I can't see what ANY of that has to do with their position on health care reform.
Laying aside the notion that a person CAN have a different view on the issues you mentioned without being "mean and hateful" but I know making THAT case would be a lost cause so I'm not gonna even comment on it.
Post Merge: November 01, 2009, 06:01:45 PM
Quote from: Mazarine_Sky on November 01, 2009, 03:35:39 PM
SS, Medicare and Medicaid will bankrupt the country because they are Ponzi schemes.
I do not believe that health reform will be a Ponzi scheme, as a matter of fact I think that the Obama administration will eventually try to get rid of medicare and medicaid in favor of universal health care.
SS and Medicare are indeed Ponzi schemes -Medicaid isn't. And these are schemes that not ONE Democrat in public office drawing a breath will EVER vote to get rid of or even say a bad word about (and scarce few Republicans)
why on earth should we believe a body politic that can't see what you and I see about those programs will get national health care right?
all the same political forces that keep those bad programs in place are also at work to massaged NHC towards an outcome that suits them, and more besides.
Whether or not NHC will have the Ponzi format of Medicare/SS or not is irrelevant. Medicaid is a perfect illustration of a well intentioned program which is totally unable to accomplish the intentions and costs vastly more than it was projected to in the course of that failure.
the simple economic reality is that government providers skew the market and CREATE higher costs, not the reverse.
Now, I can see the way for a LOT of government directed reform that would work and would suppress the rise in costs and be sure everyone was covered.
the problem is, almost none of those good ideas are IN the plans under consideration. Given the nonexistant margin for error that we have financially, it behooves us to do it right or the day we'll come when we'll all have the health care they have in Hati or some other failed state.
Here's an example - a lot of the overhead for doctors is a result of how much it costs them to get their education and begin practice.
what if the federal government paid for the education of every qualified medical student in total? You could maybe tie it to some sort of "MediCorp" in which graduates would have to spend 5 years or something working at government designated locations, perhaps providing free subsidized preventative care like checkups and screenings before moving on to private practice.
but when they go into practice, they'd be debt free and thus the overhead would be much lower.
What if the Fed provided financing, of the equivilant nature of student loans, in order to help doctors properly equip their clinics? Im not sure about this - it might drive up the cost of the equipment in the same way government meddling in housing created that bubble...but it would be something to consider at least.
Other good ideas are out there, waiting to be seized. Someone explain to me why it is NOT sensible to enact the OBVIOUS reforms that thinkers across the political spectrum agree on and see what kind of results they produce before trying to totally re-invent the wheel?