It's "arguments" and sure I did. What's your point?

The point is where were the crowds of people protesting when Medicare D was enacted , and where are the protests about healthcare directed at the politicians who are insisting that a bill that they said would cost $1.2 trillion over ten years yet is now estimated to cost $8.1 trillion but are steadfast that it must not be altered.
Though that isn't quite as funny as when you get the protesters complaining that they want the government to keep its hands out of their Medicare.

Indeed you did, which obviously means that what I wrote was directed at those who objected to protesters when the last bunch of muppets was in office but are now in favour of protesters because there is a new bunch of muppets in office.

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Perhaps you had better look at other governments existing health programs for examples as your theory doesn't hold water.

So your anger and criticism is directed at a situation that doesn't exist in reality but only in your head. That's rational.

Wait, are you suggesting that it is irrational to consider the likelihood of the unwritten consequences of a hugely impactful peice of legislation?

I would contend the opposite and, quite frankly, I wish our lawmakers would spend more time examining possible unintended consequences...

Perhaps you had better look at other governments existing health programs for examples as your theory doesn't hold water.

Other countries are NOT the United States of America and never will be.

The enormous size of a universal health care system will make it imposable to manage efficiently. What works in a small country has absolutely no bearing what so ever on what will work in the US of A.

Try passing something like this in the EU as a whole and see what happens. Even countries with similar systems would balk at universal health care for all the EU run by one massive entity.
A one size fits all is not a workable solution on a very big scale with many diverse needs and opinions.

Study the Economy of Scale and the theory of Diminishing Returns, these apply to any enterprise private or governmental.

Social Security and Medicare are very small compared to universal health for 300,000,000 + people and look what a mess they are thanks to an inability to manage properly and interference by outside interest.

You are wrong. My theory holds a lot of water, all the water it need to.

So your anger and criticism is directed at a situation that doesn't exist in reality but only in your head. That's rational.

First I'm not angry but I am concerned.

It doesn't exist only in my head but in almost every government run program.

Income tax started out as a 1% tax on the rich.
Social Security started as a safety net for the elderly.
Medicare started as a plan to insure those who have few options left at retirement.
Welfare was to be a safety net for the poor, it is now a way of life for many and has put a big strain on many states economies.
Cash for clunkers is a perfect example. What was once a one billion dollar program tippled to three billion. It is deemed a big success. But watch and see what car sales numbers are in the next few months. They dried up the new car market at a cost of three billion. In the short run it may have helped but long term it was a waste of three billion.

There are very few government programs that haven't expanded way beyond there original intent.

No my head is just fine thank you. It isn't stuck in the sand like so many.
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

Magic

In that case since you are such a huge country obviously your roads will be rubbish and so will your military, after all on such a scale a government just can't do things at all.

Only if people are really stupid, after all if all the other countries with it manage to draft legislation to prevent your scare story from taking place then why can't yours. Are your politicians just somehow a lot dumber than the prize idiots other countries elect?

In that case since you are such a huge country obviously your roads will be rubbish and so will your military, after all on such a scale a government just can't do things at all.

The management of the roads, with the exception of the interstate highway system is mainly a function of each individual state. The states decide which projects to work on and if they meet federal standers than the fed will kick in matching money for the project.

Management of this system is minuscule compared to universal health care. Millions of claims will be filed or acted on each week. You are comparing a few apples to millions of peas. There are some things that the government does fairly well. Social programs do not fall into this category.

And yes the road system is very much in need of repair, particularly the federal system and a lot of bridges. Obama made a very big deal out of this for the stimulus package, than devoted very little money to the problem.

As for the military, that is one place where the politicians are smart enough to listen to the professionals and not monkey around with it too much. That is national defense not social engineering, again not a very valid comparison.

Our prize idiots are far from dumb, they know how to push an agenda and get what they want and many want universal health care run solely by the government.

There is a very powerful contingent in congress that is hell bent on getting universal health and if they don't get it now they will work very hard at getting it later. Ted Kennedy to his dieing breath tried to get it and he had many very powerful supporters in and out of government.

Most if not all attempts at social engineering have ended up far more extensive and costly than originally intended. This is something that our government and our system is not very good at. This is the United States of America and what works for other countries does not necessary work here. This is not some other country, we ARE different. Good, bad or otherwise that is a fact. We are not Europeans, we don't even drive on the proper side of the road and have little knowledge of what a kilometer is and really don't care. We throw a football not bounce it off our heads.

The CRA was passed to stop financial institutions from refusing loans in certain poor areas. It eventually ended up trying to enable lenders to give loans to anybody that walked in the door. Why not when you can simply sell the loan to Freddie or Fannie, make your money and get out.
The greedy Wall Street folks jumped all over this and the result is what we have today. It was far more complicated than this but that is what started the ball rolling down the hill. There was no bill passed or debate just pressure by some in congress and changes in a few regulations.
Social engineering behind closed doors.

What I'm concerned about isn't a scare story but the fact that it has happened in the past but not on the scale that health care could be.

Johnson's Great Society program had the best of intentions but was a dismal and very costly failure.

Will it happen? Who knows? But why open the door, because there are many that will jump through and some may not have the most honorable of intentions.

Any bill that can be written can also be changed by another bill, regulations, law suites or the Supreme Court. The ACLU is dedicated to universal health and you can bet that they will be looking for any opening they can get. What is in this plan now will not be what we have 10 years down the road.

If a government option is passed there are many that will seek to include anyone who is in the US, either legally or otherwise. There is nothing in the present bill to prevent this.

There are far better options available than Obamacare. Many of which are posted in this thread.

Obama wanted this passed with no debate or even a good close look.
What I and a lot of others want is a voice in the process and we weren't getting it till there were very loud town hall meetings and tea parties.

I and many more don't like simply being dismissed by the powers that be by being call names. Right wing nut job etc. or even worse.
The same goes for calling someone a left wing nut job.

Those calling names say much more about themselves than they do about others.

Magic

Nowhere in the CRA does it say lenders have to put aside traditional lending standards. Your statement simply is not true.

For cryin out loud people its not just about health care. :damn:

Mookie you are very right. The CRA dosn't outright say that but the devil is in the details. That is my point exactly, what is in a bill is not what you end up with.
Congress has very strong oversight of Freddie and Fannie and pressure and changes in policy did indeed lead to the situation I was talking about.

The CRA was a good and necessary idea and worked well for many years.
It wasn't till politicians started social engineering that it went wrong.
There were many factors in the fall and both parties share responsibility.
The Dems were pushing for low income housing and it got out of control.

The Repbs set the stage by relaxing regulation too far. And both were not keeping an eye on the situation and were in fact encouraging the practice of "no qualifying" loans. Wall Street jumped all over this.

Health care certainly needs on overhaul and those that truly can't afford insurance do need some help. I don't oppose this but there are far better ways than Obamacare.

Government run health care opens the door to many forms of abuse and/or mismanagement. If the past is any indication this may well come true.

Yes indeed it is about control, the more the populace relies on the government the easier it is to maintain power.

I'm not the extremist that I may have sounded like in my post but the fact is that I don't trust the government to be looking out for MY best interest. It is only THEIR best interest that politicians have in mind.

Magic