Because there was no government involved with the healthcare system beforehand.

EDIT - To be slightly less flippant - The system in existence before was neither a model example of public-private-partnership, nor an endorsement of free-market healthcare. To pretend that involving government in the regulation and structure of US healthcare delivery was an invention of the 111th Congress is absurd.

Our healthcare system isn't about health anymore, since the massive corporate takeover of it, it's about mass profits. Now people are numbers with ratings. Medical care is fast coming unavailable to millions and millions get lil care.

Our nation agrees the government should run the army to protect americans, but not health. However, I do see the problem, our government is ran by pacs, corps, etc...so in the end corps own government anyway.

When health became connected to the stock market, it's been down hill from there.

There was supposed to be government oversight. At least that's the role government should take. They failed that as well. The system was not perfect before. But it's undeniable that the government made it much worse with this ridiculous health bill passed in the lame duck session during the Christmas holiday....under the radar. Premiums are skyrocketing right now. Nobody in their right mind should want to put this government in charge of their healthcare. They've proven they can't manage anything of consequence short of military operations.

When government looked the other way and removed/didn't enforce regulations, the financial industry blew itself up and took the world economy down with it. I saw how that worked as well.

Well, you're kind of confused here. I wasn't lamenting government oversight, and the enforcement of laws by government. And yes, they did fail in their job of oversight as well. But when government tries to manage, overreach, require unneeded and costly mandates, be a player, and referee the game such as the healthcare bill.....well that's the problem. And too many Democrat voters want that type of interaction. It simply doesn't work. And they stand there and vote for more of it. Oversight is fine....taking over as a player and managing the industry is not. Government needs to provide oversight but let the private sector manage it's businesses and institute trade, finance, monetary, and tax policies that help them succeed, and not hinder their progress.

The financial downfall was not primarily caused due to lack of regulation. It has alot to do with government spending (fiscal insanity), burdensome taxes and costly REGULATION, and currency speculation and manipulation. In addition, governments role in the housing market crash cannot be explained solely through regulatory policy either. Fannie and Freddie for example were grossly mismanaged.

Not to mention how blatantly unconstitutional a federal mandate its.:damn:

Fannie and Freddie were not even a proximate cause of the crisis. Rather than retype it all, I've already gone over it in depth here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...26#post1757126 But that's getting way off track.

I agree to a point with you in regards to the health care bill. A quasi-public/private system doesn't work. If they're going to turn it over to private companies, they should remove some of the sweetheart deals that the insurance industry has wrangled for themselves in order to gouge the public, such as their exemption from anti-trust laws under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. I'd advocate a fully public solution as it's been shown around the world to provide the most effective outcomes at the lowest total cost, ideological or philosophical issues with it notwithstanding.

And what's the common theme here? The influence of lobbyists and corporations on the government has turned out a system that sucks for us, but is great for them. Investment banks lobby the government to remove leverage restrictions from them, and when they get it, they blow themselves up and hand the taxpayer the bill. The insurance lobby blatantly engages in monopolistic practices that end up costing the public tons of money, but then screams about how a single payer health plan would destroy the "free market." They turn it to their advantage by writing the health care bill and handing themselves millions of new customers.

You are easily amused because that was weak.

white, naive, foolish? hmm well plenty of non whites in the tea party(not that it matters, not a requirement to have "diversity") there are plenty of young, middle aged, and old.Joe the Plumber was John McCain(RINO) BS and if you notice you dont hear much from that fool these days.

OWS is a left wing movement and no left wing movement advocates a return to the founding principles.The left hates the constitution because it often stands in the way of their dangerous ideology.The only time the like it is in first amendment issues IF it suits them.The right as a whole is not like this but there are some on the right who are as guilty but comparing the two, well the left is not exactly about the US constitution.Maybe the old soviet constitution:arrgh!: but the US? No.

I won't even address the Beck thing, I dislike him anyway.

The Koch brothers are the evil white boogeyman cooked up by Maddow and MSNBC.The Kochs are successful businessmen who are politically active, nothing more.State Media aka MSNBC wanted to scare people esp minorities so they found two wealthy, white guys and framed them as some type of hidden force that is against them, it really is laugable and disgusting.

Point location software status - RECALIBRATION RECOMMENDED

Yes we can agree, Beck is a scumbucket.
But the tea party still had Koch funded busses running members to rallies..It's well proven, Faux news is full of crap, ask around what the owner (Rupert Murdoch) recently got in trouble for doing in Britain. And ask yourself that with Americas looser libel laws, if you think Old Rupert boy is willing to be even more fairer and noble here...The land of bought interests, he can buy himself out of trouble with lobbies and "campaign donations" just like BP did when they destroyed our gulf fishing industry.

These people (not just kids) are self funded, and relying heavily on donations. Like the many people sending pizzas and other stuff down there.
I'm one of the few lucky who's job isn't being done in India or China yet, and wish the same on others.

Have fun in your bubblegum O'rielly world. A man named Goebbels would have loved you status quo shill types in his time.

"George Soros is the evil boogeyman cooked up by Hannity and Fox News.George Soros is a successful businessman who is politically active, nothing more.State Media aka Fox News wanted to scare people esp the gullible so they found a wealthy, Jewish guy and framed him as some type of hidden force that is against them, it really is laugable and disgusting."

Oh you really are making this too easy :rotfl2::har:

This thread could supply an aggressive round of Buzzword Bingo

Mookie, I'm glad I am not the only pinko communist, long haired,potsmoking, dope sniffing hippie, godless , terrorist loving, America hating, person on this board who thinks a nations policy should serve everyone and not the people who "bought into the game"

Then again, we should go back to our drugs and socialism....

(Bank Bailouts=biggest socialism plan in history, Stalin would have pooped his pants)

So the left has George Soros, and the right has the Koch Brothers, sounds to me, that makes it a fair playing field, isn't that what the left is all about, being fair ?? Or are they, disreguarding their core values about being fair, if this is the case we can't beleive what they stand for. The left can't tell you what the plan is, and if they did it would be a lie, like all the legislation they have passed, hidden agenda's, backroom deals, and we got to pass this bill to see what's in it. I see Obama, Biden, and the big labor unions, have indorsed the occupiers hope-ing this is a counter to the Tea Party, in Boston the Tea Party had to get a permitt to march, and the occupiers didn't and the local government has done nothing so who's backing who ??????? The occupiers are what's wrong with the Democrat Party and the Left, they want something for nothing and are willing to take it from you, no matter if they deserve it or not, that's stealing and some call it communism. So calm yourself have a nice pipe-ing hot cup of TEA. Oh almost forgot who's going to pay to clean up this mess after they leave????? Oh and the occupiers would have created more jobs than the government, see they are contributing to capitalism. Remember the more they tax you the more they enslave you. I don't intend to spend more than 10 pecent of my time, nor should anybody else be working for this sorry Government so go get a haircut and get a real job.

For Mayor, ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Evokes Protests From Vietnam Era
 

The simmering discontent that has provoked the Occupy Wall Street protests has prompted numerous historical comparisons. Some are calling the movement a liberal version of the Tea Party. Others see a repeat of the 1930s populism that accompanied the New Deal. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg seems to be reminded of the Vietnam War. Twice in the past two weeks, Mr. Bloomberg has cited protests from the Vietnam War era for comparison with current events. Last week, on his weekly radio show, he brought up the antiwar movement while discussing the current protests. “I remember in the Vietnam War there were enormous protests on Wall Street,” the mayor said, adding, “I’ve always thought one of the sad things is, when the Vietnam vets came back, we didn’t treat them the way they deserve to be treated.” On Friday, also on his radio show, he again found an occasion to bring up protests against the war, this time while discussing the 10th anniversary of the start of the war in Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/ny...1&ref=nyregion


Note: Update record,Published: October 7, 2011