Way to step up Massachusetts

[Fatphil]

I'm 30. I don't want to do away with Medicare. I just don't want to pay for your insurance if you choose to not get a real job when you get out of school. I don't enjoy going to work everyday but with that chose comes benifits (my health insurance is about 40 dollars a month out of pocket pre tax). Medicare is going bankrupt right now and the bill that just got killed by what this whole thread was started about would have cut that funding by billions (well except where the senators had some sweet heart deal like florida where their vote got bought).

Are u serious...$40 a month!! What plan are u on? I imagine you're some employee...not a business person....A fair price per month should be $500. The problem is a to trust the SOB's running this scam that when u need care it is not denied because some creepy VP of marketing's bonus that's dependent on denying your claim so he can get a $100K bonus.

Lefty Golfer owns his business and keeps it real...while I disagree with him I respect his opinon as he obviously knows what he is talking about, however, my opinion is that the profit margins earned by private insurance far exceeds the waste, inefficiency and fraud you would see w/ a public option. I spoke to a BCBS fraud guy..he said fraud is about 10% of their gross income here in Florida. OK so be it... that's an issue that can be addressed later...however, I still believe the honesty of the product being offered is the question. Private insurance cannot be trusted...is public better?..I think it is. One last point...Tort Reform...it is very difficult to sue the federal government...I believe the public option will make that issue moot.

[doof_dizzler]

Everytime I see this argument I am astonished by the complete inability of so many people to apply even the most basic standards of logic to their arguments. Does united parcel service set their rates at the amount they need to receive to make money. of course. The postal services rates are set, to save taxpayers money, not make money. Even then to compare a shriniking business, mail to private businesses, Chrysler, steel, newspapers etc. proves that changes in economics, technology etc are the real issue. Goverment services exist because the private sector can't or is unsuitable, or to protect the public. In my state there were multiple studies of services, after multiple studies determined that services were being delivered at a higher level with 1/2 the staffing level of equivalent private sector services, they just stopped doing studies. Most studies of medicaid show that fraud to qualify for medicaid is very low, less than 2 percent. After all the largest dollar amount of fraud by far is from medical providers, don't you think they steal from private insurance as well. Most states fund medicaid now and the services is actually provided through insurance companie. The public projects arguement doesn't hold water either. The companies providing the services, all private are the ones who fail to get the projects completed close to their own bids. It is the private companies such as wall street banks, who are really the bigger problem. For goverment services in general, public assistance, irs, etc comparing them to private businesses is a joke. Goverment budgets are set by saying this is how much we want to spend, staff, equipment etc. Now get it done. Rarely do the budgets have any real connection to the service expected. In business you have control over your suppliers, prices, even who you want your customers to be. Public employees must serve all. I receive verbal abuse on a daily basis that no one in the private sector would ever be expected to take. I gurarantee that the great majority of people who criticize goverment and its employees would not last a month doing what I do. Acting as if the goverment is the problem and is the enemy just shows complet ignorance.

Hilarious! The best is the part about having to take abuse from people. Really amusing sense of irony there!

Private enterprise has to put up with whatever the public chooses to dish out, it's the cost of doing business. Those that work in a govt bureaucracy are exempt from reality and the constraints ofthe free market, protected by various codes/standards/contracts that a private business would/could never implement. When I deal with the doctor's office, or auto licensing bureau, or some other civil servant, they have a sign that says something like "This inclusive and respectful workplace does not tolerate any disrespect or loud voices....." If we put a sign like that up at my work, we'd be forced to deal with the crap and abuse that people would heap on us, rightfully ridiculing us. It might even be discriminatory for a private workplace to try to implement such a code in Canada. I'm sad that we live in a society where there are 2 distinct classes of citizens, those who own or work for private enterprise, paying the high taxes and just plugging away creating the wealth that society needs to provide essential services AND those who work for the govt, spending up said accumulated wealth in a union protected job, no economic forces can affect their jobs or political power, with a greatly inflated sense of self-worth. My ex inlaws were all working union govt jobs, so the clash between their sloth and my entrepreneurial spirit was a major force of strife in my life at that time. Arrogant liberal fools that they were.

[allin]

Hilarious! The best is the part about having to take abuse from people. Really amusing sense of irony there!

I hesitate to reply but your response makes my point for me. I wrote about facts, processes, gave examples of what was weak in the argument. Your response that private enterprise has to put up with... is not even close to the truth. Bouncers in clubs, tickets for entry, ID required, managment reserves the right to refuse service etc. The fact of the matter is that businesses spend a great deal of time and money screening and selecting their customers. Mail offers, how many department stores are there in the slums. I have had knives and guns pulled on me, been spit on, had my life threatened many times. A week does not go by when someone, almost always someone who failed to shoulder their share of responsibility for the process, cusses, screams, threatens, and then usuallly calls a supervisor and lies about what they did and said and what I did and said. Customers who did this in the private sector are shown the door. As far as unions, the last I knew both private and public sector employment often involves unions. You rant about goverment spending accumlated wealth, by definition accumulated means in your possesion. Your answer tells me that you are indeed ignorant, and worse a petty bigot towards things you obviously know nothing about.

[Shanks A Million]

Yea....that was what caused it. all by itself, the Carter / clinton "everybody must own home" was huge as well...and there was much much more.

That's actually a pretty interesting myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...ebt.2C_and_GDP Believe it or not, Republican presidents have generally increased federal spending more than Democrats from 1979-2005. Republicans increased spending by an average of 12.1%, while democrats increased it 9.9%. Democrats increased the deficit by 4.2%, while Republicans increased it by 36.4%. The GDP increased 10.7% under Republicans, but 12.6% under Democrats. I'm curious to see what these numbers have done in the last 5 years.

Everytime I see this argument I am astonished by the complete inability of so many people to apply even the most basic standards of logic to their arguments. Does united parcel service set their rates at the amount they need to receive to make money. of course. The postal services rates are set, to save taxpayers money, not make money. Even then to compare a shriniking business, mail to private businesses, Chrysler, steel, newspapers etc. proves that changes in economics, technology etc are the real issue. Goverment services exist because the private sector can't or is unsuitable, or to protect the public. In my state there were multiple studies of services, after multiple studies determined that services were being delivered at a higher level with 1/2 the staffing level of equivalent private sector services, they just stopped doing studies. Most studies of medicaid show that fraud to qualify for medicaid is very low, less than 2 percent. After all the largest dollar amount of fraud by far is from medical providers, don't you think they steal from private insurance as well. Most states fund medicaid now and the services is actually provided through insurance companie. The public projects arguement doesn't hold water either. The companies providing the services, all private are the ones who fail to get the projects completed close to their own bids. It is the private companies such as wall street banks, who are really the bigger problem. For goverment services in general, public assistance, irs, etc comparing them to private businesses is a joke. Goverment budgets are set by saying this is how much we want to spend, staff, equipment etc. Now get it done. Rarely do the budgets have any real connection to the service expected. In business you have control over your suppliers, prices, even who you want your customers to be. Public employees must serve all. I receive verbal abuse on a daily basis that no one in the private sector would ever be expected to take. I gurarantee that the great majority of people who criticize goverment and its employees would not last a month doing what I do. Acting as if the goverment is the problem and is the enemy just shows complet ignorance.

A good point. The government in a democracy serves the people. The problem is apathy. So many people bitch about our government, but almost no one does anything about it. The only protesters we see are smelly hippies and crazy tea partiers.

[allin]

Does anyone use facts in this discussion? Administrative costs for private insurance plans in the US typically range between 15 and 20 percent. Medicare is less than five percent. Someone else made the point about the reason USPS lacks profitability is service to rural areas. There was a proposal a few years ago to privatize the post office. All of the proposals from private businesses amounted to cherry picking large urban areas. When the Post Office proposes reducing delivery days, businesses are the largest complainers, the disruption in billing, advertising, etc is a big deal, especially to smaller businesses who lack a large advertising budet for mass communication vehicles like TV and the internet. And flatly the USPS does not have the ability to make the changes you list, not without approval of the enities which oversee it. I don't know where you obtained your figures on Medicare Fraud, I would be interested since that would be a huge percentage of the total monies spent for medicare. As far as medical technology, yes we (USA) perform well in crisis, hero care, but many other parts of the world do a much better job in other equally important areas. In our current system the USA is subsidizing medical research that other countries do not contribute a fair shar towards. This often seen when medicines developed here cost much more than in other countries.

[allin]

Much of what you said is accurate, but those who live in rural areas produce our food and other essential products for all of us. There is a reason many businessses which are smelly, noisy or otherwise not people friendly are in small areas. Does that make them second class citizens?

[Chilli Dipper]

We're supposed to be living in a democracy that serves the people, but the arm of the government whose job is to uphold the law just decided that corporations (those lifeless, soulless entities whose existence is based solely upon maximizing the profits of the privileged few whom own stock in them) have been robbed of their rights to free speech because our laws were designed to keep their interests from overwhelming the voice of the people.

[allin]

There are more lawers than any other profession in both the senate and house. Not promoting more lawer jokes. And very few could be classified as failures, their average wealth, particularly in the senate is in the millions.

[iacas]

Believe it or not, Republican presidents have generally increased federal spending

So what say you to this?

I really don't care much about politics.

[jamo]

Jamo, Did you vote on Tuesday?

Well, here goes absolutely any credibility i might have had.

No, i did not vote. I'm 17, i don't turn 18 for (exactly) 10 months. But i will be voting in the mid-terms in november. Actually, i'll be i college then, likely in Pennsylvania or Delaware, so i'm not sure how that'll really work, maybe an absentee ballot or something? Look, i take an AP Government and Politics class, and i don't really like taking parts in debates because i learn more just listening to other people, but i figured i might as well express my thoughts here. I don't see anyone who has posted here in different ways because i now know your political viewpoints, and i hope its the same for your. Everyone here has made some valid points, and something that i have learned in AP Gov is that any political debate is going to come down to everyone's moral values and what you think is ethical and logical. People are going to read the posts that support their viewpoints, and they are going to attack the ones that don't. I've done it, you've done it, so has anyone else. It's like golf swings, anyone can take some numbers they saw in an article to support their point, then someone can find more data on the same subject to support themselves. No one here is going to really convince anyone else of anything because anyone who has posted here obviously thinks that their view are right. So, there

[iammpspeer]

this is really funny...you didn't even get your own joke!! Coakley's campaign was raked over the coals because they misspelled Massachusetts on their literature...they actually spelled it different than you did (Massachusettes) yeh you read it right "massa"

What can I say? lol.

[Awsi Dooger]

That's actually a pretty interesting myth.

Very true, and I've seen it taken many steps further. I thought it was ironic that your post co-existed with the recent Faldo thread in the other forum. Apparently it's fine for the world to embrace aged and phony conventional wisdom in terms of political influence, but not in ball flight. Actually both threads had plenty of good counter argument. I was impressed with allin here, on the realities of the post office vs. private sector, etc. Those were the arguments I used to make on balanced political sites, before it became increasingly polarized and abusive, basically no longer worth it.

Similarly, that Winston Churchill quote is famous and oft cited, but it's also a preposterous myth. Voting tendencies are cemented at very early age, basically age 18, and primarily dependent on the popularity of the president at the time. It can't be understated going forward how devastating it was for the GOP to have a post-Katrina president stuck at low 30s approval for several years. The voters who came of voting age during that time frame will be heavily Democratic. Obama has a chance to expand that advantage but he's currently blowing it via 50/50-type approval. I've seen the presidential approval/party affiliation breakdown from many sources, always with the same conclusion, that early is more meaningful than late. Gallup.com did a survey of 123,000 voters of every age bracket recently, and Nate Silver provided a related chart with summary: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...icans-for.html "What's interesting, though, is what happens when we look at not these abstract generational categories, but rather at the following question: who was President when you turned 18? As annotated in the chart below, the popularity -- or lack thereof -- of the President when the voter turned 18 would seem to have a lot of explanatory power for how their politics turned out later on:"

[Shanks A Million]

So what say you to this?

The problem with this assessment is that it doesn't really take all the factors into account. Both Obama and Roosevelt came into office when the country was in

severe recession. In both cases, their predecessers had let the problem simmer for years until it was out of control. Their predecessors had both tried to ignore the problem until it began to balloon out of control, made knee jerk decisions to suddenly implement ill though procedures ( Smoot Hawley & TARP). Both of these acts were ill conceived, pushed too fast, and both caused more problems then they created. Now you have such a deep hole, that you have to spend more and more just to get back to even. By the time Obama entered office, he was looking at the highest unemployment since the great depression, and a stock market that was quickly heading for 0. At this point, there was no choice but to spend money. Roosevelt did the same thing. The Republican party has a terrible record at handling the economy. Only two American Republican presidents (since the depression) have seen good economic welfare, Eisenhower and Nixon. Actually, there's a great misunderstanding regarding the New Deal. Many people think that the New Deal did not work. This is false. The New Deal was not passed in 1933 as many people assume it was, it was only passed by congress at that time. The supreme court was almost entirely Republican at the time, and they blocked much of the New Deal. Roosevelt threatened to add justices to the court. Wanting to keep their majority, they agreed to let it pass in 1936. In 1937, one year after the passage, the country had begun to recover. At this time, the conservative coalition (Republicans and pre-schism southern Democrats) rolled back the New Deal, leading to a setback. The result was the same, the country began to go back downhill again. Massive public outcry (once again) caused it to shift again. The unemployment went back down, and the rest is history. So, in economic affairs, the Democratic party (post progressive schisms) does have more clout. Jimmy Carter was a notable exception. But until I see hard proof that the Republican party can do better, I'll stick with Obama on this one. I highly dislike Obama's actions for the most part, but he's getting results. The stock market has recovered to a large degree, and unemployment is slowing down.

[doof_dizzler]

I hesitate to reply but your response makes my point for me. I wrote about facts, processes, gave examples of what was weak in the argument. Your response that private enterprise has to put up with... is not even close to the truth. Bouncers in clubs, tickets for entry, ID required, managment reserves the right to refuse service etc. The fact of the matter is that businesses spend a great deal of time and money screening and selecting their customers. Mail offers, how many department stores are there in the slums. I have had knives and guns pulled on me, been spit on, had my life threatened many times. A week does not go by when someone, almost always someone who failed to shoulder their share of responsibility for the process, cusses, screams, threatens, and then usuallly calls a supervisor and lies about what they did and said and what I did and said. Customers who did this in the private sector are shown the door. As far as unions, the last I knew both private and public sector employment often involves unions. You rant about goverment spending accumlated wealth, by definition accumulated means in your possesion. Your answer tells me that you are indeed ignorant, and worse a petty bigot towards things you obviously know nothing about.

I don't accept the contention that your mentioning something you read some time ago is somehow some form of advanced dialogue, while anything you don't agree with is "ignorant". It's really just you bringing up a few things, the same way most others have stated their opinions in this thread.

Yes, businesses are in business to make themselves money. They also provide almost all the money that the 3 levels of govt have to spend. I'm not sure if it works exactly the same in your state, but here at least, the federal, provincial and local govts accumulate the money they adminster thru taxes on income, ownership of property and similar exchanges of capital. The little bit of reading I just did seemed to indicate thatmost US states do indeed accumulate the funds they need to run the state from taxes, on citizens and businesses. It's pointless to use the postal service as an example. Sure, they provide a service that none of their "competition" does, but the various couriers are also expressly forbidden from competing directly with the postal service in a number of ways. Could UPS compete with Canada Post/USPS and still deliver a letter for 57 cents?? We'll never know, as they're not allowed to. Any incentive the postal service would have to economize or streamline operations is removed by granting them a monopoly. I also wasn't able to find anything online about the studies you referred to earlier. I'll take your word for it, but I'm not sure that we're talking about "apples to apples" comparisons. Neither the supporters of privatization/free market or those of more govt involvement in the economy would be likely to commission a study that wasn't looking for the results they wanted to see. It's simply the way think tanks/lobby groups operate. I'm not surprised that the studies to show govt is better than private enterprise confirmed it. I'd be equally surprised if the study to show the opposite confirmed it. And as far as private business enjoying a walk in the park while civil servants suffer, that's the opposite impression than what I'm used to hearing about. I don't often hear people lament the plight of the poor govt employees while those greedy businessmen enjoy the gentle life. It is a unique twist on the traditional position, but I'll accept it at face value. Every time we open the doors each day, we have to deal with what comes in the door. Obviously, we apply the various applicable laws and regulations, and govern our affairs accordingly, but we don't have any right or authority to force our patrons to act in any particular way. Our only choice is to not to business with them. There is also no supervisor available to deal with any problems and confirm/reject any previous actions. The buck stops right there, with the proprietor taking responsibility for his decisions. At the hospital, or passport office, or municipal office, there is a code of conduct regarding how the customers must behave. I did a quick search, and just like here in AB, every state dept I looked up, in the closest state to me (Montana), has a fairly lengthy explanation about how all their employees are to be treated with respect, no raised voices, inclusive and tolerant workplace, will be asked to leave, nothing threatening.....on and on. (It did seem silly to me to expect the Corrections Service employees to enjoy a peaceful workplace) Because they all have a monopoly on the sevice they provide, those who need to deal with said dept have no choice but to put up with whatever treatment they get from the protected and privileged staff. If the counter attendant at the passport office is rude to you, too bad, as saying anything or trying to complain gets you thrown out for "harassing" them. The only recourse is to not get a passport, it's not like deciding to go to the restaurant where the staff is friendlier than the other restaurant in town. Private businesses can't enforce similar measures, as the need to make their patrons feel welcomed at least enough to come back. While I certainly sympathize with you, regarding the nasty actions of some of the people you deal with, I don't have the luxury of conducting my business in such a way as to make people so angry they threaten or otherwise intimidate me or anyone else there, and I certainly don't have the long arm of the law backing me up to make all my patrons treat me politely and meekly. The guy that cusses and screams and threatens you?? I have to take all that, and still have to try to make him happy, if I want to stay in business. I'm also not a monopoly, so I have to provide a satisfactory service, I don't have the option of telling my customers that it's their fault and to call a supervisor. My only option is to do my best at all times to try to earn and keep their business, or they'll go across town to the competitor. A wee bit of competition is a powerfully motivating factor in affecting improvements in any business, unless of course you think business is the enemy. If you believe that corporate profits are more of a threat to general societal well-being than fraud, it would seem that you've made your preferences clear. By indicating such, I'll concede that you've demonsrated that you're somewhat of an expert on the topic, however you're mistaken if you think I share the same level of admiration for wilful ignorance as you do.

[Lefty-Golfer]

The problem with this assessment is that it doesn't really take all the factors into account. Both Obama and Roosevelt came into office when the country was in

you are to much...roosevelt and Obama are the 2 biggest spenders in history...roosevelt already failed and Barak is doomed to. You can attemptto rewrite history all you want but it doesn't change the facts. Roosevelt was one of the worst ever...he extended the great depression for years and we may never have recovered from it if it hadn't been for WW2. That was his saving grace...and Barak is going down the same path. the best part, he doesn't have the balls to fight or win a war.

Plus we are still burdened by some of the new deal money pits, welfare is killing the poor. It has created several generations of of people that can't / won't / don't have to take care of themselves...Roosevelt!!!! LOL of and by the way "in economic affairs, the Democratic party does have more clout" could quite possibly the dumbest thing ever posted. what is the old saying lies, damn lies and statistics....

[B Keller]

Plus we are still burdened by some of the new deal money pits, welfare is killing the poor. It has created several generations of of people that can't / won't / don't have to take care of themselves...Roosevelt!!!! LOL

Obviously I didn't live during it, but I remember learning about the Great Depression in school. I was taught that people were ashamed to take aid and stand in soup lines. This and the next generation are the generations that fought in and won WW II.

Today people find ways to get ON welfare, stay there, and increase the amount of money they get from the government! As a fire investigator it really bugs me to go to a burnt Section 8 (and other low rent housing) that burned and the tenant does not have to pay rent and has no insurance but DOES have MULTIPLE big screen TV's, a new $30K car, satellite, and other luxuries. All while NOT WORKING AND PAYING FOR IT WITH WORKING PEOPLE'S TAX DOLLARS! Then they look to sue the owner of the house because they don't have insurance and someone OWES them money to replace the stuff they bought with other people's money. And a lot of times the tenant is the reason the fire happened in the first place! I will get off the soap box now.

[Shindig]

you are to much...roosevelt and Obama are the 2 biggest spenders in history...

Actually, Bush and Obama are the two biggest spenders in history, as a year-for-year thing, assuming we're counting all the spending in the past year as Obama's.

[Danny Noonan]

Good thing that one does not have to take a basic spelling test before being allowed to cast a vote - most of you wouldn't make it.

- DN