looking at the Senate. Let's take an in depth look at the House bill: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/health-care-reforms-popularityhttp://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/more-polling-health-care-reforms-popularityObviously it's not that the majority of Americans don't want reform passed. It's just stupidity in the Senate is striking down everything that made the House bill appealing. Edit: On December 19 2009 02:23 TanGeng wrote:
Roads are terrible example. Many roads have been private. Quite a few others are toll. The most successful example of public constructed transportation system was the Erie canal done by New York. Most other ventures into transportation systems (railroads and canals) on the national and state level were disasters.
The current system of roads in the US would be considered if it was considered a capital venture, but the account is recognizing as a loss and shuffling around tax money to hide that the road system costs a lot of money. Source on ownership of roads please? Google isn't helping. The New Republic (TNR) is an American magazine of politics and the arts. It is published semimonthly and has a circulation of approximately 60,000. The editor-in-chief is Martin Peretz and the current editor is Franklin Foer. The magazine generally supports liberal social and social democratic economic policies, while otherwise taking a hawkish viewpoint on foreign policy, particularly with regard to Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic
First, how does that invalidate anything that comes from it? Second, good job leaving out the [citation needed] note right next to it. Not to mention that it came from Wikipedia in the first place. Unless you can present directly contrary evidence, then the evidence stands.
And on Lieberman, I wouldn't care if he was a Republican, but the fact that he flip flops so much on political issues is just inexcusable. He has an amazing track record of being amazingly inconsistent. It just irks me to no end that he's gotten lucky enough to get reelected.
|
On December 18 2009 17:43 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 17:26 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On December 18 2009 15:48 Mystlord wrote:Constitutional basis? It says it right here under the Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The preamble doesn't confer congressional authority, try reading what powers the congress does have. The preamble says We the people of the United States, promote the general welfare, not We the government. Go back a bit more in the conversation.
You are the one who said "Constitutional basis". You were refering to the constitution giving authority to the Congress to apply rules and regulations. Saying it is congress's duty to "promote the general welfare" or that there is even a basis is entirely false. All power enumerated to congress were declared in their specific sections.
If you want to argue about some tax/interstate commerce that is different, the general welfare argument is a load of crap.
|
|
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On December 19 2009 03:19 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 02:23 TanGeng wrote:On December 19 2009 02:11 Mindcrime wrote:On December 19 2009 00:48 Undisputed- wrote:On December 18 2009 15:37 Bosu wrote:
I can't imagine how people can be against health care reform. How can people be so evil that they don't believe millions of americans should get good health care. Why are you so evil that you condone stealing on a nation wide level. The money has to come from somewhere, obama doesn't just have a magic endless chest of money. Forced charity = theft Do you build your own roads? Roads are terrible example. Many roads have been private. Quite a few others are toll. The most successful example of public constructed transportation system was the Erie canal done by New York. Most other ventures into transportation systems (railroads and canals) on the national and state level were disasters. The current system of roads in the US would be considered if it was considered a capital venture, but the account is recognizing as a loss and shuffling around tax money to hide that the road system costs a lot of money. Terrible example of what? What do you think I was trying to say?
Terrible example of a service that "must" be provided by government. Privatized methods of transportation over long distances have generally worked better than publicly provided methods.
This means interstate highways, railroads, airports, ships, canals, etc. The best examples of public roads working better private roads are local to towns and the such. Statewide roadways are more economical in the smaller states as well. The interstate highways system in the US is largely an expensive boondoggle whose cost is hidden by the gasoline tax and income taxes being levied. There is no reason roads can't be privatized and there is no reason why people can't "build their own roads" except that the national government has its hands in it.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On December 19 2009 11:48 GW.Methos wrote:
obama's plans suck imo
That is most definitely true. The current American system for health care is a tortured, highly regulated market. The three directions to go are more free market, more socialism, or more highly regulated. Obama's plan of Health Insurance Reform - it's not even health reform anymore - is to go in the more highly regulated route.
This is the worst option - even worst than doing nothing at all. Going more free market is best but then you have people complaining about how "callous and uncaring" we might look. We might go towards a more socialist version which means that costs of the system have to be born another way - either education subsidies, public/private market-space demarcation, long waiting lines, and/or poor customer relations services.
Really either option more socialistic or more free market would be better than the current system.
I guess we have dug up the health care debate. I remember some vigorous but sort of tangential debates that I have had with other people on this topic. The one thing that I will add is that a nationalized system is probably the worst possible granularity for imposing a socialist type solution. Much better that individual states all do their own socialistic solution or have variety. I would say that it's not really a job for Obama at all.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On December 19 2009 11:04 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 17:43 Mystlord wrote:On December 18 2009 17:26 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On December 18 2009 15:48 Mystlord wrote:Constitutional basis? It says it right here under the Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The preamble doesn't confer congressional authority, try reading what powers the congress does have. The preamble says We the people of the United States, promote the general welfare, not We the government. Go back a bit more in the conversation. You are the one who said "Constitutional basis". You were refering to the constitution giving authority to the Congress to apply rules and regulations. Saying it is congress's duty to "promote the general welfare" or that there is even a basis is entirely false. All power enumerated to congress were declared in their specific sections. If you want to argue about some tax/interstate commerce that is different, the general welfare argument is a load of crap.
Did you read his challenge? It was clearly asking for the people's right to have health care. Constitutional basis doesn't only apply to authority or system of government.
In any case, most health care bills are now passed under no constitutional basis at all, but they could be justified using the commerce/tax clauses.
On December 19 2009 11:56 TanGeng wrote:That is most definitely true. The current American system for health care is a tortured, highly regulated market. The three directions to go are more free market, more socialism, or more highly regulated. Obama's plan of Health Insurance Reform - it's not even health reform anymore - is to go in the more highly regulated route. This is the worst option - even worst than doing nothing at all. Going more free market is best but then you have people complaining about how "callous and uncaring" we might look. We might go towards a more socialist version which means that costs of the system have to be born another way - either education subsidies, public/private market-space demarcation, long waiting lines, and/or poor customer relations services. Really either option more socialistic or more free market would be better than the current system. I guess we have dug up the health care debate. I remember some vigorous but sort of tangential debates that I have had with other people on this topic. The one thing that I will add is that a nationalized system is probably the worst possible granularity for imposing a socialist type solution. Much better that individual states all do their own socialistic solution or have variety. I would say that it's not really a job for Obama at all.
First of all, I ask again for a source on the privatization of roads. I don't doubt it, I just want a source.
Secondly, I disagree. I think it's necessary to get something done to both keep costs under control and ensure that more Americans aren't marginalized by the current health care system. I would say remove the mandate and pass the bill as is. It helps somewhat to control costs and it helps at the very least to stop the greediness of health insurance agencies through taxes and the no pre-existing conditions part. This kind of minor reform should be passed.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On December 19 2009 12:08 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 11:04 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On December 18 2009 17:43 Mystlord wrote:On December 18 2009 17:26 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On December 18 2009 15:48 Mystlord wrote:Constitutional basis? It says it right here under the Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The preamble doesn't confer congressional authority, try reading what powers the congress does have. The preamble says We the people of the United States, promote the general welfare, not We the government. Go back a bit more in the conversation. You are the one who said "Constitutional basis". You were refering to the constitution giving authority to the Congress to apply rules and regulations. Saying it is congress's duty to "promote the general welfare" or that there is even a basis is entirely false. All power enumerated to congress were declared in their specific sections. If you want to argue about some tax/interstate commerce that is different, the general welfare argument is a load of crap. Did you read his challenge? It was clearly asking for the people's right to have health care. Constitutional basis doesn't only apply to authority or system of government. In any case, most health care bills are now passed under no constitutional basis at all, but they could be justified using the commerce/tax clauses. Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 11:56 TanGeng wrote:On December 19 2009 11:48 GW.Methos wrote:
obama's plans suck imo That is most definitely true. The current American system for health care is a tortured, highly regulated market. The three directions to go are more free market, more socialism, or more highly regulated. Obama's plan of Health Insurance Reform - it's not even health reform anymore - is to go in the more highly regulated route. This is the worst option - even worst than doing nothing at all. Going more free market is best but then you have people complaining about how "callous and uncaring" we might look. We might go towards a more socialist version which means that costs of the system have to be born another way - either education subsidies, public/private market-space demarcation, long waiting lines, and/or poor customer relations services. Really either option more socialistic or more free market would be better than the current system. I guess we have dug up the health care debate. I remember some vigorous but sort of tangential debates that I have had with other people on this topic. The one thing that I will add is that a nationalized system is probably the worst possible granularity for imposing a socialist type solution. Much better that individual states all do their own socialistic solution or have variety. I would say that it's not really a job for Obama at all. First of all, I ask again for a source on the privatization of roads. I don't doubt it, I just want a source. Secondly, I disagree. I think it's necessary to get something done to both keep costs under control and ensure that more Americans aren't marginalized by the current health care system. I would say remove the mandate and pass the bill as is. It helps somewhat to control costs and it helps at the very least to stop the greediness of health insurance agencies through taxes and the no pre-existing conditions part. This kind of minor reform should be passed.
Sure the individual mandate is the worst part of that bill. The public option might not be even 3rd or 4th on the horror list. As for government involvement in road building / transportation, what do you want to talk about? You're from the US, so we can look a lot at US history.
US interstate highway system didn't begin in earnest until the 1950's. Before that it was a system of state routes with federal regulations on numbering and identification. Then came the federal cash. We could talk about that. It's important to factor in ventures like Amtrak or the Big Dig and how they fit into the overall interstate highway plan.
US federal government involvement in railroads began under Lincoln. We can discuss the years that followed in the years of railroad kings and robber barons.
State government in canals began after construction of the Erie Canal by New York - a smashing success that made New York City the hub of America. What followed was buildup to the repudiated and default of sovereign debts by various state governments of the Midwest due to unprofitable ventures into canal building - a series of unmitigated disasters.
Another possibility is to look at early America and examine the private toll highways whose style of paying tolls gave all toll highways their modern name - turnpikes.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On December 19 2009 15:04 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 12:08 Mystlord wrote:On December 19 2009 11:04 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On December 18 2009 17:43 Mystlord wrote:On December 18 2009 17:26 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On December 18 2009 15:48 Mystlord wrote:Constitutional basis? It says it right here under the Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The preamble doesn't confer congressional authority, try reading what powers the congress does have. The preamble says We the people of the United States, promote the general welfare, not We the government. Go back a bit more in the conversation. You are the one who said "Constitutional basis". You were refering to the constitution giving authority to the Congress to apply rules and regulations. Saying it is congress's duty to "promote the general welfare" or that there is even a basis is entirely false. All power enumerated to congress were declared in their specific sections. If you want to argue about some tax/interstate commerce that is different, the general welfare argument is a load of crap. Did you read his challenge? It was clearly asking for the people's right to have health care. Constitutional basis doesn't only apply to authority or system of government. In any case, most health care bills are now passed under no constitutional basis at all, but they could be justified using the commerce/tax clauses. On December 19 2009 11:56 TanGeng wrote:On December 19 2009 11:48 GW.Methos wrote:
obama's plans suck imo That is most definitely true. The current American system for health care is a tortured, highly regulated market. The three directions to go are more free market, more socialism, or more highly regulated. Obama's plan of Health Insurance Reform - it's not even health reform anymore - is to go in the more highly regulated route. This is the worst option - even worst than doing nothing at all. Going more free market is best but then you have people complaining about how "callous and uncaring" we might look. We might go towards a more socialist version which means that costs of the system have to be born another way - either education subsidies, public/private market-space demarcation, long waiting lines, and/or poor customer relations services. Really either option more socialistic or more free market would be better than the current system. I guess we have dug up the health care debate. I remember some vigorous but sort of tangential debates that I have had with other people on this topic. The one thing that I will add is that a nationalized system is probably the worst possible granularity for imposing a socialist type solution. Much better that individual states all do their own socialistic solution or have variety. I would say that it's not really a job for Obama at all. First of all, I ask again for a source on the privatization of roads. I don't doubt it, I just want a source. Secondly, I disagree. I think it's necessary to get something done to both keep costs under control and ensure that more Americans aren't marginalized by the current health care system. I would say remove the mandate and pass the bill as is. It helps somewhat to control costs and it helps at the very least to stop the greediness of health insurance agencies through taxes and the no pre-existing conditions part. This kind of minor reform should be passed. Sure the individual mandate is the worst part of that bill. The public option might not be even 3rd or 4th on the horror list. As for government involvement in road building / transportation, what do you want to talk about? You're from the US, so we can look a lot at US history. US interstate highway system didn't begin in earnest until the 1950's. Before that it was a system of state routes with federal regulations on numbering and identification. Then came the federal cash. We could talk about that. It's important to factor in ventures like Amtrak or the Big Dig and how they fit into the overall interstate highway plan. US federal government involvement in railroads began under Lincoln. We can discuss the years that followed in the years of railroad kings and robber barons. State government in canals began after construction of the Erie Canal by New York - a smashing success that made New York City the hub of America. What followed was buildup to the repudiated and default of sovereign debts by various state governments of the Midwest due to unprofitable ventures into canal building - a series of unmitigated disasters. Another possibility is to look at early America and examine the private toll highways whose style of paying tolls gave all toll highways their modern name - turnpikes.
Well first let me qualify what I said. I meant to say that the individual mandate is only bad if there is no public option. If there isn't an affordable option for all Americans, then it's completely unjust.
Now as for the roads thing, you earlier said:
On December 19 2009 02:23 TanGeng wrote:
Roads are terrible example. Many roads have been private. Quite a few others are toll. The most successful example of public constructed transportation system was the Erie canal done by New York. Most other ventures into transportation systems (railroads and canals) on the national and state level were disasters.
The current system of roads in the US would be considered if it was considered a capital venture, but the account is recognizing as a loss and shuffling around tax money to hide that the road system costs a lot of money.
Now, just looking at ROADS, not transportation as a whole, do you have a source stating that roads are privately owned/maintained? Because I was under the assumption that they were government owned/maintained.
|
On December 19 2009 12:08 Mystlord wrote:
First of all, I ask again for a source on the privatization of roads. I don't doubt it, I just want a source.
Look up British turnpike roads.
EDIT: ^ for an example of private roads that spontaneously came about -- not privatised ones from the get go
Also I'd like to share something with the tax is not theft crowd (so much cognitive dissonance!!)
here is a nice little story on carjacking - it's applicable to other scenarios as well ^^
+ Show Spoiler +Guy A: "Hey buddy, isn't that your car over there?"
Guy B: "Yeah. So?"
Guy A: "So someone's breaking into it! Look!"
Guy B: "Well, that's the price I pay to live in a civilized country."
Guy A: "Huh? Now he's hot-wiring it. You just gonna stand there?"
Guy B: "I'm willing to contribute to this great society we live in."
Guy A: "What are you talking about? You're being robbed!"
Guy B: "Don't be silly. It's not robbery. It's the will of the people."
Guy A: "What people? Aren't you the one who paid for the car?"
Guy B: "Yeah, but the guy who's taking it is serving the common good."
Guy A: "How does that guy stealing your car help the common good?"
Guy B: "Well, I trust he'll do useful things with my car."
Guy A: "Weren't you going to do useful things with it?"
Guy B: "Yes, but if we each just used our own stuff, there would be chaos!"
Guy A: "Well, you can trade stuff, but that guy just stole your car!!"
Guy B: "No he didn't. By living on this block I agreed to lose my car."
Guy A: "So anyone can swipe your car, and you don't mind?"
Guy B: "Don't be silly! Only the local carjacker can do it."
Guy A: "So whoever decides to be a carjacker is allowed to rob you?"
Guy B: "Well, if I don't like it, I can try to appoint a new local carjacker."
Guy A: "What would be the point of that? The new guy would still steal your car!"
Guy B: "Yes, but he would be representing me while stealing my car."
Guy A: "What does that mean?! How does a thief represent you?"
Guy B: "Because I can ask him to do good things with my car."
Guy A: "And will he listen to you, and do what you want?"
Guy B: "Well, so far they never have. But I keep trying."
Guy A: "Why would you even try?"
Guy B: "You have to participate. Otherwise you can't complain."
Guy A: "Yes I can! I'm not the one claiming that I should be robbed!"
Guy B: "You have to work within the system."
Guy A: "What system? The system made up by the carjackers?"
Guy B: "Of course. It's the civilized thing to do."
Guy A: "Why not oppose carjacking altogether?"
Guy B: "Don't be silly. Every town has to have some carjacking."
Guy A: "So you're just going to keep putting up with being robbed?"
Guy B: "It's not robbery. The carjackers have my implied consent to do it."
Guy A: "What? You told them they could take it?"
Guy B: "No, but by living here, that counts as me giving them permission."
Guy A: "Who says so?"
Guy B: "The carjackers. They say being here counts as agreeing to be robbed."
Guy A: "And you believe them?!"
Guy B: "Look, if you don't like being robbed, leave my neighborhood!"
Guy A: "But I'm saying that you shouldn't be robbed!"
Guy B: "Yes I should, you wacko, fringe kook! Now go away!"
Sourcieo~~!!
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/062806-2009-12-16-please-enslave-me.htm
|
On December 19 2009 11:56 TanGeng wrote:That is most definitely true. The current American system for health care is a tortured, highly regulated market. The three directions to go are more free market, more socialism, or more highly regulated. Obama's plan of Health Insurance Reform - it's not even health reform anymore - is to go in the more highly regulated route. This is the worst option - even worst than doing nothing at all. Going more free market is best but then you have people complaining about how "callous and uncaring" we might look. We might go towards a more socialist version which means that costs of the system have to be born another way - either education subsidies, public/private market-space demarcation, long waiting lines, and/or poor customer relations services. Really either option more socialistic or more free market would be better than the current system. I guess we have dug up the health care debate. I remember some vigorous but sort of tangential debates that I have had with other people on this topic. The one thing that I will add is that a nationalized system is probably the worst possible granularity for imposing a socialist type solution. Much better that individual states all do their own socialistic solution or have variety. I would say that it's not really a job for Obama at all.
This entirely sums up the debate very nicely. Everybody thinks the current system is a disaster because it's a hybrid of the worst of all components. So we need to pick a direction and go with it.
|
Vatican City State1650 Posts
i can't fucking believe the senate bowed to the pressure and removed the public option.
|
^ dude that is so cool you live in Vatican City State (I mean unless you made it up)
This may have nothing to do with this, but using the word "socialism" with a consistent negative connotation is fearmongering. Socialism is not necessarily a bad concept.
That being said, the current plan may not be the best idea, but it's a step in the right direction. NHC is in most powerful countries to symbolize status really. It kind of says "we are powerful enough to take care that our people have good health." Same is true for things like wifi and such. The US being the powerhouse it is should naturally have these things. Not necessarily this specific plan, but something of the sort. That it is proposed is definitely a step in the right direction.
|
On December 19 2009 15:29 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 11:56 TanGeng wrote:On December 19 2009 11:48 GW.Methos wrote:
obama's plans suck imo That is most definitely true. The current American system for health care is a tortured, highly regulated market. The three directions to go are more free market, more socialism, or more highly regulated. Obama's plan of Health Insurance Reform - it's not even health reform anymore - is to go in the more highly regulated route. This is the worst option - even worst than doing nothing at all. Going more free market is best but then you have people complaining about how "callous and uncaring" we might look. We might go towards a more socialist version which means that costs of the system have to be born another way - either education subsidies, public/private market-space demarcation, long waiting lines, and/or poor customer relations services. Really either option more socialistic or more free market would be better than the current system. I guess we have dug up the health care debate. I remember some vigorous but sort of tangential debates that I have had with other people on this topic. The one thing that I will add is that a nationalized system is probably the worst possible granularity for imposing a socialist type solution. Much better that individual states all do their own socialistic solution or have variety. I would say that it's not really a job for Obama at all. This entirely sums up the debate very nicely. Everybody thinks the current system is a disaster because it's a hybrid of the worst of all components. So we need to pick a direction and go with it.
And yet the reason why all the worst components have been chosen to produce the worst result presents itself on this very page in ironic fashion.
Very ironic fashion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
