Obama Exposed

[gobears 0]

<br /><br />You are creating a false choice here. The poor in capitalist systems are better off than most people in other systems. Yes, we can take one part of the economy out of the capitalist system with less harm than full-scale socialism, but the result is the same: the poor suffer more than the rich. This notion that we can get all the benefits of capitalism without actually having capitalism is false.<br /><br />You are the one who brought up the poverty statistics; those scary numbers include lots of people who are only poor in the sense that Tono Romo is poor compared to Bill Gates. It includes lots of people who would be upper middle class compared to most of the world. And this is why the claims in your first paragraph is so insidious -- you can't make people better off by biting the hand that feeds them.<br /><br /><br /><br />I've presented lots of statistics on the problems with centrally planned medical systems; I don't think mutual suffering for all is better than some suffering for the few. It's not a choice of excellent healthcare for everyone or excellent healthcare for a few; it's a choice between crappy care for most versus excellent care for the majority and lower levels of care for the few. One of those systems historically provides far superior results over the long run, and I've presented enough documented statistics now that it should be clear which one it is.

That's true in that the poor when they get really sick here can go to an ER; the poor in other countries don't even have that option so the poor in the US should count their blessings.Also, I think you mean that the rich suffer more than the poor if we take one part of the economy out of the capitalist system. The poor get better medical care don't they while the rich have to use their own money to find their own private practitioners.As for poverty, you missed my comment that many families that the government does not consider in poverty are struggling to make ends meet so poverty is not a small problem that you seem to be intimating. But you're right that many of the poor here are better off then the poor in Ethiopia. Again, the poor should count their blessings!Mutual suffering for all and crappy care for most - you do have a way with the hyperbole....

<br /><br /><br />I should add an additional response here. Every argument for why we need socialized medicine could also apply to food. In fact, food is much more necessary for life than medical treatment, so the case is even stronger for food. Yet nobody argues that we need to have a single-payer grocery system. Why? Because when markets are allowed to function, they work to serve the greatest number of people, because more customers = more profit. The number of options for food is vast. This also works for clothing. It works relatively well for housing, although there are few cities that allow builders to build affordable housing anymore, so there is low-income housing shortages in some areas.Another reason why socialized medicine is a popular cause but socialized food isn't is because for almost all of our lives, health insurance makes no difference. Health insurance is a poor purchase if all you do is get a routine physical once a year. It's only when a crisis strikes that you wish you had it. Since such a crisis is rare, people are lulled into believing that they don't need health insurance, convincing themselves that "it's too expensive". Then, when things go bad, they blame their problems on the greedy insurance companies rather than on their own priorities. Insurance companies make good scapegoats.

If someone needs food, any stranger can pass him a sandwich. For someone who needs healthcare, the supply side is not quite as ample. So I'm not arguing that we need "socialized food" as that would be ridiculous - totally different situations but for someone who is for 100% free markets in everything, I guess food=medicine.

[hblask 1]

<br />That's true in that the poor when they get really sick here can go to an ER; the poor in other countries don't even have that option so the poor in the US should count their blessings.<br /><br />Also, I think you mean that the rich suffer more than the poor if we take one part of the economy out of the capitalist system. The poor get better medical care don't they while the rich have to use their own money to find their own private practitioners.<br /><br />As for poverty, you missed my comment that many families that the government does not consider in poverty are struggling to make ends meet so poverty is not a small problem that you seem to be intimating. But you're right that many of the poor here are better off then the poor in Ethiopia. Again, the poor should count their blessings!<br /><br />Mutual suffering for all and crappy care for most - you do have a way with the hyperbole....<br /><br /><br /><br />If someone needs food, any stranger can pass him a sandwich. For someone who needs healthcare, the supply side is not quite as ample. <br /><br />So I'm not arguing that we need "socialized food" as that would be ridiculous - totally different situations but for someone who is for 100% free markets in everything, I guess food=medicine.<br />

<br /><br /><br />A single sandwich does nothing to cure poverty, so your analogy is a bit misleading. It would require someone to hand them several sandwiches a day for the rest of their lives. Medical treatments are much less frequent, and occasional free treatment is adequate for the vast majority of the population.But you are missing the bigger picture: it is the capitalist system that brought us the high standard of living that we are experiencing today, and the high quality of care -- the one that allows the poor here to go to free clinics, or to walk into any hospital and get treated. If you remove the system that created it, you remove the result. You can't just say "thanks free market, now go away. But oh, keep providing all the benefits that you have all along." It just doesn't work that way.

[El Guapo 8]

So I had a bunch of stuff quoted and lost it.Anyway. Jamie is ultra hippyish and is more than willing to give up a large chunk of his income to pay for other people to have the things they need want. That not going to change.Henry is borderline libertarian and wants less governement accross the board. Thats not going to change.Both have used extreme examples to get their point across. But more the most part some form of government is needed to have a sustainable country/economy/lifestyle etc.What we need gov for (not necissarily federal): (very limited examples)MilitaryTransportation infrastructureJudicial systemPolice/Fire/Emergency etc.utilities (infastructure only)What we don't need them for:Over-regulating industrySocial SecurityWelfareMedicineEducation K-CollegeAlmost everytime the government gets involved on a large scale in something, we suffer financially. My grandfather has 400 acres of ranch land that he rents to a guy to run cattle. The government approached him to pay him a subsidary to not grow wheat. He has never grown wheat, nor did he ever intend to. They wanted to pay him thousands of dollars a year to not do something he was not going to do anyway. He refused because he thought it was wrong, and did not like being told what to do.This is just one example of the inneficiancy of the federal goverment.This county would be a much better place if the federal goverment stepped back and allowed the state to self govern they way our system was set up, but unfortunately for the most part federal law usurps state law and this causes a great deal of issues with setting inter state policies.