• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

MaCain Liberal?

I'm sorry, I do not want my health care run like NASA.

I've read some horror stories from that agency. Not to mention the fact they are still using the same computer system for the shuttles that they used in the late 70's. Sure they may work for the shuttle but I don't want to go into the mid 21st century using 20th century medical technology.
 
John-John,
NASA has a private competitor. Google has offered a cash reward for a private company to put someone on the moon, some have taken on the challenge and are trying...and unless you are a conspiracy theorist, only NASA has been successful.

USCG, I'll stand by this one. There are several salvage companies that will tow in your broken boat (for a fee) but only respond if the weather is good. 1st hand knowledge of this, is the CG more effiecient?

My major point about health care is that it seems to me that the majority (not all) people against National Health Care have some form of employer provided health care and quickly fall back on two items:
1. I don't want the government to provide my health care.
2. The Constitution doesn't quarantee health care for everyone.

Even with national health care there will be alternatives. Example, there is a public education system and some of us chose to send our kids to private or parochial schools. There will be a government health system and there will be those who can opt for a private or employer provided insurance health care.
 
Boatwrench said:
John-John,
NASA has a private competitor. Google has offered a cash reward for a private company to put someone on the moon, some have taken on the challenge and are trying...and unless you are a conspiracy theorist, only NASA has been successful.

USCG, I'll stand by this one. There are several salvage companies that will tow in your broken boat (for a fee) but only respond if the weather is good. 1st hand knowledge of this, is the CG more effiecient?

Google is not providing the same service NASA does. Comparing the two is quite asinine. Calling the USCG solely a salvage company also is quite funny. Let's forget those two points and discuss your topic of National Heathcare. The point that is trying to be made to you is that government is inefficient in it's design. I sited one place were it is efficient, the Post Office. However I believe that to be the only place it's efficient.

Boatwrench said:
My major point about health care is that it seems to me that the majority (not all) people against National Health Care have some form of employer provided health care and quickly fall back on two items:
1. I don't want the government to provide my health care.
2. The Constitution doesn't quarantee health care for everyone.

Even with national health care there will be alternatives. Example, there is a public education system and some of us chose to send our kids to private or parochial schools. There will be a government health system and there will be those who can opt for a private or employer provided insurance health care.

Others believe having a National Healthcare system would slow care and most would not get the level of service they receive now. I also believe this to be true, however the argument is debatable and no resolution will come from soft, or debatable "facts". I prefer to point out the dollars and cents.

What will suffer long term from a National Heathcare program is research. Right now the market controls research. US pharmaceutical companies are frantically searching for "miracle drugs". Solutions for today's super diseases. Not because they want to cure Cancer, Heart Disease or HIV. It's because they want to make huge money. For example, what company makes Viagra? Pfizer...you know this because when the drug first came out investors in Pfizer made huge money on them in the stock market. Pfizer had found a solution to a "problem" and was/is getting rewarded. They could sell Viagra for pretty much what the market would bare.

Now if drug manufactures had to sell drugs at a cut rate to a National Heathcare system don't you think they will make less money? The answer is yes. That's what is happening in Canada. Drugs are cheaper there because of Canada's National Heathcare system. The trickle down effect is that the US market is funding the research for the world.

Capitalism breeds ideas and innovation. No matter what industry. Heathcare, drug research, the automobile, the cotton gin, the telephone. Free markets are why we live in the greatest country on the face of this planet. The United States has done more for human beings than any other society before us. This fact is not because we all conformed, it's not because we redispursed wealth or offered social programs to those who don't earn it. It's because we have the opportunity. The opportunity to be rewarded for hard work, for creating new ideas.

Heathcare is a reward, not a right.
 
Boatwrench said:
There will be a government health system and there will be those who can opt for a private or employer provided insurance health care.

How many employers do you think will be dumb enough to go through the expense and hassle to provide health care? When they can save money by letting the government take care of it.
 
JohnJohn said:
Google is not providing the same service NASA does. Comparing the two is quite asinine. Calling the USCG solely a salvage company also is quite funny. Let's forget those two points and discuss your topic of National Heathcare. The point that is trying to be made to you is that government is inefficient in it's design. I sited one place were it is efficient, the Post Office. However I believe that to be the only place it's efficient.



Others believe having a National Healthcare system would slow care and most would not get the level of service they receive now. I also believe this to be true, however the argument is debatable and no resolution will come from soft, or debatable "facts". I prefer to point out the dollars and cents.

What will suffer long term from a National Heathcare program is research. Right now the market controls research. US pharmaceutical companies are frantically searching for "miracle drugs". Solutions for today's super diseases. Not because they want to cure Cancer, Heart Disease or HIV. It's because they want to make huge money. For example, what company makes Viagra? Pfizer...you know this because when the drug first came out investors in Pfizer made huge money on them in the stock market. Pfizer had found a solution to a "problem" and was/is getting rewarded. They could sell Viagra for pretty much what the market would bare.

Now if drug manufactures had to sell drugs at a cut rate to a National Heathcare system don't you think they will make less money? The answer is yes. That's what is happening in Canada. Drugs are cheaper there because of Canada's National Heathcare system. The trickle down effect is that the US market is funding the research for the world.

Capitalism breeds ideas and innovation. No matter what industry. Heathcare, drug research, the automobile, the cotton gin, the telephone. Free markets are why we live in the greatest country on the face of this planet. The United States has done more for human beings than any other society before us. This fact is not because we all conformed, it's not because we redispursed wealth or offered social programs to those who don't earn it. It's because we have the opportunity. The opportunity to be rewarded for hard work, for creating new ideas.

Heathcare is a reward, not a right.


:patriot: Freedom! :patriot:
 
Free market, so from what I understand earlier in this thread, the same reason the "Liberal McCain" wanted an open border with Mexico. To "free market" our jobs south. Nice.
 
SeansBlueXJ said:
Then I guess that proves even further that there are as many conflicting points on each candidate as there are people here that adhere to each viewpoint. And we wonder why people are fed up with the govt and feel useless and don't bother voting. :dunno:

Just pay attention to the facts. You'll do fine :eyes:
:laugh:
 
Calling the USCG solely a salvage company
I didn't, but a large piece of the CG is still dedicated to SAR and perorms it quite well. Also Aids to Navigation, there are private aids that are not maintained as effeiecently as those by the CG.

Drugs are cheaper there because of Canada's National Heathcare system
and because the FDA here has many safeguards in place that requires more time consuming test and evaluations than other countries. The drug companies luanch products in many other countries waiting for FDA approval here.

Capitalism breeds ideas and innovation
Yes. So why can't some innovated person make it work? I believe, and I stated...
It is with our country's ability to make it work

The United States has done more for human beings than any other society before us. This fact is not because we all conformed, it's not because we redispursed wealth or offered social programs to those who don't earn it. It's because we have the opportunity. The opportunity to be rewarded for hard work, for creating new ideas.

Heathcare is a reward, not a right.

So as a business owner (correct?) you disagree with the following statement:
It is within our country's best interest economically to have available a healthy workforce

and support free trade, NAFTA, giving up USA soveriegnty witht he free trade corridor?
 
CG: Treasure hunters do SAR also. Lets just say the CG does a lot of things. IMHO each one of those things is done better by someone in the private sector.

DRUGS: Agreed, they are released other places faster. However you did not rebut the issue of the pricing of those drugs and how it relates to the research. France gets some HIV treatments we don't. They have a more laxed FDA(?). Probably because it's less efficient than ours...in a way proving my point that socialized medicine is not better. However we have not defined better either.

INNOVATIVE PEOPLE: No where in history has an innovative person been paid more money to do a government job than a private one. They can make more money doing in the private sector. That's why Martin Marrieta(sp) is full of EX-NASA and Military people. It's why good teachers move to the private sector. When governments run industry they fail or they toss $ after $ at the program until it fails. Why would this suddenly change with socialized medicine?

HEALTHY WORKFORCE: Your statement assumes that government would do a better job of keeping them healthy...and I don't think that's true. I don't want to have to rely on the government to keep my employees healthy and coming to work. It's not job of government to keep me or my employees healthy.

Everyone does not know what's best for everyone. I know what's best for me no else does. Loose the ego and realize you don't know what's best for the homeless, the jobless, the countryless, and the lazy
 
Boatwrench said:
John-John,
NASA has a private competitor. Google has offered a cash reward for a private company to put someone on the moon, some have taken on the challenge and are trying...and unless you are a conspiracy theorist, only NASA has been successful.

USCG, I'll stand by this one. There are several salvage companies that will tow in your broken boat (for a fee) but only respond if the weather is good. 1st hand knowledge of this, is the CG more effiecient?

My major point about health care is that it seems to me that the majority (not all) people against National Health Care have some form of employer provided health care and quickly fall back on two items:
1. I don't want the government to provide my health care.
2. The Constitution doesn't quarantee health care for everyone.

Even with national health care there will be alternatives. Example, there is a public education system and some of us chose to send our kids to private or parochial schools. There will be a government health system and there will be those who can opt for a private or employer provided insurance health care.

Boatwrench,

Doesn't the Obama health care plan simply provide funding mechanisms, through income tax credits and ICT deducutions to assist everyone, but especially, minimum wage earners who work at places like Walmart, who have no health care coverage, to help them buy their own private insurance, and then set up a large group through a combination private-government insurance fund to cover those who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?

I have seen nothing in the current Obama plans that creates a national health care system, in fact all it does it help get everyone covered with some kind private heath insurance as far as I can see so far, leaving the health care provider industry still private.
 
karstic said:
Do you really think so? I have little faith in our governmet to make such a potentially large bureaucratic agency work, let alone work well.

You want to promote health in this country? Get rid of the farm subsidies that make corn and corn based junk foods so damn cheap. So many of this country's health problems can be attributed to poor diet and lack of physical activity. But then again where does personal responsibility come into play...



I agree with this part.

I second the motion, let's outlaw fast food hot dog & burger places!

:yelclap:
 
Ecomike said:
Boatwrench,

Doesn't the Obama health care plan simply provide funding mechanisms, through income tax credits and ICT deducutions to assist everyone, but especially, minimum wage earners who work at places like Walmart, who have no health care coverage, to help them buy their own private insurance, and then set up a large group through a combination private-government insurance fund to cover those who are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions?

I have seen nothing in the current Obama plans that creates a national health care system, in fact all it does it help get everyone covered with some kind private heath insurance as far as I can see so far, leaving the health care provider industry still private.

Minimum wage jobs are meant for those people still covered under parental private healthcare coverage. They should be stepping stones to careers. Aspiring to something more than a Walmart Clerk should be motivation enough to work hard and get a job with benefits. What will happen if that idea dies. We start GIVING them healthcare, daycare, paid time off, etc. 30-40% Federal tax rates to pay for all the social programs needed to help a $7 hour a week worker survive.

All this crap sounds great and makes you all "feel" good inside. You must have extra money laying around.

Mike, seriously do you have a ton of extra cash around to pay for healthcare for Lolita, your local Walmart Clerk's healthcare? How much you would pay each month to have her family covered? $10, $50, $100? What's your budget?
 
ECKSJAY said:
Yeah, leave the pizza, chicken, and taco places alone!

:yelclap:

And the RED MEAT!
:laugh3:
 
JohnJohn said:
Minimum wage jobs are meant for those people still covered under parental private healthcare coverage. They should be stepping stones to careers. Aspiring to something more than a Walmart Clerk should be motivation enough to work hard and get a job with benefits. What will happen if that idea dies. We start GIVING them healthcare, daycare, paid time off, etc. 30-40% Federal tax rates to pay for all the social programs needed to help a $7 hour a week worker survive.

All this crap sounds great and makes you all "feel" good inside. You must have extra money laying around.

Mike, seriously do you have a ton of extra cash around to pay for healthcare for Lolita, your local Walmart Clerk's healthcare? How much you would pay each month to have her family covered? $10, $50, $100? What's your budget?

People without healthcare are more apt to forestall seeing a doctor, a treatable illness turns into a catastrophic illness. Who pays then, you and I.

The German plan works after a fashion, a combination of socialism and capitalism, something like 99% of the population is covered. The basic plan is paid for by the employer and the employee 50/50, a straight percentage of your gross. Most every insurance company offers the basic plan. The insurance company does oversight, much like it does with regular US health insurance. The competition between companies keeps the prices in check. For the non employed, the state pays for coverage or they are covered under a spouses or parents plan. Unemployment or disaility works just like wages, a percentage goes to health care insurance.
There is an alternate plan, called private insurance. A person can opt for various plans at there own expense.
I'm a conservative by nature and generally vote Republican, but on this topic I believe health care is a human right and ought not to be trusted to typical capitalistic method.
The German plan works, though sometimes not well, though IMO it's better than leaving a quarter of the population uncovered for many reasons.
Uninsured people in the US require a whole parallel administrative system, redundancy at it's worst. A whole bureaucracy designed to service those who can't or won't afford medical coverage. The existing systems leave a large percentage of the population uncovered or at best sporadically covered. Way to many people fall through the cracks.
The only ones who actually get screwed in the German plan, are the Doctors. They generally don't make what their counterparts in the US make and what they do make seems to be more evenly distributed. The medical care is as good as anybodies.
The drug companies are checked by the insurance companies, which helps to keep the price of drugs under control. The German pharmaceutical industry is world class.
My point is, there are options other than what we have now and straight socialized medicine. A combination of both may be a solution.
Some sort of universal health care is going to be enacted, whether piece meal or a whole new system, Republican or Democrat, the main question is when?
 
Last edited:
JohnJohn said:
Minimum wage jobs are meant for those people still covered under parental private healthcare coverage. They should be stepping stones to careers. Aspiring to something more than a Walmart Clerk should be motivation enough to work hard and get a job with benefits. What will happen if that idea dies. We start GIVING them healthcare, daycare, paid time off, etc. 30-40% Federal tax rates to pay for all the social programs needed to help a $7 hour a week worker survive.

All this crap sounds great and makes you all "feel" good inside. You must have extra money laying around.

Mike, seriously do you have a ton of extra cash around to pay for healthcare for Lolita, your local Walmart Clerk's healthcare? How much you would pay each month to have her family covered? $10, $50, $100? What's your budget?

Nice in theory but many of the floor staff at Walmart are poor, elderly, unable to afford to retire, people. Not everyone is mentally qualified to climb the ladder of success. Note everyone is proficient at handling money.

My real problem is with the health insurance companies and the employers.

At the rate we are going all businesses in the USA will eliminate health insurance coverage as too costly to allow them to compete in a global economy. Facts of life in a global capitalist work place where it is an employers marketplace, not a workers marketplace. We already have 40 million uninsured people in the USA (Probably all US citizens, not counting illigal immigrants).

I think this country and it's people are better than that. As soon as someone gets too sick to work they get laid off with no insurance and no income. If they have any savings or assets, they are usually gone in days of early medical treatment leaving them no plav\ce to live and no income to live on. I have seen it too many times. It is a disgrace!

Why can't we have a national health insurance program that supplements the private programs that catches someone that suddenly comes down with a debilitating terminal disease, who is unable to work, and who looses or has no insurance, or who was in between jobs after a lay off in Detroit, or the housing industry.

Altheimers (sp?) is a big growing issue in this country. All I keep hearing from the right is let them fend for themselves, buyer beware, be self sufficient. Hell they can't even remember who they are, much less keep track of a bank account or keep a job. IF they have family with time and money to care for them great, but not all them have family with the reasources to care for them.

There is also the issue of people being unable to afford minor health care, that leads to them getting sicker and ending up in emergency wards where we end spending 10 to 100 times more in medical care to solve a problem that could handled earlier for much less.

I had a friend here who was a volunter emergency EMS director for the small town nearby that was A Lions club memeber, ex-merchant marine, ex-self employed international cargo registry consultant (smart guy), who had heart problems, two strokes, went on early SS retirement. But no kids, no wife, no family. Nearly lost his house ( he still had a year or 2 of house payments to go when the heart attack disabled him), the floors were eaten out by termites years before he died, it was nearly condemed, he had to beg and borrow (permanently) from those that could and would help him out just to buy medecine and food and just to get a ride somewhere to the doctor, pharmacy or grocery store. From what I have seen of todays electricity rate scandals here (Republican mess here that has raised our electric rates 300% in three months, and we have nuclear power here that paid dearly for 35 years ago, another Halibuton Brown Root scandle) he would have used half of his SS income just to pay for electricty this summer. 98 F for an elederly person with heat problems and diabetic to boot is a MF.

My point is this guy was a typical hard core Republican in his day (Other than the lack of a family), but he got the Democratic faith real fast when his world fell apart. Kinda like those atheists that get religion all of a sudden when they end up on the front line of a real war.

I see no problem asking the ultra rich that earn billions of dollars a year that they don't reinvest in new jobs, or productivity, to pay a little more in taxes before they 50 million on their 7th house (Or was it 9 houses that McCain owns?) to help keep their wage slave work force healthy. A healthy work force benefits them anyway, and the money they spend goes right back in their pockets anyway, because they own it all already!

OK, time to get off my soap box and go help a fellow Jeeper test a Renix system that is missing a computer.
 
8Mud said:
People without healthcare are more apt to forestall seeing a doctor, a treatable illness turns into a catastrophic illness. Who pays then, you and I.

The German plan works after a fashion, a combination of socialism and capitalism, something like 99% of the population is covered. The basic plan is paid for by the employer and the employee 50/50, a straight percentage of your gross. Most every insurance company offers the basic plan. The insurance company does oversight, much like it does with regular US health insurance. The competition between companies keeps the prices in check. For the non employed, the state pays for coverage or they are covered under a spouses or parents plan. Unemployment or disaility works just like wages, a percentage goes to health care insurance.
There is an alternate plan, called private insurance. A person can opt for various plans at there own expense.
I'm a conservative by nature and generally vote Republican, but on this topic I believe health care is a human right and ought not to be trusted to typical capitalistic method.
The German plan works, though sometimes not well, though IMO it's better than leaving a quarter of the population uncovered for many reasons.
Uninsured people in the US require a whole parallel administrative system, redundancy at it's worst. A whole bureaucracy designed to service those who can't or won't afford medical coverage. The existing systems leave a large percentage of the population uncovered or at best sporadically covered. Way to many people fall through the cracks.
The only ones who actually get screwed in the German plan, are the Doctors. They generally don't make what their counterparts in the US make and what they do make seems to be more evenly distributed. The medical care is as good as anybodies.
The drug companies are checked by the insurance companies, which helps to keep the price of drugs under control. The German pharmaceutical industry is world class.
My point is, there are options other than what we have now and straight socialized medicine. A combination of both may be a solution.
Some sort of universal health care is going to be enacted, whether piece meal or a whole new system, Republican or Democrat, the main question is when?
Yes, and And What!

I doubt any system is perfect.

Great post, thanks, you saved me the time of researching it more, and you said it better than I could have, and you know how it works over there, I don't.

I agree with what you said, but my brother just retired here, MD, and I can tell you that the Doctors no longer make the kind of take home pay they did here 30 years ago. It all goes to insurance premiums now. Our problems started with gready doctors, moved on to gready lawyers sueing gready doctors, then the insurance companies found out they could make money getting in the middle. After all much of Wallstreet and the medical industry is owned by the insurance industry here.

I am convinced that the insurance companies deliberately let costs get of control so they had an excuse to raise premiums, they just raised premiums faster than they let the doctors and Hospitals jack up the prices, so they profitted in the end.
 
Last edited:
JohnJohn said:
INNOVATIVE PEOPLE: No where in history has an innovative person been paid more money to do a government job than a private one.

Disagree. My daughter would make more teaching at a public school than she does at the Catholic school she current teaches at

HEALTHY WORKFORCE: Your statement assumes that government would do a better job of keeping them healthy...and I don't think that's true.
Incorrect. My statement states it is within the Nation's best interest to have a healthy workforce. It DOES NOT state that the government would do a better job
I don't want to have to rely on the government to keep my employees healthy and coming to work.
Good. You can continue to provide health care benefits to your employees
It's not job of government to keep me or my employees healthy.
Correct, but as an employer, wouldn't you want a pool of healthy employees to draw from, therby keeping your expenses lower?

Everyone does not know what's best for everyone. Agreed
I know what's best for me no else does. Loose the ego and realize you don't know what's best for the homeless, the jobless, the countryless, and the lazy
It is not about ego.

My reponse of national Health Care (post #51) was to KARSTIC's post #50 asking what major issue was facing Washington without delay. It is my OPINION, and has nothing to do with my ego. You have your opinion and are stating it and I am stating mine. Having been jobless (between jobs) in the past, getting medical for my family was the #1 issue for me.
 
Back
Top