Socialized Medicine

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem with taxing cigarettes is one of sustainability. The rate and amount of smokers in the USA has been dropping. Heck, I even quit a 30 year habit recently. So what happens when the number of people that smoke drops below what it takes to fund it? If it's important enough to start then it should be important enough to secure long term funding. But I see this as disingenuous. They first start with "this is for the children!!" Then they say "Let the naughty smokers pay for it!". It's all emotion. If they really wanted this they should just come out and say "We have a program we want to start, here is what it costs and we want to raise your taxes to pay for it." I see it as dishonest.

I kicked the habit after 20 or so years myself. There's a long term benefit to that. Not just to my health but to the taxpayer. The taxes the government collected on my smokes didn't really ever cover the additional risk. Therefore, the long term savings outweigh the revenue loss. That's how this type of financing becomes sustainable.

This was for health care for kids. Kids don't usually show smoking related illnesses. But I ask again, if this is a program they want to do what happens when enough people stop smoking that they no longer collect enough money to pay for it? Drop the program? No, they will raise taxes. So if that is the final outcome anyway why not just ask to raise taxes to begin with? I will tell you why, because they know that it will doom the program. So they have to do a back door approach to get the program started and then later spring a tax increase on us. It's dishonest.

Not really. The tax coffer is the tax coffer. If you want to get into what monies are used for what purposes, we better start a new threat. I mean, Bush financed tax cuts essentially by borrowing the funds from foreign governments. Someone will have to pay for that at some point. We're maxed out again in a few days and Congress will need to up the debt limit yet again. Where's the honesty in that?

So these are the people you want to run a national health care program? I think you swerved into my point.

Not at all. All those issues aside, the government still outperforms the private industry. Wanna start a discussion on what's wrong with corporate America and it's accounting practices? Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Subprime Lending, anyone?

[GaryC 7]

The problem with taxing cigarettes is one of sustainability. The rate and amount of smokers in the USA has been dropping. Heck, I even quit a 30 year habit recently. So what happens when the number of people that smoke drops below what it takes to fund it? If it's important enough to start then it should be important enough to secure long term funding. But I see this as disingenuous. They first start with "this is for the children!!" Then they say "Let the naughty smokers pay for it!". It's all emotion. If they really wanted this they should just come out and say "We have a program we want to start, here is what it costs and we want to raise your taxes to pay for it." I see it as dishonest.

I kicked the habit after 20 or so years myself. There's a long term benefit to that. Not just to my health but to the taxpayer. The taxes the government collected on my smokes didn't really ever cover the additional risk. Therefore, the long term savings outweigh the revenue loss. That's how this type of financing becomes sustainable.

This was for health care for kids. Kids don't usually show smoking related illnesses. But I ask again, if this is a program they want to do what happens when enough people stop smoking that they no longer collect enough money to pay for it? Drop the program? No, they will raise taxes. So if that is the final outcome anyway why not just ask to raise taxes to begin with? I will tell you why, because they know that it will doom the program. So they have to do a back door approach to get the program started and then later spring a tax increase on us. It's dishonest.

Not really. The tax coffer is the tax coffer. If you want to get into what monies are used for what purposes, we better start a new threat. I mean, Bush financed tax cuts essentially by borrowing the funds from foreign governments. Someone will have to pay for that at some point. We're maxed out again in a few days and Congress will need to up the debt limit yet again. Where's the honesty in that?

So these are the people you want to run a national health care program? I think you swerved into my point.

Not at all. All those issues aside, the government still outperforms the private industry. Wanna start a discussion on what's wrong with corporate America and it's accounting practices? Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Subprime Lending, anyone?

So who do you want to run our health care?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem with taxing cigarettes is one of sustainability. The rate and amount of smokers in the USA has been dropping. Heck, I even quit a 30 year habit recently. So what happens when the number of people that smoke drops below what it takes to fund it? If it's important enough to start then it should be important enough to secure long term funding. But I see this as disingenuous. They first start with "this is for the children!!" Then they say "Let the naughty smokers pay for it!". It's all emotion. If they really wanted this they should just come out and say "We have a program we want to start, here is what it costs and we want to raise your taxes to pay for it." I see it as dishonest.

I kicked the habit after 20 or so years myself. There's a long term benefit to that. Not just to my health but to the taxpayer. The taxes the government collected on my smokes didn't really ever cover the additional risk. Therefore, the long term savings outweigh the revenue loss. That's how this type of financing becomes sustainable.

This was for health care for kids. Kids don't usually show smoking related illnesses. But I ask again, if this is a program they want to do what happens when enough people stop smoking that they no longer collect enough money to pay for it? Drop the program? No, they will raise taxes. So if that is the final outcome anyway why not just ask to raise taxes to begin with? I will tell you why, because they know that it will doom the program. So they have to do a back door approach to get the program started and then later spring a tax increase on us. It's dishonest.

Not really. The tax coffer is the tax coffer. If you want to get into what monies are used for what purposes, we better start a new threat. I mean, Bush financed tax cuts essentially by borrowing the funds from foreign governments. Someone will have to pay for that at some point. We're maxed out again in a few days and Congress will need to up the debt limit yet again. Where's the honesty in that?

So these are the people you want to run a national health care program? I think you swerved into my point.

Not at all. All those issues aside, the government still outperforms the private industry. Wanna start a discussion on what's wrong with corporate America and it's accounting practices? Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Subprime Lending, anyone?

So who do you want to run our health care?

The entity that has shown to be more efficient. I'd like to pay the $4-5K per year for my family instead of the $15K I currently shell out. I'd get the good feeling of America affording universal coverage to it's people like any other developed and civilized nation as a bonus.

[GaryC 7]

The problem with taxing cigarettes is one of sustainability. The rate and amount of smokers in the USA has been dropping. Heck, I even quit a 30 year habit recently. So what happens when the number of people that smoke drops below what it takes to fund it? If it's important enough to start then it should be important enough to secure long term funding. But I see this as disingenuous. They first start with "this is for the children!!" Then they say "Let the naughty smokers pay for it!". It's all emotion. If they really wanted this they should just come out and say "We have a program we want to start, here is what it costs and we want to raise your taxes to pay for it." I see it as dishonest.

I kicked the habit after 20 or so years myself. There's a long term benefit to that. Not just to my health but to the taxpayer. The taxes the government collected on my smokes didn't really ever cover the additional risk. Therefore, the long term savings outweigh the revenue loss. That's how this type of financing becomes sustainable.

This was for health care for kids. Kids don't usually show smoking related illnesses. But I ask again, if this is a program they want to do what happens when enough people stop smoking that they no longer collect enough money to pay for it? Drop the program? No, they will raise taxes. So if that is the final outcome anyway why not just ask to raise taxes to begin with? I will tell you why, because they know that it will doom the program. So they have to do a back door approach to get the program started and then later spring a tax increase on us. It's dishonest.

Not really. The tax coffer is the tax coffer. If you want to get into what monies are used for what purposes, we better start a new threat. I mean, Bush financed tax cuts essentially by borrowing the funds from foreign governments. Someone will have to pay for that at some point. We're maxed out again in a few days and Congress will need to up the debt limit yet again. Where's the honesty in that?

So these are the people you want to run a national health care program? I think you swerved into my point.

Not at all. All those issues aside, the government still outperforms the private industry. Wanna start a discussion on what's wrong with corporate America and it's accounting practices? Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Subprime Lending, anyone?

So who do you want to run our health care?

The entity that has shown to be more efficient. I'd like to pay the $4-5K per year for my family instead of the $15K I currently shell out. I'd get the good feeling of America affording universal coverage to it's people like any other developed and civilized nation as a bonus.

That isn't the federal government. I guess that means private sector for you then?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem with taxing cigarettes is one of sustainability. The rate and amount of smokers in the USA has been dropping. Heck, I even quit a 30 year habit recently. So what happens when the number of people that smoke drops below what it takes to fund it? If it's important enough to start then it should be important enough to secure long term funding. But I see this as disingenuous. They first start with "this is for the children!!" Then they say "Let the naughty smokers pay for it!". It's all emotion. If they really wanted this they should just come out and say "We have a program we want to start, here is what it costs and we want to raise your taxes to pay for it." I see it as dishonest.

I kicked the habit after 20 or so years myself. There's a long term benefit to that. Not just to my health but to the taxpayer. The taxes the government collected on my smokes didn't really ever cover the additional risk. Therefore, the long term savings outweigh the revenue loss. That's how this type of financing becomes sustainable.

This was for health care for kids. Kids don't usually show smoking related illnesses. But I ask again, if this is a program they want to do what happens when enough people stop smoking that they no longer collect enough money to pay for it? Drop the program? No, they will raise taxes. So if that is the final outcome anyway why not just ask to raise taxes to begin with? I will tell you why, because they know that it will doom the program. So they have to do a back door approach to get the program started and then later spring a tax increase on us. It's dishonest.

Not really. The tax coffer is the tax coffer. If you want to get into what monies are used for what purposes, we better start a new threat. I mean, Bush financed tax cuts essentially by borrowing the funds from foreign governments. Someone will have to pay for that at some point. We're maxed out again in a few days and Congress will need to up the debt limit yet again. Where's the honesty in that?

So these are the people you want to run a national health care program? I think you swerved into my point.

Not at all. All those issues aside, the government still outperforms the private industry. Wanna start a discussion on what's wrong with corporate America and it's accounting practices? Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Subprime Lending, anyone?

So who do you want to run our health care?

The entity that has shown to be more efficient. I'd like to pay the $4-5K per year for my family instead of the $15K I currently shell out. I'd get the good feeling of America affording universal coverage to it's people like any other developed and civilized nation as a bonus.

That isn't the federal government. I guess that means private sector for you then?

No, Gary. I've said it about 100 times and you must have missed it as often: The government - any government, anywhere - actually outperforms the private industry in terms of efficiency when running health care systems. Noting is as bloated with as much overhead and red-tape as the private health care system that we still have in place. We pay the most for the least in return. That sucks.

[GaryC 7]

No, Gary. I've said it about 100 times and you must have missed it as often: The government - any government, anywhere - actually outperforms the private industry in terms of efficiency when running health care systems. Noting is as bloated with as much overhead and red-tape as the private health care system that we still have in place. We pay the most for the least in return. That sucks.

That is where we disagree. The US Federal government is the biggest black hole for wasted money ever conceved. Look at any program and the waste factor is astounding. It's true that we have a patchwork of a health system right now but I think it can be fixed and still keep it in the private sector. I have been looking at the post from Steven about the Ma state health care system. That looks promising. I would much rather see it done state by state than the federal government get involved. My sticking point is the FEDERAL government doing it on a national basis. I know your a naturalized citizen, so you have learned about how our government is set up. What isn't spelled out in the constitution as a federal obligation then it is a state one. Health care isn't in the constitution so by all rights any attempt by the federal government to run a national health care system is unconstitutional. I know we already have national programs already and I disagree with them at least on that basis. So I want any changes to be made to limit themselves to either an overhaul of the insurance industry and keeping it in the private sector or making it a state run health care system. Anything but a national health care system.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No, Gary. I've said it about 100 times and you must have missed it as often: The government - any government, anywhere - actually outperforms the private industry in terms of efficiency when running health care systems. Noting is as bloated with as much overhead and red-tape as the private health care system that we still have in place. We pay the most for the least in return. That sucks.

That is where we disagree.

It doesn't matter whether you agree on that point. The fact remains even without your agreement. Hell, not even the private health insurance lobby claims that they are more efficient than the government. They're just arguing that the margin by which the government outperforms the private industry isn't as large as it really is. But they can't fudge the numbers enough to make it seem that they're delivering a more efficient product than the government does. So, where you take your belief from, I really don't know. Nor does it really matter as it clearly isn't based on the reality as everyone - including the private health insurance industry - sees it.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

It's unfortunate that we don't have the willingness on those in Congress to do something very unelectable - raise taxes. Dubbya spends our money like a drunken sailor while giving tax cuts to the very rich. Somebody needs to finally balance the check book and it's not going to be pretty.

Steve, can we balance the budget with uhc?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Not at all. All those issues aside, the government still outperforms the private industry. Wanna start a discussion on what's wrong with corporate America and it's accounting practices? Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Subprime Lending, anyone?

How the hec can you say the government "outperforms" We havent even seen the plan!

[pedroh 21]

No, Gary. I've said it about 100 times and you must have missed it as often: The government - any government, anywhere - actually outperforms the private industry in terms of efficiency when running health care systems. Noting is as bloated with as much overhead and red-tape as the private health care system that we still have in place. We pay the most for the least in return. That sucks.

That is where we disagree. The US Federal government is the biggest black hole for wasted money ever conceved. Look at any program and the waste factor is astounding. It's true that we have a patchwork of a health system right now but I think it can be fixed and still keep it in the private sector. I have been looking at the post from Steven about the Ma state health care system. That looks promising. I would much rather see it done state by state than the federal government get involved. My sticking point is the FEDERAL government doing it on a national basis. I know your a naturalized citizen, so you have learned about how our government is set up. What isn't spelled out in the constitution as a federal obligation then it is a state one. Health care isn't in the constitution so by all rights any attempt by the federal government to run a national health care system is unconstitutional. I know we already have national programs already and I disagree with them at least on that basis. So I want any changes to be made to limit themselves to either an overhaul of the insurance industry and keeping it in the private sector or making it a state run health care system. Anything but a national health care system.

so is it basically, if you can pay for insurance good for you, if you are unemployed or cant afford a good insurance, too bad? I dont care for you?

[Ban Hammer 13,625]

That is where we disagree. The US Federal government is the biggest black hole for wasted money ever conceved. Look at any program and the waste factor is astounding. It's true that we have a patchwork of a health system right now but I think it can be fixed and still keep it in the private sector. I have been looking at the post from Steven about the Ma state health care system. That looks promising. I would much rather see it done state by state than the federal government get involved. My sticking point is the FEDERAL government doing it on a national basis. I know your a naturalized citizen, so you have learned about how our government is set up. What isn't spelled out in the constitution as a federal obligation then it is a state one. Health care isn't in the constitution so by all rights any attempt by the federal government to run a national health care system is unconstitutional. I know we already have national programs already and I disagree with them at least on that basis. So I want any changes to be made to limit themselves to either an overhaul of the insurance industry and keeping it in the private sector or making it a state run health care system. Anything but a national health care system.

you won't believe some of the horror stories i saw in europe. work being done on a base that is closing and being handed back to the germans because the contract was awarded years ago. still gotta spend x million dollars though. moving units around all the time - the bunch i worked with - we moved from frankfurt to darmstadt to k-town and now they are moving to graf - and a special building has to be built or renovated to standard every time. total cost for each move is minimum half a mil.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not at all. All those issues aside, the government still outperforms the private industry. Wanna start a discussion on what's wrong with corporate America and it's accounting practices? Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Subprime Lending, anyone?

How the hec can you say the government "outperforms" We havent even seen the plan!

This government of ours runs some health care today, doesn't it? Other governments run health care systems. All of them are more efficient than the expensive mess of a private system we sport here.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I wonder what the reaction will be when the fat,smokin piece of shite,big-mac eatin tool is in line before your two year old with a 105 tempature? Im sure it will be: Thank god i have coverage. Be careful what you wish for.

Not at all. All those issues aside, the government still outperforms the private industry. Wanna start a discussion on what's wrong with corporate America and it's accounting practices? Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Subprime Lending, anyone?

How the hec can you say the government "outperforms" We havent even seen the plan!

This government of ours runs some health care today, doesn't it? Other governments run health care systems. All of them are more efficient than the expensive mess of a private system we sport here.

Reinhard,check out california. Their busted.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I wonder what the reaction will be when the fat,smokin piece of shite,big-mac eatin tool is in line before your two year old with a 105 tempature? Im sure it will be: Thank god i have coverage. Be careful what you wish for.

Not at all. All those issues aside, the government still outperforms the private industry. Wanna start a discussion on what's wrong with corporate America and it's accounting practices? Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Subprime Lending, anyone?

How the hec can you say the government "outperforms" We havent even seen the plan!

This government of ours runs some health care today, doesn't it? Other governments run health care systems. All of them are more efficient than the expensive mess of a private system we sport here.

Reinhard,check out california. Their busted.

Marc, you ain't scaring me on UHC. I've lived it. I'm a survivor. Jokes aside, it was much better an experience than what I've seen without it.

California? Check out what in California? Private insurance there running more efficient than medicare? Do you have numbers to that effect?

[Marilyn. 340]

I'm not going to quote the original article, and i'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it or not but.... Canadians do not get free drugs unless their private insurance covers it 100% (and some do)

yeah, I remember we had to pay for prescription drugs...