Hiati

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article2Iedne7hppEzlcbWnZ2dnUVZ_rNi4p2d@earthlink .com,
Kurt wrote:

One is paid for by the users (Okay, 2--MCare AND MCaid).

I really shouldn't post before coffee. It should be MCare and Soc
Sec. MCaid is obviously paid for by taxes.

One is
paid for by the state which means they take my taxes and use it.
Everybody in the US (even the Dems) have a distrust of the good
will of at least part of the State. The only difference is which parts
they view as good and which parts they don't. Sorta like the notion that
the main diffference between the Dems and GOP is the number of the
amendments they think we can do without.


Ok, so I assume then that people would also like to stop MCaid as that
is paid through taxes and is therefore socialism?

--
Wilf

In article ,
Wilf wrote:


Ok, so I assume then that people would also like to stop MCaid as that
is paid through taxes and is therefore socialism?

Some. Most (even GOP types) realize that there is some use for
government, especially in helping some who can't help themselves. Thus
the cops (or at the US level military), etc. The debate is usually over
how much the government should intervene and to what level. Not many
would argue against MCaid, food stamps, etc, for short term help. But we
also have more than a few people who are on the programs for quite
literally generations.
Debate in the US, largely because of the influence of 2 minutes
being a long story media and the American's apparently in-born short
attention span, seldom gets into the grays. Also, bipartisan is viewed
by both sides as giving into my views.
This definition is probably the best way to explain what passes for
political debate any more.

Ideologue: noun. Someone who disagrees with the writer on
an issue and is insufficiently apologetic about it.

Stolen from Billo in misc.writing

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

"Wilf" wrote in message
o.uk...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
"Tom wrote:


So are Social Security and Medicare... but I don't see anybody turning
either one down when they turn 65.

Sorry but neither is really socialism since they are run by the
government but not (yet) PAID for by the government. They are both
Social insurance with the Government being the insurance company.


A convenient but (to me) incomprehensible distinction. But isn't that
what Obama wants to do for those who are otherwise uninsured, that is
provide them with insurance? So how is one "Socialism" and the other not?
As an outsider (British/Irish), it looks to me more about fear by vested
interests (insurance companies?) and their ability to whip up a level of
unjustified hysteria?
--
Wilf

Correct.

--Tom

Stu wrote:

A convenient but (to me) incomprehensible distinction. But isn't that
what Obama wants to do for those who are otherwise uninsured, that is
provide them with insurance? So how is one "Socialism" and the other not?
As an outsider (British/Irish), it looks to me more about fear by vested
interests (insurance companies?) and their ability to whip up a level of
unjustified hysteria?
--
Wilf
Correct.

--Tom


exactually, and they are damn good at it



And now that the Supremes have ruled easing limits on political
contributions by corporations, we are assured of having the best
government that money can buy.

--

George Leppla

Countryside Travel http://www.CruiseMaster.com
Blog http://cruisemaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/CruiseMaster

In article ,
George Leppla wrote:


And now that the Supremes have ruled easing limits on political
contributions by corporations, we are assured of having the best
government that money can buy.

has anybody actually read the decision. The only thing it says is
that the government can't limit what a corporation (and that
specifically included UNIONS since they are corporations) does with its
own money on its own. It doesn't address, for instance, the limits on
directly giving to a candidate (or their committee), keeping them
intact. It also specifically addressed only certain kinds of ad
(electioneering ads) for a specific (rather small) time window before
elections.
It would have had no impact, for instance, on the "good guy" or
"bad guys" ads inflicted on us all during the healthcare hooha.
I would commend to those interested the rather interesting
discussion of the line of cases showing that Corporations have first
amendment rights (starting on page 25) stemming from the 30s or so
forwards.
Also the history of this particular law starting on page 30 that shows
it was an attempt to fix a problem with an earlier law, that was an
attempt to fix a problem with an even earlier law, which was an attempt
to fix a problem with.. .well you get the drift.
The other fascinating part is that the Congress passed an amendment
to this bill that was supposed to kick in only if the Courts tossed out
the preferred wording. An indication that the Congress wasn't all that
sanguine about the legality of the bill. (Supremes also tossed the
amendment).

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

Kurt Ullman wrote:
Not many
would argue against MCaid, food stamps, etc, for short term help. But we
also have more than a few people who are on the programs for quite
literally generations.

Yes, in Britain I'm sure we have many people who take advantage of
government benefits for long periods of time, even through generations,
in some cases; but we accept that, with controls, because we won't
stomach a society which allows people to starve, live on the streets.
In the case of medical care, we don't even think that way - we just
accept that medical care should be free to all people here at the point
of use - anything else would be unthinkable. Despite a fair amount of
complaining, moaning etc. about the National Health Service, most of us
actually love and cherish it. Hopefully that doesn't make us all left
wing socialists or commies

--
Wilf

In article ,
Wilf wrote:

of use - anything else would be unthinkable. Despite a fair amount of
complaining, moaning etc. about the National Health Service, most of us
actually love and cherish it. Hopefully that doesn't make us all left
wing socialists or commies

Even if it does, if it works for you society then fine. But what
gets me riled is the idea that the US should be a clone (of Canada,
Britain, etc) and we shouldn't be allowed to come to our own conclusions
as to what healthcare should be.
Actually I think we could probably come to a conclusion on
healthcare tomorrow if we could agree on what minimum healthcare is. Is
it no out of pocket at all? Should a drunk be able to get one or more
liver transplants? Should we only have access to useful generics or more
advanced medications?
The lack of a healthcare system (and I agree with many who says
there is no "system" to our healthcare) is summed up by my personal
healthcare guru Ewe Reinhardt:
"No nation would be so dumb as to say that we all want to go one point,
we just don't know how to get there. What we are finding is some want
to go to San Diego, some to Seattle. We are ashamed to admit this so we
pretend we all want to go to San Francisco."

Uwe Reinhardt on the health care debate.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:11:31 +0000, Wilf wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
Not many
would argue against MCaid, food stamps, etc, for short term help. But we
also have more than a few people who are on the programs for quite
literally generations.

Yes, in Britain I'm sure we have many people who take advantage of
government benefits for long periods of time, even through generations,
in some cases; but we accept that, with controls, because we won't
stomach a society which allows people to starve, live on the streets.
In the case of medical care, we don't even think that way - we just
accept that medical care should be free to all people here at the point
of use - anything else would be unthinkable. Despite a fair amount of
complaining, moaning etc. about the National Health Service, most of us
actually love and cherish it. Hopefully that doesn't make us all left
wing socialists or commies

but where's the profit the the hospital corporations, insurance
companies etc? I bet you don't even have the joy of 10 drug
commercials on Tv every hour.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:32:09 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:


There are large differences in how uninsured is defined. The Census
Bureau is the one I use because it tends to be toward the middle of
those who define it as one day and those who want 6 months or more.

I was just surprised to see Obama use the relatively low figure that
one time.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:32:24 -0500, "Tom K"
wrote:


Jean just doesn't see it. But those of us out of work do. I love her
dearly, but.... she just doesn't grasp the magnitude of the problem.

You're exactly right. We are SO behind the rest of the civilized world.
And those Republicans in this country who are anti the universal healthcare
have created such a paranoia.... it's mind boggling. And they're doing it
with a 40% minority in the Senate after the House already passed their
version of the Bill.

It's like they want to keep our country in the dark ages.

--Tom


Until Brown is seated, the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate and a
large majority in the House. Had they been able to work together to
produce a bill, the Democrats had enough votes to pass a bill on their
own.