Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

We'll stick to "Americans should all have decent paying jobs -- enough to lift someone who works full-time above the poverty line." and "Americans should all have health insurance, and reasonable access to primary and preventive care." Those sound better. Please advise the President to argue to the contrary.
S_A_M

Will you claim that Bush invented working poor, and working people w/o health care? or are you frank enough to admit you'll only be using the misery of the poor to paint an image you won't clean up either?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

We'll stick to "Americans should all have decent paying jobs -- enough to lift someone who works full-time above the poverty line." and "Americans should all have health insurance, and reasonable access to primary and preventive care." Those sound better. Please advise the President to argue to the contrary.

S_A_M

I know you didn't mean it that way, but this sounds incredibly ignorant. We all want those things, but what the left never seems to grasp is that everything has a cost - or as Milton Friedman coined, there is no free lunch. So the real question is, do you want these things badly enough to pay X for them.

[Gattigap]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

We'll stick to "Americans should all have decent paying jobs -- enough to lift someone who works full-time above the poverty line." and "Americans should all have health insurance, and reasonable access to primary and preventive care." Those sound better. Please advise the President to argue to the contrary.
S_A_M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Will you claim that Bush invented working poor, and working people w/o health care? or are you frank enough to admit you'll only be using the misery of the poor to paint an image you won't clean up either?

And in this cooornahhhh!

An enraged conservative facing off against an irritated liberal!

Remember boys, swing only above the waist, keep the verbal sparring punchy, no clinches, and remember to actually read no more than 50% of what the other poster actually says!

[*ding*]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I know you didn't mean it that way, but this sounds incredibly ignorant.

Remarkably, however, I take the Kerry ad that's been running here basically to say just that.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Remarkably, however, I take the Kerry ad that's been running here basically to say just that.

Right. I wouldn't have a moral problem with it if Kerry actually had an ecomonic plan. But the only plan he has put forth so far is to raise taxes on the "wealthy" in order to pay down the debt. Does he also have a minimum wage plan? If so, you can attach a multiple to the jobless claims. Oh, and how will he pay for the universal health coverage? It can't be from the tax hike on the wealthy, so is it more debt? And if so, doesn't that nullify the debt service from the wealthy and then some?

Maybe it's too early to ask for specifics, but I'd sure like to know what the plan is under Frenchy.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Oh, and how will he pay for the universal health coverage? . . .

Maybe it's too early to ask for specifics, but I'd sure like to know what the plan is under Frenchy.

I think, if I recall the ad correctly, it's something like "We should do it because it's the right thing to do, and worry about the consequences later." Although Bush and his tax cuts hardly are in a position to attack planning that follows that sketch.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Will you claim that Bush invented working poor, and working people w/o health care?

Of course not, that would be terribly unfair

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
or are you frank enough to admit you'll only be using the misery of the poor to paint an image you won't clean up either?

Not true, and no need to say that. We'll just say that we'll work hard to do more for them than the Bush Administration has done, which won't take much.

We might even get to argue that we're the true "compassionate [fiscal] conservatives".

S_A_M

P.S. Woww, you guys are sensitive! Truth must hurt.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I know you didn't mean it that way, but this sounds incredibly ignorant.

Actually, I just predicted what Edwards and/or Kerry would say -- and I'm right.

Originally posted by sgtclub
We all want those things, but what the left never seems to grasp is that everything has a cost - or as Milton Friedman coined, there is no free lunch. So the real question is, do you want these things badly enough to pay X for them.

I and we know full well that things have a cost.

The United States could surely pay the price for those things (i.e. universal health coverage and much higher minimum wage) if the nation was willing to raise taxes significantly and sacrifice a percentage point (or two ) of GDP growth each year. Our economy would be less dynamic, and look much more like Europe than it does now. So, there would be less wealth creation -- and undoubtedly other social costs, expected and unexpected.

I'd be interested in that debate, and in hearing arguments from the right against the programs a bit more sophisticated than imprecations against "socialized medicine". Explain why society should not bear those costs -- and see how many votes that gets you.

S_A_M

P.S. Try representing a pro bono client before the Social Security Administration -- who has been confined to a wheel-chair for years because they haven't been able to scrape up the $67.00 required to pay their share of the cost of the most basic artificial leg (below-knee amputee). Always had to spend it on food/medicine. Tell me there aren't at least "two Americas."

I sometimes pass by homeless guys on streets near my home, and pass them twenties out the window of my Benz as I go by. Do we really live in the same world in any meaningful sense?

Scoff at anecdotal stories all you like, but it reflects a real truth. I have never been so blind or self-satisfied as to believe that I am better or more deserving just because I'm smarter, work hard, and got a few extra years of education. I am, in many respects, damn lucky because life is a genetic and social lottery.

Tag editing courtesy of RT
Thanks, RT -- T.S.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
.... or as Milton Friedman coined, there is no free lunch. So the real question is, do you want these things badly enough to pay X for them.

So what was that you were saying about the little hunting trip our VP took a certain justice on?

Did they serve lunch?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

P.S. Woww, you guys are sensitive! Truth must hurt.

did I seem hurt? I wasn't.

Health care? all you have to is come visit a clinic or pharmacy or hospital in Metro Detroit, they are littered with Canadians trying to get basic health coverage that your panacea will not provide.

Was it Oregon that made a list of prioritized medical treatments, then would say "we'll cover 1-1876 this year." If you need a treatment numbered 1877 you're fucked.

We now provide very good health care for a very high percentage of people. I have no problem extending very basic coverage to all people, I just do not want my coverage lowered as occurs in all single payer systems.

want a story?

Had dinner with a Canadian potential client a few weeks ago, a guy about 30. He had his leg amputated last year to remove a cancerous tumor. This was a professional guy, with a decent income. He had waited months (up to a year at one stage) to be seen/evaluated then treated. in the states he'd have much more immediate treatment, and probably still have his leg.

your little perfect visions are sweet, but anyone who knows reality will avoid single payer health care like anthrax. The only way you can be for single payer health care, if you realize the truth, is to be for true socialism across the board. turn in your Beamer Sam, give the money to a poor family then bring your argument back- until you do this you've no credibility.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
did I seem hurt? I wasn't.
Health care? all you have to is come visit a clinic or pharmacy or hospital in Metro Detroit, they are littered with canadian trying to get basic health coverage that your panacea will not provide. Was it Oregon that made a list of prioritized medical treatments, then would say "we'll cover 1-1876 this year." If you need a treatment numbered 1877 you're fucked.
We now provide very good health care for a very high percentage of people. i have no problem extending very basic coverage to al lpeople, I just do not want my coverage lowered as occurs in all single payer systems.
want a story?
Had dinner with a Canadian potential client a few weeks ago, a guy about 30. He had his leg amputated last year to remove a cancerous tumor. This was a professional guy, with a decent income. He had waited months 9up to a yearat one stage) to be seen/evaluated then treated. in the states he's still have his leg.

your little perfect visions are sweet, but anyone who knows reality will avoid single payer health care like anthrax. The only way you can be for single payer health care, if you realize the truth, is to be for true socialism across the board. turn in your Beamer Sam, give the money to a poor family then bring your argument back- until you do this you've no credibility.

Our health care systems often achieves the same results, except that the rationing is done by private actors, not by the government. For some reason, this doesn't bother conservatives, but it does bother a lot of voters.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Our health care systems often achieves the same results, except that the rationing is done by private actors, not by the government. For some reason, this doesn't bother conservatives, but it does bother a lot of voters.

Damn, you're right. i'd forgotten the popular mandate the Clinton's proposal gathered.

the private actor of which you speak is wealth unevenly distributed by Capatilism- that's my point Ty, Club summed it up and was told he was being "extreme." he wasn't being extreme, he was being realistic.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Damn, you're. i'd forgotten the popular mandate the Clinton's proposal gathered.

the private actor of which you speak is wealth unevenly distributed by Capatilism- that my point Ty, Club summed it up and was told he was being "extreme." he wasn't being extreme, he was being realistic.

No doubt, if you have an awful lot of money, you can buy good coverage and get good care. Most of us -- and let's restrict the field to well-paid lawyers -- aren't in that league, though. If you're a GA and you get coverage through an HMO or a PPO, your care is going to be rationed by a private party if and when you get sick. GAs are not as attuned to this, since we tend to be younger and healthier. And our system isn't a particularly good deal. If you look at the share of GDP spent on healthcare, we're not doing so well compared to some countries with nationalized systems.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No doubt, if you have an awful lot of money, you can buy good coverage and get good care. Most of us -- and let's restrict the field to well-paid lawyers -- aren't in that league, though. If you're a GA and you get coverage through an HMO or a PPO, your care is going to be rationed by a private party if and when you get sick. GAs are not as attuned to this, since we tend to be younger and healthier.

well we have kids. I've never had anything rationed, ever. The only thing I've ever had to pay for, besides deductibles, is lasik.

I'm in a PPO, which here just limits docs you can choose, not the same as HMO. Is California that much worse off*? Have you had treatments refused coverage, or been in long waits for treatment (months-not hours)?

* I don't mean that in a mean way- but really if you're not being provided with decent health coverage by your firm, I'd be looking around- I know Bush ruined the job boom, but still-

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
well we have kids. I've never had anything rationed, ever. The only thing I've ever had to pay for, besides deductibles, is lasik.

I'm in a PPO, which here just limits docs you can choose, not the same as HMO. Is California that much worse off*? Have you had treatments refused coverage, or been in long waits for treatment (months-not hours)?

* I don't mean that in a mean way- but really if you're not being provided with decent health coverage by your firm, I'd be looking around- I know Bush ruined the job boom, but still-

I'm healthy. It's not a problem for me, personally.