America, The Nanny State

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Declaration of Independence

The reason this country continues its drift toward socialism and big nanny government is because too many people vote in the expectation of getting something for nothing, not because they have a concern for what is good for the country.
Lyn Nofziger

When I decided to tackle the national healthcare issue, I thought a good start would be examining the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to see what they had to say about the right to healthcare. I hunted and searched the various documents which created our country. I found that according to the Declaration of Independence, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Fourteenth Amendment states,

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I did not find the right to healthcare in the Bill of Rights. I also did not find the right to an Ivy League education, the right to a well paying job, the right to a fully paid for pension, the right to drive a BMW X5, the right to a beautiful wife, the right to reside in a 6,000 sq ft McMansion, or the right to get into Heaven.

I did discover that government derives their JUST powers from the consent of the people. I also found that if those who govern use their powers in a destructive manner, the governed have the right to abolish that government and install a new government. Those who have run up $12 trillion in debt, led us into multiple trillion dollar foreign wars, left our children and grandchildren with a $100 trillion bill for unfunded promises, and have sold their souls to evil banks and corporations, have exercised their powers in a destructive manner. Despite this record of government corruption, failure and mismanagement, these politicians are about to fashion a new government healthcare bureaucracy that will cost trillions. Passage of this plan is a fateful decision which will push the United States a step closer to economic collapse. Abolition of this government will be necessary and the people will need to install a new government that will follow the U.S. Constitution.

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE REALLY UNINSURED

Mystical references to society and its programs to help may warm the hearts of the gullible but what it really means is putting more power in the hands of bureaucrats.
Thomas Sowell

As the Democratic Party attempts to ram their socialist government controlled healthcare plan down the throats of Americans, they have stooped to lies and misinformation to mislead the public. Last week I watched as Senator Jay Rockefeller declared that 50 million Americans were uninsured. In his speech on September 9, 2009 President Obama stated:

“There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”

On August 8th, President Obama said:

“Reform is obviously essential for the 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance.”

So what is it? Who’s lying? Who’s exaggerating? Who’s misleading the American public? If the Democrats can’t even figure out how many people are uninsured, how can we possibly trust their 1,990 page “solution”? The 46 million figure comes from the 2007 Census Bureau report. So, why did Obama reference 30 million uninsured in his speech? Maybe it was because 9.3 million of those were non-citizens. Since the Democrats didn’t want to let the public know they were going to cover illegal aliens, Obama backed them out of his figure. Another 6.4 million actually are enrolled in Medicaid but mistakenly tell the Census they have no health insurance. Another 4.3 million are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but have not signed up. In addition, scores of the 46 million could theoretically afford health coverage, but choose not to purchase any. In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000.

Sally Pipes documents in the Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, that those making more than $75,000 per year are part of the fastest growing segment of the uninsured population. These people have exercised their freedom and decided not to buy insurance. That is their choice and not the responsibility of government or taxpayers. Taking these facts into consideration leaves 8.4 million people truly without insurance.

A 2003 BlueCross BlueShield study determined that 8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for a long term period of time, because they are too poor to purchase health care but make too much to qualify for government assistance. Even though these people are without insurance they have access to healthcare, because federal law prohibits hospitals from denying treatment to patients who show up at hospital emergency rooms. The average household in the U.S. has 2.5 people. This means there are 3.3 million households out of 114 million households without health insurance. That is 2.9% of all the households in the U.S.

This appears to be an awfully small percentage of Americans to warrant a $1 trillion new government bureaucracy. National health spending in 2009 will reach $2.5 trillion. This comes to $8,000 per person. If we gave the 8.2 million Americans without health insurance an $8,000 voucher for healthcare, it would cost $65.6 billion. This amounts to a stimulus plan rounding error. The truth is that Obama and the Democratic statists in Congress don’t want to make healthcare better or more efficient. They want control of your life.

Many of the 17.6 million people who make more than $50,000 per year choose not to purchase health insurance because they are self employed. The tax code exempts people from paying taxes on health care benefits purchased through their employer, while denying the same tax advantages to individuals. Ending this discrimination would make health care more affordable to those who are self-employed or not covered through their workplace.

This would allow Americans to have health care policies that are portable, so it would reduce the gaps in coverage people can face when they quit or lose a job. There are easy cost effective solutions to covering the 30 million uninsured referenced by President Obama in his September “You Lie” speech. The Democratic Party has no interest in easy cost effective solutions. They want power over doctors, insurance companies, hospitals, and the American people. They are pushing for government intervention in health care by distorting the 46 million uninsured figures to advance their goal of socialism. The liberal mainstream media is disseminating the lie widely without further elaboration, therefore rigging the game in favor of the Democratic Party.

COST OF HEALTHCARE

It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.
Thomas Sowell

The U.S. health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, outrageous administrative expenses, inflated prices, pitiable management and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems increase the cost of medical care associated with government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families. There is one thing that conservatives, liberals and libertarians can all agree upon. The cost of healthcare in the U.S. is out of control.

Source: Perot Charts

We spend more than every other country on the planet, and with our rapidly aging demographics, costs are situated to soar. We’ve allowed the system to hurtle out of control for decades, with no attempt to rein in costs. There are too many corporate lobbyists paying off too many Congressmen. These people do not care about the American people. They care about obscene profits and the power to control our lives. Government intervention in the healthcare market has already created a $100 trillion unfunded liability for our children and grandchildren.

According to the National Coalition on Health Care:

• National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending.
• National health expenditures are expected to increase faster than the growth in GDP: between 2008 and 2018, the average increase in national health expenditures is expected to be 6.2 percent per year, while the GDP is expected to increase only 4.1 percent per year.
• In just three years, the Medicare and Medicaid programs will account for 50 percent of all national health spending.
• Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that will grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time.
• According to one study, of the $2.1 trillion the U.S. spent on health care in 2006, nearly $650 billion was above what we would expect to spend based on the level of U.S. wealth versus other nations. These additional costs are attributable to $436 billion outpatient care and another $186 billion of spending related to high administrative costs.

In 1960, health services as a percentage of GDP was 3%. Today, health services are 10% of GDP. At the current rate of increase, along with a quickly aging population, health services will pass 20% of GDP in the next two decades. I hear Democrats refer to Medicare and Medicaid as successful government programs. I guess my definition of success is slightly different than a U.S. Congressman’s definition. A program riddled with $200 billion in fraud, astonishing amounts of paperwork, a Federal bureaucracy that costs $750 billion per year, and has run up $89 TRILLION of unfunded liabilities, is not a winning program in my book. The Medicare/Medicaid system will bankrupt the country. It is on an unsustainable path. Creating a new trillion dollar National Healthcare plan will only accelerate our demise. Obama and Congress need to address the unsustainable path of Medicare and Medicaid before introducing another trillion dollar inefficient corrupt government bureaucracy.

Source: Perot Charts

The Federal government has promised far more than it can deliver. They cannot fulfill these promises. Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, the last time a Democratic President decided to improve the lives of Americans by enacting Great Society programs that have saddled future generations with society crippling debts. The initial beneficiaries never paid a dime into the plan. When it was enacted there were 6 workers per beneficiary. By 2030 there will be 2.4 workers per beneficiary. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that to cover the future deficits through tax increases would require a doubling in tax rates, with a top marginal rate of 66%. The current cast of Congressional criminals won’t dare touch Medicare. They fear the wrath of the AARP and the liberal do-gooders who refuse to deal with reality. Their solution to every problem is – TAX THE RICH (the 53% of Americans who actually pay taxes).

The entire healthcare debate needs be put on hold until the looming Medicare disaster is solved. A combination of the following ideas must be enacted:

• Since Medicare is a fee for service model, millions are wasted on unnecessary tests. Researchers at Dartmouth Medical School estimate that 30% of Medicare spending does nothing to make beneficiaries healthier. This is a waste of $150 billion per year. The incentive to conduct unneeded tests must be taken away.
• Medicare’s lack of controls and administrative oversight results in annual fraud losses of $200 billion. The GAO found that questions from providers at Medicare Call Centers were answered correctly 4% of the time. A commission of experts from industry and the GAO needs the ability to make drastic changes in the system to eliminate this fraud.
• Allow the free market to work by giving new enrollees a means tested voucher that can be used to purchase the health plan of their choice.
• Allow seniors to opt out of Medicare, without losing their Social Security benefits.
• Allow new workers to save their 2.9% Medicare tax in an inheritable account dedicated to retirement healthcare costs

The 1,990 page bill being forced through Congress in no way deals with the staggering waste of the current system, estimated to be $700 billion to $1 trillion annually. The waste flows from a culture of health care in which every incentive is to do more unnecessary tests. Doctors make more money and protect themselves from lawsuits. Congress has no intention of addressing this major cost driver, because the Trial Lawyers of America contribute millions of dollars per year to lobby (buy off) Congressmen. Amazingly, 96% of their contributions (bribes) go to the Democratic Party. I wonder why medical malpractice lawsuits aren’t addressed in a 1,990 page bill written by Democrats.

Total spending on medical malpractice, including legal-defense costs and claims payments, was $30.4 billion in 2007, according to an estimate from consulting firm Towers Perrin. At the University of Miami’s School of Medicine patient practice, 14 cents out of every dollar collected in fees for services to patients goes toward buying medical malpractice insurance. In a 2003 report that called for medical liability reform, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that limits on malpractice awards could save between $70 billion and $126 billion a year. This is likely on the low end, as it is extremely difficult to gauge how many unneeded tests are ordered to avoid a lawsuit.

The Democratic congressional leadership has evaded solutions to the random, costly and time-consuming jury-by-jury malpractice system. Texas passed a law in 2003 that caps liability awards at $250,000 for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering, a move that has led to fewer malpractice suits being filed. According to Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a lobbying group that supports the caps, medical-liability-insurance rates have declined an average of 21% in the state since the law change, with almost a quarter of doctors seeing a 50% decrease. Pilot projects could test whether this system should be replaced with expert health courts, but leaders who say they want to cut costs will not even consider them. Expert courts might succeed and undercut the special interest of the trial lawyers. An expeditious and reliable new system would compensate patients more quickly and at a fraction of the overhead of the current medical justice system, which spends nearly 60 cents of every dollar on lawyers' fees and administrative costs.

Expert health courts would eliminate the need for "defensive medicine," thereby helping to save billions in costs. Defensive medicine, the practice of ordering tests and procedures that aren't needed to protect a doctor from the remote possibility of a lawsuit, is ever-present. A 2005 survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association recounted that 93% of high-risk specialists in Pennsylvania admitted to the practice, and 83% of Massachusetts physicians did the same in a 2008 survey. The same Massachusetts survey showed that 25% of all imaging tests were ordered for defensive purposes, and 28% and 38%, respectively, of those surveyed admitted reducing the number of high-risk patients they saw and limiting the number of high-risk procedures or services they performed.

Defensive medicine is notoriously hard to quantify, but some estimates place the annual cost at $100 billion to $200 billion or more. Quantification is difficult because defensiveness is now entrenched in the culture of American health care. It's hard to separate the financial incentives from the distrust of the American justice system. There are hundreds of billions in savings that could be achieved if Congress chose to focus on the right issues. Instead they will add a $1 trillion bureaucracy that will increase costs for all Americans while delivering poorer quality healthcare.

The waste and fraud in the current healthcare system will not be alleviated by inserting a new government bureaucracy into the equation. A Thomson Reuters report disclosed these findings:

• Unnecessary care such as the overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure makes up 37% of healthcare waste or $200 to $300 billion a year.
• Fraud makes up 22% of healthcare waste, or up to $200 billion a year in fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services and other scams.
• Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork account for 18% of healthcare waste.
• Medical mistakes account for $50 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year, or 11% of the total.
• Preventable conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes cost $30 billion to $50 billion a year.
• The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada.

HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT FAILURE

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

There is one thing that is beyond doubt. When government gets their grubby little fingers on any aspect of society, it costs the taxpayer more money and the task gets done incompetently, or not at all. It has taken decades of dreadful judgments, mismanagement and corruption to get to this breaking point. We went from a logical market based pay-as-you-go healthcare system in the 1950s to an illogical, bureaucratic, wasteful, litigious system that is bankrupting the country. The sorrowful path through the years is painful.

1950s

At the start of the decade, national health care expenditures are 4.5 percent of the Gross National Product. Many more medications are available now to treat a range of diseases, including infections, glaucoma, and arthritis, and new vaccines become available that prevent dreaded childhood diseases, including polio. The first successful organ transplant is performed.

1960s

Over 700 insurance companies are selling health insurance. Concern about a "doctor shortage" and the need for more "health manpower" leads to federal measures to expand education in the health professions. Major medical insurance endorses high-cost medicine. President Lyndon Johnson signs Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965. Costs immediately begin to accelerate.

1970s

President Richard Nixon renames prepaid group health care plans as health maintenance organizations (HMOs), with legislation that provides federal endorsement, certification, and assistance. Healthcare costs are escalating rapidly, partially due to unexpectedly high Medicare expenditures, rapid inflation in the economy, expansion of hospital expenses and profits, and changes in medical care including greater use of technology, medications, and conservative approaches to treatment. American medicine is now seen as in crisis.

1980s

Corporations begin to integrate the hospital system (previously a decentralized structure), enter many other healthcare-related businesses, and consolidate control. Overall, there is a shift toward privatization and corporatization of healthcare. Under President Reagan, Medicare shifts to payment by diagnosis (DRG) instead of by treatment. Private plans quickly follow suit. There are growing complaints by insurance companies that the traditional fee-for-service method of payment to doctors is being exploited. Corporate profits trump care. Charitable non-profit hospitals are driven out of the market.

1990s

Health care costs rise at double the rate of inflation. Expansion of managed care helps to moderate increases in health care costs. Federal health care reform legislation fails again to pass in the U.S. Congress. By the end of the decade there are 44 million Americans, 16 % of the nation, with no health insurance at all. The long-term viability of Medicare and Medicaid is ignored by Congress.

2000s

Health care costs are on the rise again. Medicare is unsustainable under the present structure and must be "rescued". Changing demographics of the workplace lead many to believe the employer-based system of insurance can't last. Direct-to-consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals and medical devices is on the rise. National health care expenditures are 17.6 percent of the Gross National Product by 2009. Obama is about to pass healthcare legislation which will result in a dramatic increase in costs.

Government did not get involved in healthcare until 1965, when Medicare and Medicaid were passed by a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. The charts below paint a picture of waste, mismanagement, administrative nightmares, and out of control costs. Annual national health expenditures have risen from $50 billion in 1960 to $2.5 trillion in 2009. Government intrusion and control is the single biggest explanation for this disastrous result. The policies instituted by the government through Medicare, Medicaid, and HMO laws, along with mandating that insurance companies meet 50 separate state requirements to do business have bastardized the free market.

There is no competition between doctors, hospitals, or insurance companies. The incentives are all geared towards charging more for services. Introducing a government run insurance option will now decrease competition and drive people into the government option. Employers will be dropping employees from their insurance plans by the millions. A new bloated government bureaucracy will “surprisingly” get out of control. Price fixing by government will drive service levels downward and rationing of care will be the result. Prepare to wait months for knee surgery. They’ll get to you as soon as your appendix bursts. Dr. Ron Paul describes how government has already destroyed our healthcare system, so the massive overhaul proposed by the Democrats will surely blow up in Americans’ faces again:

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses – but not individuals – to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage. While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hear how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government – in the form of “universal coverage” – is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

The pie charts below compare costs in 1960, before government intervention, to 2004, after four decades of government control. The three slices of the pie that stick out like a sore thumb (future cost $8,000) are Administration, Public Health Activity and Research. In 1960, 5.9% of costs were incurred for Administration and Gov’t and 2.5% for Research. In 2004, 10.3% of our costs were related to Administration and Gov’t and 2.1% for Research. We spend vastly more on paper pushing and government regulations and less on research and care. The FDA government bureaucratic jungle imposes billions in useless costs on the developers of every new drug. This money goes to lawyers and compliance experts, not research scientists. Government thrives while average Americans pay and suffer.

You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats, procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.
Thomas Sowell

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a man who has delivered 4,000 babies into this world, has experienced the pre-government market and the post government control of medical care in America. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are inflicting their socialist fantasy theories on America. Ron Paul has real life experience. Who should you trust? His view couldn’t be any clearer:

I started medicine when there was no Medicare and no Medicaid and let me tell you, I don’t remember one time when I saw people out in the streets begging for medical care. Now we do. With managed care and now with socialized medicine coming, believe me, quality will down, costs will go up, there will be shortages, there will be lines and nobody is going to be happy. We’ve had corporate medicine now for about 30 years which is managed medicine by the government, and it has been a total disaster and it didn’t do much more than push the costs up.

The more the government is involved in an industry or service, the higher the prices go. So, in education costs go up way beyond the cost of living, and the cost of medicine goes way up. So you can’t solve the problem of medical care by ignoring this. Now, Obama says, “What we’re going to do is we’re going to tremendously increase the services and we’re going to cut all the payments to the doctors in the hospitals.” I mean, where is he coming from? That can’t possibly work.

Dr. Paul has proposed logical market based solutions to the healthcare crisis for years and as usual, has been ignored by Democrats and Republicans alike:

• Allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1,000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief – including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums – to make medical care more affordable.
• A dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
• A $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. Create a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar. Waive the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. Suspend Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.

FREEDOM, LIBERTY & FREE MARKETS

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville

The Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights clearly define our method of representative government. Both our social and economic systems are based on private enterprise from which springs initiative and ingenuity. Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves. No one in Washington DC, other than Representative from Texas Ron Paul, understands or believes this. Over time, government has taken unwarranted actions to protect people from the consequences of their actions by restricting citizen options. In addition to invoking government to heavily regulate the economy and redistribute wealth, Democrats now insist that we need government to make many of our private decisions for us, because individuals can't be trusted to make them on their own. The passage of this 1,990 page socialist control bill will impose more restraint on your rights and inflict increased servitude to the State.

What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long.

Thomas Sowell

Government has imposed policies on Americans in the name of public health that are aimed at regulating personal behavior. Anti-smoking initiatives, reducing alcohol consumption, demanding seatbelt and motorcycle helmet use, regulating diet and lifestyle in the name of curbing obesity, federalizing local issues like speed limits and the minimum drinking age, and generally using the unbending authority of the state to police away lifestyle risk. H. L. Mencken, a fierce critic of government during the early Twentieth Century, wrote, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."

This couldn’t be any truer today, as our "saviors" enforce laws, regulations, and government "awareness campaigns", thrusting the filthy hands of government into every aspect of our lives. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the liberals in Congress are not passing the healthcare bill because they care about your health. They are passing the bill because the corporate lobbyists who wrote the bill have written it to benefit themselves. Government’s power over your every health decision will increase exponentially.

Before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate as they are admitted today and received excellent care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm. Physicians take the Hippocratic Oath seriously. These facts do not fit into the current liberal script of government rescuing us from greedy insurance companies and evil doctors. The fact is that no one in this country is dying because they lack healthcare. Every person in this country, including illegal aliens, can walk into an emergency room and they will be treated by the best doctors and nurses in the world. Dr Ron Paul explains how it was and how it will be:

For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program. The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

You can bet that Lyndon B. Johnson and Democrats in Congress assured the American public in 1965 that Medicare and Medicaid would save money. I doubt they would have been able to pass the bill if they had told Americans that it would result in a $100 trillion unfunded liability and would be racked with fraud, mismanagement and would drive healthcare costs dramatically higher. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are lying to Americans again. Costs will rise dramatically and service levels will deteriorate. Within five years, Democrats will be calling for a Value Added Tax of 10% to 20% in order to cover the “unexpected” cost overruns in the new plan. More government control, less choice, less freedom, less liberty, and a country closer to bankruptcy will be the outcome.

NATIONAL RUSSIAN ROULETTE

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

Benjamin Franklin

The United States of America is at a crossroads. If we allow the government to take over our healthcare system and inflict more regulations, more rules, and more cost, while rationing care, this will be the final nail in our capitalism coffin. A country that is already $12 trillion in debt, with unfunded liabilities exceeding $100 trillion, fighting two wars of choice, policing the planet by occupying 170 countries, funding insolvent criminal mega-banks, running bankrupt car companies, conquering global warming, and solving peak oil with solar and wind, will now take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy by adding its profound wisdom to the healthcare system. Based on the Obama administration’s own 10 year budget plan, adjusted for the new healthcare plan, the U.S. National Debt will rocket to $25 trillion by 2019. By 2020 the number of Americans over 65 will reach 54 million, up from 40 million in 2010. By 2030 it will reach 71 million.

Table 2a. Projected Population of the United States, by Age: 2000 to 2050
(In thousands except as indicated. As of July 1. Resident population.)
(leading dots indicate sub-parts)
Population or percent, sex, and age	2000	2010	2020	2030	2040	2050
POPULATION
.TOTAL
..TOTAL	282,125	308,936	335,805	363,584	391,946	419,854
..0-4	19,218	21,426	22,932	24,272	26,299	28,080
..5-19	61,331	61,810	65,955	70,832	75,326	81,067
..20-44	104,075	104,444	108,632	114,747	121,659	130,897
..45-64	62,440	81,012	83,653	82,280	88,611	93,104
..65-84	30,794	34,120	47,363	61,850	64,640	65,844
..85+	4,267	6,123	7,269	9,603	15,409	20,861

Source: US Census Bureau

“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
Thomas Sowell

The “intellectuals” in the White House and Congress, who have never run a business and whose only experience is knowing how to spend your money, believe wholeheartedly in socialism. Once a national healthcare plan is enacted, there will be no turning back. The politicians running our country have completely disregarded the warning of David Walker:

The U.S. government is on a "burning platform" of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, expensive over-commitments to government provided health care, swelling Medicare costs, the enormous expense of a prospective universal health care system, immigration, and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon.

Our leaders should be curtailing spending, repealing unspent stimulus funds, eliminating fraud and waste, instituting spending caps on Congress, ending our wars, and withdrawing troops from 170 foreign countries. Instead they are introducing the largest, most expensive entitlement program in history. This is national suicide.

When I watch the actions of Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress, I can’t help but think of the scene in the movie Deer Hunter where the Viet Cong make the American POWs play Russian roulette for entertainment. Michael (Christopher Walken) insists on putting three bullets in the gun in a desperate plan to kill his captors and escape. In the movie, Michael’s plan works and he escapes. The American people will not be so lucky. Barack Obama is playing Russian roulette with our country’s finances. This national healthcare plan will be the bullet that splatters our brains all over the wall. There will be no happy ending to this movie. It is a gory horror film.

Michael: We gotta play with more bullets.

Nick: What?
Michael: More bullets... [gunshot]
Michael: I gotta get more bullets in the gun.
Nick: What?
Michael: We gotta play with more bullets.
Nick: More bullets in the gun?
Michael: More bullets in the gun.
Nick: How many more bullets?
Michael: Three. That means we gotta play each other.

Nick: More bullets against each other?
Michael: We gotta do it!
Nick: What? Are you Crazy?

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
Thomas Paine

Americans have chosen to surrender their freedom and liberty for safety and security. We’ve decided it is too much work to support freedom. We have allowed our government to be overrun by the military industrial complex, the financial industrial complex and the healthcare industrial complex. The safety and security we think we have is an illusion. We have neither. These deals with the devil will lead to the economic collapse of our Republic. At that time, we will have the opportunity as described by our forefathers, to abolish this government and start anew. Until that time we are destined to lose more freedom and undergo a long period of crisis and misery. It was our choice.

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Winston Churchill

Comments

[ArtfulDodger:]

Just gimme my healthcare and my drugs! I don't give a damn who pays for it! Gen X & Gen Y.

Nov 02 08:45 AM

[Moon Kil Woong:]

I like your Deer Hunter analogy. Unfortunately, the gun went off with Nixon and his HMO's back in the 60's. That was when healthcare became a diffuse, bureaucratic, socialized mess which was employer dominated but whose costs couldn't be controlled by the employee, the patient, or the government. No wonder it all went to hell in a hand basket. In essence, that is the root of most all our health care problems.

Now we are half brain dead playing it again with Obama. Republican or Democrat, it seems to me just playing this game means that we lose. In reality we already lost in the 60's if we can remember that far back.

Nov 02 08:47 AM

[O-B-WON:]

If only all of the citizens of the United States of America would read and comprehend the above information, we might have a chance to turn "things" around.

Unfortunately, this country is running short of patriots. Too many sheeple, including my own grown adult children do not see what’s coming, or even care. They’re too busy trying to pay their bills and maintain a lifestyle they’ve become accustomed to.

When I try to speak to my kids about what’s about to happen, they look at me like I’m from another planet.

It looks as if this storm will have to run it’s course and lessons will have to be relearned…

Nov 02 08:50 AM

[doubleguns:]

H. L. Mencken, a fierce critic of government during the early Twentieth Century, wrote, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."

Seems to pretty much say it all right there.

Mencken had it figured out.

Nov 02 08:50 AM

[Tony Petroski:]

Is this a book or an article?

Nov 02 08:53 AM

[tivoboy:]

Nice post.

couple of points. I wouldn't call 66$ BILLION a rounding error.
and, for the people who show 50,000$ in income and choose not to purchase healthcare, how many are heads of family, family of say four and supporting a household? At nearly those levels, 40,000$ the government considers that condition poverty for a family of four, 50$ isn't much of a stretch in many states, with a family of four I can understand that health insurance is at the bottom of a list of items they choose to buy, like home, heat, clothes, food, transportation and maybe some luxuries like a trip to the movies once a quarter

The point of this shouldn't necessarily be making health free or accessible to all, it should be to make it much more AFFORDABLE.

Nov 02 09:03 AM

[James Quinn:]

Too many big words for you? I wouldn't want to keep you from your Twitter update.


On Nov 02 08:53 AM Tony Petroski wrote:

> Is this a book or an article?

Nov 02 09:22 AM

[James Quinn:]

The point of the bill is to make it free at the expense of me. Don't give me that BS about $40,000 being poverty. More liberal crap.


On Nov 02 09:03 AM tivoboy wrote:

> Nice post.
>
> couple of points. I wouldn't call 66$ BILLION a rounding error.<br/>and,
> for the people who show 50,000$ in income and choose not to purchase
> healthcare, how many are heads of family, family of say four and
> supporting a household? At nearly those levels, 40,000$ the government
> considers that condition poverty for a family of four, 50$ isn't
> much of a stretch in many states, with a family of four I can understand
> that health insurance is at the bottom of a list of items they choose
> to buy, like home, heat, clothes, food, transportation and maybe
> some luxuries like a trip to the movies once a quarter
>
> The point of this shouldn't necessarily be making health free or
> accessible to all, it should be to make it much more AFFORDABLE.

Nov 02 09:24 AM

[kcr357:]

Ive come to the conclusion the average American's brain has the same critical thinking ability as a palm tree(and not a very bright one at that). There is no need to have a fully functioning brain in out society, 40(might as well make it 50+) hours a week are spent doing a repetitive job; that once learned, can be done in an almost comatose state("Would you like fries with that"?, "Welcome to Walmart, the employment kiosk is by the bathrooms. You may find it useful after buying yourself out of a job.") Analyzing the facts and concluding that it will cost more $$$ to pay for insurance(with ancillary costs of staffing, taxes, office supplies, rent, litigation, etc..) to pay one's medical bills, versus saving one's money(BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAH) to pay for hospital care. I.e., my mother is paying 400+ every two weeks for coverage, she will die having paid almost half a million dollars into health care insurance, but I am sure she never bothered to add it up, its easier to just take the deduction and go about her life. Another sidenote, I am starting to notice that common sense is NOT taught in any college.

Nov 02 09:34 AM

[kcr357:]

The average American equates poverty with having a car thats more than 3 years old and a house with less than 3 flat screen tv's. I know there is a way to financially benefit from this new attitude, but it feels like I am taking out a life insurance policy on a dying relative to make some $$$. I am new to investing, but America's tenacity to clinging onto an unsustainable, well to do lifestyle for everyone will in fact lead to us selling EVERYTHING we(or should I say they) have, industry, currency, personal wealth, businesses, to other countries to maintain it, rather than roll up their sleeves and work for it. Soon there wont be anything worthwhile to sell to other nations.


On Nov 02 09:24 AM James Quinn wrote:

> The point of the bill is to make it free at the expense of me. Don't
> give me that BS about $40,000 being poverty. More liberal crap.<br/>

Nov 02 09:45 AM

[Graham and ...:]

That's right. "Free" for some means "costly" to someone else, who usually has no relation to "some."

There is no such thing as a FREE lunch.


On Nov 02 09:24 AM James Quinn wrote:

> The point of the bill is to make it free at the expense of me. Don't
> give me that BS about $40,000 being poverty. More liberal crap.<br/>

Nov 02 10:00 AM

[User 353732:]

There are very few ways to live in freedom. They are all difficult.
There are many ways to exist in slavery. They are easy.

Freedom requires a deep regard for truth, self discipline, frugality, prudence, work, sacrifice and responsibility for accepting the consequences of actions. No person, polity or Nation can be free for long or free in substance that does not accept limits imposed by economic , natural and moral laws. It is the paradox of freedom that obedience to these laws is the source of liberty, prosperity and safety.

The descent to slavery merely requires an acceptance of lies and expediency, self indulgence, selfishness, entitlements, instant gratification of the basest physical appetites and refusal to distinguish between right and wrong or accept any responsibility for perverse, destructive and predatory behavior.

The person, polity or nation who thinks that willfully breaking unbreakable economic, natural and moral laws is "liberation" soon confronts the paradox of slavery : liberation from higher law is to become enslaved and cruelly bound by the lower laws of vile, grasping, insatiably greedy and congenitally remorseless men and women.

All kleptocratic autocrats have known that the first step in enslaving a people is to convince them to break the higher laws and accept the lower laws of men, which means to crave the unreal and flee from the real, to lust after non being and shun being.
The US Regime is but the latest in a very long line indeed of oligarchs, Tsars, Maximum Rulers, god-emperors, fuehrers and khans who appealed to physical appetites, base desires and vast resentments and made the extravagant and extravagantly false promise:
" We will relieve you of your greatest fears and satisfy your lowest lusts IF you give us complete control over economic, political , social and cultural decisions and institutions.....All for your good. Of course we will rule in name of The People and naturally all enemies of The People must be hunted down and eliminated."
Throughout human history this promise has been made, accepted and never fulfilled.

The statistics, facts, projections etc cited in the article above are only particular manifestations of the path to total power, staggering wealth and absolute control by a tiny, massively corrupt and insatiably greedy elite. Embedded in them are both the breaking of higher laws and the fantastic false promises that gradually but inexorably lead to slavery.

Polities and nations,once upon this tortured descent, very rarely reverse course and look up instead of peering down.

However, I believe that America is still different enough and millions of Americans are still exceptional enough that the fall from liberty is not inevitable.
In my view, Americans can still dispel the dark spells and diseased delusions that have snared them.

Nov 02 10:03 AM

[ryanclarke:]

God only knows who has healthcare in America and who doesn't ... what the numbers are of people who just go ahead and die ... without any real access to preventable disease ... God only knows. But I do know with the present system ... without insurance ... the good dentist wants three hundred dollars to pull an infected tooth. Somehow gum infection and mouth disease isn't a medical problem in the United States of America. I should have been a dentist ... because after a few hours of pulling, drilling, and replacing bad teeth ... I can be on the golf course by 3 PM ... before the doctors show up.

Nov 02 10:30 AM

[James Quinn:]

Oh yes. People are dying in the streets. Why does our life expectancy rise every year? The dying in the streets BS is more liberal propaganda like the 46 million uninsured. All talking points, no truth. I like truth, not rhetoric.


On Nov 02 10:30 AM ryanclarke wrote:

> God only knows who has healthcare in America and who doesn't ...
> what the numbers are of people who just go ahead and die ... without
> any real access to preventable disease ... God only knows. But I
> do know with the present system ... without insurance ... the good
> dentist wants three hundred dollars to pull an infected tooth. Somehow
> gum infection and mouth disease isn't a medical problem in the United
> States of America. I should have been a dentist ... because after
> a few hours of pulling, drilling, and replacing bad teeth ... I can
> be on the golf course by 3 PM ... before the doctors show up.

Nov 02 10:38 AM

[TeresaE:]

Nice article Mr. Quinn.

The past year I have came to the conclusion that we are FUBAR. Then I talked myself into believing that there were like-minded people and that even the ostriches would surely wake up as they watch their paychecks shrink and their CURRENT obligations grow.

Nope. Isn't happening.

No one wants to hear it, I'm losing friends and ostracizing family because I am "just a cynic." "Everything is fine, the economy is recovering, foreclosures aren't bad, unemployment is not bad and going on the food stamps is a-ok with me."

We have begged our government to protect us from everything including ourselves. We say stupid things like, "the government can afford to..." without thinking that the money comes from US.

We are now watching about five massive, societal changing bills that will suck a huge amount of money from our lives and we actually have the arrogance to think we make enough to afford the added costs.

I think by the end of 2012 there will be millions of Americans living in dark houses, with little food. I know nearly no one believes this, but just WHERE will the money come from? We are competing with the third world for our jobs and somehow we believe that we will be paid MORE so that we can afford this mess?

Good luck to us. I wish I had the ability to run away. Instead I just rob Peter to pay Paul to buy supplies and try to prepare for a nightmare I hope never happens.

It sounds like your hope is as diminished as mine. Sad times.

Nov 02 10:39 AM

[Doc 224899:]

Obama achieved a whole new plateau in slick hypocrisy this past week, complaining that he wanted 40 million doses of vaccine (so HE could be seen as the savior of HIS PEOPLE, because HE TAKES CARE OF US), and only got 27 million doses buy the end of October.

He implies that HE is the authority on what we need, and that the pharmaceutical industry (no corporate identity mentioned, but you all know it’s big bad pharma, right?) has let him and us down somehow.

He doesn’t go on to mention that HIS trial attorney lobby, that writes most of his script, has sued vaccine makers so vigorously for so many years (bogus claims that 3 kids out of 35,000,000 receiving vaccine got a non-specific illness that had to be the fault of the vaccine maker) that there are no vaccine makers inside the USA any more.

He doesn’t say we could have vaccines more rapidly if regulations made by lawyer legislators, and product safety development precautions to protect anyone preparing a vaccine for distribution from being sued into bankruptcy weren’t so prohibitively costly and time-consuming.

He also doesn’t say H1N1 is a low lethality influenza strain, with less morbidity and mortality risk than average, run-of-the-mill seasonal flu. Why? Because after it’s all over he’ll show infection rates and morbidity and mortality reports that prove HE was successful in protecting HIS people from the bad, bad infection, and people will be stupid enough to believe it was HIS doing and not because it was a weak virus to start with.

Nov 02 10:45 AM

[Snitzer:]

OK, after detailing in rather gory detail just how THEY are screwing us, how, exactly, can we as investors approach the situation? Perhaps if we all, shareholders, management, CEO's, etc, just stepped back and looked at the big picture, we could see how, at maybe the cost of a few cents in share price, or maybe a small downward adjustment in dividends, we could perhaps inject a bit of responsible sanity into the way America does business. It's not that hard to figure out that if you move all the good jobs offshore there won't be anybody left here to buy your products, but with a hard assed board breathing down your neck it's hard to act on that thesis. With the rank and file demanding action, union leaders can't back off unreal wage, benefits and pension demands. What we, as Americans, desperately need is massive injections of common sense at all levels of our society but unfortunately that commodity is in short supply.

Nov 02 10:56 AM

[fwi:]

A very thorough and well organized article. I would like to raise one point that I have yet to see anyone else raise anywhere.

If Medicare has been in place to pay for healthcare for the elderly, and Medicaid has been in place to take care of the poor and children of the poor, then why has noone asked why Medicaid has not already done its job? ANd if it hasn't done its job of covering the poor, then shouldn't we first make certain that Medicaid completes its task before we create a another giant bureaucracy? Shouldn't we first discover why Medicaid has not already covered these people? And if there are good reasons why, then should not we address those first?

It is almost like Medicaid does not exist. To me it is a nobrainer. Use Medicaid to complete the humane coverage of the poor and their children, and then..stop.

Nov 02 11:11 AM

[rrbatch:]

Great post Mr. Quinn!! I really appreciate the statistics packed into your presentation.

I spent Halloween weekend reading the initial sections of the 1990-page "Affordable Health Care for America Act" kindly posted on-line by the House of Representatives - what a frightening experience! This trillion-dollar horror, foisted on us by the liberal wing of the Democrat party, purports to "reform" the delivery of our health care. It certainly does that, in ways that most of us will regret.

The trillion-dollar cost scored by the CBO with its usual static methodology (neglecting changes in behavior due to changes in policy) addresses only the costs incurred by the federal government. It fails to estimate the costs that will be passed on to the public through increased insurance premiums, excise taxes and penalties, and administrative overhead to provide new reports demanded by the proliferating bureaucracy. WellPoint estimates that insurance premiums for its coverage of citizens in my state of Virginia will increase 98% when this "reform" is fully implemented.

Social Security began in 1935, the year I was born, and eligibility for benefits was pegged at age 65 because that was the average life expectancy then. Thanks in part to advances in medical science I'm still around and kicking, and the Census Bureau says I can expect to live another 14 years (to age 88). A child born in the U.S. today has an average life expectancy of 78 years; on the same basis as original Social Security, why isn't this the new age of eligibility for full Social Security and Medicare benefits? This is a simple reform that would instantly resolve the unfunded liabilities that, as you point out, are the real issues that need to be addressed?

The Act appropriates $7 billion to start both insurance co-ops and a government-run insurance program. These provisions are at the level of noise, since the the CBO estimates that the number of takers for the "public option" will be 2% or less of the total insured population - a sop to the business-hating wing of the Democrat party.

The efforts of Congress to "reform" health care are a failure and a fraud worthy of Bernie Madoff. The House bill and its companion in the Senate deserve to be killed, and any of our representatives who support these monstrosities should not receive our votes in the future.

Nov 02 11:13 AM

[pungent:]

An excellent article, Mr. Quinn! My children stand a better chance of succeeding because I read and explain articles like this to them. At least they will enter the game knowing which areas are the least rigged against them. I had the whole family sit down and watch the movie "I.O.U.S.A" and it now forms a foundation for discussion. They have had little difficulty responding to the mini-socialists that are bred at their grade school and high school, and we have the most interesting dinner discussions afterward. Teach your children well.

Nov 02 11:20 AM

[dizzyfingers:]

Snitzer:
Back in the late 60s and the decades that followed, Americans made decisions that led to whole industries that were the backbone of our nation's economy being hounded and over-regulated because those industries contributed to "dirty air". And there were other excuses that made more and more industires unwelcome in the US. So now those jobs are gone, courtesy of regulations, high taxes, bad publicity, and bad decision-making of Americans about what is important to a strong and free United States. Corporations are perceived by Americans as pariahs, and it's easy to make Americans point fingers and tsk at big business.
I am sick to death of revisionist claims that those companies and industries simply left the US for cheaper labor; most were forced out because they were easy targets of the nascent 'ecology' movement, but happily for those companies, many are now operating elsewhere using local labor in countries that appreciate the jobs and taxes those companies produce. That wasn't true in the US, and ingratitude for what we had but didn't appreciate has now turned into whining about what we had but didn't appreciate.
We all need to look in the mirror. WE are why those industries are gone.
Be careful what you wish for, for you shall surely get it.

Nov 02 11:27 AM

[MichaelJ007:]

Great article Mr. Quinn. I'm with many others who believe that GOV healthcare will be the final straw for the US. I don't really foresee a revolution or anything like that, as most of us are rather dumb and complacent, but I do see an impending and significant decrease from our current "quality" of life. People may actually have to start doing REAL work to support their lifestyles within the next 10-20yrs.

Nov 02 11:28 AM

[James Quinn:]

You should show your kids the documentary For Liberty. It is inspiring.

www.forlibertymovie.com/


On Nov 02 11:20 AM pungent wrote:

> An excellent article, Mr. Quinn! My children stand a better chance
> of succeeding because I read and explain articles like this to them.
> At least they will enter the game knowing which areas are the least
> rigged against them. I had the whole family sit down and watch the
> movie "I.O.U.S.A" and it now forms a foundation for discussion. They
> have had little difficulty responding to the mini-socialists that
> are bred at their grade school and high school, and we have the most
> interesting dinner discussions afterward. Teach your children well.

Nov 02 11:28 AM

[bob adamson:]

Mr. Quinn focuses on the US medical health insurance debate as a metaphor for the larger debate over the role of the state in the economic life of a nation. The following tries to put some context into that larger debate.

Since the current economic crisis came to a head last year there has been an important division between the centre left and centre right on how to respond to the deep downturn and where ideally to be headed coming out of it. The left wants to protect employment, incomes and employment benefits and rebuild public infrastructure and social and environmental programs to both maintain and rebuild better balance (economic, social and ecological) and social equality; these being the measures of a healthy and sustainable economy and society. The right wants controlled ‘creative destruction’ of wasteful public and private social and economic institutions and accelerated shifting of economic focus to the healthiest sectors of the private sector promoted by deregulation and a lowering tax and public debt burden coupled with a greater embrace of globalization; these being the way to greater growth and individual freedom. This division was temporarily masked in the third quarter of 2008 and the first of 2009 as almost all embraced the need for short term stabilization of the investment banking sector and shock stimulus of consumption. Now that (perhaps prematurely) it appears that the crisis phase has past, the right increasingly calls for a return to their core agenda while the left continues to see the need for both short term stimulus and a longer term drive to achieve the balance and equality described above. This debate is now front and centre.

Mr. Quinn presents a more red blooded Libertarian version of the right agenda. Logically under that version there would have been no fiscal and monetary intervention last year to save the investment banking sector and the general economy from a deflationary collapse and something rather more than creative destruction would have been given free reign to reset the economy and society on the course to what purist Libertarians of a right political orientation would see as a freer and better state. It should be acknowledged, however, that such a choice is as much a policy of social engineering as anything proposed on the centre left or left.

Nov 02 11:31 AM

[Leftfield:]

Great points; the burden of supporting freedom and the many clear points of Dr. Sowell. Clarity is the missing ingredient in any usurpation of our freedom, except for the bottom line expectation of a free ride or benefit, by many.
Look where that has brought us. Hundred+ $trillion unfunded liabilities, and long chains of failures wherever clear accountability and Constitutional standards respecting liberty have been most encroached.
The damage is so utterly clear, yet ignored by most. Rich rewards go to the perpetrators of the frauds visited for too long on the US. They are the mainstream despite all this evidence. Still, we must continue to take the small steps we are each able and trust that they can add up to make a difference as the present debacle unfolds.

Nov 02 11:50 AM

[PlainJane:]

Why is this embarrassingly one sided political theater art being promoted by the editors of SA? This is for Digg.

Nov 02 11:51 AM

[AxIt:]

This short sentence says everything. Don't hide youself in lenghty explanations with numbers, statistics and supposedly clever interpretations of the US constitution. This is just a "take your hands off my money or l'll shoot you with my gun" debate. Nothing else. All the rest is philosophy.

On Nov 02 09:24 AM James Quinn wrote:

> The point of the bill is to make it free at the expense of me. Don't
> give me that BS about $40,000 being poverty. More liberal crap.<br/>

Nov 02 11:54 AM

[The Geoffster:]

Great article. I just returned from my Post Office. I live in a poor city. There were 20 people in line in front of me. Baggy jeans, gold teeth, obese features, sullen faces. One cashier (sales associate), frequent trips behind the curtain. Forty five minute wait. How long will I have to wait to see my doctor when Obama Care arrives? Most of the people who live in my city believe the government owes them a living. They have no sense of personal responsibility nor do they respect the very authority that feeds and clothes them. They are lawless, ignorant and unemployable. In the thirty five years I have lived here, the community has deteriorated to the point that large swathes of town look like the third world. I am describing what socialism has done to American cities. Our Constitution has been eviscerated by the very people who were sworn to uphold it. We should heed the words of Lincoln, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Nov 02 11:55 AM

[James Quinn:]

It isn't social engineering. It is letting failures fail. It letting people live their lives. It is about freedom to make mistakes and freedom to succeed. More than 50% of the public want no parts of this because they pay no taxes and just suck off the teet of the State.

I'll take freedom and liberty.


On Nov 02 11:31 AM bob adamson wrote:

> Mr. Quinn focuses on the US medical health insurance debate as a
> metaphor for the larger debate over the role of the state in the
> economic life of a nation. The following tries to put some context
> into that larger debate.
>
> Since the current economic crisis came to a head last year there
> has been an important division between the centre left and centre
> right on how to respond to the deep downturn and where ideally to
> be headed coming out of it. The left wants to protect employment,
> incomes and employment benefits and rebuild public infrastructure
> and social and environmental programs to both maintain and rebuild
> better balance (economic, social and ecological) and social equality;
> these being the measures of a healthy and sustainable economy and
> society. The right wants controlled ‘creative destruction’ of wasteful
> public and private social and economic institutions and accelerated
> shifting of economic focus to the healthiest sectors of the private
> sector promoted by deregulation and a lowering tax and public debt
> burden coupled with a greater embrace of globalization; these being
> the way to greater growth and individual freedom. This division was
> temporarily masked in the third quarter of 2008 and the first of
> 2009 as almost all embraced the need for short term stabilization
> of the investment banking sector and shock stimulus of consumption.
> Now that (perhaps prematurely) it appears that the crisis phase has
> past, the right increasingly calls for a return to their core agenda
> while the left continues to see the need for both short term stimulus
> and a longer term drive to achieve the balance and equality described
> above. This debate is now front and centre.
>
> Mr. Quinn presents a more red blooded Libertarian version of the
> right agenda. Logically under that version there would have been
> no fiscal and monetary intervention last year to save the investment
> banking sector and the general economy from a deflationary collapse
> and something rather more than creative destruction would have been
> given free reign to reset the economy and society on the course to
> what purist Libertarians of a right political orientation would see
> as a freer and better state. It should be acknowledged, however,
> that such a choice is as much a policy of social engineering as anything
> proposed on the centre left or left.

Nov 02 11:57 AM

[James Quinn:]

Please elaborate on your brilliant post. We await your one-sided liberal socialist state knows all response.

Try using facts to argue your point of view. Oh yes. The facts don't support the liberal corporate fascist view.

Let's use false and misleading rhetoric about 46 million uninsured.


On Nov 02 11:51 AM PlainJane wrote:

> Why is this embarrassingly one sided political theater art being
> promoted by the editors of SA? This is for Digg.

Nov 02 12:01 PM

[AxIt:]

Just checked my ears and nothing is coming out!
You are really wrong on everything!!

On Nov 02 12:05 PM James Quinn wrote:

> You are so full of shit, it is coming out your ears.
>
> Liberal fear mongers like yourself hate facts. They interfere with
> your agenda to save the world. Make your case hotshot.

Nov 02 12:10 PM

[akapital:]

Well said.


On Nov 02 11:31 AM bob adamson wrote:

> Mr. Quinn focuses on the US medical health insurance debate as a
> metaphor for the larger debate over the role of the state in the
> economic life of a nation. The following tries to put some context
> into that larger debate.
>
> Since the current economic crisis came to a head last year there
> has been an important division between the centre left and centre
> right on how to respond to the deep downturn and where ideally to
> be headed coming out of it. The left wants to protect employment,
> incomes and employment benefits and rebuild public infrastructure
> and social and environmental programs to both maintain and rebuild
> better balance (economic, social and ecological) and social equality;
> these being the measures of a healthy and sustainable economy and
> society. The right wants controlled ‘creative destruction’ of wasteful
> public and private social and economic institutions and accelerated
> shifting of economic focus to the healthiest sectors of the private
> sector promoted by deregulation and a lowering tax and public debt
> burden coupled with a greater embrace of globalization; these being
> the way to greater growth and individual freedom. This division was
> temporarily masked in the third quarter of 2008 and the first of
> 2009 as almost all embraced the need for short term stabilization
> of the investment banking sector and shock stimulus of consumption.
> Now that (perhaps prematurely) it appears that the crisis phase has
> past, the right increasingly calls for a return to their core agenda
> while the left continues to see the need for both short term stimulus
> and a longer term drive to achieve the balance and equality described
> above. This debate is now front and centre.
>
> Mr. Quinn presents a more red blooded Libertarian version of the
> right agenda. Logically under that version there would have been
> no fiscal and monetary intervention last year to save the investment
> banking sector and the general economy from a deflationary collapse
> and something rather more than creative destruction would have been
> given free reign to reset the economy and society on the course to
> what purist Libertarians of a right political orientation would see
> as a freer and better state. It should be acknowledged, however,
> that such a choice is as much a policy of social engineering as anything
> proposed on the centre left or left.

Nov 02 12:12 PM

[pacalis:]

So your first point was that healthcare rights were not in the declaration of independence because, perhaps, it's important to rely on documents that pre-date modern medicine. None the less it does say: "to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their SAFETY and happiness." So how is universal healthcare inconsistent with public safety again?

Your second point was that Obama said that there are more "than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage" and "reform is obviously essential for the 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance” so "Who’s lying? Who’s exaggerating? Who’s misleading the American public?"

Well, 46M is greater than 30M so I don’t see your problem there. And “cannot get coverage” is a subset of “don’t have health insurance” so I don’t see you problem there. In short, I have an answer for you, it seems that it’s articles like this that mislead the American public.

Nov 02 12:18 PM

[HAA!:]

I'd gladly pay higher taxes if we halted all wars and withdrew our troops from these combat zones, closed most of our bases overseas and reduced overall military spending! Gee, applying my common sense to our nations budget expenses, I'd guess we'd easily be able to offer free health care and free food for everyone in the US if we did this... !! AND I didn't even need all these fancy charts and a history lesson!

Nov 02 12:21 PM

[James Quinn:]

Read some of my previous articles Sherlock. If you listen to Ron Paul for half a second, you'd know that we want all troops home.

You certainly aren't a finance major, because we have $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities. Do you get it yet?


On Nov 02 12:21 PM HAA! wrote:

> I'd gladly pay higher taxes if we halted all wars and withdrew our
> troops from these combat zones, closed most of our bases overseas
> and reduced overall military spending! Gee, applying my common sense
> to our nations budget expenses, I'd guess we'd easily be able to
> offer free health care and free food for everyone in the US if we
> did this... !! AND I didn't even need all these fancy charts and
> a history lesson!

Nov 02 12:32 PM

[bricki:]

One thing that I think is really wrong with your approach is the idea the Medicare and the rest of the health care system problems are severable and can be dealt with independently. They cannot. The inefficiencies that make Medicare untenable are the same ones that make the rest of the system so costly.

Nov 02 12:32 PM

[Witchy:]

Why don't guys like you emigrate to Somalia? It has little government and near total freedom for those with crude predatory inclinations.

Nov 02 12:38 PM

[James Quinn:]

Oh yes, that outdated Constitution. Always getting in the way of socialists. You maybe should quote from your Communist Manifesto, since that is where this healthcare bill fits.

It's articles like this that tell the truth you don't want to hear. Three different numbers of uninsured all from Democrats. You will use whatever number works to sell your plan to the attention deficit public.

What does healthcare have to do with public safety? We didn't have public healthcare in the 1950s and the system worked just fine. The problems and costs skyrocketing began in 1965 with Medicare and medicaid.

Please provide your solution to the $100 TRILLION of unfunded liabilities even before this new entitlement.


On Nov 02 12:18 PM pacalis wrote:

> So your first point was that healthcare rights were not in the declaration
> of independence because, perhaps, it's important to rely on documents
> that pre-date modern medicine. None the less it does say: "to institute
> new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing
> its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
> their SAFETY and happiness." So how is universal healthcare inconsistent
> with public safety again?
>
> Your second point was that Obama said that there are more "than thirty
> million American citizens who cannot get coverage" and "reform is
> obviously essential for the 46 million Americans who don’t have health
> insurance” so "Who’s lying? Who’s exaggerating? Who’s misleading
> the American public?"
>
> Well, 46M is greater than 30M so I don’t see your problem there.
> And “cannot get coverage” is a subset of “don’t have health insurance”
> so I don’t see you problem there. In short, I have an answer for
> you, it seems that it’s articles like this that mislead the American
> public.

Nov 02 12:38 PM

[AxIt:]

Ahah I have to acknowledge that you are funny. Like a clown.
No need to discuss your statistics. I already made my point.
Keep on shooting at us indians, John Wayne.

On Nov 02 12:21 PM James Quinn wrote:

> Nothing coming out because there isn't anything between your ears.
> Did all those statistics overwhelm you? I know that facts and figures
> based on free markets and the US Constitution are like a crucifix
> to a liberal state blood sucking vampire.
>
> I think you would do well in Congress. Is that you Nancy Pelosi?
>

Nov 02 12:39 PM

[James Quinn:]

So lets add a new bureaucracy without fixing the existing system. 1,990 pages of rules and regulations will surely save us.


On Nov 02 12:32 PM bricki wrote:

> One thing that I think is really wrong with your approach is the
> idea the Medicare and the rest of the health care system problems
> are severable and can be dealt with independently. They cannot. The
> inefficiencies that make Medicare untenable are the same ones that
> make the rest of the system so costly.

Nov 02 12:47 PM

[James Quinn:]

The clowns are in Congress. Only problem is they are the clowns from Stephen King's IT novel. They turn into a giant blood sucking spider. Have fun filling out 400 forms to get a checkup.


On Nov 02 12:39 PM AxIt wrote:

> Ahah I have to acknowledge that you are funny. Like a clown.
> No need to discuss your statistics. I already made my point.
> Keep on shooting at us indians, John Wayne.
>
> On Nov 02 12:21 PM James Quinn wrote:

Nov 02 12:51 PM

[James Quinn:]

I'm sure you have a plan to tax me and send the funds to Somalia so they can reduce cow farts which are destroying our ozone layer. You love big government that will protect and coddle you? Watch out for that terrorist. Watch out for that swine flue epidemic that gives you a slight fever and the snifles for 2 days.

Save me Federal Government. I don't know what to do. Make my decisions for me. Take the money from the evil rich and save me.


On Nov 02 12:38 PM Witchy wrote:

> Why don't guys like you emigrate to Somalia? It has little government
> and near total freedom for those with crude predatory inclinations.

Nov 02 01:03 PM

[Dirk McCoy:]

Where to draw the line... there must be a public health option for illegals, idiots, and infirm, as Londoners found with combatting cholera epidemics. So a national value added tax on food should be used to fund a minimal level of public health care for everyone, including immunizations, evaluation, and basic treatment.

Most of your ideas would work well after that. I don't see how people don't understand a public option will do to private healthcare what public schools did to education- force the vast majority into a system with higher costs, less choice, and uneven quality.

Nov 02 01:04 PM

[Witchy:]

What a quack you are. To cite a BlueCrossBlueShield "study" is like citing a RJ Reynolds "study" on a tobacco issue.

Nov 02 01:06 PM

[James Quinn:]

Let's hear your facts and figures. Let's hear your cogent arguments for a new national healthcare bureaucracy.

Just what I thought. The sound of crickets.


On Nov 02 01:06 PM Witchy wrote:

> What a quack you are. To cite a BlueCrossBlueShield "study" is like
> citing a RJ Reynolds "study" on a tobacco issue.

Nov 02 01:13 PM

[AxIt:]

...well I'm not sure but may be I can spot a little of populistic demagogy here...


On Nov 02 12:51 PM James Quinn wrote:

> The clowns are in Congress. Only problem is they are the clowns from
> Stephen King's IT novel. They turn into a giant blood sucking spider.
> Have fun filling out 400 forms to get a checkup.

Nov 02 01:19 PM

[seffieandcoco:]

This is a good outline. I would like to point out that prior to 1965 doctors were the ones who allocated health care resources. We had ward care for those who could not afford it. They got the same surgery, the same tests and everything but they were in a ward. It was free. If a Goldman Sachs banker came in and broke his hip he would be charged and he would get a private room. The surgeon could charge him what he pleased just as an attorney would. If you have ever talked to an attorney I am sure you have heard, "Pay me what you think it is worth...." Believe me....we charged the investment banker enough so we could treat the majority free....and then the hospital would hit him up for a new wing. So the system was take from the rich and give to the poor back then but the doctors administered the financial transfer. There were not a whole lot of ways an investment banker could weasel out of a medical bill. They would not get a lot of sympathy at the country club or the courtroom.

Medicare changed all that by forcing us to establish fixed fees so all of a sudden we were paid on most of the patients but we were paid far less on the wealthy ones. The insurance industry piggybacked on Medicare and basically follows the Medicare rules. We do not have private practice at all at this time, as a practical matter.

The current bill does nothing to address the fact that costs have exploded. While doctor pay is not the major driver here doctor test ordering and surgery is. I am told that in my specialty the ratio of hosptal income on my work to my pay is about 5 to 1 so my pay is a relatively small amount of the equation. Anyway we are making less than we were in the 1990's and 1980's so doctor pay cannot be the problem.

Nov 02 01:30 PM

[User 408863:]

Excellent article. While I agree that democrats are responsible for alot of the programs that are bankrupting our country, I have to say that republicans are just as guilty. The blame should be put on our government in general (and ultimately ourselves), not specifically democrats or republicans. Members of both parties are Statists, and do not understand what freedom and liberty truly means. Your post was very well written and had some great factual support, however, I would suggest being a little harsher on republicans and/or politicans in general next time. I look forward to your next post.

Nov 02 01:37 PM

[James Quinn:]

You truly believe that people in Congress who are bought by lobbyists, controlled by monied interests, and have passed laws and programs that have put us in a $100 trillion hole are not Clowns? I think clown is too positive. They are criminals.

Is my article really populist? Am I overstating the fiscal disaster that is coming down the tracks? Will more government solve our fiscal problem?


On Nov 02 01:19 PM AxIt wrote:

> ...well I'm not sure but may be I can spot a little of populistic
> demagogy here...

Nov 02 01:41 PM

[Valley Boy:]

You make the best sense. Let's reform and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid for those who actually need medical assistance. We can concentrate on combating fraud, double billing, and abuse and deny coverage to those who don't qualify under those two programs.


On Nov 02 11:11 AM fwi wrote:

> A very thorough and well organized article. I would like to raise
> one point that I have yet to see anyone else raise anywhere.
>
> If Medicare has been in place to pay for healthcare for the elderly,
> and Medicaid has been in place to take care of the poor and children
> of the poor, then why has noone asked why Medicaid has not already
> done its job? ANd if it hasn't done its job of covering the poor,
> then shouldn't we first make certain that Medicaid completes its
> task before we create a another giant bureaucracy? Shouldn't we first
> discover why Medicaid has not already covered these people? And if
> there are good reasons why, then should not we address those first?
>
>
> It is almost like Medicaid does not exist. To me it is a nobrainer.
> Use Medicaid to complete the humane coverage of the poor and their
> children, and then..stop.

Nov 02 01:42 PM

[James Quinn:]

I agree that everyone in Congress has put us in this trap. When Bush was running the show, I destroyed his war spending in my articles. I'm equal opportunity. It is now the Democrats pushing the agenda, so they will feel my wrath.


On Nov 02 01:37 PM User 408863 wrote:

> Excellent article. While I agree that democrats are responsible for
> alot of the programs that are bankrupting our country, I have to
> say that republicans are just as guilty. The blame should be put
> on our government in general (and ultimately ourselves), not specifically
> democrats or republicans. Members of both parties are Statists, and
> do not understand what freedom and liberty truly means. Your post
> was very well written and had some great factual support, however,
> I would suggest being a little harsher on republicans and/or politicans
> in general next time. I look forward to your next post.

Nov 02 01:45 PM

[Hangdog:]

Thought you left SA Mr Quinn. You are correct the only efficiency government excel at is the creation of governance.

Unfortunately for the USA and by default the rest of the world this is not going to be restricted to healthcare. Watch for all kinds of problems that will present themselves with government offering solutions that will in the end only lead to more governance

Nov 02 01:56 PM

[AxIt:]

Do not misinterpret what I wrote: your last comment was populistic and demagogic. Not the article. The article is simply a political declaration, and could have well been written by someone in that Congress that you dislike so much.

It's eight years of Bush administration that put US in the $100 trillion hole. The previous administration left with a surplus of more than 500 billions.
So yes, may be that more government will solve this mess and put the nubers on track. May be, because as you recognize the damage that has been done is great.
But of one thing I'm sure: wheening on how terrible is the situation will not help.

On Nov 02 01:41 PM James Quinn wrote:

> You truly believe that people in Congress who are bought by lobbyists,
> controlled by monied interests, and have passed laws and programs
> that have put us in a $100 trillion hole are not Clowns? I think
> clown is too positive. They are criminals.
>
> Is my article really populist? Am I overstating the fiscal disaster
> that is coming down the tracks? Will more government solve our fiscal
> problem?

Nov 02 01:58 PM

[James Quinn:]

My last few articles were too political for SA. It is their choice to publish or not publish. I'm glad they published this one. The issue is crucial to our future as a country.


On Nov 02 01:56 PM Hangdog wrote:

> Thought you left SA Mr Quinn. You are correct the only efficiency
> government excel at is the creation of governance.
>
> Unfortunately for the USA and by default the rest of the world this
> is not going to be restricted to healthcare. Watch for all kinds
> of problems that will present themselves with government offering
> solutions that will in the end only lead to more governance

Nov 02 01:59 PM

[Mad Hedge F...:]

ijs The US is turning into Europe. Think high taxes, chronic high unemployment, more government involvement in everything, less innovation, and much lower growth, in exchange for a social safety net and better coffee. That is the message the markets told us by retreating to the 6,000 handle in March, levels not seen since 1996, and down 54% from the 2007 peak. Equity prices will shrink to multiples, in line with permanently lower long term growth rates of maybe 1%-2%, a shadow of the 5% rate seen for much of this decade. Hint: that’s a lot lower than here. Perhaps this is what mature economies are supposed to look like. If someone is holding a gun to your head and you must buy American stocks, only select names that get the bulk of their earnings from overseas. Microsoft (MSFT), Intel (INTC), Oracle, (ORCL), Cisco (CSCO) all get 60%-70% of their profits from overseas, where up to 90% of the real economic growth will come from for the next decade. Commodity, agricultural companies, and their ETF’s also fit this picture. As for me, I think I’ll move to Tahiti and live off of coconuts and freshly speared fish, wearing only a loin cloth. Anything is better than becoming French.

Nov 02 02:01 PM

[Alphameister:]

The discourse has degenerated a bit, but I want to commend Mr. Quinn on a superb article that draws generously from several of my heros, including Sowell and Mencken. I also want to offer kudos to User 353372, one of my favorites, for one of the best comments I've read on SA.

Deconstructing social engineering is more the opposite of social engineering than merely another form of social engineering, as Bob Adamson suggests.

Although opposed philosophically to big government and all the machinations that go with it, I am grateful that the "day of reckoning" was postponed by quantitative easing. I'm grateful on a personal level, but also because permitting an economic collapse last year would have been blamed on capitalism (instead of all the socialist policies that actually led to the crisis), giving Obama and his ilk an even clearer path to diminishment of our liberties. I am hopeful that the inevitable failure of Obama to revitalilze the US economy will tend to diminish the allure of socialism.

As for how an investor can best deal with this unappealing outlook, my approach currently is to be net short US stocks (through TWM) and long a basket of Chinese ADRs since that company is moving in the direction of greater freedom and respect for free markets while offering a much more soundly based platform for strong economic growth well into the future.

Nov 02 02:03 PM

[pacalis:]

Just because the first 1000 words in your article lack any degree of logic does not mean that I believe in the health plan. It just means that your logic is inconsistent or wrong.

But, OK, if you don't want to address those things, we can move to your first chart that shows that the US pays more for healthcare as a percentage of GDP than other nations like Canada. Yet, many of these other nations are more "NANNY" than the US. If "NANNY" is so bad, why are other nations paying less?


On Nov 02 12:38 PM James Quinn wrote:

> Oh yes, that outdated Constitution. Always getting in the way of
> socialists. You maybe should quote from your Communist Manifesto,
> since that is where this healthcare bill fits.
>
> It's articles like this that tell the truth you don't want to hear.
> Three different numbers of uninsured all from Democrats. You will
> use whatever number works to sell your plan to the attention deficit
> public.
>
> What does healthcare have to do with public safety? We didn't have
> public healthcare in the 1950s and the system worked just fine. The
> problems and costs skyrocketing began in 1965 with Medicare and medicaid.
>
>
> Please provide your solution to the $100 TRILLION of unfunded liabilities
> even before this new entitlement.

Nov 02 02:32 PM

[joebaggadonuts:]

OK, so here's my contribution toward freedom.

Federal Military Budget: 663 Billion. It's not on your charts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You quoted some significant documents about America, but you forgot the most important one. The preamble to the Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Where do you figure that Constitutional America would be without "...promote(ing) the general welfare, and secure(ing) the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, ".
www.law.cornell.edu/co...

Call it Socialism if you want, but it only shows your ignorance. Hiding behind figures and charts shows only that you know how to Bullsh1t.

Nov 02 02:32 PM

[Skjellifetti:]

On Nov 02 08:50 AM O-B-WON wrote:

> If only all of the citizens of the United States of America would read and comprehend the above information, we might have a chance to turn "things" around.

We The People have read this kind of diatribe before and We The People have rejected it. You are in the minority. Get over it.

Nov 02 02:34 PM

[James Quinn:]

These are the posts that worry me the most. The $100 trillion dollar unfunded liability is the unfunded promises of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The chart from the Trustees is in the article. These programs were instituted by FDR and LBJ. Those are facts.

You don't understand the difference between unfunded liabilities and the National Debt. The National Debt was $5.7 trillion when Bush took office. It was $11 trillion when he left. He added $5.3 trillion with his wars and dept of homeland nazis.

Obama has added $1 trillion in less than a year. His budgets will make the National Debt $25 trillion in 2019.

This is all unsustainable. The country will collapse by 2019. There is no escape with the policies and leaders we have today.

There is some more populist rhetoric called facts.


On Nov 02 01:58 PM AxIt wrote:

> Do not misinterpret what I wrote: your last comment was populistic
> and demagogic. Not the article. The article is simply a political
> declaration, and could have well been written by someone in that
> Congress that you dislike so much.
>
> It's eight years of Bush administration that put US in the $100 trillion
> hole. The previous administration left with a surplus of more than
> 500 billions.
> So yes, may be that more government will solve this mess and put
> the nubers on track. May be, because as you recognize the damage
> that has been done is great.
> But of one thing I'm sure: wheening on how terrible is the situation
> will not help.
>
> On Nov 02 01:41 PM James Quinn wrote:

Nov 02 02:35 PM

[John Galt:]

Other things that can/will contribute to higher health care costs...
Age - Americans are getting older, older people consume more HC
Obesity - Heavier and less healthy people consume more HC.
Technology - We have access to the best Tech on earth... People living in 3rd world countries don't have access to.

You briefly touched on the impact of Lawyers in the hospital, but they certainly raise the cost of doing business in the hospital. No where in the 1990 pages would you find Obama's thugs pointing thier guns at the Lawyers. The bad guys are always " big pharma, big business, big oil, big insurance". It could NEVER be big lawyers, big lobbyists or big unions.

Let's look at the track record of the government...
They have tried to make college "more affordable" with all sorts of programs and college costs have done nothing but go up. Would Obama address high college costs or would that piss off his backers in the teachers unions? The costs of education have skyrocketed much like the costs of health care ( maybe even more so).

Affordable housing? How'd that work out? What was the point of Fannie/Freddie anyway? Did giving loans and forcing banks give loans to people that couldn't afford them making housing more affordable?

Right now most people are worried about Jobs and the Economy but Obama is focused on an expensive Health Care plan and expensive Global Warming legislation. How come the disconnect? Do you think one party ( Democratic party) controling our entire government ( and most of our media) has anything to do with that? Obama has the votes he needs now. He wants to make his legacy while he has the votes and can ram this down the American people's throats. Passing socialized health care is the holy grail for Democrats. Instead of focusing on the economy, Obama is focused putting politics over people like a true slime ball politican.

Nov 02 02:37 PM

[James Quinn:]

They are taxed out the yazoo and wait in lines for months to get care. Get ready for a VAT to pay for the unexpected overruns in the new healthcare plan. Do you realize that Europe is socialist? Everyone is equal. No one tries to do better than anyone else. Eight weeks of vacation, 35 hour mandated workweeks, and $7 a gallon gasoline to pay for it.

By the way, they are more bankrupt than us.


On Nov 02 02:32 PM pacalis wrote:

> Just because the first 1000 words in your article lack any degree
> of logic does not mean that I believe in the health plan. It just
> means that your logic is inconsistent or wrong.
>
> But, OK, if you don't want to address those things, we can move to
> your first chart that shows that the US pays more for healthcare
> as a percentage of GDP than other nations like Canada. Yet, many
> of these other nations are more "NANNY" than the US. If "NANNY" is
> so bad, why are other nations paying less?

Nov 02 02:41 PM

[James Quinn:]

We're not communist yet. We have something called elections. The best solution to horrific policies is to let them work. Obama will be a one term President who ushered in the 2nd Great Depression.


On Nov 02 02:34 PM Skjellifetti wrote:

> On Nov 02 08:50 AM O-B-WON wrote:

Nov 02 02:43 PM

[bmcon:]

Mr. Quinn,

Appreciate your argument, better than any sound/twitter bite on the subject. I have yet to see, find or hear of an example of present day socialist health plans that are efficient, cost effective or fair. Sure, money talks in corporate health care but, as you said, no one can be denied what is arguably the best medical care in the world because they can't pay. Here's a question for the pollyanna's that think that socialist health plans are the answer - why are moneyed foreigners (from countries with socialist health plans) traveling to the U.S. for medical care? I realize this is a loaded and perhaps difficult question but I'll make it easy for the pollyannas out there; the foreigners are here because of the quality of the medical care. The present system isn't cost effective either but another government bureacracy will not ensure the betterment of one's health.

Going a step further, the argument of having a national health care plan would be less contentious if the U.S. didn't provide hand outs to countries of every ideological bent, including the ones who could give a shit about the U.S, and what the U.S. has done to improve their lot in the past. Think of the trillions spent - and wasted on these efforts. I realize these past efforts were done in the name of democracy however keep the "democracy" in the U.S. and let the cabel(s) figure it out for themselves.

Nov 02 02:44 PM

[James Quinn:]

I've addressed military spending elsewhere you fool. Read my other articles. By the way, how much has your savior Obama cut the Defense budget? Oh he increased the Defense budget. Oh he increased the number of troops in Afghanistan and hasn't left Iraq. Yes he is a true cost saver.

General welfare doesn't mean pay for your healthcare. It means roads and sewers you moron.

I don't need to hide behind shit. Again, you can't make a cogent argument so you call facts bullshit. Typical liberal crap.

Who pays the bill Sherlock? Answer please. I'm waiting.

On Nov 02 02:32 PM joebaggadonuts wrote:

> OK, so here's my contribution toward freedom.
>
> Federal Military Budget: 663 Billion. It's not on your charts. <br/>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>
>
> You quoted some significant documents about America, but you forgot
> the most important one. The preamble to the Constitution:
> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
> union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for
> the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
> of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
> this Constitution for the United States of America.
>
> Where do you figure that Constitutional America would be without
> "...promote(ing) the general welfare, and secure(ing) the blessings
> of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, ".
> www.law.cornell.edu/co...
>
>
> Call it Socialism if you want, but it only shows your ignorance.
> Hiding behind figures and charts shows only that you know how to
> Bullsh1t.

Nov 02 02:48 PM

[Jason Rines...:]

Surely, one of the oldest debates Socrates referenced is whom gets the right to control the fruits of anothers labor. Currently, one group is acting as a mob. If individuals being held up at the point of a gun (government) decide they won't participate the outcome is all but left to decide who dies in either confiscation of private property or defending it.

The State usually wins that fight at first but the outcome of the productive refusing to work for the non-productive is:

a) The State collapses and a new State is formed.
b) The State is overthrown in revolution, a new State is formed.
c) The State is conquered from without.
d) The State is conquered from within.

Choice D is what is occurring in my humble opinion. Government with Czars and nationalizing industries, giving one group with political connections the dwindling resources on the backs of other is know as FASCISM. Such a phase does not last long and becomes a final form of this particular form of oligarchy, probably Communism.

The shelf life of Communism is 40 years, the productive can only be forced through imprisonment or death to produce for so long.

As per speculation point D is happening, followed most likely by B and then the American public will have to directly deal with C.

On Nov 02 11:54 AM AxIt wrote:

> This short sentence says everything. Don't hide youself in lenghty
> explanations with numbers, statistics and supposedly clever interpretations
> of the US constitution. This is just a "take your hands off my money
> or l'll shoot you with my gun" debate. Nothing else. All the rest
> is philosophy.
>
> On Nov 02 09:24 AM James Quinn wrote:

Nov 02 02:49 PM

[pacalis:]

The US pays more - it doesn't matter if Europe pays via taxes and VAT and the US pays out of a paycheck into insurance plans. The US pays more per person.

Now I don't know what the horror in 8 weeks of vacation is, but the US pays more relative to GDP. So not only are we working harder, but we pay even more in healthcare FOR working harder. If we took those 8 weeks vacation, GDP would drop and we would pay EVEN MORE relative to other countries as a percentage of GDP. Double whammy.

On Nov 02 02:41 PM James Quinn wrote:

> They are taxed out the yazoo and wait in lines for months to get
> care. Get ready for a VAT to pay for the unexpected overruns in the
> new healthcare plan. Do you realize that Europe is socialist? Everyone
> is equal. No one tries to do better than anyone else. Eight weeks
> of vacation, 35 hour mandated workweeks, and $7 a gallon gasoline
> to pay for it.
>
> By the way, they are more bankrupt than us.

Nov 02 03:01 PM

[AxIt:]

This time I must recognize that you are right: I went too quickly through your previous post because I was getting used to extravagant comments.

The point is in restructuring the expenses within a sustainable model. Medicare &C costs (proportionally) more and is far less efficient than many non US health care programs. Building a sustainable and decent health care system is possible: other coutries did it and there is no reason why US can't able to do it as well.

On Nov 02 02:35 PM James Quinn wrote:

> These are the posts that worry me the most. The $100 trillion dollar
> unfunded liability is the unfunded promises of Social Security, Medicare
> and Medicaid. The chart from the Trustees is in the article. These
> programs were instituted by FDR and LBJ. Those are facts.
>
> You don't understand the difference between unfunded liabilities
> and the National Debt. The National Debt was $5.7 trillion when Bush
> took office. It was $11 trillion when he left. He added $5.3 trillion
> with his wars and dept of homeland nazis.
>
> Obama has added $1 trillion in less than a year. His budgets will
> make the National Debt $25 trillion in 2019.
>
> This is all unsustainable. The country will collapse by 2019. There
> is no escape with the policies and leaders we have today.
>
> There is some more populist rhetoric called facts.

Nov 02 03:10 PM

[James Quinn:]

So adding 1,990 pages of government rules and regulations while insuring 46 million more people is going to cost less?


On Nov 02 03:01 PM pacalis wrote:

> The US pays more - it doesn't matter if Europe pays via taxes and
> VAT and the US pays out of a paycheck into insurance plans. The US
> pays more per person.
>
> Now I don't know what the horror in 8 weeks of vacation is, but the
> US pays more relative to GDP. So not only are we working harder,
> but we pay even more in healthcare FOR working harder. If we took
> those 8 weeks vacation, GDP would drop and we would pay EVEN MORE
> relative to other countries as a percentage of GDP. Double whammy.
>
>
> On Nov 02 02:41 PM James Quinn wrote:

Nov 02 03:17 PM

[James Quinn:]

You are assuming that the systems put into place in Europe are sustainable. They are not. They have a lower birth rate than the US and their unfunded liabilities are greater in proportion than the US's. They will collapse before we do under the weight of their unsustainable social programs. People will continue to vote for people who promise stuff without asking for any sacrifice until the whole thing collapses.


On Nov 02 03:10 PM AxIt wrote:

> This time I must recognize that you are right: I went too quickly
> through your previous post because I was getting used to extravagant
> comments.
>
> The point is in restructuring the expenses within a sustainable model.
> Medicare &amp;C costs (proportionally) more and is far less efficient
> than many non US health care programs. Building a sustainable and
> decent health care system is possible: other coutries did it and
> there is no reason why US can't able to do it as well.
>
> On Nov 02 02:35 PM James Quinn wrote:

Nov 02 03:22 PM

[bob adamson:]

Mr. Quinn, you assert but do not explain why your public policy proposals are not social engineering. The following elaborates why those proposals at this time should be characterized as social engineering and, hopefully, you will be able to post a convincing rebuttal.

Firstly, to simply say “It is about freedom to make mistakes and freedom to succeed” is only to assert that the outcome would accord with your policy objectives; it says nothing about the scope of change to current policy and practices that would be required or the social impact of that change. If someone were to try to justify to you the nationalization of the means of production thus “It is about freedom from want and freedom to know that your kids will have exactly what every other kid has” you would right say that nationalization was extreme social engineering and that the stated rational (whether right or wrong in and of itself) had no baring on whether such nationalization was social engineering.

Secondly, there are many programs in place both in the public health insurance area and respecting the provision of government services. These have consequences for many people; consequences you fine to be in several important ways to be negative. It follows that the choice to change those policies is a choice to change society (for the better in your view) and, it follows logically, that measures to implement that policy are social engineering.


On Nov 02 11:57 AM James Quinn wrote:

> It isn't social engineering. It is letting failures fail. It letting
> people live their lives. It is about freedom to make mistakes and
> freedom to succeed. More than 50% of the public want no parts of
> this because they pay no taxes and just suck off the teet of the
> State.
>
> I'll take freedom and liberty.

Nov 02 03:47 PM

[James Quinn:]

Very academic response. I'm not an academic. I prefer solutions that work in the real world. The social engineering began with the implementation of the New Deal and the Great Society programs. The facts are that these programs have left my children and their children with a $100 trillion unfunded liability. The actions of our leaders have left us with a $12 trillion national debt with $13 trillion more to be added in the next 10 years based on Obama's plans.

I have no agenda other than to convince people that the United States will economically collapse under this weight of debt unless it is addressed today. Instead, I'm told that creating a new government bureaucracy with a price tag of $1 trillion (will be $2 to $3 trillion in reality) and enforcement of 1,990 pages of new rules and regulations will save the country.

I'm sure my rebuttal will not satisfy you. But that is OK. I understand.


On Nov 02 03:47 PM bob adamson wrote:

> Mr. Quinn, you assert but do not explain why your public policy proposals
> are not social engineering. The following elaborates why those proposals
> at this time should be characterized as social engineering and, hopefully,
> you will be able to post a convincing rebuttal.
>
> Firstly, to simply say “It is about freedom to make mistakes and
> freedom to succeed” is only to assert that the outcome would accord
> with your policy objectives; it says nothing about the scope of change
> to current policy and practices that would be required or the social
> impact of that change. If someone were to try to justify to you the
> nationalization of the means of production thus “It is about freedom
> from want and freedom to know that your kids will have exactly what
> every other kid has” you would right say that nationalization was
> extreme social engineering and that the stated rational (whether
> right or wrong in and of itself) had no baring on whether such nationalization
> was social engineering.
>
> Secondly, there are many programs in place both in the public health
> insurance area and respecting the provision of government services.
> These have consequences for many people; consequences you fine to
> be in several important ways to be negative. It follows that the
> choice to change those policies is a choice to change society (for
> the better in your view) and, it follows logically, that measures
> to implement that policy are social engineering.

Nov 02 04:03 PM

[John Galt:]

> Pacalis The US pays more - it doesn't matter if Europe pays via taxes and VAT and the US pays out of a paycheck into insurance plans. The US pays more per person.

Now I don't know what the horror in 8 weeks of vacation is, but the US pays more relative to GDP.

- I don't think you get the point.
A) People in the US receive better faster care
B) People in the US are less healthy/more obese than Europe.
C) Our investment in health capital (and Europeans piggy backing off our innovation) make their systems easier to run.

Would you expect Mcdonalds to cost more than Ruths Chris Steakhouse? If an operation is done quickly in hospital A and that same operation is done in 3 months in Hospital B... which do you think will cost more? Who do you think has more health problems, the 220 pound fast food eating American or the healthier European?

"Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. "

Nov 02 04:10 PM

[PainfullyAware:]

On Nov 02 11:51 AM PlainJane wrote:

> Why is this embarrassingly one sided political theater art being
> promoted by the editors of SA? This is for Digg.

Because, Finance And Banking Have Become Governmental Subsidies And Truly Free Market Practices Are Illusory In The Current Environment.

You Better Pay Attention To What IS Happening In DC Or You Will Suffer The Consequences.

Money made is not immune to De-valuation by reckless governmental policy.

To Assume Benevolence Is Foolish.

Nov 02 04:18 PM

[PainfullyAware:]

Government Is The "Regulator And Referee" Requiring That It Should NEVER Provide Services. (does not mean that it can not support services) Without a mechanism for failure, when corrupted to the point of failure, there is no hope for remedy.

Governments Never Fail Without Catastrophic Restructuring.

I just want the ref to call a good game not join the other side.

Nov 02 04:26 PM

[Hot Richard:]

This is no crossroads. It is 200mph down a road that ends in a brick wall. Socialism will expand (and State powers will grow) until collapse. There will be no intellectual revolution in the voting booth. And it'll take more than one collapse before capitalism returns.

Invest accordingly. But be aware that there is no limit to the State's ability to tax you and limit your options to flee.

Nov 02 04:35 PM

[PainfullyAware:]

Where do you figure that Constitutional America would be without "...promote(ing) the general welfare, and secure(ing) the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, " - joebaggadonuts

Promoting the general welfare through SUBJUGATION, at the expense of liberty, DOES NOT secure the blessings of liberty.

I do not want to live in a society where we are "All Equally Miserable" no matter the effort expended to remedy uncomfortable situations.

Money Achieved Without Effort Is Usually Spent Foolishly.

Taxing is Effortless; Just look at the Hillary Clinton quote of recent days. => "The percentage of taxes on GDP (in Pakistan) is among the lowest in the world... We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn't move, and that's not what we see in Pakistan."

On Nov 02 02:32 PM joebaggadonuts wrote:

> OK, so here's my contribution toward freedom.
>
> Federal Military Budget: 663 Billion. It's not on your charts. <br/>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>
>
> You quoted some significant documents about America, but you forgot
> the most important one. The preamble to the Constitution:
> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
> union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for
> the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
> of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
> this Constitution for the United States of America.
>
> Where do you figure that Constitutional America would be without
> "...promote(ing) the general welfare, and secure(ing) the blessings
> of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, ".
> www.law.cornell.edu/co...
>
>
> Call it Socialism if you want, but it only shows your ignorance.
> Hiding behind figures and charts shows only that you know how to
> Bullsh1t.

Nov 02 04:43 PM

[AxIt:]

This is definitely a very pessimistic view. Doom & Gloom reigns. Well designed and well funded social programs are sustainable, provided they are limited to the actual needs, flexible and not sclerotized by eccessive inefficiency. I am skeptic of any projection that goes beyond five years because I've never seen a projection that is right over this time span. Such projections are at the basis of overplanning. For this reason your projection of the world coming to an end in 2019 does not impress me much more than the Mayan end of the world in 2012. The world will survive a health care program.

On Nov 02 03:22 PM James Quinn wrote:

> You are assuming that the systems put into place in Europe are sustainable.
> They are not. They have a lower birth rate than the US and their
> unfunded liabilities are greater in proportion than the US's. They
> will collapse before we do under the weight of their unsustainable
> social programs. People will continue to vote for people who promise
> stuff without asking for any sacrifice until the whole thing collapses.
>

Nov 02 05:29 PM

[pacalis:]

So you want more of the system that makes fat people, requires more working hours, has less vacation... and I miss the point?

Your arguments are the usual populist ideas - the US must be best because...
1. faster care - faster care is not an end goal, health outcomes are. If another country has "fast enough" care and it has better outcomes it wins - and nearly all OECD countries have better outcomes than the US for less money.
2. American's are less healthy - yes they are. Obviously this is a chicken and egg problem, but it doesn't speak well to our current system does it?
3. Innovation - There are lots of stories (myths) about this but American innovations from pharma haven't show up in the GDP numbers for at least decade and during that decade there has been a long standing argument about declines, not gains, in pharma productivity. And on the whole Biotech's a money loser - every year we spend more on R&D than the whole industry makes. Want a current example, look at whose making H1N1 vaccine - only 3 of 15 potential suppliers are US based.

Still, these are your points and nothing James Quinn mentioned.

On Nov 02 04:10 PM John Galt wrote:

> > Pacalis The US pays more - it doesn't matter if Europe pays via
> taxes and VAT and the US pays out of a paycheck into insurance plans.
> The US pays more per person.
>
> Now I don't know what the horror in 8 weeks of vacation is, but the
> US pays more relative to GDP.
>
> - I don't think you get the point.
> A) People in the US receive better faster care
> B) People in the US are less healthy/more obese than Europe.
> C) Our investment in health capital (and Europeans piggy backing
> off our innovation) make their systems easier to run.
>
> Would you expect Mcdonalds to cost more than Ruths Chris Steakhouse?
> If an operation is done quickly in hospital A and that same operation
> is done in 3 months in Hospital B... which do you think will cost
> more? Who do you think has more health problems, the 220 pound fast
> food eating American or the healthier European?
>
> "Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his
> own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his
> history. "

Nov 02 06:22 PM

[pacalis:]

No, Obama's plan is a disaster. But it's not like those 1990 pages are government - they're the work of insurance companies, pharma, and other corporate interests.

The way I see it there are two arguments:
1. Government is so inefficient that allowing waste through insurance company profits and missing under-served persons provides the best public outcomes per spent dollar.
OR
2. The single payer option creates such monopsony power that we can drive down prices and pay for universal coverage providing the best public outcomes per spent dollar.

The current plan seems to increase inefficiencies while not creating any buyer power - it fails on both counts. It's like a love child getting Einstein's looks with Marilyn Monroe's brain.

On Nov 02 03:17 PM James Quinn wrote:

> So adding 1,990 pages of government rules and regulations while insuring
> 46 million more people is going to cost less?

Nov 02 06:31 PM

[John Galt:]

On Nov 02 06:22 PM pacalis wrote:
> So you want more of the system that makes fat people, requires more working hours, has less vacation... and I miss the point?

No No no no. The system doesn't make people fat, people make people fat. YES, I choose AMERICA over Europe. If you government loving liberals want to live in Europe so much, then just go peacefully move there. The people that value freedom can live in America and prosper.


Your arguments are the usual populist ideas - the US must be best
because...
>1. faster care - faster care is not an end goal, health outcomes
> are. If another country has "fast enough" care and it has better
> outcomes it wins - and nearly all OECD countries have better outcomes than the US for less money.
> 2. American's are less healthy - yes they are. Obviously this is
> a chicken and egg problem, but it doesn't speak well to our current system does it?
> 3. Innovation - There are lots of stories (myths) about this but
> American innovations from pharma haven't show up in the GDP numbers for at least decade and during that decade there has been a long standing argument about declines, not gains, in pharma productivity.
> And on the whole Biotech's a money loser - every year we spend more on R&amp;D than the whole industry makes. Want a current example, look at whose making H1N1 vaccine - only 3 of 15 potential suppliers
> are US based.
> Still, these are your points and nothing James Quinn mentioned.
>
> On Nov 02 04:10 PM John Galt wrote:

You say fast "enough" care has better outcomes and "wins". Tell that to the people that die waiting for operations in Europe. You are old and paid into the system your whole life? Well you get bumped to the back of the line for a younger (immigrant) person who still has lots of working years ahead of them while you are just old ( a burden on the system and waiting to die). How great was the system for them? Taking way a free individuals CHOICE to life doesn't mesh with my beliefs. If care in Europe is "fast enough", then why do they come to the States for care?

Americans are fat because they eat too much, don't eat healthy, and don't exercise. Giving them "free" medical care won't cure their obesity.

Innovation.... So Americans investing billions in R&D, inventing drugs, cures, and winning nobel prizes in medicine that the rest of the world uses, learns from, copies, and benefits from gets no credit?

Wait, let me guess. These doctors, scientists, and investors are just greedy rich people that should devote their lives to the "cause" for free.

The only myths out there are coming out of Obama's mouth. That he's going to insure an extra 46 million people and that it's going to cost LESS money, and that we will get better care.

Nov 02 06:52 PM

[PainfullyAware:]

Ahhh, GoldLovingPuppy,

Have you researched The Repeal of Mark To Market in March 2009 and its EFFECTS on the market? How about "Derivatives" or "Securitized Investment Vehicles"; Neither of which has had resolution - Shadow Banking/Off Accounting Book Assets Still Live? Maybe you have done your homework on how the mandate of the "Presidents Working Group On Financial Markets" is carried out; Big influence in the markets at the moment.

You defame TeresaE without merit.

Life is not "Rosy All The Time". To Assume So Is Mentally Minuscule.

What say you about the influence of "Dark Pools" or "High Frequency Trading" or even the root of "Fractional Reserve Banking". Structure IS ALL IMPORTANT.

Functionality Derives From Structure.

There is more to know than can be know - The More You Know The Less Certain You Will Become.

Things are not well; to ignore "Situational Awareness" will result in dire consequence.


On Nov 02 07:21 PM GoldLovingPuppy wrote:

> Your are losing friends deary because most of the stuff that comes
> out of your mouth is absolute doomsayer rubbish. You make no sense
> most of the time. You cry and whine on most posts with very little
> constructive input to the various topics. Your husband is obvioulsy
> holding out on you (and who could blame him if he has to listen to
> you all the time.) to give you the demeanor you have in life. <br/>
>
> Goldey

Nov 02 07:53 PM

[James Quinn:]

You are what they call a Great Denier. If I don't think about it, it won't happen. These are demographics buddy. The $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities exist. They can't be wished away. They can only be taxed away or devalued away. Take your pick.

But don't let me tax your mind with undeniable facts. Keep living in your socialist fantasy world until it collapses around you.


On Nov 02 05:29 PM AxIt wrote:

> This is definitely a very pessimistic view. Doom &amp; Gloom reigns.
> Well designed and well funded social programs are sustainable, provided
> they are limited to the actual needs, flexible and not sclerotized
> by eccessive inefficiency. I am skeptic of any projection that goes
> beyond five years because I've never seen a projection that is right
> over this time span. Such projections are at the basis of overplanning.
> For this reason your projection of the world coming to an end in
> 2019 does not impress me much more than the Mayan end of the world
> in 2012. The world will survive a health care program.
>
> On Nov 02 03:22 PM James Quinn wrote:

Nov 02 07:56 PM

[GoldLovingP...:]

"General welfare doesn't mean pay for your healthcare. It means roads and sewers you moron

This statement just shows your ignorance and that your writing should be viewed as such

Goldey

On Nov 02 02:48 PM James Quinn wrote:

> I've addressed military spending elsewhere you fool. Read my other
> articles. By the way, how much has your savior Obama cut the Defense
> budget? Oh he increased the Defense budget. Oh he increased the number
> of troops in Afghanistan and hasn't left Iraq. Yes he is a true cost
> saver.
>
> General welfare doesn't mean pay for your healthcare. It means roads
> and sewers you moron.
>
> I don't need to hide behind shit. Again, you can't make a cogent
> argument so you call facts bullshit. Typical liberal crap.
>
> Who pays the bill Sherlock? Answer please. I'm waiting.
>
> On Nov 02 02:32 PM joebaggadonuts wrote:

Nov 02 08:03 PM

[PainfullyAware:]

TeresaE,

Yes these are "Dark Times".

Take Heart; The American "Ideal" of the founding principles are well "Publicized" around the world.

The principle that one OWNS - Themselves, The Fruits Of Their Labor, And Property will not be easily extinguished.

The World Loves America - Not So Much Its Governance.

Dark Times Will Come - It Is Unavoidable Because Of "Denial Within The Ranks Of Those With The Power To Change Course". Also true is that they will not last.

Wisdom is not the same as Knowledge. Lessons Forgotten may have to be relearned through hardship.

Education Is Never Ending.


On Nov 02 10:39 AM TeresaE wrote:

> Nice article Mr. Quinn.
>
> The past year I have came to the conclusion that we are FUBAR. Then
> I talked myself into believing that there were like-minded people
> and that even the ostriches would surely wake up as they watch their
> paychecks shrink and their CURRENT obligations grow.
>
> Nope. Isn't happening.
>
> No one wants to hear it, I'm losing friends and ostracizing family
> because I am "just a cynic." "Everything is fine, the economy is
> recovering, foreclosures aren't bad, unemployment is not bad and
> going on the food stamps is a-ok with me."
>
> We have begged our government to protect us from everything including
> ourselves. We say stupid things like, "the government can afford
> to..." without thinking that the money comes from US.
>
> We are now watching about five massive, societal changing bills that
> will suck a huge amount of money from our lives and we actually have
> the arrogance to think we make enough to afford the added costs.
>
>
> I think by the end of 2012 there will be millions of Americans living
> in dark houses, with little food. I know nearly no one believes
> this, but just WHERE will the money come from? We are competing
> with the third world for our jobs and somehow we believe that we
> will be paid MORE so that we can afford this mess?
>
> Good luck to us. I wish I had the ability to run away. Instead
> I just rob Peter to pay Paul to buy supplies and try to prepare for
> a nightmare I hope never happens.
>
> It sounds like your hope is as diminished as mine. Sad times.

Nov 02 08:10 PM

[Swashbuckler:]

GLP---I just read your comment stream and it is a hoot. You need to change your pseudonym from GoldLoving Puppy to SickPuppy. You are in severe need of professional psychological evaluation. Either that, or a straight jacket and a one-way ticket to the nearest psych ward. Please get help, for your sake and society's sake. Respectfully, Swash.


On Nov 02 07:21 PM GoldLovingPuppy wrote:

> Your are losing friends deary because most of the stuff that comes
> out of your mouth is absolute doomsayer rubbish. You make no sense
> most of the time. You cry and whine on most posts with very little
> constructive input to the various topics. Your husband is obvioulsy
> holding out on you (and who could blame him if he has to listen to
> you all the time.) to give you the demeanor you have in life. <br/>
>
> Goldey

Nov 02 08:16 PM

[bob adamson:]

I just wanted you to try your best.

bob adamson


On Nov 02 04:03 PM James Quinn wrote:

> Very academic response. I'm not an academic. I prefer solutions that
> work in the real world. The social engineering began with the implementation
> of the New Deal and the Great Society programs. The facts are that
> these programs have left my children and their children with a $100
> trillion unfunded liability. The actions of our leaders have left
> us with a $12 trillion national debt with $13 trillion more to be
> added in the next 10 years based on Obama's plans.
>
> I have no agenda other than to convince people that the United States
> will economically collapse under this weight of debt unless it is
> addressed today. Instead, I'm told that creating a new government
> bureaucracy with a price tag of $1 trillion (will be $2 to $3 trillion
> in reality) and enforcement of 1,990 pages of new rules and regulations
> will save the country.
>
> I'm sure my rebuttal will not satisfy you. But that is OK. I understand.
>

Nov 02 08:56 PM

[James Quinn:]

Hey golden shower, please teach us. We await your wisdom on all things healthcare related. Or do you just tear down other's ideas. I know your type.


On Nov 02 08:03 PM GoldLovingPuppy wrote:

> "General welfare doesn't mean pay for your healthcare. It means roads
> and sewers you moron
>
> This statement just shows your ignorance and that your writing should
> be viewed as such
>
> Goldey
>
> On Nov 02 02:48 PM James Quinn wrote:

Nov 02 09:42 PM

[User 422488:]

Mr Quinn while I enjoy your articles I'm going to unsubscribe because you're such a complete dick to some of the people who comment. What the hell is wrong with you? I've never in my life seen an author be so rude to his readers just because they disagree with him. You're not going to be able to convince your readers of anything if you run them all off. Grow up. Bye.

Nov 02 11:57 PM

[AxIt:]

Also projections by Malthus were based on "undeniable demographics developments". And if he was right we all should be already starving in hunger. False. Such long term projections are misleading and always wrong. Yes, I deny that the future can be predicted by simplistic extrapolations. Such kind of extrapolations were and are at the basis of planned economy programs tipical of totalitaristic regimes. Programs that never worked because future is not an extrapolation in a graph. Paradoxically, you are converging on the way of thinking of people that you fight the most.

On Nov 02 07:56 PM James Quinn wrote:

> You are what they call a Great Denier. If I don't think about it,
> it won't happen. These are demographics buddy. The $100 trillion
> of unfunded liabilities exist. They can't be wished away. They can
> only be taxed away or devalued away. Take your pick.
>
> But don't let me tax your mind with undeniable facts. Keep living
> in your socialist fantasy world until it collapses around you.<br/>

Nov 03 05:58 AM

[l'ami canadien:]

Wow Quinn, you are one cranky old man. I won't be looking to your columns for advice or analysis anymore; you seem psychologically unbalanced so I can't trust your judgment.

One note about this article though: all the developed countries you showed that spend a smaller proportion of GDP on healthcare all have 'socialized' health care, administered by their nanny-state. You know what else they have? Better health outcomes and higher life expectencies. Guess what? For health care, socialism works best. It appears you'd prefer anything but; perhaps you can look to Philippines or Niger for health care solutions more suitable to your ideology.

Nov 03 06:56 AM

[James Quinn:]

Blow up dolls don't count as girl friends goldy locks.


On Nov 02 08:43 PM GoldLovingPuppy wrote:

> On Nov 02 07:59 PM James Quinn wrote:
> "> Shouldn't your screen name be gold loving asshole?"
>
> Now James Quinn,
> I have a girl friend that knows you intimately and she said your
> name should be "LittleWiener"
> and that's based on a factual evidence!! She was quite amused at
> it too!
>
> Now take that meanie!
>
> Goldey

Nov 03 08:27 AM

[James Quinn:]

The people who find me cranky have no facts, no arguments, no answers. The socialists have a complete history of failure documented throughout history. The liberal tactics are to attack the messenger who has facts to back up his arguments. When I attack back, you turtles stick your head in your shells and cry like a baby. Go to Venezuela if you want socialism.


On Nov 03 06:56 AM l'ami canadien wrote:

> Wow Quinn, you are one cranky old man. I won't be looking to your
> columns for advice or analysis anymore; you seem psychologically
> unbalanced so I can't trust your judgment.
>
> One note about this article though: all the developed countries you
> showed that spend a smaller proportion of GDP on healthcare all have
> 'socialized' health care, administered by their nanny-state. You
> know what else they have? Better health outcomes and higher life
> expectencies. Guess what? For health care, socialism works best.
> It appears you'd prefer anything but; perhaps you can look to Philippines
> or Niger for health care solutions more suitable to your ideology.

Nov 03 08:30 AM

[James Quinn:]

More denial gibberish. You choose to deny the facts because they don't support your position. That is your choice, but my children and grandchildren owe $100 Trillion for promises made decades ago by politicians who never figured out a way to pay for the promises.

Are you denying there are $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities? If so, then crawl back into your fantasy hole.

If not, how will it be paid? Answer please. I'm waiting. And waiting. And waiting.

Not one liberal idealogue in two days has explained how this will be paid. They don't care. Because it does not fit neatly into their socialist agenda.

Good day sir.


On Nov 03 05:58 AM AxIt wrote:

> Also projections by Malthus were based on "undeniable demographics
> developments". And if he was right we all should be already starving
> in hunger. False. Such long term projections are misleading and always
> wrong. Yes, I deny that the future can be predicted by simplistic
> extrapolations. Such kind of extrapolations were and are at the basis
> of planned economy programs tipical of totalitaristic regimes. Programs
> that never worked because future is not an extrapolation in a graph.
> Paradoxically, you are converging on the way of thinking of people
> that you fight the most.
>
> On Nov 02 07:56 PM James Quinn wrote:

Nov 03 08:35 AM

[James Quinn:]

Unsubscribe if you like. That is your choice.

The liberal socialists have no response to my facts, so they attack me personally. That is is the way they operate. I choose to not back down to their tactics. I choose to give it back with both barrels. They then cry like little babies because I'm too mean.

If someone wants an intelligent dialogue about the facts, let's have it. None of the socialists have put forth anything other than name calling. They got nothin. No facts. No reasonable arguments. No cogent thoughts whatsoever.



On Nov 02 11:57 PM User 422488 wrote:

> Mr Quinn while I enjoy your articles I'm going to unsubscribe because
> you're such a complete dick to some of the people who comment. What
> the hell is wrong with you? I've never in my life seen an author
> be so rude to his readers just because they disagree with him. You're
> not going to be able to convince your readers of anything if you
> run them all off. Grow up. Bye.

Nov 03 08:40 AM

[l'ami canadien:]

But, Mr. Quinn, I referred to the fact that developed countries with 'socialized' health care have better health outcomes and higher life expectancies that the USA. Oh, and it doesn't cost us as much either (as a proportion of GDP, as illustrated in the graph you provided in your own article). Would you care to respond to those facts?

PS: If I was going to suggest where one ought to move to enjoy socialized health care, I'd take Sweden, France or Canada over Venezuela, sorry.

Nov 03 09:47 AM

[James Quinn:]

Please provide your documentation regarding better health outcomes please. I provided all of my documentation. You have provided nothing. I'm looking forward to the data for India, China and Cambodia. You may also notice Iceland on the chart. Their economic system has since collapsed and their currency is worthless. Just saying.


On Nov 03 09:47 AM l'ami canadien wrote:

> But, Mr. Quinn, I referred to the fact that developed countries with
> 'socialized' health care have better health outcomes and higher life
> expectancies that the USA. Oh, and it doesn't cost us as much either
> (as a proportion of GDP, as illustrated in the graph you provided
> in your own article). Would you care to respond to those facts?<br/>
>
> PS: If I was going to suggest where one ought to move to enjoy socialized
> health care, I'd take Sweden, France or Canada over Venezuela, sorry.

Nov 03 10:45 AM

[TeresaE:]

Vaccine makers are practically immune from prosecution.

They moved the factories to cheaper labor, unless foreign owned to begin with.

Vaccines have caused untold human suffering and a reduction of natural immunities, yet we continue to act as if they are a cure all.


On Nov 02 10:45 AM Doc 224899 wrote:

> Obama achieved a whole new plateau in slick hypocrisy this past
> week, complaining that he wanted 40 million doses of vaccine (so
> HE could be seen as the savior of HIS PEOPLE, because HE TAKES CARE
> OF US), and only got 27 million doses buy the end of October.
>
> He implies that HE is the authority on what we need, and that the
> pharmaceutical industry (no corporate identity mentioned, but you
> all know it’s big bad pharma, right?) has let him and us down somehow.
>
>
> He doesn’t go on to mention that HIS trial attorney lobby, that writes
> most of his script, has sued vaccine makers so vigorously for so
> many years (bogus claims that 3 kids out of 35,000,000 receiving
> vaccine got a non-specific illness that had to be the fault of the
> vaccine maker) that there are no vaccine makers inside the USA any
> more.
>
> He doesn’t say we could have vaccines more rapidly if regulations
> made by lawyer legislators, and product safety development precautions
> to protect anyone preparing a vaccine for distribution from being
> sued into bankruptcy weren’t so prohibitively costly and time-consuming.
>
>
> He also doesn’t say H1N1 is a low lethality influenza strain, with
> less morbidity and mortality risk than average, run-of-the-mill seasonal
> flu. Why? Because after it’s all over he’ll show infection rates
> and morbidity and mortality reports that prove HE was successful
> in protecting HIS people from the bad, bad infection, and people
> will be stupid enough to believe it was HIS doing and not because
> it was a weak virus to start with.

Nov 03 11:16 AM

[AxIt:]

Again: you do not present facts but questionable projections.
There are not 100 trillions of unfunded liabilities today. The 100 trillions figure is the net present value of the unfunded liabilities on a time horizon that spans several decades. These number are determined forecasting demographics, GDP growth, productivity, etc from now to several decades in the future. Forecast just one of these factors uncorrectly, and the result is wrong.
As already said I do not care about such projections, which are pure academy. Bring me a valid projection made in 1940 about today. It does not exist.

On Nov 03 08:35 AM James Quinn wrote:

> More denial gibberish. You choose to deny the facts because they
> don't support your position. That is your choice, but my children
> and grandchildren owe $100 Trillion for promises made decades ago
> by politicians who never figured out a way to pay for the promises.
>
>
> Are you denying there are $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities?
> If so, then crawl back into your fantasy hole.
>
> If not, how will it be paid? Answer please. I'm waiting. And waiting.
> And waiting.
>
> Not one liberal idealogue in two days has explained how this will
> be paid. They don't care. Because it does not fit neatly into their
> socialist agenda.
>
> Good day sir.

Nov 03 11:24 AM

[TeresaE:]

Now be fair Mr. Quinn...

the program is only looking to insure around 1/2 of the 46 million.

See, reductions are working already....lol


On Nov 02 03:17 PM James Quinn wrote:

> So adding 1,990 pages of government rules and regulations while insuring
> 46 million more people is going to cost less?

Nov 03 11:25 AM

[James Quinn:]

I know the the net present value concept probably taxes your mind beyond its breaking point. It is extremely difficult to project how many people will reach 65 years old at a given point in time. It requires using the skills of addition, which you clearly lack.

You have convinced me with your brilliant arguments that adding 1,990 pages of government rules, regulations, mandates, criminal penalties, and a blizzard of new paperwork will surely save costs and eliminate the $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities.

You are truly a genius. The White House could really use someone like you.


On Nov 03 11:24 AM AxIt wrote:

> Again: you do not present facts but questionable projections.
> There a not 100 trillions of unfunded liabilities today. The 100
> trillions figure is the net present value of the unfunded liabilities
> on a time horizon that spans several decades. These number are determined
> forecasting demographics, GDP growth, productivity, etc from now
> to several decades in the future. Forecast just one of these factors
> uncorrectly, and the result is wrong.
> As already said I do not care about such projections, which are pure
> academy. Bring me a valid projection made in 1940 about today. It
> does not exist.
>
> On Nov 03 08:35 AM James Quinn wrote:

Nov 03 11:40 AM

[Graham and ...:]

" losing friends and ostracizing family because I am "just a cynic."
Same for me.

It's in "sad times" like these that you find out who your REAL friends are.

And maybe that benefit outweighs the other losses.


On Nov 02 10:39 AM TeresaE wrote:

> Nice article Mr. Quinn.
>
> The past year I have came to the conclusion that we are FUBAR. Then
> I talked myself into believing that there were like-minded people
> and that even the ostriches would surely wake up as they watch their
> paychecks shrink and their CURRENT obligations grow.
>
> Nope. Isn't happening.
>
> No one wants to hear it, I'm losing friends and ostracizing family
> because I am "just a cynic." "Everything is fine, the economy is
> recovering, foreclosures aren't bad, unemployment is not bad and
> going on the food stamps is a-ok with me."
>
> We have begged our government to protect us from everything including
> ourselves. We say stupid things like, "the government can afford
> to..." without thinking that the money comes from US.
>
> We are now watching about five massive, societal changing bills that
> will suck a huge amount of money from our lives and we actually have
> the arrogance to think we make enough to afford the added costs.
>
>
> I think by the end of 2012 there will be millions of Americans living
> in dark houses, with little food. I know nearly no one believes
> this, but just WHERE will the money come from? We are competing
> with the third world for our jobs and somehow we believe that we
> will be paid MORE so that we can afford this mess?
>
> Good luck to us. I wish I had the ability to run away. Instead
> I just rob Peter to pay Paul to buy supplies and try to prepare for
> a nightmare I hope never happens.
>
> It sounds like your hope is as diminished as mine. Sad times.

Nov 03 11:40 AM

[AxIt:]

Your approach is clearly superficial. Yes you cannot tell how may people will turn 65 more than 70 years from now. You cannot because you do not know how, for example, how many immigrants there will be, and how many will leave US, and how many will die before reaching 65. And in addition, you do not know how many of the people reaching 65 would need the healthcare plan, because you do not know which is the share that will have private insurance, and you do not know how many will simply decide not to use the "public option". You do not know, for the ones that will apply to the plan, how many cures they will need and so their actual cost. I can go on for other 100 lines but the simple point is that you do not know anything.
I can pass you an estimation made for next year, also two years from now, let's stretch to five years (and I start to have some doubts). But such extrapolations targeting the end of this century are useless and just a political tool.

On Nov 03 11:40 AM James Quinn wrote:

> I know the the net present value concept probably taxes your mind
> beyond its breaking point. It is extremely difficult to project how
> many people will reach 65 years old at a given point in time. It
> requires using the skills of addition, which you clearly lack. <br/>
>
> You have convinced me with your brilliant arguments that adding 1,990
> pages of government rules, regulations, mandates, criminal penalties,
> and a blizzard of new paperwork will surely save costs and eliminate
> the $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities.
>
> You are truly a genius. The White House could really use someone
> like you.

Nov 03 01:51 PM

[l'ami canadien:]

The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall", compares the performance of the health care systems in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently underperforms compared to the other countries. A major difference between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health insurance coverage.

["Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care". The Commonwealth Fund. May 15, 2007. www.commonwealthfund.o.... ]

Nov 03 01:52 PM

[l'ami canadien:]

Mr. Quinn, why would you even want to compare the USA to China, India and Cambodia? That doesn't make any sense. The USA is a developed, industrialized society like Germany and France; don't sell it short by comparing it to a basketcase like Cambodia (no offence to Cambodia, they've had a pretty rough history).

Nov 03 01:55 PM

[l'ami canadien:]

How about Australia vs. USA?

Australia has a per capita expenditure on health of US$3137, compare to USA's expenditure of $7290. Yet, the life expectancy is over three years higher in Australia, and they've got more doctors, and more nurses, on a per capita basis. Oh yeah, their health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP? About half that of the USA.

Nov 03 02:03 PM

[James Quinn:]

The White House just called and they want to make you Vice President. To call you superficial would be too much of a compliment, so I'll stick with THE GREAT DENIER.


On Nov 03 01:51 PM AxIt wrote:

> Your approach is clearly superficial. Yes you cannot tell how may
> people will turn 65 more than 70 years from now. You cannot because
> you do not know how, for example, how many immigrants there will
> be, and how many will leave US, and how many will die before reaching
> 65. And in addition, you do not know how many of the people reaching
> 65 would need the healthcare plan, because you do not know which
> is the share that will have private insurance, and you do not know
> how many will simply decide not to use the "public option". You do
> not know, for the ones that will apply to the plan, how many cures
> they will need and so their actual cost. I can go on for other 100
> lines but the simple point is that you do not know anything.
> I can pass you an estimation made for next year, also two years from
> now, let's stretch to five years (and I start to have some doubts).
> But such extrapolations targeting the end of this century are useless
> and just a political tool.
>
> On Nov 03 11:40 AM James Quinn wrote:

Nov 03 02:16 PM

[James Quinn:]

Have you ever heard the terms correlation and causation?

I read the findings. The report is geared to say that because we don't have universal care, that puts us in last place. Only one category did the US happen to come in 1st: QUALITY.

It also didn't measure wait times, rationing, letting people die because the cost benefit analysis didn't work out in their favor. The report does not take the taxation of the citizens into account either.

Not a convincing argument. Try again.


On Nov 03 01:52 PM l'ami canadien wrote:

> The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the
> Wall", compares the performance of the health care systems in Australia,
> New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its
> 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive,
> it consistently underperforms compared to the other countries. A
> major difference between the U.S. and the other countries in the
> study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health
> insurance coverage.
>
> ["Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative
> Performance of American Health Care". The Commonwealth Fund. May
> 15, 2007. www.commonwealthfund.o....
> ]

Nov 03 02:28 PM

[James Quinn:]

Hey Little Flounder

You seem to have a preoccupation with little dicks. Shouldn't you be slinking around a grade school with a hooded jacket.


On Nov 03 02:00 PM GreatWhite wrote:

> It's clear now, TeresaE is your prostitute girlfriend that services
> your "LittleWienner" (as stated in a previous post) and you feel
> the need to stick up for her elementary school intellect.
>
> GreatWhite

Nov 03 02:36 PM

[James Quinn:]

Yes. Such a huge success that 43% of Australians get private insurance. Try again Mr. Canadian

Approximately 43% of Australians also retain private health insurance, even though they are already entitled to free treatment in public hospitals. The major reasons for taking up health insurance despite the free public system are:

Shorter waiting lists in private hospitals (especially for procedures such as joint reconstructions or heart bypass surgery, for which there are often long waiting times in public hospitals).
Choice of hospital/physician in the private system;
Improved accommodation facilities such as private rooms (although medical facilities are usually more extensive in the public system).
Some people choose to have private coverage for ancillary treatment, or "extras", (e.g. chiropractic, dental, optical, ambulance, etc - for which Medicare has limited or no cover) but use the Medicare system for hospital treatment.

The proportion of Australians with private health insurance was declining, but has increased again with the introduction of Lifetime Health Cover (where people who take out private hospital insurance later in life pay higher premiums than those who have held coverage since they were younger) and tax incentives to take out private cover (such as the Medicare Levy Surcharge).


On Nov 03 02:03 PM l'ami canadien wrote:

> How about Australia vs. USA?
>
> Australia has a per capita expenditure on health of US$3137, compare
> to USA's expenditure of $7290. Yet, the life expectancy is over three
> years higher in Australia, and they've got more doctors, and more
> nurses, on a per capita basis. Oh yeah, their health care expenditures
> as a percentage of GDP? About half that of the USA.

Nov 03 02:42 PM

[l'ami canadien:]

So, a combination of universal public coverage augmented by private insurance 'top-ups' for those who can afford to pay more for faster service provides better outcomes at less cost than the US system?

Nov 03 02:50 PM

[l'ami canadien:]

Ok, old man, I'm bored of toying with you now. I'll move on to more interesting things, all the while secure in the knowledge that if I or anyone I care about or any of my fellow citizens get sick or injured they'll have universal health care to rely on. Buh-bye.

Nov 03 02:53 PM

[GreatWhite:]

Your are obviously a very angry person and I believe that anger stems from your insecurities. Which insecurities I know not, but you have many and it is reflected in your writings.

GreatWhite


On Nov 03 02:36 PM James Quinn wrote:

> Hey Little Flounder
>
> You seem to have a preoccupation with little dicks. Shouldn't you
> be slinking around a grade school with a hooded jacket.

Nov 03 02:58 PM

[James Quinn:]

Your numbers don't include the private cost. Provide the data to back up your cost figure for Australia.


On Nov 03 02:50 PM l'ami canadien wrote:

> So, a combination of universal public coverage augmented by private
> insurance 'top-ups' for those who can afford to pay more for faster
> service provides better outcomes at less cost than the US system?

Nov 03 03:00 PM

[AxIt:]

I just hope that you did not base your investments in 1999 on a 70 years projection of Nasdaq at 150.000, or more recently on a 70 years projection of real estate prices at 100.000$/inch square.
Just in case you did (because this seems to be the way you think) I can feel your pain and I understand the anger directed to this world.

It looks that you do not have arguments to reply to my comments, so that's enaugh for this thread. See you elsewere.

On Nov 03 02:16 PM James Quinn wrote:

> The White House just called and they want to make you Vice President.
> To call you superficial would be too much of a compliment, so I'll
> stick with THE GREAT DENIER.

Nov 03 03:02 PM

[l'ami canadien:]

In fact, they do. 67% of the total figure is gov't money, the rest is private. Seriously, I have a life, I've got to go. You keep on flailing on as long as you like; you've been posting for what, 24 hours now? Go take a blood pressure pill. Better yet, smoke a joint, but I'd be willing to bet all my gold you'd never do that, which is too bad, it'd likely improve your personality.

Nov 03 03:09 PM

[James Quinn:]

Yes Little tadpole

I'm riddled with insecurities. I can barely function. Your high level of intellect is no match for me. Now crawl back into your little hole with goldilocks and talk about weiners.


On Nov 03 02:58 PM GreatWhite wrote:

> Your are obviously a very angry person and I believe that anger stems
> from your insecurities. Which insecurities I know not, but you have
> many and it is reflected in your writings.
>
> GreatWhite

Nov 03 03:17 PM

[James Quinn:]

I'm sure your Australian bretheren and their 45% tax rates and 10% VAT are much healthier and much poorer than we are. Let the government decide whether you live or die. You can have it. Eh.


On Nov 03 02:53 PM l'ami canadien wrote:

> Ok, old man, I'm bored of toying with you now. I'll move on to more
> interesting things, all the while secure in the knowledge that if
> I or anyone I care about or any of my fellow citizens get sick or
> injured they'll have universal health care to rely on. Buh-bye.

Nov 03 03:19 PM

[ScroogeMcduck:]

Taxpayers of USA support a heavier % of non-taxpayers than Sweden, France or Canada. Thats how!!


On Nov 03 09:47 AM l'ami canadien wrote:

> But, Mr. Quinn, I referred to the fact that developed countries with
> 'socialized' health care have better health outcomes and higher life
> expectancies that the USA. Oh, and it doesn't cost us as much either
> (as a proportion of GDP, as illustrated in the graph you provided
> in your own article). Would you care to respond to those facts?<br/>
>
> PS: If I was going to suggest where one ought to move to enjoy socialized
> health care, I'd take Sweden, France or Canada over Venezuela, sorry.

Nov 03 03:19 PM

[GreatWhite:]

On Nov 02 02:48 PM James Quinn wrote:
> General welfare doesn't mean pay for your healthcare. It means roads
> and sewers you moron."

It is absurd to see you call a guy a "Moron" because he interprets general welfare in the constitution to mean every citizen should be entitled to health care and in essence the right to live. And then in your infinite wisdom you throw back at him "General Welfare" means we are entitled to roads to drive on and pipes to move our feces & waste around.

You are very warped in your thinking.

GreatWhite


> I've addressed military spending elsewhere you fool. Read my other
> articles. By the way, how much has your savior Obama cut the Defense
> budget? Oh he increased the Defense budget. Oh he increased the number
> of troops in Afghanistan and hasn't left Iraq. Yes he is a true cost
> saver.
>
>
> I don't need to hide behind shit. Again, you can't make a cogent
> argument so you call facts bullshit. Typical liberal crap.
>
> Who pays the bill Sherlock? Answer please. I'm waiting.
>
> On Nov 02 02:32 PM joebaggadonuts wrote:

Nov 03 03:20 PM

[pacalis:]

You should read that report again.

The US came first in only one of four quality categories - preventative care. It comes in last in chronic care, mistakes and coordination of care. It lagged all other countries in the study in IT. It also fails on access and those other issues. But in sum, it's quality score was 5 of 6.

Now ask, why is the US so good in early stage diagnoses? Because the insurance companies want to test your s@#t in your 20s so they can deny you coverage in your 50s.

PS:
Knock knock, who's there?
Taxes....
Taxes who?
Who cares!!! US pays more per person Mr. Quinn!!!

On Nov 03 02:28 PM James Quinn wrote:

> I read the findings. The report is geared to say that because we
> don't have universal care, that puts us in last place. Only one category
> did the US happen to come in 1st: QUALITY.


> The report does not take the taxation of the citizens into account
> either.
>

Nov 03 08:29 PM

[James Quinn:]

Knock Knock. I'm more concerned with what the study did not address. It didn't address how long you wait to get care. It didn't address rationing. It didn't address the cost benefit analysis done to decide whether to save an old person's life. It didn't address that they only have one CAT scan machine in the whole country. It didn't address the 50% tax rates and 20% VAT to pay for their socialism. If it is so great, move to Sweden where everyone is equal and individual effort means nothing.


On Nov 03 08:29 PM pacalis wrote:

> You should read that report again.
>
> The US came first in only one of four quality categories - preventative
> care. It comes in last in chronic care, mistakes and coordination
> of care. It lagged all other countries in the study in IT. It also
> fails on access and those other issues. But in sum, it's quality
> score was 5 of 6.
>
> Now ask, why is the US so good in early stage diagnoses? Because
> the insurance companies want to test your s@#t in your 20s so they
> can deny you coverage in your 50s.
>
> PS:
> Knock knock, who's there?
> Taxes....
> Taxes who?
> Who cares!!! US pays more per person Mr. Quinn!!!
>
> On Nov 03 02:28 PM James Quinn wrote:

Nov 03 09:16 PM