Obama's Balls OK?

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead, my point is: compassion enters into it when the system breaks down and you only have bad choices. And to me, at least, letting Americans do without when we can easily afford otherwise is unacceptable--even if the poor are shitheads who deserve to suffer--as many are.

As for HMOs, do you somehow see them as NOT examples of free enterprise/capitalism? They are profit-making organizations, delivering a service at a more competitive price. What could be more capitalist than that?

And you don't think doctors "should" work for them? Using the word "should" implies some regulation or force should prevent it. You don't like the ideas of the doctors having a CHOICE? Nothing is forcing those who work for HMOs to do so except maybe market forces. There certainly are many who choose not to.

You talk about lower cost and more accessibility, well, that's what HMOs are all about--much lower cost and at least as much accessibility. And the two HMOs I am familiar with at least, are big enough that there is very large degree of choice of doctor, etc. Likewise, there is at least no more of a problem over pre-existing conditions with HMOs than with traditional companies.

Your idea of health insurnance co-ops actually sounds very much like HMOs--loosely affiliated groups getting together to get better rates.

As for punishing those of us who choose not to pay for insurance and then have a catastrophic condition, what would you suggest, the death penalty, maybe--no treatment? Maybe putting an involuntary lien against their property? That might work, although I, personally, would be against it, as I have this nasty little empathy for those who beat the system--I'm so ashamed about that .....

[bobblehead]

Bobblehead, my point is: compassion enters into it when the system breaks down and you only have bad choices. And to me, at least, letting Americans do without when we can easily afford otherwise is unacceptable--even if the poor are shitheads who deserve to suffer--as many are.

As for HMOs, do you somehow see them as NOT examples of free enterprise/capitalism? They are profit-making organizations, delivering a service at a more competitive price. What could be more capitalist than that?

And you don't think doctors "should" work for them? Using the word "should" implies some regulation or force should prevent it. You don't like the ideas of the doctors having a CHOICE? Nothing is forcing those who work for HMOs to do so except maybe market forces. There certainly are many who choose not to.

You talk about lower cost and more accessibility, well, that's what HMOs are all about--much lower cost and at least as much accessibility. And the two HMOs I am familiar with at least, are big enough that there is very large degree of choice of doctor, etc. Likewise, there is at least no more of a problem over pre-existing conditions with HMOs than with traditional companies.

Your idea of health insurnance co-ops actually sounds very much like HMOs--loosely affiliated groups getting together to get better rates.

As for punishing those of us who choose not to pay for insurance and then have a catastrophic condition, what would you suggest, the death penalty, maybe--no treatment? Maybe putting an involuntary lien against their property? That might work, although I, personally, would be against it, as I have this nasty little empathy for those who beat the system--I'm so ashamed about that .....

First off I reject that we can afford otherwise. We have a standing shortfall of 50+ TRILLION dollars on the gov't books if they did accounting like you and I do. So can we afford it...NO.

HMO's certainly are NOT a case of free market. Read the nice long post above that I copied. HMO's are a gov't creation subsidized heavily to get a foothold and basically dominate healthcare resources in a way that is not free market at all. I only wish I could have the money my employer pays to my PPO to fund a HSA and buy a disastor policy that was legally restricted from dropping me when I actually cost them money.

I think those that game the system by not buying into a plan they can afford and then getting a big illness should be forced to surrender their assets. In other words PAY YOUR FUCKING BILLS. You gambled, you lost, tough break.

I think doctors should work for a hospital, or for themselves. Working for the company that decides what to pay is a conflict of interest. You go in with a torn ligament, the first thing you generally get from an HMO doctor is Motrin. Followed by "rest and ice" and sometime down the road if you are still insured and still complaining you might get an MRI. But they will stall you first hoping you go away. With an HSA you could shop around for a competitive price to get an MRI right away...no referal needed. Also said radiaologist would be free to compete openly and not be slaves of the HMO as well. If you want to open your own radiology center as it stands right now you better be in with the HMO's first because you have no chance of getting business without them...again, they control the resources atm, not you and not I. I want all kinds of competition driving down costs, improving service ect, ect.

This is NOT free market at work...it is gov't engineered socialist medical system dominated by a few HMO's that gov't put in place by giving them a competitive edge to gain market share. Now that they have said edge, the laws are set up to keep them there and squash competition.

[texaspackerbacker]

Bobblehead, my point is: compassion enters into it when the system breaks down and you only have bad choices. And to me, at least, letting Americans do without when we can easily afford otherwise is unacceptable--even if the poor are shitheads who deserve to suffer--as many are.

As for HMOs, do you somehow see them as NOT examples of free enterprise/capitalism? They are profit-making organizations, delivering a service at a more competitive price. What could be more capitalist than that?

And you don't think doctors "should" work for them? Using the word "should" implies some regulation or force should prevent it. You don't like the ideas of the doctors having a CHOICE? Nothing is forcing those who work for HMOs to do so except maybe market forces. There certainly are many who choose not to.

You talk about lower cost and more accessibility, well, that's what HMOs are all about--much lower cost and at least as much accessibility. And the two HMOs I am familiar with at least, are big enough that there is very large degree of choice of doctor, etc. Likewise, there is at least no more of a problem over pre-existing conditions with HMOs than with traditional companies.

Your idea of health insurnance co-ops actually sounds very much like HMOs--loosely affiliated groups getting together to get better rates.

As for punishing those of us who choose not to pay for insurance and then have a catastrophic condition, what would you suggest, the death penalty, maybe--no treatment? Maybe putting an involuntary lien against their property? That might work, although I, personally, would be against it, as I have this nasty little empathy for those who beat the system--I'm so ashamed about that .....

First off I reject that we can afford otherwise. We have a standing shortfall of 50+ TRILLION dollars on the gov't books if they did accounting like you and I do. So can we afford it...NO.

HMO's certainly are NOT a case of free market. Read the nice long post above that I copied. HMO's are a gov't creation subsidized heavily to get a foothold and basically dominate healthcare resources in a way that is not free market at all. I only wish I could have the money my employer pays to my PPO to fund a HSA and buy a disastor policy that was legally restricted from dropping me when I actually cost them money.

I think those that game the system by not buying into a plan they can afford and then getting a big illness should be forced to surrender their assets. In other words PAY YOUR FUCKING BILLS. You gambled, you lost, tough break.

I think doctors should work for a hospital, or for themselves. Working for the company that decides what to pay is a conflict of interest. You go in with a torn ligament, the first thing you generally get from an HMO doctor is Motrin. Followed by "rest and ice" and sometime down the road if you are still insured and still complaining you might get an MRI. But they will stall you first hoping you go away. With an HSA you could shop around for a competitive price to get an MRI right away...no referal needed. Also said radiaologist would be free to compete openly and not be slaves of the HMO as well. If you want to open your own radiology center as it stands right now you better be in with the HMO's first because you have no chance of getting business without them...again, they control the resources atm, not you and not I. I want all kinds of competition driving down costs, improving service ect, ect.

This is NOT free market at work...it is gov't engineered socialist medical system dominated by a few HMO's that gov't put in place by giving them a competitive edge to gain market share. Now that they have said edge, the laws are set up to keep them there and squash competition.

From your own words--"if they did accounting like you and I do ...". The government does NOT do accounting like you and I do (I may not even do accounting like you do). The government does accounting like we would if we had the ability to print our own money--basically in as big a quantity as we want. The $9 trillion or whatever national debt and this fantasy of a $50 trillion unfunded liability or whatever you want to call it, both of those figures are totally irrelevant. All the government has to do is keep the float going i.e. print more money, and everything is fine as long as growth outstrips growth of debt. There has been no significant inflation, and there will be no significant inflation. The doom and gloomers can worry themselves into early graves all they want, but the bad things they/you foresee just haven't happened and won't happen.

I say again, a profit making business that carves its niche by offering an adequate product or service at a substantially lower price is exactly what free enterprise capitalism is all about. If part of that profit-making capability involves receiving subsidies from the government, then fine, so be it. Next thing you're gonna be saying farmers, truckers, airlines, and a whole host of other American institutions are examples of socialism too, because they survive and thrive exactly the same way.

The bottom line is that the system is infinitely better for good normal Americans i.e. good normal health care consumers now than before there were HMOs and costs were so much higher.

As for your torn ligament example, no, that is not accurate at all. While I have been extremely healthy, my wife hasn't been quite so lucky. I'm not quite sure where the line is between her real and imagined maladies, but there has NEVER been any problem with her getting the tests and treatment needed through the HMO--actually more than I would have considered necessary.

BTW, how do you define "a few" HMOs? It seems like quite a few to me. Arguably, the larger they are, the more choice an individual has, given the fact that there is so much freedom and ability to pick and choose doctors--with the HMO--and get second opinions, etc.

[bobblehead]

tex, if you print money, you devalue the dollar....that is an indirect tax on savings. That is a fact, even you can't dispute it.

As for transfer of wealth...they don't pay for themselves, only infrastructure does. If we start every disagreement from the standpoint that gov't can print or borrow as much as it desires to spend with no consequences you are in the wrong party. You are a hawk democrat, vote for lieberman.

[texaspackerbacker]

tex, if you print money, you devalue the dollar....that is an indirect tax on savings. That is a fact, even you can't dispute it.

As for transfer of wealth...they don't pay for themselves, only infrastructure does. If we start every disagreement from the standpoint that gov't can print or borrow as much as it desires to spend with no consequences you are in the wrong party. You are a hawk democrat, vote for lieberman.

Then WHY has inflation NOT occurred to any significant degree with all the deficits, national debt, unfunded liability, etc. that concerns you so much?

The extreme fiscal conservatives are NOT the mainstream of either the Republican Party or the conservative movement, The arch-type conservative Republican himself, Ronald Reagan, was not an absolutist in that area. He cared far more for tax cuts and spending what needed to be spent--which aomunts to supply side economics--which amounts to Keynesian Economics.

You can go on and on about all the bad things that are supposed to happen due to deficits/debt, but the fact is, those things just haven't happened--not in the Reagan years and not in the George W. Bush years.

I can go on and on about Keynesian Economics, the multiplier, and the magnificence of tax cutting, and history DOES back up what I'm talking about. It has literally worked every time.

You can theorize doom and gloom all you want, but history says it hasn't happened, and history indicates it won't happen.

[bobblehead]

tex, if you print money, you devalue the dollar....that is an indirect tax on savings. That is a fact, even you can't dispute it.

As for transfer of wealth...they don't pay for themselves, only infrastructure does. If we start every disagreement from the standpoint that gov't can print or borrow as much as it desires to spend with no consequences you are in the wrong party. You are a hawk democrat, vote for lieberman.

Then WHY has inflation NOT occurred to any significant degree with all the deficits, national debt, unfunded liability, etc. that concerns you so much?

The extreme fiscal conservatives are NOT the mainstream of either the Republican Party or the conservative movement, The arch-type conservative Republican himself, Ronald Reagan, was not an absolutist in that area. He cared far more for tax cuts and spending what needed to be spent--which aomunts to supply side economics--which amounts to Keynesian Economics.

You can go on and on about all the bad things that are supposed to happen due to deficits/debt, but the fact is, those things just haven't happened--not in the Reagan years and not in the George W. Bush years.

I can go on and on about Keynesian Economics, the multiplier, and the magnificence of tax cutting, and history DOES back up what I'm talking about. It has literally worked every time.

You can theorize doom and gloom all you want, but history says it hasn't happened, and history indicates it won't happen.

where is the inflation?? Have you bought bananas lately...eggs...OIL...A HOUSE? Unemployment just hit 5.5%. In many states it is over 6%. Gold is over 1000/oz, that is a surefire sign of inflation and a deflated dollar. Housing has completely crashed and the lending markets are in complete turmoil. We haven't hit the worst yet.

Quite the contrary, history is on my side. Many indicators are similar to what they were shortly before the great depression. I'm not saying it is that bad, but it ain't good. IndyMac just collapsed, fannie and freddie are near collapse. Projects across america are stalling out because people can't get financed, and private investors are starting to hold onto GOLD, and invest in sturdy cash rich corporations...why do you think I recommended IBM on the financial thread.

Try being 30 years old, having saved for a house and all of a sudden prices are way up, but you can't get financed....nice. Certain tangible goods are WAY up in price, directly due to the devalued dollar. Wages however are somewhat stagnant and unemployment is up.

I hate to admit this, cuz the libs are too thick to have ever brought it up, but under clinton/GINGRICH we had 4% growth for something like 5 1/2 years, I don't think we have hit 4% ONCE under bush. How is that possible with all the money he printed/borrowed to inject into the economy which should have a multiplier effect? It is because BORROWING by the gov't takes money out of producers hands...unless they print more for the producers which devalues the dollar.

History has NOT backed you up on the multiplier, but as far as tax cuts increasing revenues to the treasury, yes, we agree. I also think bush is far from a horrible president, just not the best.

The reason that the "gloom and doom" hasn't happened yet is because it is still a little ways off. The 50+ trillion unfunded liabilities won't hit fully for about 20 years. Private sector innovation will cure some of the ills, gov't cutting what it promised will help too. (help the taxpayer, not those who were counting on those promises being kept). I'm not doom and gloom, I'm trying to raise awareness and educate people so we might actually start doing the right thing. So "conservatives" might start voting for fiscal conservatives.

Were you aware the NYSE is in very real danger of losing its title as financial capital of the world? London will probably overtake us as the hub of transaction within 5 years...not the prediction of "doom and gloomers" but the prediction of most of the financial experts in the world. Imagine a world where we have to go to london to raise capital for projects in the US....and the rest of the world that comes here atm, will have to go there. Imagine the lost jobs and tax revenues. Anyway I've already ranted longer than most peoples attention span so I'll cut it off here.

One thing I can pretty much assure you is that the extreme conservatives are the CORE of the republican party....you'll find that out quick when mccain gets a good ole fashioned texas whooping in November.

[texaspackerbacker]

Where to begin--there is a lot to respond to--misunderstandings in basic economics and misinterpretations of current events:

Some items going up does not constitute inflation. The inflation for the year ending April was 2.6%. For the past 3 months it has been an annual rate of 2.5%. That is NOT significant inflation.

5.5% unemployment is lower than at any time during the Clinton Administration.

Housing has absolutely NOT "completely crashed"--for somebody who seems to think of himself as a conservative, you sure do quote a lot of the alarmist bullshit put out by the libs. There is a mild crisis in California, Florida, and a few big cities--basically the places where the boom was the most extreme. Most of America has only been marginally affected if at all.

30 year olds having a hard time buying homes? Have you had your head in the sand the last few decades? People don't "save up to buy a house" anymore. They buy with little or no money down, and let the value appreciate, then sell for a nice profit. My daughter and son-in-law--both age 25--bought a house in Oklahoma City a little over a year ago--a nice brand new home--no money down and $217,000 price. They recently had to sell and move to Tampa because of a promotion for the husband. In the midst of this "crisis"--which has hardly hit Oklahoma City, they sold the house for $233,000--a small but decent from after commission and costs, even after such a short period of ownership. They now have bought an even nicer home in the suburbs of Tampa for a great bargain price--5% down this time, because of that horrible lending crisis you mentioned. Hopefully, in a few years when they sell, the market will have rebounded, and they will really clean up.

You, Bobblehead, of all people, with your social Darwinistic outlook on not bailing out the undeserving poor, should recognize that whenever you have a "crisis"--where some are losers, you also have an opportunity where others are winners.

The dollar is indeed down right now--not automatically an indicator of inflation, as long as growth outstrips the dollar decrease. Why is the dollar down? Primarily because the Bush Administration has allowed it to drop in order to deal with China's policy of artificially devaluing the Yuan in order to have a competitive trade advantage. Here too, there is opportunity. I'm in the process of taking out a mortgage on my little mango plantation in the Philippines while the dollar is low--then pay it back over the years in more valuable dollars. Nice how things work sometimes.

As for your growth comparison of the Clinton/Gingrich years compared to the Bush Administration, a minor little thing called 9/11 occurred--a body blow to the economy that under Gore or whoever, we simply would NOT have recovered from--the left would have RAISED taxes to pay for it. We have achieved the recovery and the decent, even if slightly less growth than the 90s BECAUSE of the tax cuts--and the Multiplier Effect. There also was a little thing called the War on Terror--including, but not limited to Iraq, some of which probably was injected into the economy and subject to the Multiplier, some not.

London surpassing NYC as the financial hub, if indeed it happens, is irrelevant--symbolic at worst. We are in a global economy, and have been for sometime. When we raise money, we go to wherever the investors are--Japan a decade or two ago, Arab oil profits, nowadays, maybe Europe or China. Yes, we just "print more money", but that money is backed by government debt instruments--some of which, at least, are sold overseas.

No problem, just business as usual.

And your much ballyhooed $50 trillion unfunded liability? It will just be extended and extended again--ad infinitum--more money printed, etc.

The only real dangers are tax increases which harm economic growth or significant terrorist disasters which Obama-esque Dem/libs well might allow--harming the economy even more than our magnificent system can recover from--not to mention killing huge numbers of Americans. Amazingly, the leftist media has lulled people into ignoring this horrendous threat and the credit that should be given to the administration that has thus far prevented it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think what we are seeing between bobble and Tex is the reason Obama will win the election.

[bobblehead]

Not everything you say is wrong, much is right, but what you see as no problem is indeed a problem. I agree, not everything has gone up in price, just some of the most important things like oil, food, and housing. Now housing is crashing, and I agree mostly lenders are hurt, but so has been everyone who has had to put life on hold for the last 3 years waiting for a correction. Also when the lenders are hurt, the economy and growth gets hurt.

You also make the mistake of thinking I'm blaming bush for all the problems, I'm actually just blaming him for not fixing any problems. The only big screw ups he has made are medicare part D and botching much of a simple war effort. (cutting federal programs just a tad might have been nice too) Oh yea, a fiscal policy that has devalued the dollar too.

I highly doubt I am misunderstanding basic economics, but I agree, one of us is. A big part of the reason oil is thru the roof is our devalued dollar. And again, you might not view that as a problem, but I don't like my savings being devalued against the world in this global economy. Higher oil and stagnant housing are also very damaging to the middle class.

My view of housing crashing is largely local, but so is yours. I live in one of the most affected areas, you live in one of the least. Beleive me its ugly when people want to sell and can't get an offer because the banks are taking a bath on a house just like yours....nice if your buying, not so much if you want to move. Banking stocks are crashing and banks are failing...no big deal. This was an unnecessary problem that I was screaming about when brokers were writing 80/20 zero down 3 year ARM loans, but if we had been talking then you probably would have said it was nothing to worry about and I'm being doom and gloom.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave
2008 4.28% 4.03% 3.98% 3.94% 4.18% 5.02% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
2007 2.08% 2.42% 2.78% 2.57% 2.69% 2.69% 2.36% 1.97% 2.76% 3.54% 4.31% 4.08% 2.85%

These are inflation numbers...notice june '08 is over 5%?? Yea, I guess when I was warning you 2 months ago it was alarmist. this is called a trend. How about if I tell you they will hit 6% by the end of the year? My imagination...we shall see.

Finally, I'm not a socialist darwin, I believe it is more productive for society and the needy to create a job for them than it is to hand them money, deserving has nothing to do with my outlook and if you have read my posts for the past several months you would know that. I agree that their are opportunities for winners....I just reject that it was or is ever necessary to have losers if you follow good economic and fiscal policy. You almost sound like hoosier there....some people got richer while others got poorer. It never had to be that way, it could have been win/win.

As for the 50 trillion gettting extended again and again...true, except it is growing faster than the economy is. And when it comes time to pay up we can't extend it as unfunded...it has to be funded, that is why a LOT of companies went bankrupt in the past, unfunded pensions and healthplans. Yes, we can print/borrow our way out of it, but it creates another problem.

I truly hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear as though I am. things are heading in the wrong direction right now. In the past the feds forced mini recessions to keep the economy smooth. We need one right now, but because of many factors we can't afford to have the fed do it because a mini could turn big if it isn't handled just right.

[HowardRoark]

The way ty was responding...lol. I asked one simple question.

And, i have repeatedly said go back and look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2ZixoCCWI

Still waiting for your answer regarding eduction.

Are you going to be in favor of bailing out education companies if they fail?

And, are there any huge/critical companies/banks/etc...that repubs won't bail out..and therefore influence the free market?

One last time, I will answer both of your questions. I will type real slow this time, so that you can comprehend.

1. I, unlike you, am NOT omniscient. Therefore, I sometimes have to ask questions to search out answers.

2. I firmly believe that competition will ALWAYS improve a product, lower costs and give MORE choices to a consumer. Currently, there is not competition in both education and healthcare.

Here is where both you and Tex think there is no problem. The system works great. For Tex, it is because he is unaware of what is going on out there. He is insulated because he already is taken care of by the Federal Government. You think there is no problem because, well, I haven’t a clue; because you are an agitator.

Tex, there is a guy, “The Pack” who is a true Libertarian, who thinks that even group health policies are a crock of shit. He thinks that you should be able to buy into your own health risk tranche. Why should I have to pay a certain premium at work when I have good health? He argues that those with either pre-existing conditions or bad health should have to pay higher premiums. Why should I have to pay higher premiums in my employer sponsored healthcare in order to carry the people with poor health?

I disagree. It is a business model; a way to spread out risk. I am willing to get into a risk pool and pay a little more in order to hedge my health bet. I had a stroke/heart surgery at age 39. Out of the blue. Ran marathons, good shape, etc. So I understand risk.

But, it's a business model.

Sure we can limp along where we are in both education and healthcare, but I believe we can do a whole lot better.

Ty, as to your question as to who will backstop the system if it does not take care of the “least of these”, I guess I would defer to historical precedent. In fact it is more of the genesis of both healthcare AND education for the underprivileged. So, I would ask you…….who were the people who took care of and educated the poor kids prior to the Government getting their tentacles into these areas?

I know you can come up with the answer….I have confidence in you.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The way ty was responding...lol. I asked one simple question.

And, i have repeatedly said go back and look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2ZixoCCWI

Still waiting for your answer regarding eduction.

Are you going to be in favor of bailing out education companies if they fail?

And, are there any huge/critical companies/banks/etc...that repubs won't bail out..and therefore influence the free market?

One last time, I will answer both of your questions. I will type real slow this time, so that you can comprehend.

1. I, unlike you, am NOT omniscient. Therefore, I sometimes have to ask questions to search out answers.

2. I firmly believe that competition will ALWAYS improve a product, lower costs and give MORE choices to a consumer. Currently, there is not competition in both education and healthcare.

Here is where both you and Tex think there is no problem. The system works great. For Tex, it is because he is unaware of what is going on out there. He is insulated because he already is taken care of by the Federal Government. You think there is no problem because, well, I haven’t a clue; because you are an agitator.

Tex, there is a guy, “The Pack” who is a true Libertarian, who thinks that even group health policies are a crock of shit. He thinks that you should be able to buy into your own health risk tranche. Why should I have to pay a certain premium at work when I have good health? He argues that those with either pre-existing conditions or bad health should have to pay higher premiums. Why should I have to pay higher premiums in my employer sponsored healthcare in order to carry the people with poor health?

I disagree. It is a business model; a way to spread out risk. I am willing to get into a risk pool and pay a little more in order to hedge my health bet. I had a stroke/heart surgery at age 39. Out of the blue. Ran marathons, good shape, etc. So I understand risk.

But, it's a business model.

Sure we can limp along where we are in both education and healthcare, but I believe we can do a whole lot better.

Ty, as to your question as to who will backstop the system if it does not take care of the “least of these”, I guess I would defer to historical precedent. In fact it is more of the genesis of both healthcare AND education for the underprivileged. So, I would ask you…….who were the people who took care of and educated the poor kids prior to the Government getting their tentacles into these areas?

I know you can come up with the answer….I have confidence in you.

I have not addressed healthcare..as i already discussed this before. And, while i certainly think you are a bright guy, i highly doubt you listened to 18 years of healthcare discussion at the dinner table by 2 parents. I've been listening, arguing, examining this issue before you even were aware of it. And, i discuss it weekly with my brother. I could be wrong, but i doubt it.

1. NO competition? How so? Last i saw, there are tons of private schools, parochial schools, etc.

But, could you please tell me which countries educate their kids the best and detail the competition they have there?

I don't disagree about competition..to a degree, but i think many problems in education have little to do with that...non-heterogenous culture, poverty, culture, etc.

2. Tex and I? I never said there wasn't a problem. I just won't allow you to frame your debate that way...starting from that position. Please don't ever lump me in with Tex.

There are always problems...in EVERYTHING. Competition or not. There are tons of car manufacturers, yet there are still problems with cars...and specific manufacturers.

3. Risk...i agree. Unfortunately, there will never be a true healthcare system...because people arent' willing to "pay for service."

However, if you think our system got to be this way by accident you are living in a fool's paradise.

Let's review. By around 1915 or so there was a HUGE movement for National Health Care. What stopped it?

1. WW1...anti german sentiment...u.s. gov't denounced german social infrastructure. You know, this goes with the whole anti union, anti worker, pro biz attitude. Right or wrong...this is a fact.

2. Opponents (read those who make money off healthcare) claimed it was an anti american.

3. AMA. Threat to private practice

4. Stigmatized as gov't interferece or socialized med.

Back in the early to mid 1900s the gov't was faced with a choice...help people or help biz. They, thru the influence of biz (docs, hospitals, etc) (what a surprise) chose to fund/tax break/etc. business rather than individuals. this isn't speculation, this is fact.

Where is the competion to the AMA? When the AMA began consolidating its power...it frowned on employment by hospitals and insurance companies. So, doctoring went from a trade and one that wasn't a big money profession into one that encouraged private entrepreneurship and independence from corp control.

I dont' see that as being good for healthcare.

As for hospitals..again, it is far from the free market. Hospital plans and Blue cross were started because of economic instability due to the great depression.

Around 1930 or so..the first insurance plan was started and become the model for Blue Cross. And, the AHA LOVED IT. Supported group hospital plans and coordinated them into a national network.

So, if you are truly for the free market..then should hospitals compete? Should we let them fail? And, how do feel knowing that hospitals and the AHA were expressly in favor of group coverage?

As for insurance...again, this is something, like pensions, that the right likes to forget how they started. Private insurance (employer) was started as a way to help EMPLOYERS because they didnt' want to give RAISES. Ooops.

Congress made this bennie non taxable..so, it was a win..equivalent of more salary without being taxed.

Now, we do have the best system when it comes to cutting edge services and drugs, etc. But, we are far from a great system when it comes to basic services, etc.

4. The past. Healthcare.Well, you always had some relief orgs...but, many slipped thru the cracks.

but, you can't look at medicine without noting the change. Preindustrial it was more a trade and less science. My god, until around 1880, docs were a 2 year degree and apprenticeship with another doc.

It wasn't prestigious, didn't require rigorous study, clinical practice, boards, res, etc. ANYONE UNTRAINED OR TRAINED COULD PRACTICE.

the clergy often combined med and religious services and many docs had a second job.

There were few hospitals..they were only in cities.

So, who really took care of the poor. Um, there were ALMSHOUSES (poor house)...and WAIT FOR It....WAIT FOR IT...who paid for them....GOVERNMENT. Ooops.

As for education...some guy named jefferson wanted public education. But, till around 1840..education was for the weatlhy..so, the poor didnt' get educated...they WORKED.

Why education for all? Common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. By around 1920 or so, all states had adopted pub education for elementary school. Except the caths opposed it..so, they created their own schools.