Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think I love you.

So what am I so afraid of?
I'm afraid I can't be sure of
A love there is no cure for.

You may thank fringey for this Partridge family moment. I've never been one to suffer alone.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Who's talking about socializing the healthcare system? I'm just talking about providing catastrophic coverage -- something private parties aren't doing well right now, judging from the numbers of people who opt to go without. (See the subtext of my post -- it's below the text.)

It would serve to have a single payer (paid for by tax funds) fund a large amount of healthcare and that in combination with the part paid by Medicare and Medicaid would be pretty close to a single payer. There would end up being only a part of our health care paid for privately, such as outpatient visits/surgeries and non-Medicare prescriptions and preventative care.

I just don't see a single payer as the way to go in the US because of the competitive forces that would be removed from the system.

Unless you are only talking about insuring the currently uninsured through that system. Is that what you meant?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Before 9/11, the Bush Administration's approach to Al Qaeda:

"They were gambling nothing would happen."

(link is to a blog quoting a 2002 book by former NSC directors)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Hey! Just like free market economics!! Both inject a characteristic into human nature that doesn't exist in reality! The former: a nondesire for wealth and property! The latter: rational decision-making!!

YAY!

Well you can always go with the anedoctal evidence. In socialist countries there isn't sufficient supply to have "all the beer you can drink/ all the pizza you can eat" specials, so we must be doing something right.


Conf. To SAM, did I understand Coltrane?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Unless you are only talking about insuring the currently uninsured through that system. Is that what you meant?

Right -- I'm only talking about the same minimum level of catastrophic coverage that you were referring to. Anyone who gets more coverage -- which is to say, most people -- would get coverage however they do now.

You were suggesting that the government require people to get this minimum coverage. I'm saying a more effective way to serve the same end is for the government to provide, and to charge people through taxes.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
So what am I so afraid of?
I'm afraid I can't be sure of
A love there is no cure for.

You may thank fringey for this Partridge family moment. I've never been one to suffer alone.

For clarification, this sentiment applies to my feelings about SAM, not Coltrane, because of the unrequitedness of my love. w/r/t Coltrane, his repeated assurances that he is not is not a double diet coke can guy have assuaged my fears and I love him fearlessly and completely.

So when do we start talking about blow jobs again?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well you can always go with the anedoctal evidence. In socialist countries there isn't sufficient supply to have "all the beer you can drink/ all the pizza you can eat" specials, so we must be doing something right.


Conf. To SAM, did I understand Coltrane?

Yeah, and right now, we have a nifty combo of socialist-y stuff (Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicaid) and free-market-y stuff. So will changing the balance to include purely catastrophic coverage (see Ty's post) through taxes be enough to tip the balance over to a system in which "all the beer you can drink" can't happen? I'm thinking, no. But it's a slippery, slippery slope. Kinda like the wheelchair ramp when #2 and I went a little overboard with the lube.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Before 9/11, the Bush Administration's approach to Al Qaeda:

"They were gambling nothing would happen."

(link is to a blog quoting a 2002 book by former NSC directors)

Well that's got to be inaccurate. We knew something would likely happen.....AQ had attacked us at least 3 times while Clinton was President, the question was what to do about it. Clinton blew up parts of a mountain, Bush's team put together a plan to take out the Taliban government. Blowing up a mountain can occur a little quicker than actually doing something.

And as to "preventing 9/11" remember the Dems in the Senate blocked any change to airline security for months AFTER 9/11. Do you think we could have gotten the change through before?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
For clarification, this sentiment applies to my feelings about SAM, not Coltrane, because of the unrequitedness of my love. w/r/t Coltrane, his repeated assurances that he is not is not a double diet coke can guy have assuaged my fears and I love him fearlessly and completely.

So when do we start talking about blow jobs again?

Being in love with SAM gives you a real Christina Ricci in Pumpkin vibe, and that's not a good place to be.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well you can always go with the anedoctal evidence. In socialist countries there isn't sufficient supply to have "all the beer you can drink/ all the pizza you can eat" specials, so we must be doing something right.


Conf. To SAM, did I understand Coltrane?

All-You-Can-Drink-Beer = to each according to his needs. Some want more. Some want less. We all pay the same!!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
All-You-Can-Drink-Beer = to each according to his needs. Some want more. Some want less. We all pay the same!!

SAM/Ty

essay question:

Explain why this post foreshadows the failure of all non-capatilistic systems.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Being in love with SAM gives you a real Christina Ricci in Pumpkin vibe, and that's not a good place to be.

I have no idea what you are talking about. However, since you bring up pumpkin, perhaps you are craving pie? You should indulge that.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Right -- I'm only talking about the same minimum level of catastrophic coverage that you were referring to. Anyone who gets more coverage -- which is to say, most people -- would get coverage however they do now.

You were suggesting that the government require people to get this minimum coverage. I'm saying a more effective way to serve the same end is for the government to provide, and to charge people through taxes.

If it meant everyone had to get their catastrophic coverage from the government, I don't think it would be more efficient. It would move us very close to a single payer system and the infrastructure that would be required to implement it would cost quite a bit of money and ultimately not be run efficiently because of the lack of competitive forces.

My way costs less, doesn't require this huge bureacracy to implament, doesn't require this massive new federal agency be created and better leaves competitive forces intact.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
SAM/Ty

essay question:

Explain why this post foreshadows the failure of all non-capatilistic systems.

Everyone:

Essay Question:

Explain why this post takes all of the fun/humor out of this thread?


If only I understood capitalism!!

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
For clarification, this sentiment applies to my feelings about SAM, not Coltrane, because of the unrequitedness of my love. w/r/t Coltrane, his repeated assurances that he is not is not a double diet coke can guy have assuaged my fears and I love him fearlessly and completely.

So when do we start talking about blow jobs again?

You had me at hello.