Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Matthew-1551198's column >>

MATTHEW-1551198

Home Page
Articles Posted: 9  Links Seeded: 21
Member Since: 1/2010  Last Seen: 6/14/2011

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Right and Wrong

Wed Mar 3, 2010 3:51 AM EST
health
By Matthew-1551198
Advertise | AdChoices

When did it become ok to get rich off of the sick and dyeing? I'm all for making a descent and comfortable living but these insurance companies need to be reigned in.

Many of our leaders would have us believe that the markets will take care of themselves, that big companies will regulate themselves. Some believe that greed will check its self, well it doesn't appear to be doing so and I believe that it never will.

Now these companies have become so big that no single man can even begin to change their greedy self serving ways. Now the government is the only one big enough to take on these conglomerations of selfishness.

But isn't government a union of people pooling their resources to achieve; for the greater good, that which one person could not achieve on their own? Isn't the assurance of quality, affordable and fair health care for all Americans the highest of achievements next to a good education?

We can afford to spend trillions of dollars on war and to support the greedy bankers on wall street, why is it so difficult to get people to support life saving legislation? What has happened to our nation? Have all parents stopped teaching their children the importance of charity?

I have discovered that France, Germany, Switzerland and Japan all provide universal coverage, but their doctors and insurers are private. Individuals get their insurance through the workplace, sharing the premium with their employer, just like we do- and the government picks up the premium if they lose their job.

Also, EVERY developed country, except the United States, has decided that Health coverage should be a Non-Profit operation. These other countries hold down costs by making coverage mandatory and by using a unified set of rules and payment schedules for hospitals and Doctors. This system saves these countries money buy cutting down on health costs by eliminating the mess of records and charges used by insurance firms. This unified system makes it possible for France and Germany to use DIGITAL records and each person has a "smart" card that includes all of their health information.

Are we truly the fat, lazy and greedy people that the extremest Muslims call us with disdain, are we really as selfish as all of these facts make us appear? It would seem that all of these other civilized nations have clearly reached a level of civility that we just can't seem to reach. Could it be that through all of our competitive sports that we immerse ourselves in from the earliest years of childhood and then into our adult years carrying that same attitude of competition into the work place, striving for advancement, that we have held ourselves back from some evolutionary advancement that the rest of the developed nations have achieved? Have we allowed ourselves to become a dumbed down nation of warriors that only care about winning?

It is time for all of us to remember; or perhaps learn for the first time, the importance of moderation, charity and respect for our fellow human and stop thinking that we have to have everything, all the time no matter who gets hurt. For many of us, it's time for us to remember what our mothers taught us about playing nice and sharing, that it's not ok to lie, cheat and steal and it's not ok to knowingly stand by while an injustice occurs, an injustice that we can easily remedy.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Matthew-1551198's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (56)
Luther28

Yes but those systems make too much sense. What I do not understand is that there are many who boast about our health care system and would leave it unchanged, I wonder if they realize that we are ranked 37th worldwide, now is that not pathetic. I like Sanders of VT concept, a program similar to or the equivalent of medicare that we all pay our fair share into, simple and neat as the frame work already exists. Problem is the stranglehold that corporate America has on our legislature, that is what must be broken not our government.

  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 7:02 AM EST
lovetrust

write owwnn, Matthew...your only flaw is your dormant spell-checker, and you'd be surprised how often some num-nut will hold that up as evidence to your 'ignorance'....write owwn...

you too, Luther...

  • 5 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 7:15 AM EST
Stone5150

I think it is a mix of the greedy corporations that buy off media personalities and politicians, who in turn sell it to the ignorant.

It is a Jedi mind @!$%# - "You don't need health care reform. You have the best health care in the world. You want to shout at nonsense at people."

  • 5 votes
Reply#3 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 7:49 AM EST
phnxrth

Matthew, you call attention to lots of facts people have trouble grappling with, the kind I also enjoy calling attention to.

I find most people offer no response whatsoever, leading me to conclude they have no idea what I'm talking about. The rest mostly either try to minimize the message or focus on me personally rather than the info. Some seem to want to draw me into endless debate, then get angry when I don't comply. Some assume I'm trying to make them look bad, which seems to suggest they're trying to hang onto something they're not exactly proud of.

I am consoled to know there really is right and wrong beyond the distorted products of people's minds. People can do great damage and cause huge problems by being wrong but right does always prevail in the long run.

I'm convinced there are many with advanced knowledge on the subject of absolute right who will do much to bring about the healing of the collective unconscious. They're not the boastful, loud, proud types with dreams of self-promotion.

People are pretty good at hiding their wrong results but that doesn't mean they're not getting them. So everyone is given opportunity to learn. Reality keeps knocking. When people refuse to answer sometimes it simply knocks harder.

  • 2 votes
Reply#4 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 7:55 AM EST
lovetrust

agreed, sir...maam.....I'd interject that the term, patriot is reserved only for those who are 'faithful'...and the courage to know right from wrong' is subjugated......thus, it takes courage, or an overwhelming consensus of people with courage enough to review the truth garnered in facts as the days unfold...the faithful don't know anything ....that's their story and they're sticking to it because the powers that be know so much more than them, (they suppose) and no true patriot would question them, and thus weaken their resolve to 'protect' us....

there is an element among the elitists that warns of punishment to those who 'stand in the way' of the American 'way' of life...they frame the debate in such a way as to scare off the ones...the multitudes who remain untouched by the actions of their 'leaders'...

...that's why my loving sister and other family members still 'believe'...it's tied into their 'faith' system....

  • 4 votes
#4.1 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 8:25 AM EST
freebirdreaming

lovetrust......... could it be that the thinking is right, it just comes up against a corrupt system, and so many can not fathom a corrupt system in regard to the natian they have put their 'faith' in. Maybe they keep their faith, and hope that this will resolve?

just struck me:) good people are taking the hit for not adapting to the corruption, and many are calling themselves to blame...........

  • 2 votes
#4.2 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 9:58 AM EST
Reply
space guy

The last time I checked, insurance company profits are about 3%, which is half of what they would be allowed if they were defense contractors.

That 3% would be eaten in a larger overhead if they were non profits.

Sorry but this article does not add up.

  • 1 vote
Reply#5 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 8:28 AM EST
lovetrust

last I checked, this article was about right and wrong....profits...non-profits....blah,blah....

accounting is the only thing you can add up???

  • 5 votes
#5.1 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 8:46 AM EST
space guy

last I checked, this article was about right and wrong....profits...non-profits....blah,blah....

accounting is the only thing you can add up???

Right or Wrong?

What you don't understand is that it is wrong for the government to take money from citizens who are responsible for themselves and give it to those who have never given thought to their own personal responsibility for their own lives. It is theft of the highest order to do so and erodes the moral fiber of the nation.

  • 4 votes
#5.2 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 9:45 AM EST
freebirdreaming

Space Guy..... my heart is filled with the valuable relationships I have known in regard to those who choose a simple life, most often not by choice, contradictory isn't it?! Wonderful people who have found that living in 'today' has its merits, its value.

the stronger messege in your comment, is how little your perceptions have been impacted by the need for compassion, friendship, neighborliness, or simple acceptance. I put my faith in those who live, and struggle, and help each other.

When life really gets tough............ people who says things like you did........ scare me.

  • 3 votes
#5.3 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 10:03 AM EST
Luther28

Actually I believe 3% net retained as profit is the norm for most companies, but if not mistaken the health care insurance industry runs closer to a whopping 30%.

  • 1 vote
#5.4 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 10:47 AM EST
Doug-375144

Profit % is lower than most business.

If the gov't runs it there is no incentive to budget or manage cost what so ever ( as current and past programs prove) , the govt just spends more and repeats the cycle with ever increasing inefficiency, then raises taxes to fund it some more and soon you have unfunded entitlements that cripple the economy and increase the natl debt . Just like the 0' care bill will.

  • 1 vote
#5.5 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 12:48 AM EST
lovetrust

taxes are going up...can't believe GOPers cut taxes at the same time he orchestrated war on two fronts???....never has any majority been so irresponsible....now, you nit-picking ...just for fun....all of it comes 'true' when you have crooked men doing the business....

public trust, gone to @!$%#. and you wanna resolve the problems with crooked mammon-seekers...business...

right and wrong...stay on topic....

  • 2 votes
#5.6 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 8:01 AM EST
freebirdreaming

then raises taxes to fund it some more

given the dawning light, that statement is an assumption, we may be uncovering quite a few 'fundings' that went astray in the name of undercover, black ops funding....... inefficiency is an opportunity for corrupt dealings to go un noticed;)

  • 2 votes
#5.7 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 8:44 AM EST
space guy

Actually I believe 3% net retained as profit is the norm for most companies, but if not mistaken the health care insurance industry runs closer to a whopping 30%.

You are wrong.

Microsoft has a 28% profit margin. The insurance industry max is 4%

  • 2 votes
#5.8 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 2:10 PM EST
space guy

Space Guy..... my heart is filled with the valuable relationships I have known in regard to those who choose a simple life, most often not by choice, contradictory isn't it?! Wonderful people who have found that living in 'today' has its merits, its value.

the stronger messege in your comment, is how little your perceptions have been impacted by the need for compassion, friendship, neighborliness, or simple acceptance. I put my faith in those who live, and struggle, and help each other.

How come your version of compassion always leads to you picking my pocket at the point of a gun?

How is that compassionate?

Why do you deserve my money?

I am from a poor family and have worked hard, studied hard, and sacrificed for what I have. What gives you the right to decide to take it from me to give to someone else?

  • 2 votes
#5.9 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 2:12 PM EST
freebirdreaming

if you wish to talk about a point of a gun.......... look no further then your congress. I have said it a thousand times, they took more then any one including those who work hard and get so little that they can not feed themselves, gain the use of a medical professionals through services they should not need if they are paid a FAIR wage.

that comment is riddled with my, my, my, my.......... you probably don't even make enough to take responsibility for helping anyone. Given we have more in common then not, look to wallstreet with those feelings of resentment......... the top 1% are milkin us for we are worth.

  • 2 votes
#5.10 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 4:29 PM EST
space guy

that comment is riddled with my, my, my, my.......... you probably don't even make enough to take responsibility for helping anyone. Given we have more in common then not, look to wallstreet with those feelings of resentment......... the top 1% are milkin us for we are worth.

Sure dude.

I have said it a thousand times, they took more then any one including those who work hard and get so little that they can not feed themselves

There is no one in the USA that works that is in this position, no one.

  • 3 votes
#5.11 - Fri Mar 5, 2010 11:53 AM EST
freebirdreaming

There are many who work, that are in this position. (see, I can do that too:)

    #5.12 - Fri Mar 5, 2010 3:04 PM EST
    space guy

    There are many who work, that are in this position. (see, I can do that too:)

    You can say it all you want, but it is not true.

    • 3 votes
    #5.13 - Sat Mar 6, 2010 11:20 PM EST
    freebirdreaming

    right back attcha;)

      #5.14 - Sun Mar 7, 2010 1:02 AM EST
      Reply
      firsty

      the right only cares about money. the may criticize politicians who vote based on lobbyist dollars, but they are admittedly basing their politics on how their own pockets are affected.

      • 3 votes
      Reply#6 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 10:40 AM EST
      Doug-375144

      If you don't consider cost the gov't will spend all the money we all have and more , or would you prefer they provide all and give you a small stipend each month as your share of the wealth ? Then no one will have incentive to work at all.

      • 1 vote
      #6.1 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 12:53 AM EST
      lovetrust

      would you prefer they provide all and give you a small stipend each month as your share of the wealth ?

      hmmmm....I get my single-payer insurance, covering me, no matter what effect it may have on my health, plus rebuild our infrastructure more efficiently,and protect the people from the corporate abuses of flawed profit-oriented models? Whatever it takes...

      Then no one will have incentive to work at all.

      some of us....most of us just want to work together towards making the world a better place for their progeny...that is the incentive that had us victorious in a couple of world wars..against fascism....Get off your self-centered, unapologetic high horse, and try understanding common sense...that being, that there is so much more good to be found in our working together and reinstituting the public trust, so glaringly, obviously in need of repair...Your attitude has no care for right and wrong, you think your political adversaries don't want to work...well, not for people who really don't care about them...you see it such, I suspect, because your main concern is your own ability to live in a mansion, and send your kids to private schools, and buy all you need...never taking into consideration that those who are doing the heavy lifting, you cannot pay well enough to provide more than enough to keep them functional...for you...for this, employers expect complete loyalty??? ...and, if they don't get it, then they're lazy?? how specious are the authorative....

      bring on health care reform, but never ever forget right and wrong......I'll gladly pay out of my check...I already do anyways...I'll give a little more...I just can't afford to get sick, and stay sick and work like I'm well....

      • 4 votes
      #6.2 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 8:20 AM EST
      freebirdreaming

      well said, well said lovetrust.

      • 1 vote
      #6.3 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 8:55 AM EST
      firsty

      If you don't consider cost the gov't will spend all the money we all have and more , or would you prefer they provide all and give you a small stipend each month as your share of the wealth ? Then no one will have incentive to work at all.

      straw man argument. you took what i said and turned it into something that makes no sense, in order to attack it.

      lovetrust makes excellent points.

      i'd engage you in a debate as well, and still will, but i'm not going to add material myself until you can demonstrate you've understood what i've already said.

      • 4 votes
      #6.4 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 10:00 AM EST
      Stone5150

      no one will have incentive to work at all.

      I couldn't stand to not be productive for more than a few weeks. I think maybe the people that are claiming this are really showing what is in their own character.

      • 3 votes
      #6.5 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 10:20 AM EST
      firsty

      I couldn't stand to not be productive for more than a few weeks. I think maybe the people that are claiming this are really showing what is in their own character.

      great point. maybe the reason they think that our entire society should be based on what people will do for money is because they are only motivated by money. if it takes a liar to know a liar, it only makes sense that it takes a lazy, selfish person to presume everyone else is lazy and selfish.

      from a practical standpoint, too — it seems absurd to make policy decisions using the worst-case assumptions about others. while it may be true that some people take advantage of social welfare programs, it is also true that there are many people who are almost killing themselves trying to make ends meet, and we need to think about what they need, too.

      one reason it's so goddamn annoying trying to argue these points with these people is that we're left arguing the most basic ideas. i'd like to say that even though there are millions of people who dont work as hard as i personally think they should work, i still completely object to the idea of basing social policy on those people, to the direct and obvious detriment of others.

      they only seem to want to see the bad in people. and, i know — now i'm going to hear about how the "left" is always calling the "right" stupid or mean. but thats not the same thing — i may think they're stupid and mean (sometimes) when it comes to the points of view, but i also think they should get free health care. i couldnt possibly care less what some teabagger thinks of my politics, but i have a real problem with the fact that they're ok with my kids missing dentist appointments because i have to choose between paying medical bills and utility bills.

      so, i stand by my position — they seem to only want to see the worst in people. we cant have free health care because not everyone "deserves" it, but when we cant fund social welfare programs with taxes because they dont want their incomes to go down, i have to ask — who is LITERALLY BEING SELFISH and who is simply being accused by the admittedly selfish of being lazy, and how does that make any sense?

      • 4 votes
      #6.6 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 12:36 PM EST
      freebirdreaming

      well said firsty........... ! you make a point that loses steam everytime someone has to pointedly try to communicate what you just did with what seems to be great ease! thanks and keep on saying it.

      • 2 votes
      #6.7 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 1:01 PM EST
      Matthew-1551198

      lovetrust.... you nailed it!!!

        #6.8 - Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:09 PM EDT
        Matthew-1551198

        Right on firsty, great contribution... you certainly get it.

          #6.9 - Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:14 PM EDT
          lovetrust

          Thanks for the compliments, guys...and the article Matthew...it's a good 'enn...

          • 2 votes
          #6.10 - Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:46 AM EDT
          Matthew-1551198

          Thanks lovetrust, this is my first article. Maybe I'll try writing another one sometime.

          • 1 vote
          #6.11 - Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:16 PM EDT
          freebirdreaming

          Maybe I'll try writing another one sometime.

          be watchin for it.

          • 1 vote
          #6.12 - Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:23 PM EDT
          Reply
          phnxrth

          Matthew, I'm not trying to run away with the comments but my points, which I find comforting and thought you also might, are that 1.) Reality is a lot bigger than all the con jobs, conflict, cacophony and chaos and 2.) that there's a lot each person can do to protect himself from them.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#7 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 10:40 AM EST
          Confer

          Excellent comments Matthew and as you and Luther point out, there are options. The US"system" unfortunately lets greed set the standards for medical care costs. One hospital reviewed on a cable channel, charged $5,000.00 more than another hospital charged for the same surgical procedure. I just finished with a physician who (like so many others) over-books his patients. Thirty-two of us were waiting to see this man when he started his "office hours" at one in the afternoon. Other patients continued to sign in as he began seeing the first group. My time with this fellow lasted six minutes and the "consultation" fee was $100.00. This fee did not include any supplies,prescriptions, X-rays, etc. He did ask me to make another appointment to see how my knee looked at that time; I declined. Cost versus benefit?

          • 4 votes
          Reply#8 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 12:26 PM EST
          insectlogig

          The injustice here is that insurance companies and drug companies have inflated the cost of care to such an extent that the only way to pay for it is having insurance.

          If people did not run to the doctor with every scratch then drug companies would not have a market for all their crap and doctors would not keep patients coming back for drugs that do nothing except raise the cost of caring for everything else.

          Take the case of the medication that is being hawked by Brooke shields, for people with thin eyelashes. Some drug company made this crap but could not find any practical use for it. Then they found a doctor who decided that the one thing that this stuff could do. (make eyelashes grow) could be called an illness and he could sell this to his patients. All he had to do was find a way to make thin eyelashes officially an ill ness then he would need a drug to cure it. The drug company meanwhile realize the same thing and find a way to have this horrible milady classified as an illness and find an instant market for their warehouse full of previously useless product. Then the doctor starts to prescribe it and has an office full of thin eyelash women waiting for a script. He makes a buck because the drug company pays him to prescribe it.The drug company makes a buck and recoups their R&D money women have fat eyelashes and everybody is happy.

          Except or all the other patients who are actually sick and need a doctor,they are waiting for service because the doctor is over worked with all the new patients he has. So any further patients are now paying a premium for the doctors service because he is treating all these other people with the thin eyelashes. The insurance companies see this and find that they can make even more money than the doctors or the drug company by qualifying treatments and assigning value to them. So thin eyelashes get covered and everyone's rate goes up. The more treatments they can classify the more patients they can collect premiums from and the more money they can make. Pretty soon hey will find a way to make eyelash exams a required part of the conditions of your policy and the doctors will be prescribing this crap to you.

          And it is not only a single drug this goes on all the time for all kinds of drugs to treat things that are just something that you could live with and have no ill effect from. Which keeps you going back to be treated four or five times a year wasting the doctors time your money and driving up the cost all the way around.

          The reasons for rising insurance costs are not that people are getting better health care it is because people are getting care for things that are not medical problems. Millions of times a day,every day. If there were no insurance companies there would be no health insurance problems. Health insurance is what the congress is now trying to sell. Which is not health care. you will get no better care with government insurance than you are getting now ,you will only pay more for it. you will not be any healthier you will just spend more time at the doctor and taking pills.

          Since the hospitals are already getting paid for those who can't afford it,and everyone who walks in to a hospital gets care insurance or not then insuring everyone can only drive up the cost even higher. Since those who cant afford the premium now will be in no better position to afford it no matter who provides it. All the rest of those who can afford it will be paying for the rest who can't. Which is exactly what happens now So for me I'll say keep the government out of it, their record shows that their involvement can only make it worse.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#9 - Wed Mar 3, 2010 3:41 PM EST
          lovetrust

          That is the most substantive argument for getting the health care costs under control... I'm just not at all sure you see how the government doesn't have a role to play in correcting this problem...

          I could also point out another example, of how screwed the medical insurance and big pharma have screwed us...how's about that viagra is paid for by health insurance, but abortions are not?? there's an example of how the govt. screwed up....I agree the govt. shouldn't be involved with that...but..seems to me, the govt. can put these cosmetic needs into an appropriate category called, 'vain pain', or somethin'....excluding them from coverage would nip this...

          • 5 votes
          #9.1 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 8:34 AM EST
          insectlogig

          I'm just not at all sure you see how the government doesn't have a role to play in correcting this problem...

          All you have to do is to look at every other thing that the government has ever had a hand in "fixing". The war on poverty, the educational system, the entitlement programs that are currently breaking us, the banking system, I could fill a page with the "fixes " the government has provided us with just in the forty or so years that I have been a voter. Every one a dismal failure by the very standards they set to measure failure by. Now we should let them "fix" the insurance industry? Am I that stupid that I would call the same repairman who screwed it up overy jub he was ever given to fix this now? I think not.

          The problem exists because of insurance regulations, and drug company regulations. The very same agency that is supposed t be insuring that the drugs we use are safe, has decided that it does not need to also be useful, only profitable before doctors are allowed to are allowed to dispense it.

          No thanks I'll take my chances with just owing the money to the doctor or hospital my self. I would prefer the possibility of the cost driving me broke than the probability of the insurance cost driving me broke.

          The cost will not get under control by insurance companies mandating even more use of doctors for frivolous non existant ailments, or by encouraging people to go to a doctor every time they sneeze. The only ones that can benefit from that is the insurance companies. Their aim is not better health care just more of it. The same as the governments. The cost can only continue to rise because the more people who go to a doctor with greater frequency the less doctors there are to go around. The more people being treated for non medical problems the less time there will be for those with a real medical needs and the higher the price.

          The best way for it to work out would be for the doctors to stop taking insurance altogether and charge a fee for their services.(that is a novel idea how about we just pay the man for his work ourselves and eliminate the middleman which seemed to work for a very many years) Insurance companies could not exist with out them and neither could their profit making structure.If they were out of business they could not further drive the cost up. Doctors should also doctor should starting their own professional hospitals and get the corporate profit making machine out of the picture.Which is now being done in some small markets and working pretty well.

          The government belongs protecting the borders,and administering the matters of governing. they do not belong in the business of favoring one industry or an other regardless of which industry. Nor do they belong in the buisness of telling people which product they must by or whom they must buy it from.

          .

          • 1 vote
          #9.2 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 12:33 PM EST
          firsty

          All you have to do is to look at every other thing that the government has ever had a hand in "fixing".

          as long as you're selective about what you consider to be govt services, sure. and as long as you ignore the political bull@!$%# that forced good services to be negotiated into @!$%#ty services.

          and that means you have to ignore the fact that the reason bad politics causes good ideas to be implemented poorly is because, in large part, the uninformed public cant commit to the good idea, and refuses to agree to anything without watering it down so much that it doesnt work, and also because every @!$%#ing bill we pass is lobbied to death by extremely wealthy groups — wealthy groups who just adore the idea of keeping private industry the primary provider of essential goods and services, and who pay a lot of money to make sure that the govt's game cant work as the only game in town.

          The government belongs protecting the borders,and administering the matters of governing. they do not belong in the business of favoring one industry or an other regardless of which industry. Nor do they belong in the buisness of telling people which product they must by or whom they must buy it from.

          i agree that a health insurance mandate is a terrible and unconstitutional idea. but i also think it's absurd to claim that the govt should only be protecting borders and "governing" (which i presume you mean: law enforcement). that doesnt fit any modern standard of "why we have a govt," and you're begging the question that ANY govt service can work. if i believe you that the govt cant do anything right, why should i believe you when you then claim that our national security is the only thing they should be doing? do you care that little about national security?

          • 3 votes
          #9.3 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 12:45 PM EST
          insectlogig

          Bottom line is I can take care of myself better than the government can. And it is up to everyone else to take care of themselves and not wait ofr someone else to do it for you.if you can not afford it then there already programs that are already braking us to cover it. We do not need any more. If some people have to go with out that is just the way it is, I f I am one of them then I guess I will just have to live with it. I am not responsible for anyone else problems any more than they are responsible for mine. Also if the government did not alread empty peoples pockets in the first place they would not be unable to afford it.

            #9.4 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 12:56 PM EST
            firsty

            Bottom line is I can take care of myself better than the government can

            ok, so after all of that political philosophy, you cant respond to a single challenge without caving in and telling us that thats just how you feel?

            i wish people like you would stop pretending you've thought this through. i asked the most basic question about your approach to govt, which you seemed to state pretty confidently, and you've got absolutely nothing.

            Which is why it can not ever be to service to anyone except politicians. Name one successful government fix of anything that ever work. And don't give the new deal b.s. that fiasco would have played out quite differently if the war did not come along. give me one government program that ever stayed in budget and actually achieved it's intended goal.

            i dont need to. because i think the govt should provide services regardless of how well the bottom line is hit. i dont claim that the govt can ideally provide services, but i do claim that it can provide better services than the private sector, so i'm not using fiscal efficiency as my only or even primary consideration. if china will lend us the cash to save millions of american lives, i say — take it. we've run a deficit for decades, and we're not going to stop now. furthermore, in my lifetime i've seen the deficit used as a terrorist weapon, as the right is using it now, to scare the @!$%# out of people. the problem is, i've seen that same deficit completely erased in a single administration, and then completely restored again. so — this "b.s." about the deficit in and of itself destroying future generations is nonsense. i'd rather have my kids grow up with universal health care than without a deficit. hands down. no contest. not even close.

            if it turns out being so inefficient that it doesnt work, then people won't use it, and the process of budgeting will fix it. if it's not fixed in budgeting and it keeps providing services, then the claim that it's a problem with budgeting is faulty. but the point is — i think we need something better than absolute privatization, not because we need to be better at hitting budgets, but because we need better services than those the private sector is providing.

            but you do need to answer the question, because it is at the root of YOUR position — specifically, you need to be able to justify why the govt being an inefficient provider of law enforcement and national security is ok, while inefficiently managing social services is not, since you think that, because the govt is bad at management, it should only manage those things.

            • 3 votes
            #9.5 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 2:41 PM EST
            Matthew-1551198

            Bottom line is I can take care of myself better than the government can. And it is up to everyone else to take care of themselves and not wait ofr someone else to do it for you.if you can not afford it then there already programs that are already braking us to cover it. We do not need any more. If some people have to go with out that is just the way it is, I f I am one of them then I guess I will just have to live with it. I am not responsible for anyone else problems any more than they are responsible for mine. Also if the government did not alread empty peoples pockets in the first place they would not be unable to afford it.

            insectlogig, we tried this once already as a race back in the cave and found out that we and our children were more likely to survive if we banned together into; at first tribes, then communities, then nations, (I may have left out a few steps but you get my drift). You're welcome to try it again but... Why??? We are a social animal whether you want to admit it or not. We compliment one another and bring out the best in each other... Well most of the time anyway.


            • 3 votes
            #9.6 - Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:37 PM EDT
            Reply
            insectlogig
            • the political bull@!$%# that forced good services to be negotiated into @!$%#ty services.

            Which is why it can not ever be to service to anyone except politicians. Name one successful government fix of anything that ever work. And don't give the new deal b.s. that fiasco would have played out quite differently if the war did not come along. give me one government program that ever stayed in budget and actually achieved it's intended goal.

            The reason for failure is not important. The constant failure is. At least when you are deciding who to let fix something.

              Reply#10 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 1:13 PM EST
              freebirdreaming

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruMf_-dl3hw&feature=related

              • 1 vote
              Reply#11 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 1:14 PM EST
              insectlogig

              You keep on changin freebird me I'm good the way I am

                #11.1 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 2:16 PM EST
                freebirdreaming

                good luck with that.

                  #11.2 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 4:30 PM EST
                  insectlogig

                  No luck required. Only just keep on doing what I'm doing. If I want a change it would be one for the better not the worse.

                  The preference of profit over loss. That has never changed,and never will. No matter what Bob Dylan has to say about it. although that was a particularly good cut thanks for the link.

                    #11.3 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 5:06 PM EST
                    freebirdreaming

                    your welcome

                      #11.4 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 6:58 PM EST
                      Reply
                      Doug-375144

                      Another monster govt run program will turn into another monster govt money pit . Why is it that the answer to all problems is an entitlement rather than a real solution ? A govt healthcare program as written will operate at a deficit , they all ready admit that since we pay for 10yrs to cover 6 . After that it is insolvent, as is SS,Medicare,VA,USPS, and most all govt operated social programs, why ? no business incentive to keep down cost , need more $$ find another fee or tax to add on , no incentive to monitor cost , just increase funding , just like schools no performance incentive just spend more , doesn't create a better product just cost more for more of the inferior one. The big lie is that gov't owes you or govt should provide for you . Some regulation is needed , reforms are as well , improve competition, give everyone an exemption for health ins costs, but to expect the gov't to fix it is unrealistic , they never do , DC is corrupted by money and power on both sides and the unions are just as bad

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#12 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 2:17 PM EST
                      firsty

                      Why is it that the answer to all problems is an entitlement rather than a real solution ?

                      why is it that the right has to use bad logic to make all its points?

                      that a govt-provided service is inappropriate to one thing doesnt make it inappropriate to all. or vice versa.

                      just like schools no performance incentive just spend more , doesn't create a better product just cost more for more of the inferior one

                      do you really think the problem in US schools is that we're spending too much money on them?

                      • 3 votes
                      #12.1 - Thu Mar 4, 2010 2:44 PM EST
                      Doug-375144

                      firsty ,

                      Hello , you again missed my point due to the angle you view from , On health care and most other social issues rather than fix it we make an entitlement program and toss money on it. The problem remains and just costs us all more each year as no real fix is done.

                      Schools are the same , yes we do spend to much on them for the product we get , the most failing schools get even more money so apparently $$$ is not the right answer , charters can spend less and get more results , why can't public schools ? too much govt bureaucracy? unions bloating and clogging the system with teachers that are not performing ? Why can't we have performance based reviews of teachers , every job I've ever had had annual performance reviews , why should any job be exempt from appraisal ? Do you want an under performer teaching your children or anyone elses ? Weed out the bad ones and pay the good ones more, they are worth it.

                        #12.2 - Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:53 PM EST
                        firsty

                        the most failing schools get even more money so apparently $$$ is not the right answer

                        i'm not going to suggest we're spending money wisely, but that doesnt mean that not spending money is the answer. it just means we have to spend it better.

                        you have a simplistic view of the problems in schools. teachers deal with so many problems, from underfunding to overcrowded classrooms. i support regular performance reviews, but not on their own, and that a group of workers who has to pay for all their own school supplies out of their own pockets and also needs a union to protect its already disgustingly lousy pay becomes a primary target of people complaining about bad schools is a little sad.

                        • 2 votes
                        #12.3 - Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:18 PM EST
                        Doug-375144

                        I said the good ones should be paid more , and if the bad ones were out and the money was well spent we would most likely see better results, Yes it's a tough job but the unions protect the bad teachers and make repeated roadblocks for improvement. I have family members in the schools system and they all say the union is not helping to improve the situation.

                          #12.4 - Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:53 PM EST
                          firsty

                          I said the good ones should be paid more , and if the bad ones were out and the money was well spent we would most likely see better results, Yes it's a tough job but the unions protect the bad teachers and make repeated roadblocks for improvement. I have family members in the schools system and they all say the union is not helping to improve the situation.

                          i know. i recently switched careers into teaching.

                          the union is not perfect. but it is also not the problem. and without it, teachers would be in an even worse situation.

                          but every time i see a complaint about schools, it includes, like yours did, a primary emphasis on the union. and that, i think, is sad. the teachers are not to blame for the condition of our schools. good vs bad teachers is a fine argument to have, but without significant funding changes and curriculum changes and changes to the way public schools are run in general, none of that matters.

                          • 2 votes
                          #12.5 - Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:24 AM EST
                          lovetrust

                          teachers aren't the primary problem....the administrators? very top-heavy beaurocracy....the new politic is demanding teachers take 100% of the responsibility while having little say-so in curriculum control.... teachers see all the emphasis away from current events, art, social studies...all kinds of tests for math, but little on creative thinking...little funding for self-expression....automatons...regimented automatons....rote learning...and, BTW, design-to-fail social engineering starts in the classroom when you take away the commendable aspects of a child that don't fit the mold of the rote-oriented student...yes, you can have both, but one is highly prized on its own, and the other is in supposed need of improvement by those who rely on formulaic student outcomes. ...and, then there's the theological crowd, trying to ban evolution from the curriculum....how weird is that?? dummies....demanding more of the same...

                          • 3 votes
                          #12.6 - Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:10 AM EDT
                          Reply
                          Leave a Comment:
                          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                          You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                          (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                          Newsvine Privacy Statement
                          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                          FUN STUFF:
                          • Leaderboard |
                          • E-Mail Alerts |
                          • Top of the Vine |
                          • Newsvine Live |
                          • Newsvine Archives |
                          • The Greenhouse |
                          COMPANY STUFF:
                          • Code of Honor |
                          • Company Info |
                          • Contact Us |
                          • Jobs |
                          • User Agreement |
                          • Privacy Policy |
                          • About our ads
                          LEGAL STUFF:
                          • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                          • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                          • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com