"System is imploding"

[ducktapehero]

We have seen the fruits of competition and innovation in Wall Street "innovation" in the form of credit default swaps.

We must not also forget that the latest recession is also the result of massive gov't "handling" of the economy. One of the biggest reasons of our "recent troubles" is that the Clinton and Bush administrations forced banks to make high risk loans to unqualified applicants. Also Americans were also so deep in credit card debt that they couldn't see straight. Those 2 things right there are probably the 2 biggest mistakes we've made.

However, this recession shows the value of capitalism. Even in this lousy economy I don't see people starving in mass numbers. I don't see thousands of homeless in my immediate neighborhood. Sure, some people lost a lot of money and that's terrible but we've still got plenty in this country. We've hit a speed bump, rattled a lot loose but we'll come back in a couple years stronger. In a few ways this recession was good for us.

The economy has been, more or less, flying high since the 80's. And a lot of that was because of easy credit. Maybe this bubble popping will show people(and companies) that maybe instead of getting credit for the things you want that instead it's better to save just a little.  

All I can answer to this link is:
http://www.elvis-is-alive.com/

ufox9al, did you even read my link? Obviously not because there's some glaring inconsistencies in the whole "cigarettes are bad for you" debate. Like I said, I am not going to argue that they're good for you but if you're going to debate then one should do so with an open mind. That's how you learn.

Like one, the Japanese are smoking fools. 60% of their population smokes yet they have some of the the highest
life expectancy in the world. You'd think that with that many people smoking they'd be dying in their 50's.

Another from the article

there were guidelines issued by the American Cancer Society, and that when a person dies of certain conditions and has smoked, the doctor is instructed to list the "due to" as "smoking"

Does this seem fair? If this is true then a huge number of the people that die "from smoking" probably shouldn't be considered on the list.


But it's up to you if you want to read it. IF you'd rather just simply accept what popular culture and the gov't has spoonfed you I don't blame you. It's easier than thinking for yourself.  




Edited to add: I had an Elvis sighting once. I was living with my uncle down in Clarksville TN and decided to go to Kansas City. Being afraid of flying I took a Greyhound bus. I was sitting toward the front. While I was sitting there I looked in the big mirror by the driver and who did I see? Yep, ELVIS. This was 1994. Of course at first I thought "I've officially lost it" but I watched him and listened. Well, it wasn't Elvis, he talked with a Northern accent of some sort. Boston maybe, definitely somewhere way up North.

So I guess I didn't really see Elvis but I DID see an Elvis impersonator. He looked just like him but his Yankee accent blew the cover.

[ufox9al]

Yet again, propaganda and conspiracy theories seem to prevail.

...Clinton and Bush administrations forced banks to make high risk loans to unqualified applicants...

What forced the banks to give out high-risk loans is the free-market competition. Banks needed higher returns and were giving out high-risk mortgages. Government's setting up Freddy and Fannie as mortgage insurers in itself did not cause the fall of Wall Street investment banks, not the AIG. What caused the collapse is the invention of "mortgage-backed securities" and CDRs by the ivestment bankers chasing commissions and profit. You may want to read up research literature on the subject, or popular literature, like "Origins of Financial Crises" by John Cooper. Then you will have sufficient ammunition to blame the US Central Bank... but for a completely different thing

Regardless, you did not seem to dispute my statement about the total absence of [positive] innovation in insurance business in the last 200 years or so, which was the original point I was making.

ufox9al, did you even read my link? Obviously not because there's some glaring inconsistencies in the whole "cigarettes are bad for you" debate.

I clicked on about 1/2 the links, looking for references to the peer-reviewed publications, but found only ranting editorials...
Let me make this debate very simple. In all the lawsuits filed (and won) by the US goverment, the tobacco companies did not even attempt to argue the harm, caused by tobacco smoking, but rather attempted to prove that the harm was "not intentional", or, at best, that they were not aware about the harm, and when they were made aware about it, there were no FDA guidelines, etc. You should definitely feel free to promote your opinion (or exposing "incosistencies"), but I will choose accept that tobacco smoking costs billions in healthcare cost as an undisputed (at least, by the very rich tobacco companies...) fact.

It's funny that the debate focus shifted to tobacco, as both US and Canadian systems "punish" smokers, albeit through through different means.
US insurers use higher insurance premiums (same thing in Canada for life insurance), while Canadian government uses tobacco taxes.

The core point, again, is that in case of health insurance "competition leads to innovation and lower costs" does not apply.
With that removed from the equation, there is not much left to object to the government-controlled health insurance system.

[sappyg]

finally....... a post from another nationality.... now.... could you let us know what your tax rate is medic88?

Sure. The tax rate on our income is not fixed, I have no debts what so ever so I pay around 36% income tax while a person that has a bank loan so he could buy a house will have to pay around 10% income tax.
Everything that you can buy in this country has a 25% sales tax, but on alcohol and tobacco the sales tax is around 80%.

WOW.... thanks for the insight medic88. it seems strange that if you have debt you pay less in taxes but if it works for you then great. the kicker is that sales tax though. i think the avarage American pays 17-25% in taxes. in the state i live in i pay 6% in sales tax. today i think i paid $2.32 per gallon of gas. of that i think $0.22 per gallon is tax.
if you don't mind could you tell us what a gallon or litre of gas costs and how much of that is tax?

[ufox9al]

...today i think i paid $2.32 per gallon of gas. of that i think $0.22 per gallon is tax...

Check out the table at the end of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax
It helps to make a point if the numbers are accurate.
Regardless, it's a known fact that gasoline prices in the US are lower than in Europe or Canada. Your your seeming pride in that fact is, however, puzzling. US government considers gasoline to be a strategic resource and the cars to be the backbone of the US economy. Based on this, the governement chooses to run budget and trade deficits ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade ), and is exploiting the fact that US dollar is a fiat currency that is used as a reserve currency throughout the world, in order to maintain affordability of driving fuel inefficient vehicles. None of this, however has anything to do with the healthcare system.

Edit: Forgot to comment on a broader issue of consumption taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax). Those are favoured over income tax by many economists. And finally, not to take away without giving back, if you do want to argue taxation with Canadians, bring up capital gains taxes and estate taxes. You will win an argument every time!

[ringzero]

You should definitely feel free to promote your opinion (or exposing "incosistencies"), but I will choose accept that tobacco smoking costs billions in healthcare cost as an undisputed (at least, by the very rich tobacco companies...) fact.

Turns out that is not correct.

Smokers tend to die younger than nonsmokers.

Thus, lifetime total medical expenditures for smokers tends to be less than that for nonsmokers by a fair amount.

 

The core point, again, is that in case of health insurance "competition leads to innovation and lower costs" does not apply.
With that removed from the equation, there is not much left to object to the government-controlled health insurance system.

Other than its inherent inefficieny, its intrusion into patient privacy, and its susceptibility to political abuse there is one other objection in the U.S. - it's against both the letter and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.

.

[ufox9al]

Smokers tend to die younger than nonsmokers.

Source, please? Mine is (the first Google) http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0277.pdf and the references found in that text.

Other than its inherent inefficieny, its intrusion into patient privacy, and its susceptibility to political abuse there is one other objection in the U.S. - it's against both the letter and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.

Again, if this is a discussion, I would appreciate the source supporting these statements. Otherwise this is just a bunch of slogans.
In most cases, I would pick "inherrent inefficiency" over open greed, and open theft by the management of public for profit companies. Should we bring up Enron, Worldcom, AIG, Madoff, and company? "Political abuse" and "patient privacy"? Again, I have heard about dozens of cases of private doctors, banks, and credit card companies having client confidentiality breaches, cannot recall any involving the government. As for the Constitution, until the constitutional court has ruled on the issue, both sides can (and do) interpret the document in their favour. I choose "One of the powers never surrendered by, and therefore remaining with, the state is to so regulate the relative rights and duties of all within its jurisdiction as to guard the public morals, safety and health, as well as to promote the public convenience and the common good." House v. Mayes, 219 U.S. 270 (1911)

[BIG-TARGET]

Since we're all properly equipped(more SAKs/MTs than we know what to do with), with the "system" imploding.  Perhap we should get other skills/knowledge for the upcoming implosion!!!
http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/

[ringzero]

Source, please? Mine is (the first Google) http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0277.pdf and the references found in that text.

So now you're stating that smokers live as long, or even longer, than nonsmokers?  Sorry, but we can't have it both ways.

Again, if this is a discussion, I would appreciate the source supporting these statements. Otherwise this is just a bunch of slogans.
In most cases, I would pick "inherrent inefficiency" over open greed, and open theft by the management of public for profit companies. Should we bring up Enron, Worldcom, AIG, Madoff, and company? "Political abuse" and "patient privacy"? Again, I have heard about dozens of cases of private doctors, banks, and credit card companies having client confidentiality breaches, cannot recall any involving the government. As for the Constitution, until the constitutional court has ruled on the issue, both sides can (and do) interpret the document in their favour. I choose "One of the powers never surrendered by, and therefore remaining with, the state is to so regulate the relative rights and duties of all within its jurisdiction as to guard the public morals, safety and health, as well as to promote the public convenience and the common good." House v. Mayes, 219 U.S. 270 (1911)

Here you've espoused a typical left wing viewpoint.  Fortunately, it appears that the U.S. hasn't yet decayed quite far enough to swallow this viewpoint.

My source is the U.S. Constitution.  Available online and capable of being read and understood by nearly anyone with a little intellectual honesty and common sense.

The Constitution means what it says - not what some politcally appointed, left wing hack says it means.

.

[sappyg]

...today i think i paid $2.32 per gallon of gas. of that i think $0.22 per gallon is tax...

Check out the table at the end of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax
It helps to make a point if the numbers are accurate. Your your seeming pride in that fact is, however, puzzling. US government considers gasoline to be a strategic resource and the cars to be the backbone of the US economy. None of this, however has anything to do with the healthcare system.
Edit: Forgot to comment on a broader issue of consumption taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax). Those are favoured over income tax by many economists. And finally, not to take away without giving back, if you do want to argue taxation with Canadians, bring up capital gains taxes and estate taxes. You will win an argument every time!

touchee...... i was mistaken in successfully quoting the gas tax in my state and failed to note the fed tax ver batum. my seeming pride to some is only an (perhaps poorly), attempt to understand how other nations are able to function and at what cost to the tax payer.ooops... gov't. i can search wikipedia as i please but i would rather discuss with others that have 1st hand knowledge.
i don't want to know what other economists think. i want to know what you think. but yes, i think a consumption tax is a far better way to manage and collect gov't income. and yes... it has everything to do with healthcare. a tax is a tax ... thing is who manages the money and where it is expended.
specifically, it is not the business of the US federal gov't to run healthcare.

[ufox9al]

Source, please? Mine is (the first Google) http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0277.pdf and the references found in that text.

No, the sources that I am quoting state that, staistically, a lung cancer treatment for an average 40-50 year-old smoker who dies early is more expensive than the lifetime treatment of non-smoker who dies late. I am not sure I can make it any clearer than that.

So now you're stating that smokers live as long, or even longer, than nonsmokers?  Sorry, but we can't have it both ways.

Again, if this is a discussion, I would appreciate the source supporting these statements. Otherwise this is just a bunch of slogans.
In most cases, I would pick "inherrent inefficiency" over open greed, and open theft by the management of public for profit companies. Should we bring up Enron, Worldcom, AIG, Madoff, and company? "Political abuse" and "patient privacy"? Again, I have heard about dozens of cases of private doctors, banks, and credit card companies having client confidentiality breaches, cannot recall any involving the government. As for the Constitution, until the constitutional court has ruled on the issue, both sides can (and do) interpret the document in their favour. I choose "One of the powers never surrendered by, and therefore remaining with, the state is to so regulate the relative rights and duties of all within its jurisdiction as to guard the public morals, safety and health, as well as to promote the public convenience and the common good." House v. Mayes, 219 U.S. 270 (1911)

Here you've espoused a typical left wing viewpoint.  Fortunately, it appears that the U.S. hasn't yet decayed quite far enough to swallow this viewpoint.
My source is the U.S. Constitution.  Available online and capable of being read and understood by nearly anyone with a little intellectual honesty and common sense.
The Constitution means what it says - not what some politcally appointed, left wing hack says it means.

You spoke about the "letter and spirit" of constitution. Please quote the "letter", and as for the "spirit", that is exactly where interpretation comes in, and here are the "politically appointed, left wing hacks" you are referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States (check out who appointed them).

I am going to leave alone the "espousing left wing viewpoint", "intellectual honesty" and "common sense" comments, as these slogans take the discussion to the place the mods would definitely not want to see it go.

[ducktapehero]

What forced the banks to give out high-risk loans is the free-market competition.

WRONG. Check out the Community Reinvestment Act. It was enacted by Carter but Clinton and later Bush really kicked it into high gear. Did it cause everything? Of course not but it's obvious that gov't intervention screwed things up.

In all the lawsuits filed (and won) by the US goverment, the tobacco companies did not even attempt to argue the harm, caused by tobacco smoking, but rather attempted to prove that the harm was "not intentional", or, at best, that they were not aware about the harm, and when they were made aware about it, there were no FDA guidelines,

Ahh yes, the gov't witch hunt, err I mean trial. AS is noted in my link they were trying to force the tobacco companies to do the impossible, prove a negative.

The core point, again, is that in case of health insurance "competition leads to innovation and lower costs" does not apply.

I'm sorry but can you prove this? Health Insurance used to be very affordable in the US. Then of course came the infamous HMO act 1973(gov't getting involved again) and really screwed everything up.

And still, no one has yet commented on that if you want to see how a gov't run medical system can operate in a huge and diverse country needs to quit looking at these countries that have 1/10th the population of the US and look at the former Soviet Union and China.

Another point. We're talking about OUR gov't. I've seen US gov't run health care. It's called the Veterans Adminstration and is used to treat disabled vets. I'm a disabled vet and I've seen terrible things happen. I will comment on them later as my wife wants to go to the farmer's market. Bye!!!

[max6166]

Article 1 Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

In United States v. Butler, the Supreme Court endorsed the Hamiltonian view of the US Constitution. In opinon delivered by the court Justice Roberts wrote the following:

Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, [p66] limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. [n12] We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

[ufox9al]

...i don't want to know what other economists think. i want to know what you think. but yes, i think a consumption tax is a far better way to manage and collect gov't income. and yes... it has everything to do with healthcare. a tax is a tax ... thing is who manages the money and where it is expended. specifically, it is not the business of the US federal gov't to run healthcare.

Thank you. I absolutely agree that personal experience and opinions is what we are discussing here. I have been expressing my opinions, but feel necessary to support them with facts, or at least reasearch, wherever possible. As I mentioned in my very first post (I think), government-run health insurance model is subject to the same beurocratic waste as any other governement undertaking. Nobody can or does dispute that. We know full well that there are all kinds of issues with Canadian healthcare, some of them are not even a result of governemnt direct involvement (such as the volume of immigration, geographic spread, etc.).

What we are discussing, I thought, was what is a better system, specifically for the US. I am asolutely open to a substantiated argument in favour or in opposition to the public health insurance in the US (either federal, or state-administered, as is the case with Medicaid now). For example, I would like to see a case study comparing the extra taxes a person would pay to the savings and the wage increase (equal to the employerr's portion of the health premium) that person would get by not having to pay health care premium to a prvate insurance company. Unfortunately, what seems to get posted instead is slogans, and discussing slogans is pointless.

[sappyg]

What forced the banks to give out high-risk loans is the free-market competition.

WRONG. Check out the Community Reinvestment Act. It was enacted by Carter but Clinton and later Bush really kicked it into high gear. Did it cause everything? Of course not but it's obvious that gov't intervention screwed things up.

In all the lawsuits filed (and won) by the US goverment, the tobacco companies did not even attempt to argue the harm, caused by tobacco smoking, but rather attempted to prove that the harm was "not intentional", or, at best, that they were not aware about the harm, and when they were made aware about it, there were no FDA guidelines,

Ahh yes, the gov't witch hunt, err I mean trial. AS is noted in my link they were trying to force the tobacco companies to do the impossible, prove a negative.

The core point, again, is that in case of health insurance "competition leads to innovation and lower costs" does not apply.

I'm sorry but can you prove this? Health Insurance used to be very affordable in the US. Then of course came the infamous HMO act 1973(gov't getting involved again) and really screwed everything up.
And still, no one has yet commented on that if you want to see how a gov't run medical system can operate in a huge and diverse country needs to quit looking at these countries that have 1/10th the population of the US and look at the former Soviet Union and China.
Another point. We're talking about OUR gov't. I've seen US gov't run health care. It's called the Veterans Adminstration and is used to treat disabled vets. I'm a disabled vet and I've seen terrible things happen. I will comment on them later as my wife wants to go to the farmer's market. Bye!!!

you know you're right... sadly, there is no one here that i am aware of from either of those countries. if there are they are silient.
i'll take OUR gov't over the others any day. we can all find things to point at and say"that sucks" .... for me... i never knew our healthcare system sucked until 2 months ago... why now?... did it suddenly start sucking or has it always sucked and suddenly we found out about it?
apparently it sucked as far back as '73 or even '65... seems as though it gets worse decade by decade in spite of our gov'ts best efforts. maybe they don't know what they are doing?... maybe it never sucked to begin with...

[ufox9al]

What forced the banks to give out high-risk loans is the free-market competition.

WRONG. ... Did it cause everything? Of course not but it's obvious that gov't intervention screwed things up.

Community Reinvestment Act was attempting to address discriminatory lending practices. The banks came up with sub-prime resettable mortgage rates all on their own. And, even if we place the full weigth of high default rates in the poor neighbourhoods squarely on the shoulders of the government, the impact of those would be nothing, were it not amplified thorugh the mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps. It is those "inventions" that will cost the US taxpayers trillions of dollars, not the actual defaults of all the sub-prime mortgages put together.

In all the lawsuits filed (and won) by the US goverment, the tobacco companies did not even attempt to argue the harm, caused by tobacco smoking, but rather attempted to prove that the harm was "not intentional", or, at best, that they were not aware about the harm, and when they were made aware about it, there were no FDA guidelines,

Ahh yes, the gov't witch hunt, err I mean trial. AS is noted in my link they were trying to force the tobacco companies to do the impossible, prove a negative.

It's irrelevant what the government was trying to do, if tobacco companies could show that tobacco does not cause billions of dollars in healthcare costs. Thing is, it does, and they couldn't.

The core point, again, is that in case of health insurance "competition leads to innovation and lower costs" does not apply.

I'm sorry but can you prove this? Health Insurance used to be very affordable in the US. Then of course came the infamous HMO act 1973(gov't getting involved again) and really screwed everything up.

And still, no one has yet commented on that if you want to see how a gov't run medical system can operate in a huge and diverse country needs to quit looking at these countries that have 1/10th the population of the US and look at the former Soviet Union and China.

I thought I did in this post: http://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,13125.msg247605.html#msg247605 

Another point. We're talking about OUR gov't. I've seen US gov't run health care. It's called the Veterans Adminstration and is used to treat disabled vets. I'm a disabled vet and I've seen terrible things happen. I will comment on them later as my wife wants to go to the farmer's market. Bye!!!

I would like to make my position very clear, again. There is waste in government beurocracy. The question is not if there is or isn't. The question is how much does it cost the taxpayers, and what they get in return.

[sappyg]

aaaarhg..... so many excellent quotes/ posts and i suck at sighting all of them here:
max6166... until now i always considered myself a hamiltonian but clearly i am a madisonian THE HORROR.   
and i beg to differ that direct grants and only direct grants to the congress are indeed the specific empowerment therein. in a nutshell... our supreme court failed to discover the true intent of the law and over stepped it purpose. shame on them.... in US vs Butler clearly we can see that our court was more concerned with making law than finding trueth. moreover, i would suggest that this decission was made on a purely political agenda. usually our SC avoids these findings like the plague and yet i maintain the "finding" was clearly forced by politic. further still, should we follow hamiltons logic to finallity we would eventually merge our 2 (or more) currency's into a north american type of currency. kind of like the Euro.
the phrase "general welfare" can and does mean many things to many people. yet it is not consistant with, nor does it imply, national healthcare... sorry... simply put, it does imply social freedom. not social care. thank you james 
i wonder if you read and understood the findings of the court or simply highlighted phrases that support your emotions or beliefs.
mr. ufox9al
i think the intent of this thread suggests that we are open and willing to 1 discuss a better system and specific to the US and 2 that it is an imenent concern for all in the US. and obviously Canada (whether we speak of it directly or not). philosophy backed up by science is exacly what brings us to the table. yet as learned as you are obviously are, should we base all of our action on a case study or biased court finding or should we seek trueth in law? shall we take and sku statements of our public figures as law and interpret those as law or should we discover our way based on the true and deliberate documentation of our (US), constitution?

[ufox9al]

...should we discover our way based on the true and deliberate documentation of our (US), constitution?

We are getting onto a slippery slope here, and I hope you will take my comment as intended - a discussion point, not an attack. It is my strong belief that any dogma is an evil. The constitustion, being a visionary and inspiring document, was written by the people who saw nothing wrong with owning slaves, or having "men" refer to men, not men and women. It is a nature of progress and evolution to challenge the views that have become obsolete, and amend the laws accordingly. You know better than I do that US Constitution included provisions for amendments, and the first 10 of them were proposed just 2 years after the signing of the original document. So, as far as i am concerned, if science and social environment of today justify a measure, for which there is no provision in a document written in 1787, that measure should still be duly considered, and if the 28th amendment is required, it should be adopted.

[Grant Lamontagne]

Sappy, just for the record, we have at least two members here from the old USSR (one of whom you are arguing with!) and at least one member from (and currently in) China, with at least two more that have Chinese backgrounds.

That's just off the top of my head, I am sure there are more.  Not that I am trying to add anything to the argument, just saying that those regions are indeed represented here. 

I'd also like to say two important things- first off, I appreciate that this thread is being kept more or less civil.  Any kind of politics is usually a touchy subject, and I usually avoid allowing them here as they really just seem to upset people.

Second, please remember that this is a complex issue, and that while many will disagree with the opinions of others, and that while facts are facts they can be interpreted differently.  If there was an easy solution to a topic like this one, the politicians would have made their decisions already and paraded it out to everyone like it was the best thing ever to happen to the universe at large.

Now let's try and keep this thread healthy, regardless of who is paying for it...

Def

[ringzero]

No, the sources that I am quoting state that, staistically, a lung cancer treatment for an average 40-50 year-old smoker who dies early is more expensive than the lifetime treatment of non-smoker who dies late. I am not sure I can make it any clearer than that.

Prima facie preposterous.  If you think about it just a little bit, it's obvious it can't be true.

This is a perfect illustration of the undesirability of a government controlled medical system.

Smoking, heavy drinking, greasy fast food, casual sex, rock climbing, caving, and many other hazardous avocations.  Any of these activities might result in heavy medical expeditures.

I resent the concept of corrupt, incompetent Washington politicians deciding what activities I should or shouldn't pursue based on hypothetical cost to some goverment run medical system.

I prefer freedom.

I am going to leave alone the "espousing left wing viewpoint", "intellectual honesty" and "common sense" comments, as these slogans take the discussion to the place the mods would definitely not want to see it go.

Well, sometimes the truth hurts.

.

[sappyg]

this is truely an international forum! forgive me but i had no idea there were others here from the peoples republic and russia. an oversight on my part.
i take no offence from anyone here as no one has insulted me or others. in fact, i have enjoyed the discussion. i do apollogies if i have offended anyone. that is not my intent.
ufox9al, i agree entirely with your last statement. that is exactly the recourse set forth in our constitution which is allowed to be amended. in fact, this is what i hope will happen. should this occur i would be inclined to say that the system is not imploding but working fine and exactly as intended. it takes 34 states to amend the constitution... that's a tall order ey. especially when you consider there is only one vote per state.... thus putting a state like Iowa on the same footing with California. i can't deny that i like that.   
when you say "we are getting into a slippery slope here" i agree. it is like we want so bad to prove a belief. beliefs are not law. a belief is an idea. we can believe in the theory of relativity and that it is mostly right but we all know the tilde thing is yet to be resolved. it takes a long time for a belief to become a law and that is as it should be.
that we have now touched on the US constitution i think it is worthy to note that the very 1st amendment is the freedom of speech. that said.. thank you def for allowing this thread to take it's course.
i think that if we do not solve our problems they will come back and have to be dealt with again. and i think to date, we have only dealt with short term solutions to long term issues. can anyone offer a long term solution? i don't know but, i would rather my gov't be a part of the solution than the problem. i think (theres that word again), most Americans would rather their gov't get out of the way than get in the way.