The Crisis Will Hatch Universal Health Care Next

Never let a good crisis go to waste. So far the Obama administration has not let this sentiment go to waste because it has pushed a number of things through at break neck speed all under the blanket of the crisis. The stimulus, the omnibus, the bailout of auto companies (and subsequent loss of taxpayer money in bankruptcy) are all the result of the crisis, emergencies that cannot wait. The time is now.

We have not spent very much of the allocated stimulus and things are starting to improve though we will have a way to go. We should rescind the rest of the spending and let things work themselves out.

No, we will spend that money (unwisely) and the Obama folks will continue. Next up on the plate is universal health care. The Democrats want every person in the country covered and they have a number of ways of doing it. All of them will mean tax increases and those increases will affect everyone.

Obama wants to tax the wealthy. He is pushing for a cap on tax deductions (and an increase in the marginal tax rate) for the wealthiest of taxpayers so that they will pay more into the government. That money will be redistributed to pay for health care. The cost will be staggering, the quality of care will decrease and everyone will be affected by the tax on the wealthy. Plus, there is no guarantee they government will spend the money on health care. Look at how the government has raped Social Security.

One plan on the table is to require all employers to provide health care coverage or pay part of the costs. This will only result in an increase in the price of goods. Employers ALWAYS pass costs on to consumers so everyone will end up paying. The plan also mandates insurance. People will be required to get health care coverage. You can be a billionaire and able to afford health expenses out of pocket but you will be required to get coverage.

I want to know where in the Constitution it says I HAVE to have health care coverage. Where is that mandate located?

Universal health care is socialized medicine where bean counters get to decide what treatment is best or if you should receive it. Despite the claims, other countries that have socialized medicine are not in good shape. Would you want to get sick in Cuba? Would you want to wait for bypass surgery in England or Canada? Some people might like the system but those who do are the people who are not responsible enough to take care of themselves.

We have socialized medicine in this country. Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA (as well as military health system) are all government run. The VA and military are items provided as part of the work contract but they are overburdened with administrative red tape and administrators. The health care provided to our troops is top notch and many of the innovations are later used in the civilian world but the red tape is a nightmare.

Liberals went nuts over problems at Walter Reed (a political stunt to embarrass George Bush) but this is the same system they want to give to you.

We cannot afford the cost. If you think health care is expensive now just wait until it is free. We need to revamp the way things are done in the open market and make it a more competitive atmosphere. We need to remove some of the restrictions placed on companies and we need to allow individuals and small business to pool resources in order to get group rates.

What we do not need is government running health care. The federal government could not organize a child’s birthday party and if it did the cost would be three times required and taxes would be raised to pay for it.

The same government that wants all your records electronic and wants to administer health care is the one that published our nuclear secrets.

If we want well run health care perhaps we should have Wal Mart take it over. The Wal Mart people actually know how to run a business and keep costs down.

Related items:
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Heritage Foundation

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

67 Responses to “The Crisis Will Hatch Universal Health Care Next”

  1. Adam says:

    “Some people might like the system but those who do are the people who are not responsible enough to take care of themselves.”

    That seems to be at the core of every argument you and many other Republicans make. People who can afford things like health care are responsible and those who can’t are not. Right. What’s next? Poor people are lazy? That can’t be too far behind in this stupid mindset you and your kind live in. But then again what is new? And you may still wonder why your party is on the fast track to obscurity…

    • Blake says:

      Well Adam, Perhaps poor people are lazy in your world, because according to you , they can’t be inconvenienced to go get an ID to vote, even though it’s free- how are they going to go get health care? What, oh what will they use to identify themselves as the people they claim to be at the emergency room when they claim their free health care? Will they have an ID then?
      There will always be poor people in this world, Adam, because they make (consistently) poor choices in their lives.
      They will, faced with an either/ or choice, make the wrong one, as if it is hardwired into their minds. These people you couldn’t help if you were to tie them down and live their lives for them.

      • Adam says:

        Because the only thing preventing a person from getting an ID is that they are lazy? Right. When it comes to the voter ID conversation you’ve applied about the intellectual power of a cucumber.

        Poor people are poor because they made poor choices? Right. And Republicans are Republicans because they’re stupid, I bet.

      • Adam says:

        The elitist rural Republican’s advice to the poor? Don’t try to live the American dream because you’re hard wired to be lazy and make irresponsible, bad decisions.

        When you think like that it makes it pretty easy to get mad when a portion of your “hard earned” pay each month is shuttled off to social programs that help us run a civilized society…

        • Blake says:

          Obviously you need to learn to actually comprehend the words and make sense of a sentence. I fail to see how these people are going to get health care if they can’t be bothered to get an ID. NOONE from the left has ever told me just how hard it is to get an ID yet, just that ” its SO unfair to the poor.” Do you think they will need an ID to get into the doctor, so the government knows just who is being treated? Or does just anybody wander in-
          And you don’t know history, especially religious history. Ignacios Loyola. the founder of the Jesuits, once said, ” The poor, they will be with us always.”
          He was just stating a fact. And yes, some [people are hard wired to resist success- they consistently make bad decisions- I see it every day. Faced with a choice of either buying diapers and baby formula, or beer and cigarettes, they go for the beer and cigarettes, doubtless making their baby very happy at their decision- making abilities. These are people who vote Democrat, because they NEED someone to take care of them.

        • Blake says:

          Just because you live in Delaware doesn’t mean you have to have the intelligence of Joe Biden, or is it in the water?

        • Big Dog says:

          We were a civilized society long before welfare programs. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep what is yours.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: There will always be poor people in this world,… because they make (consistently) poor choices in their lives.>>

        Blake is only one car accident (or one serious illness) away from being a poor person. Republicans talk tough and without compassion, until they are humbled. Then they want the dole, they want a hand up, they want society to pay, *for their poor choices in their lives.*

        Estimated cost, per family (with health insurance), for paying for the cost of those without health insurance = $1,000.

        Blake has no health insurance. So we are paying for his poor choices, already.


        • Blake says:

          You only pay if I cannot, D- so far I can and have, but you can tell me where to send the bill if I ever decide to become liberal/ atheist/ whatever else you might be.

        • Big Dog says:

          There should be and there are safety nets for people. The problem is we have expanded the net so far that 40% of the wage earners do not pay taxes. If you have a bad car wreck car insurance pays for it.

          I have health insurance and I have a portion that I have to pay. I pay my bills and some of them have been quite expensive. It is a matter of responsibility. If you have a cell, cable TV (several), two cars and a house, you are not someone who is destitute. If you live in REAL poverty then there are programs to help.

          You claim that we talk tough and without compassion but that is bogus. We have plenty of compassion. The problem is you think hand outs equal compassion. You think subsidizing a large portion of the population is compassion. It is slavery. It enslaves them to a system. We expect people to do for themselves with a helping hand when it is needed.

          I will not need hand outs as long as I have family. Then again, many of those on welfare do not have nuclear families so they don’t have people to help them.

        • Darrel says:

          Blake, if you cannot pay the bill, it is automatically eaten by the hospital/system and passed along to the rest of us. This already happens and passes along about $1,000 per year in costs to each family already paying for insurance. Your risky living is mooching off of everyone else’s premiums.

          It would be very easy for you to rack up a bill you cannot pay. Very easy. It happens every day. Actually, it happens about 5,760 times a day.

          BIGD, if you have a bad car wreck, there are lots of instances in which car insurance *does not* pay for health costs. Some people buy this as an option but my insurance company (Allstate) advised buying health insurance for this.

          If you have liability and have a one car accident and rack up a $100k bill, you are not covered. If you cause an accident and only have liability, your insurance pays for their health costs (with a limit), but little if any for you. It’s easy to exceed the limits even if you have comprehensive.

          And a car accident is only one method (a very popular one) of racking up a huge medical cost. Getting diabetes is another one among many. There are lots and lots of other ways, as you know.


    • Blake says:

      What is at the core of our arguments is that government isn’t competent with taxpayer’s money, nor or they likely to begin now. Remember $600 hammers, and $1,000 toilets?
      Your government at work.
      I like Dog’s suggestion about Wal- Mart. They are successful, and all (gasp) without unions. Imagine that.

    • Adam says:

      I get that there are doubts about how our government would manage this stuff but to pretend your side wants to find a different solution for our health care crisis other than tax payer funded solutions gets unraveled as soon as one of you suggests people don’t have health care because they are irresponsible or have made a poor decision in life.

      Sure, on the Wal-mart front. Nothing exemplifies getting what you pay for than wasting your hard earned dollars on cheap, unreliable garbage that Wal-mart has brought to you on the cheap at the expense of a hard working underpaid Chinese workforce. I’m sure our quality of health care would just skyrocket!

      • Blake says:

        I have never said ALL people without health insurance are irresponsible or have made poor decisions in life, but it IS a fact that there are some who have, and to make out as if there are not is intellectually very dishonest, or you are just plain ignorant of life as it is.
        As for Wal- Mart, at least we wouldn’t be overcharged as taxpayers for the cheap health care the government would provide, and we wouldn’t have government do- nothings in charge of whether you live or die. You could see the doctor YOU choose, instead of the one that hews closest to the party line.

        • Adam says:

          I won’t deny there are fools and lazy folks. I just won’t let a few idiots set my opinion on why people do or do not deserve health insurance.

          I don’t know how I feel about single payer or universal health care or whatever somebody wants to call it. All I know is that I’ve met way too many hard working people with families, that are the backbone of this nation, that would benefit from a more inclusive health care system in our country.

          Live or die? No choice of a doctor? It is a damn shame that we can’t debate and solve this problem without yahoos on the right spreading myths and lies about a serious problem in our country.

          • Big Dog says:

            There have been plenty of proposals to fix health care and many involve stopping the boutique plans and the mandates that cost lots of money. There are plenty of things we can do but having the government run it is not the answer.

            Myths, Daschle wrote it in his book. People like him are involved in the plan.

            There are concerns and once government takes over there will be no going back no matter how bad it is.

            You want civil unrest, wait until things go badly or people are denied care because of cost.

            • Darrel says:

              Things are already going badly and people are denied care. We spend more than any other country and we get this:


              And the (very expensive) band-aid Bush tried only continues *the main problem,* government feeding the fat cat private industry (3 min):


              BIGD: “once government takes over there will be no going back…”

              You’re right about that. All first world countries have it, and none of them would go back to what we have. They look at our mess and shake their heads.


            • Tamara says:

              What Darrel says is true. No matter how much people may complain about the minor inconveniences and sometimes longer waits in countries with health care for all of their citizens, they would never trade what they have to sign up for this American health care mess.

            • Blake says:

              Then why, Tamara, do they all come here for their critical care? I live near Houston, and we get people from all over the world come to the Texas Medical Center for Heart treatments, Cancer treatments, etc.

            • Tamara says:

              Please Blake, they don’t “all come here for their critical care.” Give me a break. Some people may choose to do that, but the majority do not. Most people get treatment where they live. Just like some Americans choose to get their critical care from India or Thailand but most get treated here.

            • Blake says:

              All your “first world” countries are becoming more conservative- The U.K., France, Germany, even (gasp) Denmark- ever think we might be going in the wrong direction D?

            • Darrel says:

              In what way are they becoming more “conservative?” Be specific.

              Sometimes they use the word conservative in a different way than we do. Or, they are so far to the left that “conservative” means something equivalent to our “liberal democrat.”

              Please read this article below. It’s terribly old (1990) and I couldn’t find it online so I can’t just give a link, but it makes this point. And you might learn something too.

              DUTCH TOLERANCE by David Morris.
              Holland’s approach to social problems stresses results, not social control.

              Holland is every conservative’s nightmare come true. Legal prostitution. Coffeehouses that sell marijuana to teenagers. Free abortions on request. Free needles for heroin addicts. Special rooms for prisoners to conduct liaisons with outside partners, even of the same sex. Euthanasia in hospitals.
              To Americans, such policies represent a moral breakdown. They are a prescription for social anarchy: promiscuity, drug addiction, family breakdown, AIDS. To Amsterdam Judge Frits Ruter, such policies are “above all, pragmatic and undogmatic.” You cannot solve social problems “by making them taboo,” he insists.
              The Dutch don’t drive their human weaknesses underground. On a trip to Amsterdam last fall I noticed that the Utopia coffeehouse, where you can choose among 10 kinds of hashish and grass for about $6 a gram, is five doors form the neighborhood police station. The Royal Symphony Hall backs into a red-light district housing not only prostitutes in well-lit windows but also sex shops that would make Hugh Hefner blush.
              The minister of justice of Holland’s conservative—that’s right, conservative—government explains that the aim is to “prevent as much as possible a situation in which more harm is caused by criminal proceedings than by the [activity] itself.” Legalization allows the government much more flexibility than criminalization. Prostitutes must undergo regular health examinations. One result is an astonishingly low rate of AIDS infection: less than 1 percent, compared to 30 to 40 percent among America’s illegal but probably equal-sized prostitute population. Clean needles for intravenous drug users slows AIDS transmission among a group that now accounts for half the AIDS population of New York. Allowing prisoners sex with loved ones reduces prison tension and curbs in-prison aggressive sexuality.
              As for drugs, allowing the sale of marijuana gives the government much more credibility when it warns the young about the dangers of hard drugs. Indeed, says the Dutch secretary of drug policy, “Cannabis used to be the symbol of the youth culture. It was attractive because it was forbidden. Our aim was to turn it into an unsensational item.” It worked. The proportion of Dutch teenagers using marijuana has dropped substantially. It is a fraction of U.S. use. Crack is virtually nonexistent in Holland.
              All Dutch schools teach sex education. A year of birth control pills costs about $10. Yet Dutch girls are no more sexually active than American girls. And 90 percent of those teenagers who are active use contraceptives. Holland’s teenage pregnancy rate is one seventh that of America’s. American teenagers have 12 to 14 times more abortions than Dutch teenagers.
              Where does this sense of mutual respect and collective responsibility come from? Historian Simon Schama looks to Dutch history in The Embarrassment of Riches. In the 1600s tiny Holland was the most prosperous nation on earth. Riches bred a “collective conscience” that demanded generosity for the needy and tolerance for those with different religions and different habits. Obligations to community, to society, came first.
              Today the Dutch continue that 300-year tradition. They offer the world’s cost comprehensive social support programs. Medical care is free, child care plentiful. Unemployment insurance is nearly forever. Amsterdam suffers a housing problem incomprehensible to American city planners: Sufficient housing exists for those of modest means, but there’s not enough for the rich.
              Such generosity of spirit and purse has not undermined prosperity. The Dutch live longer than Americans. Their economy is robust, their businesses fiercely competitive.
              This prosperous country of 14 million has much to teach us, for tolerance has never been an American trait. We have a long history of demanding moral purity of our neighbors and eagerly locking them up if they transgress. We rely on force, not wisdom to solve our social problems.
              The Dutch tackle their social problems so well, and we so poorly, because we define the problems differently, For them abortions, AIDS, and prison violence are the problems, and they design approaches to minimize these problems. But America defines these as only symptoms of a more important social evil: immorality. We are willing to have almost 15 times more abortions per 1,000 teenagers than the Dutch because for us abortion is not the real problem. Premarital sex is. We are willing to endure an AIDS epidemic among intravenous drug users because AIDS for us in not the real problem. Drug use is. We are on a holy war to stamp out sin, and the price for that war is mounting rapidly.
              The Dutch watch our descent into social chaos in amazement. They cannot understand why a nation would willfully destroy itself to control its citizens’ personal behavior. After seeing how well tolerance and mutual respect works, neither can I.”

              —David Morris, Building Economic Alternatives (Spring 1990), also Nov/Dec 1990 issue of Utne Reader, p118-119.

            • Blake says:

              Darrel, you will like this- its from your favorite source:


              About HIV
              The recent annual report of the Netherlands HIV monitoring foundation found that while the number of Dutch people dying from AIDS has fallen significantly in the past decade, the rate of new HIV infections continues to rise. The foundation logged 329 HIV new infections in 1996, but logged 950 in 2006. Eighty percent of Dutch HIV patients now receive combination antiretroviral therapy, cutting the death rate from 76 percent in 1996 to 39 percent today. “The HIV epidemic is not under control in the male homosexual community in the Netherlands. As well as combination therapy, prevention is essential,” the foundation wrote. Transmission via homosexual sex was the cause of 500 HIV infections in 2006, according to the report.

              The prevalance of HIV/AIDS in the Netherlands is 0.2% in the US it is 0.6%

              This is why they are cracking down on prostitution in the Netherlands now, as well as IV drug use.

            • Darrel says:

              I do like that. Another example of a very liberal country getting better results (.2% v. .6%) while allowing their citizens *more* freedom. That is, or should be the goal of a country shouldn’t it? More freedom AND better results.

              I plan to visit in a few years.

              ps. And you can stop with the mindless wiki bashing. I don’t cite anything from there that isn’t backed up with independent, standard, news sources. Wiki allows *no* original research and is regularly edited to be written from a neutral point of view. All of the battles over the wording of text are posted and available for everyone to view. The claim that anyone can just go and change text is also rubbish. Try it and see.

        • Blake says:

          Adam its a damn shame we cannot have a discussion about health insurance without trying to bring a nanny- state into the discussion. Does health care need fixing? yes. Should the government get involved? Not just no, but hell no.

      • Big Dog says:

        How much of Wal Mart’s stuff comes from China? I see an great deal of brand name merchandise there. Sure, some of it comes from China but then again most of our stuff does regardless of who sells it.

        I think you over generalized.

    • Big Dog says:

      If you like a system where you have no responsibility and others take care of you then yes, you are not responsible.

      You say poor when the government is trying to pass things that involve helping people making 500% above poverty.

      Poor is one thing and we help them (though churches and other groups did this in the past) but providing health care for people making 90 grand a year is a crime.

  2. Adam says:

    Voter ID:

    Burdensome photo ID or proof of citizenship requirements for voting could block millions of eligible American voters without addressing any real problem. Although most Americans have government-issued photo ID, studies show that as many as 12% of eligible voters nationwide do not; the percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. Many of those citizens find it hard to get such IDs, because the underlying documentation (the ID one needs to get ID) is often difficult to come by. Those difficulties will increase substantially if documentary proof of citizenship is needed to vote or to obtain the identification required to vote.

    A Voter ID will restrict far more legitimate voters from voting than the number of fraudulent votes it will prevent. The idea that dead people or illegals are voting in large numbers is just ridiculous and unsubstantiated by any fact. There is far more voter fraud outside of the voting booth than in and a voter ID won’t do anything to stop that.

    But either way, what does an ID have to do with healthcare? Not much after all. I don’t know what the rule about the ID would be for treatment but that has very little to do with whether or not people who cannot afford healthcare still deserve to have their basic health needs cared for. But you are compounding two unrelated issues and feeling smart about yourself in the process.

    Really I don’t know what it’s like where you’re living but I grew up in poverty and I’ve seen many, many folks working hard and making good choices for their families that still can’t afford things like basic health care. To pretend these conditions are always from one’s own faults is just pure garbage.

    Score one more for the elitist rural Republican. Some jobs aren’t real jobs, city folk aren’t real Americans, and the poor are poor of their own fault. That’s quite a set of philosophies you’re building through your work on this site.

    I’m glad you finally know where I live though. That’s a step in the right direction at least. One less thing you can assume about me.

    • Blake says:

      Elitist rural Republican? Hmmmm….. I don’t know whether to feel insulted, or laugh out loud at your lame attempt at labeling. I am not an elitist- I am a woodworker- I do live in the country, my choice, so I don’t have to suffer fools like you. Republican? No- I am conservative, but judging from the Republicans in office today, I have little in common with them. I do think people should be responsible for their own lives and make responsible choices, but here in our country, you are (for now) still allowed to make poor choices if you wish, and some do.
      You still haven’t made the case why voter ID is such an imposition- if Hussein can get a COLB, so can anyone, so your argument is false- they are just lazy, or perhaps there’s a reason they do not want anyone to know their name. Perhaps they are behind on their child support,or they are felons out of custody? I don’t know.

      • Blake says:

        Perhaps ACORN could help- yea, right.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “Republican? No- I am conservative”

        The GOP is reorganizing. Maybe you’ll want to rejoin. Good stuff:


      • Adam says:

        “I am not an elitist- I am a woodworker-” …

        Right. Woodworkers could never fall into the trap of thinking they are better than others and being judgmental old fools.

        I just quoted you text about the voter ID and how it is an imposition but I guess you can’t read things contrary to your world view. Follow the link if you dare to inform yourself on the subject so you don’t seem so factless when you give your “opinion” on the subject.

        I love the way you try to say my argument is false based on the idiotic conservative lie that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Keep it up. That is what got you “conservatives” put out to pasture for the time being.

        • Blake says:

          What I said ( if you can follow the thread) is that poor documentation is not an excuse- If Obama can get a COLB, so can others- I realize that some people have dubious parentage, their papers got lost, they left their wallet in their other pants, etc., etc.
          You liberals are the ones with the excuses- we just say most of these so -called excuses are bogus. IDs are free- get a COLB and you get an ID- Is the concept too hard for you?
          If ACORN would use their money to pick up the poor and elderly to get documentation, and get an ID, we wouldn’t have this discussion, would we? But noooooo—
          They are too busy registering MICKEY MOUSE.
          Its mickey mouse, all right.

    • Big Dog says:

      It is always burdensome for people to get an ID to vote. It is burdensome for them to have to show they are a citizen to register to vote. Oh woe is me.

      But if Obamabi pushes through this health care you want people will have to get an ID. They will likely be issued one by the government. So, why can’t people prove they are a citizen when they register and have the government issue them an ID if they do not have one?

      I know, it is tough. I had to prove I was a citizen to get a job and I had to prove I was a citizen when I joined the Army. If these people have jobs then they had to have proof of citizenship.

      If the government is giving out welfare checks people come up with ID to get them.

      It is a matter of responsibility. You call it a burden but it is a burden to work and pay taxes to support others. Perhaps they should make us stop paying taxes because of the burden.

      What does ID have to do with health care? Have you ever been to a clinic or hospital? You have to have ID, especially if someone else is paying the bill. They ask for ID, at least all the years I have worked in health care they have.

  3. Blake says:

    Also, when did having a photo ID become “burdensome”?

  4. Barbara says:

    Adam, when you help the same people over and over again, you are not teaching them anything. You are just enabling them.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Well Darrel, that might be the case. My car insurance seems to handle quite a bit.

    In any case it is good that I have Blue Cross…

  6. Big Dog says:

    And when I turn 60 I will be eligible for military health benefits. Maybe we could put a bunch of the folks without health care in the service so they can have health care. Then they would be working for it rather than having someone else pay.

    I mean if all they want is a break an the opportunity to be self sufficient what better way than to join the service and give back to the country while earning health benefits?

    • Tamara says:

      Oh my goodness! Are you suggesting a draft for health care? And that if you aren’t out there risking your life every day you aren’t
      “working for it?”

      Ya, that’s much better that universal health care. Oh, and cheaper too because of the fatalities and all. But I thought you DIDN’T want the government involved in health care so I’m confused.

      • Blake says:

        Tamara- BD did NOT suggest a draft- a draft doesn’t work, and BD doesn’t believe in one. What he said was if you want health care, you can join the military. He said that because it gets liberals panties in a wad- they do not like or support the military, so the statement was rather tongue in cheek. Perhaps if you read more of his posts, you might know this, OK?

    • Darrel says:

      You have this idea that single-payer means a free ride. It does not. People pay premiums in Canada, and there are (small) user fees. And general government revenue pays also. But because there is no private insurance company/industry sucking hundreds of billions out of the system, cost of delivery is far less. Plus, there is a focus on delivering solid necessary health rather than all of these companies trying to game the system. Also, all of this time/money/effort to focus on designer drugs doesn’t exist. There are no prescription drug ads in Canada. There are many other benefits, and a few draw backs too.

      As I said, the US is probably not ready for single payer. Too many paranoid misinformed people. Plus a trillion dollar for profit industry that lives nicely off of this government teat.

      So we will stagger along for another decade or two, nibbling around the edges, before it finally hits the fan.


  7. Big Dog says:

    Wake up Wal Mart is an anti Wal Mart site. They make claims that are misleading in order to slam Wal Mart. Their claims about employees not being covered are misleading because many are retirees on Medicare, students on parent’s plans and people who are otherwise covered. They might make valid points but if I used the RNC website to show an Obama lie you would reject it out of hand.

    However, if 70% comes from China the question would be how much of it is the junk Adam described? A lot of high end stuff like iPods, iPhones digital cameras, TVs and such come from there. It is not junk.

    As for who makes it or how much they get paid, that is China’s problem.

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: “Wake up Wal Mart is an anti Wal Mart site.”>>

      Oh for pity sake. You asked a question and I provided an answer which cited: “China Business Weekly, November 29, 2004.”

      If you have a better answer, then cite it rather than tossing the genetic fallacy.

      I am not anti-Wal-Mart. I shopped there this evening. I also know Walton’s. I tuned Helen Walton’s piano many times over the years before she passed away.


  8. a mother says:

    We already give the poor housing, food stamps, and MediCare. How come the people who “injure their back” at 20something get to live for free on disability while expecting the hard working people to pay their way? And now the universal health care will just mean that many more people who will decide that getting a job isn’t worth it because they now have all they need. Give them a reason to get a job. Put a timelimit on how long someone can be in govt funded housing, consistantly lower the amount of money they get for food, and limit medicare/caid to just the essentials like emergencies and needed meds (insulin and birth control, not pain killers they will just turn around and abuse or sell). People will never do anything for themselves if we are consistantly handing them all they need.

    I got a good laugh out of the “draft for health care” bit. I don’t think the military would take many of the people mooching off the country. They do have standards but it would be funny to see the faces if they were told they have to earn their keep. But, on the other hand, the military does teach you self-respect, duty, and dignity. Many EU countries require you, at the completion of high school, to either be prepared to start college, have a job lined up as an apprentice, or join the military (ie, those are your choices, choose well). It keeps that many less people out of the “gimme” lines but if we did it, we would probably look like dictators to our own citizens.

    • Tamara says:

      The problem with health care in this country isn’t isolated to the poor. I have a friend (with lots of money) who was turned down for health insurance because she once had a lump in her breast tested. It was not cancerous thankfully, but because she had that TEST she cannot get any insurance. So now her husband is afraid to get any tests, lest he lose his insurance. Ridiculous, but true.

      Or what about the people who have health insurance that get denied for their claims? What about hard working folks who pay through the nose just to be left in the lurch come injury or illness because some paper pusher found a loophole.

      Sure, having some kind of universal health care will benefit poor people too. And by the way according to Jesus, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven…”

      But lets just assume you don’t like Jesus either. Even still why would anyone want to see hard working folks suffer bankruptcy over a prolonged illness, car wreck, or denial of coverage. I just don’t get it.

      • Blake says:

        T- Anything run by the government will of necessity be plagued with inefficiency and cost overruns- and that means taxpayer dollars down the toilet. In addition, some pencil pusher in Washington will be able to tell you if that lump is worth a test or not. Also, this will mean that private insurance companies will go out of business, because the government would set the price, making it economically non profitable. The government would be able to tell you who you could see as =far as doctors go- no choice there.
        With a car wreck, your car insurance should pay- if not, get better insurance.
        I have no insurance, because I have had cancer before, and insurance companies don;t like that. You might think I would be for Universal health coverage, and I would be if I thought it would work, but it won’t- it will irreparably harm the system we now have, and drive doctors out of the profession, and make health care less, well, HEALTHY.
        Health care will never be fixed as long as government is in the mix- regrettable, but true.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Anything run by the government will of necessity be plagued with inefficiency and cost overruns->>

          As I have told you before, that’s not true. Having one, not for profit health insurer instead of 1,500 (last I checked) *for profit* health insurance companies makes for a FAR more efficient delivery of service. It’s not even close. This is not an opinion but an objectively verifiable fact you can confirm for yourself should you have the interest.

          Medicare and Social Security are also very efficiently run with overhead costs of 2-3%. Countries that have experimented with privatizing retirement funds have found that administrative costs end up running 20% or higher and where that goes is easily seen in the immense profits and CEO salaries, etc.

          More efficient:

          “New England Journal of Medicine finds that health care bureaucracy cost Americans $294.3 billion in 1999. The $1,059 per capita spent on health care administration was more than three times the $307 per capita in paperwork costs under Canada’s national health insurance system. Cutting U.S. health bureaucracy costs to the Canadian level would have saved $209 billion in 1999.

          The study was carried out by researchers at Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information,…

          The authors found that bureaucracy accounted for at least 31% of total U.S. health spending in 1999 vs. 16.7% in Canada.”

          “Hundreds of billions are squandered each year on healthcare bureaucracy, more than enough to cover all of the uninsured, pay for full drug coverage for seniors, and upgrade coverage for the tens of millions who are underinsured,”

          • Big Dog says:

            You cite numbers that are very misleading. There a quite a few costs in Medicare that are not reported. Blake posted a link to a study about it. Read it. I have seen several other studies in the past with the same conclusions. The government hides or absorbs costs that private insurers cannot.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Darrel- read this, ok?”

          I will be most pleased to read your article and give it careful attention, as soon as you watch this:

          I have posted it a couple times and asked for your (and BigD’s) opinion but hadn’t heard anything.

          You can fiddle with the medicare numbers a bit not doubt but it doesn’t change the fact that your claim: “Anything run by the government will of necessity be plagued with inefficiency and cost overruns…”

          Is flatly refuted by the examples I have already given. Note:

          “bureaucracy accounted for at least 31% of total U.S. health spending in 1999 vs. 16.7% in Canada.” –ibid

          This difference is significant because it represents hundreds of billions of dollars *every* year. As I have mentioned before, America wastes in medical paperwork and bureaucracy, enough to pay for Canada’s health care system, top to bottom, 1.5 times.


  9. Adam says:

    I love lately how many times somebody on here says “That source is liberal biased” or mocks a Wikipedia entry that clearly cites real sources. Alright. I guess I’ll get my list together of sources you can’t use either, such as Fox, WorldNetDaily, etc. We all know which way those lean even though conservatives try to pretend that Fox is fair. Right, fair. Ha.

    • Blake says:

      You have already gotten your sources together- and a source that can be changed, or as you liberals say (updated), is no reliable source at all.
      And Fox is fair, although you would have to actually watch it once in awhile to know that.
      Adam- there is a DIFFERENCE between news and commentary, or do you actually believe Olberdouche gives you facts, and NOT opinion?

  10. Big Dog says:

    When Obama urged Merkel to spend money the unemployment rate for both countries was 7.2%. Theirs went to 8.6% and then 8.2 which means they went up and are going down.

    Ours went to 9.4% and has not dropped which means we have a 2.2% increase.

    Wiki removes items that do not fit their agenda. There were items added to Obama’s entry that were true and non inflammatory. None of his controversial associations are mentioned and this entry was removed:
    “There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts.”

    This is a factual statement and does not take a position. It was scrubbed and the user banned.


    I don’t discount wiki. It is a good resource but some of the items are opinion and some are lacking information that would be contrary to whatever agenda they have.

    • Darrel says:

      That blub was scrubbed because it is too stupid for serious comment. If wiki allowed crap like that then they indeed would not be a serious source!

      People who want to read childish dis-information like that already have:

      I encourage you to read the background page at wiki on why that comment would be scrapped. You will find it was not without good reason. It can be very informative to check out those background exchanges.


  11. Big Dog says:

    And Germany is a great place to visit. I lived there for 2 years. Try the rahmschnitzel and the jagerschnitzel and Bitberger beer.

  12. Big Dog says:

    Real nice video. Shows that if you offer free stuff people come from all around. Interestingly, I did this kind of work in the National Guard but we did it in Costa Rica and we did about 10 times more in procedures including dental.

    Yes there are people without insurance. There are programs for most of them.

    You keep rambling on about Canada but it is not all you say.


    Ludwig von Mises

    There are plenty of things we can do to fix health care but having the government run it is not the way. Your Canadians cut costs by making people wait and limiting choices.

    Medicare is more costly than private insurance and SS is as bad. Private industry will always do better.

    Let’s start with tort reform and work from there.

    • Tamara says:

      BD, Canadian health care does not limit any choices that I am aware of. Give me an example of how they do that because I am quite certain that is false information.

    • Darrel says:

      BigD: “f you offer free stuff people come from all around.”>>

      Or put another way, it shows the depth of the suffering here. Try doing this in Canada and people would shrug and say “what’s the point?”

      BigD: “Heritage” [article]

      Long. I skimmed it. Many howlers. Canada does have some rightwingers (mostly in Alberta) and you found one of them. It would take some unpacking. Since you aren’t familiar with the Canadian system you wouldn’t know some of the the things he is critiquing and referring to. I guarantee there is another side (rebuttal) to his story and I also guarantee that the rightwing Heritage group would not be interested in publishing it. Rightwing advocacy, all the time.

      I did notice him saying this:

      “Now, like most Canadians, I believe that our system is superior in many respects to the U.S. system, but it is a system that staggers under the burden of serious design flaws.”

      So while he offers his critique from the right, he acknowledges the obvious.

      BigD: “Ludwig von Mises” [article]

      I read it quick. And as with every other time I tried to read something at the von Mises Faith Based Institute of the Holy Free Market Shrine, I wasted that time. As usual there is almost nothing of substance in that article. With these guys it’s all about the morality of free markets and everyone else is a marxist. It’s not possible to take those folks seriously. Really. I’ve tried.

      The only time where he seemed to try something actually substantive was when he tried the old boogie man: “wait times.” But that hardly flies anymore. Note:

      “In a recent survey, only 3.5 percent of Canadians reported feeling that they waited too long for care…”

      The Canadian system is not perfect. It has bugs. But as I said, set up one of those third world clinics in Canada and no one would come. Here, they have to turn them away because of the need (read suffering). It’s shameful.


  13. Big Dog says:

    It was a factual statement. There is no mention of the questionable associations. There are things in the Bush entry that are no different than this item but they left them in.

    There have been questions about Obama’s eligibility and most of the cases were dropped by the courts. That is FACTUAL. Why not include it?

    They left this:
    Critics, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker have alleged that Bush was favorably treated due to his father’s political standing, citing his selection as a pilot despite his low pilot aptitude test scores and his irregular attendance

    He might have been but there is no proof of it. It was left in because those allegations were made. The part about Obama is true. It was scrubbed because of agenda.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “There are things in the Bush entry that are no different than this item but they left them in.”>>

      They left it in because it is referenced by a standard mainstream source (Washington Post), one of many available sources supporting this claim (want me to provide them?).

      BigD: There have been questions about Obama’s eligibility>>

      And there have been questions about the Holocaust. But these are not serious questions that concern reasonable adults. It’s quackery. The idea that the US Secret Service went through and vetted this guy to the Nth degree as they did, and would be so F-ing incompetent that they couldn’t determine what bloody country he was born in (because they didn’t think to look at this birth certificate etc.), is, *too,* stupid, for, words.