I think there are some things that should not be market based. National defense, law enforcement and health care are three of the big ones.

Because of the thirst for profit the cost of even basic health care has risen beyond the ability of most people to pay. Even when they can afford insurance they are routinely denied and/or delayed compensation, sometimes right into the grave. The only solution may be a national health care system.

But if that's the way we're going to go then it has to be complete. NHS hospitals, clinics, doctors, nurses, technicians and labs. The whole enchilada. This idea of the government telling me I have to purchase health care insurance from a private company is crazy. It's like they're holding me down while the insurance company robs me.

Well said. The problem with Obama's current health care "reform" mess is that it was written by the health insurance industry to do exactly what you said - have the government hold you down while the insurance industry robs you. The bill was written by Liz Fowler, the ex-VP of Wellpoint insurance. To solve it, I'm not sure what to do. I guess a good start would be to take profit motive out of the equation. Not because the government could do it so much better, but because the insurance companies do it so much worse.

Government for the corporation, by the corporation is alive and well in America.

either which way; just because it's covered by the institution does not mean you have to use them. If people are morally opposed, it should be their decision to use or not use said products. I think it's a slippery slope when we let "moral judgement" decide whats covered and whats not. It's such a subjective thing, especially when you are in effect letting another party decide whats going to happen to YOUR body...especially when this is a take it or leave it health care situation...students don't have money to pay for health care ( i know i sure don't).

well yes, I think 3 things would work; in descending order on what i think is best:
1. Universal health care
2. take out profit motive
3. get rid of the bill

But something needs to change because I think your health is something that nobody SHOULD EVER make profit off of, especially when it's mandated. It's really not a fair market, healthcare is all too often emergency situations and shopping around for the best deal is not something that's often an option, If I'm in a car wreck with a broken neck, I'm not gonna talk to the ambulance drivers about their rates, or read information compairing hospital prices in the city, I'm going to get the nearest ambulance and go to the nearest hospital AT ANY price...because my life is on the line. And that pretty much shoots the free market in the foot.

Then we agree in many ways. The issue of drugs and abortion I will differ with you on - because both hold dangers to people other than the user/recipient. The issue of "gay marriage" is one where government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.... While I have a moral objection to it - the reality remains that your talking about something that government shouldn't have its fingers in either way. Still - your entirely correct that "team R" definines freedom and liberty with a narrow scope under most circumstances.

If you look at your statement - you will see why you don't understand the objection. Your coming at this with the predetermined view that some entitlement spending by government is absolutely a necessity. Your example of "the necessity for things like welfare" is exactly where the confusion comes in. Sure, if you assume welfare is a necessity, then reducing more kids on welfare reduces the cost of the program. But for many conservatives, the welfare system is broken beyond repair.

Take a moment to step outside of your normal view and play devils advocate for a moment. Pretend that you see entitlements - all of them (Social security being a partial caveat) as entirely NOT the job of government. Medicaid, TANF & SNAP (welfare and foodstamps), Section 8 (subsidized housing), etc - look at it from the perspective of "none of these are the job of the government". If you do that - then the entire equation changes.

Now - lets be realistic. These programs cannot be just "killed" outright - but when a conservative sees how much the government has already gotten into things they feel it shouldn't - and then it wants to add MORE fingers to the pie, for whatever reason - they scream and yell and kick and raise a fuss. Why? Because its all going the WRONG way - we should be looking at putting more responsibility on citizenry for their own welfare - not increasing the role of government in their lives.

As conservatives - we hear all the time that new program A is "for the children", and new program B is "for the elderly" and new program C is "for the poor" or "for the GLTB folks" or some other nonsense - and that if we oppose more government gimme's we are somehow heartless and meanspirited.

Yes - to a few nuts this is about some biblical moral standard. For most of us, its not. Its about personal responsibility and the role of government. If someone wants to argue the fiscal wisdom of this - thats fine. But before that conversation can happen, the real root of the matter needs to be addressed - where is the line that defines how much government intervention in the life of its citizens?

The first question any legislator or government official should ask when they consider a "government program" or governmental interference is simple..... HOW is this within the proper role of government as defined by the Constitution.

If Washington had done that over the last 100 years or so - we would not be anywhere near this mess - and a whole lot more people in this nation would be standing on their own 2 feet, instead of kneeling at the alter of the government nipple.

They want it both ways. They scream about "free market! free market! let the market decide!" but then anytime the issue of revoking the antitrust exemption for insurance companies (McCarran-Ferguson Act) is brought up, all of a sudden it's "Whoooooaaaa, not that free of a market!" The insurance companies in this country are absolute slimeballs and one of the worst examples of regulatory capture.

It is, and that's the prevailing view in Washington as well.

Then you're getting into a completely different argument altogether.

Ok, I'll go with you on your tangent. The social safety net was enacted because the world we lived in without it was brutal and cruel. Some have the attitude of "oh the government's gone wrong, it's made all these mistakes getting into the health insurance and food stamp business. etc etc." as if there was no good reason for the programs to be enacted in the first place. The days of debtor prisons and the elderly's only choice, as a rule, was having to live in squalor or with relatives are too far gone for anyone alive today to remember. Maybe that's why there's these pushbacks against the programs that eliminated these things. Do we really want to go back to the days of child labor? Do we want to go back to people dying in the streets or in sanitariums? Would it be an improvement to tell the elderly "welp, you've used up your usefulness and you can't work anymore, so unless you've saved and had good luck with your investments, piss off!" I don't think that's a world I'd like to go back to.

Soooo, social Darwinism? No thanks. As I said before, that's a brutal way of life.

Telling the disadvantaged that they just have to suck it up and tough poop for your disadvantage is pretty heartless and mean spirited. ""Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members ; the last, the least, the littlest." - Cardinal Mahoney or Ghandi or a million other sources. Still a good quote though. And if you don't care for that one, there's always "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." - Jesus.

Just lovely.

I get a letter from Blue Cross today telling me that as of April 1st they will no longer cover my Lipitor prescription. I guess i'll just have to do without it. Isn't mandatory health care insurance just grand?

Didn't Lipitor just go generic? They won't even cover that?

I don't know. The letter just says to talk to my doctor to see if there is an alternate medication.

The insurance company is probably responding to the Lipitor "co-pay" situation. Once the generic forms were given the go ahead, Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor tried lowering its prices, but was unable to compete with the $4 generics. So they devised the "$4 dollar co-pay". But the lower price comes with conditions that may be what has caused your insurer to balk:

http://myhealthcafe.com/pfizer-offer...ood-to-be-true

The hardcore flaming right has come to Rush's defense. :03:

NSFW - http://www.defendrush.org





.

Aaaaaaahahahhahahahahha :rotfl2:

:har: :har: :har:

I can see being against entitlement spending, but like you said, when it curtails other costs, like birth control, I think it's money well spent.

What exactly is entitlement spending? :06:

So while they fight it out amongst themselves i'm stuck with a cheap copy. :nope:

:har::har::har:

Generics work just as well as the name brand stuff. A chemical's a chemical's a chemical.

It's simply spending that happens automatically under law. It's more accurate to call it "mandatory spending" - it happens unless Congress specifically votes to change it.

In reality it's a loaded phrase. "Entitlement" has a negative connotation, and those with a political agenda loooooove to use that to their advantage.

But i'm not buying a chemical. I'm buying a little white oval pill that somebody says contains a certain amount of a chemical. Now I wouldn't care if it was laundry detergent but when it comes to health maintaining drugs I just like knowing who that somebody is.

First of all, let me thank you Mookie. While we disagree, this conversation has a tone in which we are dealing with the problem - now lets see over the course of some give and take how we can get closer to a solution that maybe people can get behind!

I agree it is the prevailing view. As to if its necessary - well you put forth a good arguement as to why.

Maybe. But lets not dismiss it quite yet since you bring up the point in a way below.

Like almost every well meaning idea - there are success and failures. Things like Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, even Social Security, were all programs started with wonderful intentions. You are right in the point that none of us want to "go back to" those bad old days. The problem is that while these programs have alleviated some problems - they have created more.

The elderly do not always have multiple sources of income. Many survive on a "fixed income" that is - under most cases - almost all Social Security. That means in 2011, they recieved less than $1200 a month.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/19/news...ease/index.htm

Nearly 1 out of 4 elderly rely almost exclusively on SS payments. And the amount they get is just barely enough to keep them above the federal poverty numbers. And that is not counting all the other help they get - with Medicare, etc. Just ask AARP about whether or not subsistance (and not a "living wage" amount) is sufficient for the elderly.

Welfare - the most the state will allow in TANF is usually around $650 - Still well below the poverty cutoff. If you make money, you lose benefit money. So welfare is not lifting people out of poverty - and in some ways its incentivizing them to not work a "low paying" job.... so instead of a solution, its prolonging the problem....

Continuing the cycle and exacerbating the situation for those who are poor is trapping people in poverty - so how is this "better"?

In 1973, 22.9 Million people were considerd to be "poor". In 2010, that number had more than doubled to 46.2 Million people. Given population growth - that is a growth in percentage - of 4%.

http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_new...n-income-falls

The number of poor people in the country has more than doubled in less than 30 years... No matter how you slice it, poverty has grown. So how are we doing on that whole "war on poverty" thing? How are social programs ending the issue of poverty in this country? Answer - they are not....

The "social safety net" has become an utter failure. Continuing to support programs that "make you feel good" because of their purpose - but are abject failures - thus leaving the poor worse off than before - is just as much social Darwinism.

So is promising them help, only to have that "help" be a hinderance instead. Especially when it comes at the expense of others through forced wealth distribuiton at the behest of the government tax man.

Seriously - if your going to quote Jesus - please provide context. This is at the judgement - and it was those who never CHOSE to follow the Lamb that would be told this - because good works do not earn you a pass into heaven. If anything - the quote proves the point - we could all claim to have clothed the destitute, fed the hungry, comforted the poor - because the government did it with our money. And Jesus says - that doesn't fly. Doing it for the wrong reason (be it because it makes you feel good about yourself - or because the "gubment" makes you) is a fail. Still, I digress.....

Now I submit that we need to consider that if the "answer" we have used for more than 30 years has failed - its time to come up with a new answer to the problem.

There is nothing wrong with true charity - and that must be a component of the answer. But charity cannot be mandated by the government. However, government does have a place in encouraging charity.

Why not make charitable gifts deductable on a dollar for dollar basis? This alone would spur charitable giving like nothing else! Since private (and especially - local) charities are more agile and efficient, more of the giving would go to actually helping those who need it.

One other idea is to make donations of time tax deductible. Say $1 an hour. This would encourage volunteerism as well, allowing charities to better reach those who need help.

These changes alone would result in a massive outpouring of support to those most able to help the needy. Isn't that the purpose?

I hope that those reading this don't misunderstand - I recognize the desire to help the underprivileged - and I applaud it. I do what I can - and I encourage others to do so as well. Conservatives are not cold hearted bastids - ok well some are but most are not. We simple see how personal choice - combined with encouragement and not coercion - could do so much more for this wonderful country of ours. We were founded on the right to choose -to help or not - to reach out or not, as we see fit. We can find ways to encourage our fellows to reach out - without using the force of government to pick their pockets.

*edit - I just got told that time is actually tax deductible - good! Lets increase that!*

How much worse would those numbers be if the programs weren't there? Income disparity is a troubling problem...the rich are getting richer, while the ranks of the poor keep expanding. It can't continue, and I see it as one of the biggest threats to our country. History shows that unchecked income inequality in a country will lead to its downfall.

http://masteringmusicblog.com/wp-inc...imeline-i8.gif

The rich are richer than ever before. Scary. And no, it's not because of merit and hard work.

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/...ySaez-fig1.gif

Charity is fine. But someone's right to life shouldn't depend on whether a rich person is feeling generous that day.