Sign the Socialist-Free Purity Pledge

[Lake View Too]

The point of this thread is that there are some services that the government should be providing, and I'd rather have them administering a form of socialized health care than a form of corporation bail-out.

 

[30ashopper]

The next time you hear someone claim they don't want a "socialist government," send this Socialist-Free Purity Pledge and ask them to sign it. :roll:

The angry left strikes again!

 

[Linda]

and how much money do you think our federal gov't should spend on research and development of medications?

One way to help reduce health care costs would be simple enough -- open up the competition so that insurance companies could cross state lines. Currently they cannot. More open competition in the free-market reduces prices, not government control. You may think that people will get cheaper health care if the gov't runs it, but you will pay more in taxes to cover the costs, and it won't be cheaper, unless the gov't threatens the non-payers with jail time and or hefty fines, and that just aint right. Doing so would basically be no different than a poor thug holding a gun to your head and demanding you hand over his share of your money.

This has got to happen. The Dems keep saying they are for competition and choice yet continue to ignore this one

 

[Smiling JOe]

The point of this thread is that there are some services that the government should be providing, and I'd rather have them administering a form of socialized health care than a form of corporation bail-out.

I don't know anyone, other than politicians, who is in favor of govt bailout of private businesses.

I believe it is important to give incentive (possible wealth) to creative and industrious people who are willing to risk their own money and time, regardless of the industry. That incentive is what brings innovation and efficiency. It also brings wealth, and can also bring lower costs to the public. Eliminating that via heavy taxes or gov't operation, will take away competition and stifle innovation, creativity, and efficiency, as well as increase real costs, and taxes, while giving gov't expanding powers, and limiting freedoms of all kinds.

Do we have a moral obligation to help people less fortunate than ourselves? I think so. However, I don't think the gov't should force me to do so with the threat of jail time or fines. I should be able to choose how I am best able to help people less fortunate than myself. The gov't would rather simply force me to throw money at the issue, so they can pay other people to help. Why not cut out the middle man, and let me offer assistance in my own way, to the charities I best relate to, or to the people who have impacted my life? I know what is best for me, not the gov't.

 

[Lynnie]

I think our government is a proponent of capitalism


and, socialism.

We just need a balance injected.

 

[Matt J]

I don't know anyone, other than politicians, who is in favor of govt bailout of private businesses.

I believe it is important to give incentive (possible wealth) to creative and industrious people who are willing to risk their own money and time, regardless of the industry. That incentive is what brings innovation and efficiency. It also brings wealth, and can also bring lower costs to the public. Eliminating that via heavy taxes or gov't operation, will take away competition and stifle innovation, creativity, and efficiency, as well as increase real costs, and taxes, while giving gov't expanding powers, and limiting freedoms of all kinds.

Do we have a moral obligation to help people less fortunate than ourselves? I think so. However, I don't think the gov't should force me to do so with the threat of jail time or fines. I should be able to choose how I am best able to help people less fortunate than myself. The gov't would rather simply force me to throw money at the issue, so they can pay other people to help. Why not cut out the middle man, and let me offer assistance in my own way, to the charities I best relate to, or to the people who have impacted my life? I know what is best for me, not the gov't.

Once again SJ you've lumped health insurance and drug companies into one.

The only thing that could be stifled at an insurance company again is denial of service and higher premiums.

Drug companies are responsible for many new breakthroughs, but they're never going to fess up and admit they readily use government to fund these breakthroughs on a regular basis. i.e. Universities equipment, eager grad students, and somewhat limited liability for testing.

As for medical procedure breakthroughs, show me one that resulted from health insurance companies other than 24 hour hospital stays for new mothers?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Didn't do it, SWGB. There are billions being spent by private industry to improve health technology, having absolutely nothing to do with drug companies.

 

[idlewind]

I think our government is a proponent of capitalism


and, socialism.

We just need a balance injected.

The balance is found in what exactly is government supposed to do. The rights we are promised is Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is hard to have these rights in a community where criminal run rampant, fires rage unfought and the injured have to means to be transported to the hospital- thus police firemen and ambulances are legitimate functions of government. This is just one example.

 

[fisher]

Once again SJ you've lumped health insurance and drug companies into one.

The only thing that could be stifled at an insurance company again is denial of service and higher premiums.

Drug companies are responsible for many new breakthroughs, but they're never going to fess up and admit they readily use government to fund these breakthroughs on a regular basis. i.e. Universities equipment, eager grad students, and somewhat limited liability for testing.

As for medical procedure breakthroughs, show me one that resulted from health insurance companies other than 24 hour hospital stays for new mothers?

If you think the insurance companies are tough on denying/reducing services, wait till you get a governmental unit telling you which procedures you can have and which you cannot.

 

[MommaMia]

Government health services are often TOO lenient

If you think the insurance companies are tough on denying/reducing services, wait till you get a governmental unit telling you which procedures you can have and which you cannot.

I've heard your claim that a governmental unit will withhold more services than current insurance companies. On what do you base that supposition? Currently, medicare is in trouble partly because it pays for almost anything a doctor prescribes -- including procedures that may or may not be helpful. As a medicare recipient -- I can give you facts to support that claim.

Given some of the outrageous and often wasteful ways the private corporate world manages its business, perhaps the tired old line that "bureaucrats can't run anything" should go out the window with all the other cliches. Just a thought.