Obama Care

1) Okay, then, for starters, we can agree that you were flatly wrong with your original post.
2) Will do. I'm sure it's a very unbiased account.
3) "Minor details"? Then what was the relevance of the point you made, which, again, we can agree was entirely inaccurate?
1) Flatly wrong, absolutely not. Did I neglect to mention what was basically a war tax during the Civil War and the 1890s short-lived income tax, yes. But the basic premise is correct, the 16th ammendment wasn't in place until 1913.
2) I don't think you will read it. And I guess anyone who has a different opinion that those on the left is automatically "biased" and their ideas don't merit consideration.
3) GDAS got it http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/30288-obama-care-10.html#post568847
But to be clear the point is, people were making money in this country and it was growing just fine economically long before the income tax and the obscene amounts of federal government taxation/regulation/intervention today. I hate to hear the argument that the rich/successful wouldn't be so without the federal government, so they basically "owe" the government a much higher tax rate. This argument is so far from reality it's ridiculous.

Hey saden,
In light of this post: http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/30358-healthcare-education-and-q-and-thread-2.html#post568512

I found this article pretty interesting. I've got some connections here, having been in the USAF and just having the exact same surgery (private hospital, thank God) about six months ago.

Airman Loses Legs in Botched Gallbladder Surgery, Future of Career Uncertain - Incredible Health - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534050,00.html?test=latestnews)

Wait, in addressing how best to provide health care services to a diverse population with a vast range of economic, racial and religious variations - all of which can impact on the choice, needs and costs of health care provided, it is irrelevant that most social/universal health care systems don't need to address the diversity or size of our population? You believe that a comparison of signifcantly smaller, basically homogenous populations is of significant value to extrapolate to our society?

I would agree there is some value in such comparisons and information but would suggest that such would be minimal given the inherent and substantial differences between the US and the countries you name.

Diversity has nothing to do with it and last time I checked these countries also struggle with poverty issue though some not as bad. Health care is strictly a monetary issues...those that can afford it and those who can't. The difference is their poor can walk into a hospital or clinic and get treatment and ours can't.

Honest, I can't quite comprehend what difference diversity makes in the field of health care? Care to elaborate with something more than "it has, don't you think," specifically why you think it does. Also, France is very good example of a diverse country with a successful universal health care and relatively low poverty rate.


Now, if France, Germany and England had a joint universal health care system that actually worked, then I would be very interested.

Are you intimating universal health care at the state level might be a better solution than a federal one?

If we can get 85% of the currently uninsured I'll be satisfied though not fully. http://www.coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf


Looks like we're pretty close to your target if you use the 45.7M estimate from the Census and then look at the real numbers of the people that are truly "uninsured" being at about 8.2M. Comes out to about 82% covered or not really needing gov't coverage. There are also some other examples of non-gov't controlled heath care solutions detailed.

Diversity has nothing to do with it and last time I checked these countries also struggle with poverty issue though some not as bad. Health care is strictly a monetary issues...those that can afford it and those who can't. The difference is their poor can walk into a hospital or clinic and get treatment and ours can't.

Honest, I can't quite comprehend what difference diversity makes in the field of health care? Care to elaborate with something more than "it has, don't you think," specifically why you think it does. Also, France is very good example of a diverse country with a successful universal health care and relatively low poverty rate.




Are you intimating universal health care at the state level might be a better solution than a federal one?

Are you so simplistic as to think that is even a basic valid point? It is false on so many levels you truly are reaching and in this case I will let you go try to find the answers yourself.

Of course you also re-iterate and strengthen JoeRedskins point that GDAS questioned by saying that you were not saying it is all basically a money issue. Because you just stated it is, at least in your opinion.

And most everyone here has been debating just these issues and the role of government and private enterprise in resolving them for pages on end. Has anyone taken the consistent position that the current status of health is not an issue of public health to be addressed? Schneed10 has consistently said the current system is stressed to the breaking.

In response to these discussions and outside a handful of posts you have been dismissive those who assert a different point of view than yours or who believe the solution lies outside a simple transference of wealth (either direct or indirect) to "take more peope into the system". In response to attempts to define the issue and identify the root causes in competition you blantantly dismiss legitimate economic theory as magic. Further, throughout this thread and similar threads, you have brought the assertionof hypocrisy in american history, wishes for death of those who disagree with you, and a blatantly causal attitude to the concerns that it is our children who be bearing the costs of our current greed to the discussion.

I have opinions, some of which people aren't going to like. I am, however, concerned about your dismissive attitude with my "assertion" and misrepresentation of position. I'm also concerned with your lack of concern displayed by you lot when Bush was spending money from left to right and sending you a tax-cut check. I think you should hold off playing these cards.


NOW after 29 pages, innumberable discusssions of the points raised in the above post, you "get it". Perhaps if you had come off your high horse earlier, admitted that your belief system may just not be infallible and considered points of view that did not necessarily fall with your self-approved economic and philosophical theories, you could have brought your considerable talents to constructive solutions rather than an arrogant dismissal of real questions that need to be addressed.

It's not that "There are many things we can do yet people here don't seem to want to bother." It's that almost everything has a down side to it and, unless the discussion realizes and incorporates the underlying competing philosophies, it will not begin to cut the gordian knot that is the american health care system.

Come have some tea with me saden, I don't care if we use the kettle or the pot.

I've always gotten it Joe and I've always held the belief that there no game without some pain and intimated as much. Do me a favor though, lets not act like you and a lot of folks in here aren't playing polo and sipping on a drink of your fancy either.

I like mint flavored green tea.

Are you so simplistic as to think that is even a basic valid point? It is false on so many levels you truly are reaching and in this case I will let you go try to find the answers yourself.

Of course you also re-iterate and strengthen JoeRedskins point that GDAS questioned by saying that you were not saying it is all basically a money issue. Because you just stated it is, at least in your opinion.

What in the world are you talking about? What do you think all this poverty business was all about?

I think I may have overestimated you.

What in the world are you talking about? What do you think all this poverty business was all about?

I think I may have overestimated you.

and I you. Go young man, and find the fallacies I speak of. Perhaps then we can continue this part of the discussion.

http://www.coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf


Looks like we're pretty close to your target if you use the 45.7M estimate from the Census and then look at the real numbers of the people that are truly "uninsured" being at about 8.2M. Comes out to about 82% covered or not really needing gov't coverage. There are also some other examples of non-gov't controlled heath care solutions detailed.

A link from an insurance company? :doh:...come on man...just scanned the first few pages...it says 1/3 are eligible for government assistance but aren't enrolled. These are people the government isn't paying for through various programs (i.e. medicaid, SCHIP, etc) so I'm not sure how you translated that to "82% covered or not really needing gov't coverage."

•According to Statistics Canada, the official government statistical agency, "In 2005, the median waiting time was about 4 weeks for specialist visits, 4 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3 weeks for diagnostic tests. Nationally, median waiting times remained stable between 2003 and 2005 - but there were some differences at the provincial level for selected specialized services.… 70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable" "Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-575-XIE/82-575-
seems like about what we have here in the U.S. right now

And here's an article detailing how different the numbers are. Those numbers you're referencing come from the Canadian government, who chose to represent them in the most positive light possible. The truth is wait times are much worse than they let on.

http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/30358-healthcare-education-and-q-and-thread-4.html#post566223