[Zerogouki]

That's a three-part recipe for disaster. A better 3-part plan would look like this:

1) Abolish the Department of Health and Human Services
2) Kill Medicare and Medicaid
3) Kill Social Security

[Wolfman]

1) Abolish the Department of Health and Human Services
2) Kill Medicare and Medicaid
3) Kill Social Security

Mine is based on more then a Libertarian wet dream, so I think I'll keep advocating it.

[cmikes]

A three part plan is whats needed: Universal Healthcare (the majority of Americans who go bankrupt do so because of medical bills, and countries with a Universal System of longer life spans on average), better managed funding for public education, and a welfare system that requires the people on it to go to school (like it was in the 50s and early 60s).

This is what kills me about big government liberals. Big centralized government has spectacularly failed to solve problems in healthcare, education, and poverty over the past 40 years, so what's the solution? More big centralized government, of course. Wolfman, what's your solution to getting a flat tire on your hybrid? Getting out, flattening two more tires and driving off down the road? Could the government ever fail to such an extent that you would consider a private, free market solution, or is more and more government control over people's lives always the answer?

Mine is based on more then a Libertarian wet dream, so I think I'll keep advocating it.

I can't speak for Zerogouki, but you're right, liberty is probably only a dream in this day and age of government control, but to paraphrase a comment I made earlier in this thread, just because something seems out your reach doesn't mean you should stop fighting for it.

[Godstud]

There are other countries that have government run healthcare that are successful so just you saying it won't work, is a fallacy. No one says it will be easy, but it can be done.
It surely would be better than what it is now.

[cmikes]

There are other countries that have government run healthcare that are successful so just you saying it won't work, is a fallacy. No one says it will be easy, but it can be done.
It surely would be better than what it is now.

Even if we ignore the past massive failures of the US government as it relates to healthcare, and assume that President Obama is the Messiah, the One, that "we are the ones we've been waiting for", and government run healthcare will magically start to work, what will we have to give up in order for it to do so? Are you willing to let a government bureaucrat chose your doctor? Are you willing to wait up to 2 years for standard tests? Are you willing to travel thousands of miles because an "health board" tells you to? In the Canadian system, there was a story the other day about a cancer patient who had to drive to Maine to receive an approved treatment. He lives across from Detroit, where there was also a hospital that could provide the treatment, but the Canadian system determined that he had to go to Maine if he wanted the treatment paid for, so he went to Maine. He had to come to America to be treated because the Canadian system didn't have the money to develop it. This is not a isolated incident, for more information see http://www.freemarketcure.com/socializedmedicineissicko.php.

It's pretty much the same story in England, where now a diagnosis of breast cancer is basically a death sentence, since they don't have the money to treat it with the most effective drugs on the market now. http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/121975/women_denied_key_breast_cancer_drug/

But again, let's take a walk into liberal fantasyland and assume it works. The question again becomes what are you willing to give up for "free" healthcare? How much of your freedom and self-determination are you willing to give up in order to beg the government to do something you are quite capable of doing on your own?

[Zerogouki]

Wow, cmikes... only 16 posts and you're already serving up mass amounts of ownage.

Welcome to the forum!

[Godstud]

No one said that you have to make it completely government run. Even in Canada, if you have the money for it, you have options. If you are flat broke you can still hope for medical care and in general your care will be as good as the person who pays for it, although it does tend to depend on how life-threatening your illness/injury is. the Canadian government may deny having a 2 tier system, but it's had it for many years.

Canada still has same day MRIs in some places and if you have to wait, most company benefits cover the price of a private MRI, etc. One problem, in Canada, now seems to be consistency between provinces. eg. I am waiting months for a nerve block here in BC, while in Alberta you can get it within weeks. Quite a difference, but if I had lots of money I could do it tomorrow or if it was life-threatening it would be sped up.

It's not a perfect system by any means, but in general it is pretty good, and no matter your financial position, you can always rely on medical assistance.

[Zerogouki]

Even in Canada, if you have the money for it, you have options.

Yeah, you have the option of coming to the United States

[Godstud]

No. You have the option of private clinics. There are a great many throughout the country.

[cmikes]

No one said that you have to make it completely government run.

You have the option of private clinics. There are a great many throughout the country.

Well, then we're talking about two different things. We have the same sort of system in the US now. You can have private insurance(or just pay out of pocket), or you can depend on the government, medicaid, medicare and the like. The problem is that many people see the President's healthcare reform as a stepping stone to a single payer system, which means completely getting rid of private insurance and making everybody dependent on government. The reason people believe this is because as soon as a public option, ie government controlled healthcare, becomes available, most companies will immediately get rid of their healthcare plans. The whole point of a 'public option' is to kill off private insurance. The problem with that solution is that it's unsustainable. Medicare and Medicaid are going bankrupt now, adding millions of people to the systems just bankrupts them that much sooner. The US is already having trouble with the devaluation of the dollar, and China starting to make noise about not buying any more of our debt, the money simply isn't there to add another 3-4 trillion dollars to pay for government healthcare.

Are there problems with US healthcare? Yeah, there are. Should we be looking a different solutions? Of course. I think the biggest problem with the US healthcare system is education. The generally accepted number of people without health insurance in the US is 47 million, although that's debatable. That number could probably be cut at least in half with a modicum of education. There are literally thousands of local, state, federal, and private charity programs that provide healthcare for people that can't afford it. Every hospital is required by federal law to provide emergency healthcare to those who need it, regardless of ability to pay. Most, if not all, hospitals also have a charity program that provides free (or cheaper) healthcare for low income people. If people merely took advantage of the programs already available, it would take care of most of the problem. The last thing we need is for the government to step in and take over the part of the system, the private system, that's already mostly working. I believe we should concentrate on the parts of the system that need improvement, like the uninsured and poor that need help.

[Zerogouki]

The generally accepted number of people without health insurance in the US is 47 million, although that's debatable. That number could probably be cut at least in half with a modicum of education.

Or not

[DanDaMan]

To answer the original post as to why Obama does what he knows will fail?
He has a mental disorder.

Think about it. You already stated he knows it all leads to failure.
What sane man takes that path then!

He is a product of poor educational system that failed to teach discriminatory logic.

That's why I wont send my child to public school.

[Wolfman]

^

Fail, Obama went to school until his teens outside the US.

Also, the countries he's moving us towards, do better then us. So, double fail. You must really suck at life.

[PBVBROOK]

Fail, Obama went to school until his teens outside the US.

Not true. Obama started the Punahou Academy, a very good scchool, at the age of 10. That is in Hawaii which is most decidedly in the US. It is arguably the best school in Hawaii.

Where do these ideas get started?

[DanDaMan]

Also, the countries he's moving us towards, do better then us. So, double fail. You must really suck at life.

Please list these countries and why.

[Godstud]

Where do these ideas get started?

People who blather on with no research or facts behind them and who rely on gossip for all their information.
Obama is likely going to end up being the best president the US has had in a few hundred years, and that scares the naysayers and his detractors.
Socialism, can improve a country and many, if not most, successful countries have socialist elements in them.

[DanDaMan]

Socialism, can improve a country and many, if not most, successful countries have socialist elements in them.

Why is it again Obama and other social states he emulates are printing money to cover their losses?

[Godstud]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/99797-a ... s-it-takes
You mean America doesn't do this?
Show me that this is more than just you rambling on without providing proof other countries are doing this. Show me proof.

[DanDaMan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009 ... ing-money1

Let's not forget Japan.

Germany would do it too but last time they tried it some little guy with a mustache took over!

[Zerogouki]

Obama is likely going to end up being the worst president the US has had since Nixon

Fixed.