Our Elected Officials......The System needs to change

[zeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt5339

This sounds good in theory, but as someone who has one of those "Cadillac" health care programs, let me tell you how it really works.  Because of the mandates that started this year, my health care plan cost has doubled.  So you're free to purchase your own program, if you don't mind spending outrageous amounts for it.  I choose to spend the money because I am completely against the Government being involved in things that the private sector can do better.

I have health insurance, too, so I don't need to be told how it works. Health care prices are rising across the board, and they have been for years. While it's possible that in some individual cases the cited reason is specifically because of the mandate, it is simplistic to accept that as the only reason.

You seem to be arguing that one can pay a lot more to buy private insurance to keep the government out. Excuse my confusion here, but if the private sector is such a good option, why are you upset to have that option? The simple fact is that private sector insurance costs have been skyrocketing.

Quote:

How many things does the federal government do well?  Whenever they get involve, costs go up, service goes down, and it's always more expensive to run than they think.  The health care mandate will be just another failed social program.

Here's some raw numbers from my own life:

2 Years ago, I was paying $3380 a year in healthcare premiums.

This year, because of the new mandates, and the "expected" rise in costs for the insurance company under obamacare, my premium is now a whopping $6240 a year for the exact same coverage I was getting 2 years ago.  How much has my income went up in the past 2 years?  Not a cent.  So I'm almost $3000 poorer by proxy.  And while the news will cover some college chick who says she spends $3000 a year in contraceptives, so they want it covered by their free health insurance, I am spending that $3000 additional a year trying to take care of my family in a responsible way.

This really doesn't make any sense. This is an example of the general problem and is not caused by government-sponsored health care.

The problem with a "free market" health care solution is that the economic model is fundamentally broken. Insurance companies have no interest in providing actual care to sick customers. Their rational behavior is to raise prices while doing everything they can do ditch people who actually need their service. It's been made more than evident that they have no sense of moral responsibility (see, for example, the outrageous recission policies that California finally cracked down on a few years ago). No health insurance company has any interest in the business of, say, a cancer patient. As long as it's a private company, it will be most successful if it can find ways to provide service only to those who don't need it.

So yes, I'll agree that the government frequently has issues, but your talking points on that effect are just so much rhetoric. The government, in fact, does a rather good job providing many services, and this is a case where the free market is proven to be a terrible solution. Health care in the US is the most expensive in the world, and is mediocre at best in terms of outcomes. The free market health care simply does not work, and we've proven this to the world. It's sad that people ignore these facts and defend it against the government boogeymen.

(It is true that we also have the best doctors in the world. However, the vast majority of Americans simply do not have the resources to access that level of care. Our average level of care is easily shown to be far worse than most of Europe or Canada in terms of outcomes, and the level of care provided to the poorest Americans fares worse than the equivalents in other countries. Returning to the level of care of a few years ago might be acceptable to the middle class and upwards, but for most Americans it would be continuation of a disaster.)

[Bullitt5339]

Have you lived in Europe or any other country with socialized health care?  You state that they have a better quality of health care, but that is simply not true for the majority.  As someone who has lived there, I can tell you that their health care is definitely not better than ours, especially if you need surgery or specialized care.  That's why people from Europe and even Canada flock to the United States when they have serious medical conditions to have their procedures done.  I've lived in many countries that have government funded health care, and those who rely on the private sector and there is no comparison.

The free market health care system absolutely does work when there's not additional regulations and programs that drive up the costs for everyone who buys their insurance.  Want to debate this?  Sure, no problem.  Hospitals must make money.  Uninsured individuals are guaranteed health treatment and abuse it, driving up the costs for all of those who actually pay because of it.  They go to the Emergency room for things that can be taken care of at one of many numerous cheap or free clinics available in the area.  Things like coughs and colds, sprained axles, headaches and long term problems.  The options are there for people who cannot afford great insurance, but they refuse to use them correctly, which drives up our insurance costs because someone has to pay for the resources they use at the Emergency Room.  If Emergency treatment facilities were allowed to turn away non-emergency people abusing the facility for routine problems and give them the card for the clinic and send them there the next day, it would greatly reduce our costs.  But there are laws preventing that.

Should everyone have access to healthcare?  Sure.  Should everyone have access to EQUAL health care?  Nope.  Why?  Because those who work harder get more and better "stuff" than those who don't.  It's the way things should have stayed.  Fair does not mean Equal.

We already have 2 Government funded health care options for those who can't afford it, Medicaid and Medicare.  They are perfect examples of why we don't need socialized health care.  They are two of the most corrupt and debt ridden agencies in the U.S. Government because of fraud, waste and abuse.  And you want these same people to be in charge of MY health?  No thanks.

Insurance companies have to maintain a "pool" or "bank" of money to cover payouts.  There have been limits to how large that pool could be for many many years to keep insurance companies from charging huge rates just to have excess cash.  Those limits are non-existent anymore due to come of the regulation changes that went into effect last year from Obamacare.  Obamacare specifically did this to allow the insurance companies to build up capital, since when it takes full effect in 2013, they are going to have huge payouts and loss of revenue.  This means that people who are currently insured have to "Pay it Forward" with no benefits from it.

So you have 2 inherently greedy organizations who both want this large pool of money to be there for next year, and those who are paying for their insurance now are funding that pool that will be used by everyone else next year.  Socialism?  Pretty much.

This is just the start of our problems.  I am not wealthy, my family income isn't even over $150k a year.  If you factor in my taxes from Federal, State, Excise (gas) and purchases, I am already paying just over 40% of my income in taxes.  With gas prices double what they were 3 years ago, and I have to travel 60 miles per day for work.  I am spending $1600 more than I was 3 years ago in gasoline between my family.  I am paying $3000 more in health care than I was 3 years ago.  My food cost have increased $1300 in the past 3 years.

I am making no more money than I was 3 years ago.

My neighbor lives in the same size house I do in the same neighborhood.  She receives $700 a month in Food Stamps.  Her rent is subsidized because she is a baby factory.  She has a brand new Mini-Van, but no job.  She lives the same lifestyle that I do, even though she sits and makes babies all day and my wife and I go to work and pay for our own stuff with no assistance from anyone.  So am I just disgruntled because I work my tail off to provide a decent life for my family and watch those who have not done the same thing all their life being handed the same things that I have worked for?  Sure I am.  If that makes me heartless or greedy or whatever you want to call it, I don't care.

I don't care what choices you have made in your life or what you choose to do...........  As long as I don't have to pay for them.  And as of right now, I'm paying a hell of a lot so that others don't have to work as hard as I did.

[dak4n6]

Some interesting arguments here.

For me, the problems with our government are embedded and systemic, and thus can't be legislated away or solved by voting for a party. These problems had their seed a long time ago in the form of good ol' fashioned greed (which was supposed to be the fuel for good in a free market capitalistic system). However, Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' was asleep or arthritic or otherwise unfunctioning, and politicians and businesses found they could make beautiful music together.

Today, I feel that the fundamental problem with our system is Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.  Plain. and. Simple.

And nothing short of revolution will get rid of it.  Sad. but. True.

[MMiller]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

.

Unfortunately the entire system is so corrupt I don't think there's an easy solution short of a revolution.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

It's corrupt in the sense that these politicians are more concerned about losing their power and perks than they are with doing the job they were elected to do.  Each candidate promises to change how their existing politician is doing things but when they are elected into office they do nothing different.  We saw Obama rip Bush for how he ran the country and nothing has changed under Obama.  Now we have a bunch of republicans ripping Obama  telling us how they will be different if we elect them.  It's all rhetoric because IMO the federal government is just an extension of our welfare system only the benefits are better.

Originally Posted by dak4n6

And nothing short of revolution will get rid of it.  Sad. but. True.

^^^^^ This

Great post OP...agree on all fronts

We need term limits, public or military service prior to being allowed to run for office. It should be a service not a career..

[brocks]

Uninsured individuals are guaranteed health treatment and abuse it, driving up the costs for all of those who actually pay because of it. They go to the Emergency room for things that can be taken care of at one of many numerous cheap or free clinics available in the area. Things like coughs and colds, sprained axles, headaches and long term problems. The options are there for people who cannot afford great insurance, but they refuse to use them correctly, which drives up our insurance costs because someone has to pay for the resources they use at the Emergency Room. If Emergency treatment facilities were allowed to turn away non-emergency people abusing the facility for routine problems and give them the card for the clinic and send them there the next day, it would greatly reduce our costs. But there are laws preventing that.

That is complete BS. Emergency rooms are only required to provide EMERGENCY treatment to patients who can't pay. They can be turned away for pretty much anything that is not immediately life-threatening, as long as they can walk and breathe. And most towns don't have free clinics, and the Republicans are doing their best to cut funding for those that do exist, especially if they have anything to do with birth control. Ironically, free clinics for non-emergencies would do more to save health care costs than almost anything else, since it's much cheaper to treat cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. in their early stages, than to wait until they are true emergencies. But walk into an emergency room and ask for a checkup, and see what they tell you. And it's much cheaper to give a woman birth control pills than to let the state raise an unwanted child, but Republicans are not only trying to defund hormonal contraception, they are trying to outlaw it. I suspect that the rest of your post is made up, as well. It's such an amazing coincidence that one guy has direct experience with so many right-wing talking points --- experience with health care in several different countries (and your claims about its quality for the average person are also BS), living on the same block as a welfare queen with a new car, etc. The only thing you left out was being a disabled vet who was spit on by a hippie.

[Bullitt5339]

Originally Posted by brocks

That is complete BS. Emergency rooms are only required to provide EMERGENCY treatment to patients who can't pay. They can be turned away for pretty much anything that is not immediately life-threatening, as long as they can walk and breathe. And most towns don't have free clinics, and the Republicans are doing their best to cut funding for those that do exist, especially if they have anything to do with birth control. Ironically, free clinics for non-emergencies would do more to save health care costs than almost anything else, since it's much cheaper to treat cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. in their early stages, than to wait until they are true emergencies. But walk into an emergency room and ask for a checkup, and see what they tell you. And it's much cheaper to give a woman birth control pills than to let the state raise an unwanted child, but Republicans are not only trying to defund hormonal contraception, they are trying to outlaw it.

I suspect that the rest of your post is made up, as well. It's such an amazing coincidence that one guy has direct experience with so many right-wing talking points --- experience with health care in several different countries (and your claims about its quality for the average person are also BS), living on the same block as a welfare queen with a new car, etc. The only thing you left out was being a disabled vet who was spit on by a hippie.

You're completely wrong.

Of course you can't walk into the Emergency Room and ask for a check up, but go in with a headache, sore throat or many other non-life or limb threatening conditions and they must see you.

I don't care about birth control, to be honest.  If a woman wants to take birth control, that's her business.  I just don't want to pay for it, just like I don't think I should have to fund Viagra for seniors with my tax money either.

As far as health care in different countries, the majority of my family is Canadian, I spent 20 years in the Army and spent many a year in Europe, Asia and the Middle East and after I retired, I became a contracted trainer for Soldiers and spent 2 years in Germany as a civilian as my first job.  Do you need to see my resume?

My neighborhood was hit hard by the foreclosure crisis.  Almost half of the houses were empty at one point.  HUD came in (don't know the specifics) and subsidized many of the homes that were already bank owned, and now they're all assisted housing.  Well, the ones that still are livable now that the welfare babies came in and destroyed them and then moved out.  The lady that I mentioned I have direct contact with, and know for a fact that she gets over $700 a month in food stamps, works part time finally, has 5 children, and isn't married.  How do I know all of this about her?  Because she will openly proclaim how much she gets.  About 2 years ago, at a neighbor's BBQ, she was complaining about how her food stamps went down because she had just started a part-time job.  Isn't that supposed to be the goal?  To be self sufficient.

And I am a disabled vet....

And I am not a Republican.  I am actually a registered Libertarian, which means that I believe you are free to make whatever choice you want in life without the government getting involved.  The catch is that the taxpayers WILL NOT pay for your choices in life.  I won't tell you how to live, but I'm not paying for it either.

You may find it interesting given your assumptions that I voted AGAINST the Marriage Amendment here in North Carolina as well.  If I was a Right Wing Line Talking Republican as you thought I was, that wouldn't have happened, right?

I find it funny that because you probably lived a feeble existence so far in life, you would question the life experience of someone else and were completely WRONG by your assumptions.

[ghalfaire]

Originally Posted by FLOG4

I would like to hear others points of view on this.  My opinion is we have a governmental system that pertends to be for the people and yet every facet of their being is a perversion.  For instance.

1] How can elected officials have a system of retirement savings seperated from social security?  They vote on our plan, they allocate the monies elsewhere and the whole time keep their seperate plan safeguarded....That's just not right.

2] How can elected officials have a healthcare plan seperated from medicare?  They vote on our plan, they allocate monies elsewhere and the whole time keep their seperate plan safeguarded...That's just not right

3] Elected Officials are permitted to Inside Trade.  Prior to the Meltdown in 2008....Numerous elected officials were advised by Paulsen that There was a huge storm brewing and they should sell any bank holdings.  You or I would be arrested for such an indiscretion.  Not our elected officials.

4] Were you aware that our elected officials can be on the job one day.....and receive full pension allocation.  And this allocation provides cost of living increases.

I believe it is time for these things to be changed.  I believe it is time for an amendment or two to be added to the Constitution.

First, No elected Official should be allowed to vote on any provision on any program that represents all of his constituents without the elected official being a part of that system.....ie Social Security, Medicare, Pensions....

Your thoughts?  This is only forum I'm a member of.  Just wanted to get that off my chest.

I'll be brief and try to answer your question.  It is the way it is because we as voters don't stop it.  We could impose term limits at any time by just not voting for incumbents.  So while the system is surely corrupt, it is clearly our fault for voting for anyone that supports this system.   So this November take a look at your representatives/Senators.  If they have been there more than two terms, they are part of the problem.  Don't vote for them and if we all do that and keep doing it until it changes, they will eventually get the message.

[dak4n6]

Quote:

It is the way it is because we as voters don't stop it.  We could impose term limits at any time by just not voting for incumbents.  So while the system is surely corrupt, it is clearly our fault for voting for anyone that supports this system.   So this November take a look at your representatives/Senators.  If they have been there more than two terms, they are part of the problem.  Don't vote for them and if we all do that and keep doing it until it changes, they will eventually get the message.

This may or may not work in the long run, but I don't think it will even happen because too many American voters vote by trying to pick the winner. I never understood that. This voting paradigm has to go away before incumbant preclusion can start.

[WUTiger]

Several things are at play. First of all, Americans face way too many distractions that eat up time which could be spent on solving societal problems.

We've got not only the NFL, but fantasy football too. And American idol.

Also, there's structure of government. One real time-waster is two-year terms for Congressional representatives and most state representatives. These people are constantly campaigning. Move the to four-year terms - half elected in the off-year elections - and maybe representatives would have time to get something done.

And yes, government does do some things well. The US military for example.

Medicare, for example, has about 2% of its costs go to administration - it's a set system, and millions of people use. The private health insurers, however, eat up about 30% of their cost on administration. That's millions of dollars each year which could be rerouted into providing care, not pushing paper.

The trick is to right-size government, not destroy it.

[danieldrieberg]

I submit a change in the election process. We currently have a 2 party system which we the voters are forced to choose the lesser of two evils. The government supports the 2 party system by the manner in which it runs the primary system. We are forced , to the benefit of the Republicans and Democrats,  of choosing their candidates for them. The results of a primary assure one from each party WILL be on the final election ballot. Does this benefit the desires of the parties or the desires of the voters? I submit it assures the survival of the two dominate party system.

An example. The voters view candidates 1 and 2 from party A as the most desirable for their representation and each garner 40% of the primary vote respectively. Candidate 3 from party B receives the remainder --20% of the primary  vote.  The end result for the actual election we are forced to choose between 1 or 3 when our optimal choice is between 1+2.

The current primary process also encourages the candidate to run to his/her base during the primary, which generally is right or left from the middle. Then once nominated the candidate must change the campaign rhetoric to entice the middle vote to add to his/her presumed base voters. No wonder campaign promises are like leaves in the wind.

Make the primary process a winnowing event based upon the individual rather than the party affiliation. The party can put it's might behind any candidate it wishes to before and/or after the primary. A impartial government should not be leveraged to help a particular party assure its position on the final ballot. The makeup of the final ballot should be the voters' privilege rather than a method to retain the "good old boy" system.

I believe the initial political environment of our Constitutional government reflected the suggested model, then evolved, amplified by the Jackson administration and on, through political patronage, to where we are now. The question is can Pandora's box be shut and the demon's exiled?

[newtogolf]

The two party system is an illusion given most elected officials now overlap in some or all beliefs across the two parties.  I'd guess only about 25% of each party remains at the extreme ends of their party.  Thus we got to watch both a Democrat and Republican president enact policies to bail out corporations and banks when they should have been left to fail as capitalism dictates.

We need a third party that gets the same consideration as the existing two that represents the taxpayers.  Taxpayers meaning not the very rich and not those on welfare and public assistance but the people that actually pay their hard earned money toward federal income tax which is used to pay the current idiots in office.

[zeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullitt5339

Have you lived in Europe or any other country with socialized health care?  You state that they have a better quality of health care, but that is simply not true for the majority.

Sorry, measured facts do not agree with your anecdotes. Whether or not you've lived somewhere is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm glad you've seen the world and had a full life, but you simply can't use your personal experience to make authoritative statements on whether something is true for the majority . If anything, your extremely varied experience suggests pretty strongly that you are an outlier and extremely unlikely to experience "average" conditions. So, please, drop the bluster.

See the third paragraph here for one example: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064  "It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy."

There are problems with some of these statistics, although notably our #1 ranking per-capita spending is not debatable. The fact is that real methods for estimating the efficiacy of our health care put us, at best, about on par with our peers. (See here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html for some of the issues with the typical numbers. See here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0505/p02s01-uspo.html for other comparisons that put us in the middle of the pack compared to a few other nations, including Canada and Australia).

Quote:

[...] especially if you need surgery or specialized care.  That's why people from Europe and even Canada flock to the United States when they have serious medical conditions to have their procedures done.  I've lived in many countries that have government funded health care, and those who rely on the private sector and there is no comparison.

First of all, I can't find evidence that this "flocking" is particularly real. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism#United_States the number of medical tourists to the US is 60-80 thousand per year. For comparison, from the same site, Cuba gets about 20 thousand, so I don't know that that backs you up. But the onus is really on you to back up your claim.

Second, even if true, I would be neither surprised nor contradicted if the best health care in the world is, in fact, available in the United States. We're talking about the best overall health care, on average. If people really are "flocking" to the US for health care, those people are extremely unlikely to represent typical cases. If you can afford to pass up free health care to travel to the US to pay the full cost, you're not the person we're talking about here.

Quote:

The free market health care system absolutely does work when there's not additional regulations and programs that drive up the costs for everyone who buys their insurance.  Want to debate this?  Sure, no problem.  Hospitals must make money.  Uninsured individuals are guaranteed health treatment and abuse it, driving up the costs for all of those who actually pay because of it.  They go to the Emergency room for things that can be taken care of at one of many numerous cheap or free clinics available in the area.  Things like coughs and colds, sprained axles, headaches and long term problems.  The options are there for people who cannot afford great insurance, but they refuse to use them correctly, which drives up our insurance costs because someone has to pay for the resources they use at the Emergency Room.  If Emergency treatment facilities were allowed to turn away non-emergency people abusing the facility for routine problems and give them the card for the clinic and send them there the next day, it would greatly reduce our costs.  But there are laws preventing that.

You are arguing for the wrong side here. People who have alternatives to the emergency room don't go to the emergency room . The emergency room is a miserable place, and you're quite right that it's a horribly ineffective way to provide routine non-emergency care [Note: I've not personally looked into the other claim made in another post that non-emergency care is not guaranteed. I'm assuming it is. It doesn't strengthen your case, if not, but you're just grossly wrong on this point.] If the "cheap or free clinics" were actually being provided, that would result in a massive savings. Those things should be available in every community but they are not.

And that is really the crux of this problem. People are so hung up on this idea that taking care of our neighbor whether or not he "deserves" it is wrong that they're cutting off our collective nose to spite our face. It's not just people going to emergency rooms for routine care, it's also people who don't get that routine care and then develop real emergencies as a result. It'd be cheaper just to provide that care in the first place and eat the cost of the few people who freeload than to keep our panties in a wad worrying that, dear god, we might just have provided charity to someone who didn't earn it.

Quote:

Should everyone have access to healthcare?  Sure.  Should everyone have access to EQUAL health care?  Nope.  Why?  Because those who work harder get more and better "stuff" than those who don't.  It's the way things should have stayed.  Fair does not mean Equal.

Got it, like I just said you're not trying to improve health care, you're trying to make sure nobody gets anything they didn't earn. Even if it continues costing you more than the alternatives. Glad "fair" is working so well for you.

Quote:

We already have 2 Government funded health care options for those who can't afford it, Medicaid and Medicare.  They are perfect examples of why we don't need socialized health care.  They are two of the most corrupt and debt ridden agencies in the U.S. Government because of fraud, waste and abuse.  And you want these same people to be in charge of MY health?  No thanks.

Next to the fraud, waste, and abuse of the private insurance and medical companies, these companies don't look particularly bad.

Anyway, I'm tired so I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post. As someone else said, it really does read like a list of talking points. I'll just say that if your household income is in the ballpark of $150k, you may not be mega-rich, but you're not in a very good position to be butt-hurt about society ripping you off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WUTiger
The trick is to right-size government, not destroy it.

This is true. Unfortunately, nuanced positions like this don't do well in politics.

[dak4n6]

I voted for Kodos..

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Bullitt5339

2 Years ago, I was paying $3380 a year in healthcare premiums.

This year, because of the new mandates, and the "expected" rise in costs for the insurance company under obamacare, my premium is now a whopping $6240 a year for the exact same coverage I was getting 2 years ago.

As far as gas prices, they are what they are and it ticks me off.  What makes me even more mad is when our politicians stand up there and claim that drilling here in the U.S. more WILL NOT seriously effect gas prices because it's the global market.  As someone who travels to the Middle East and around the world, let me tell you that's simply not true.  Countries who produce more oil simply have lower prices at the pump.  Last time I was in Iraq, gas prices were the equivalent of 80 cents a gallon.  Saudi Arabia was even cheaper.  Kuwait was around $1 a gallon.  We were paying around $2 a gallon around that time. Venezuela was paying around 15 Cents a gallon.  So this "Producing more oil locally won't help" is a bunch of crap and anyone can do their research and see that is simply not true.

As for gas prices, you realize that each of those countries you listed has a nationalized fuel industry and government-subsidized fuel pumps that are paid for by oil exports, right?  The US could do the exact same thing, and set fuel prices at whatever we want.  But it wouldn't be based on a "market price" of gasoline, therefore it's unAmerican.  You can't even make a gallon of gasoline for 15 cents.

As far as the price of private insurance doubling, well the reason is similar.  We have mandated consumption of a product, but allowed the market to set the price.  Under that model, it is economically impossible to have a price set by any market equilibrium, because the demand side of the equation is inflexible.  We could do the same thing with health care that Venezuela does with gasoline:  have a nationally provided product, with a nationally set price.  Any difference between actual cost to provide the product and revenue at the point of sale would be made up through taxes.  To make it work, you'd have to have price controls--but again, that's unAmerican.

[newtogolf]

I agree with your points but many of us knew when Obama pushed his health care plan down our throats that his real intent was for us to eventually make this realization so the government would then have to take over health care to "save" us from the evil health care companies.

Originally Posted by k-troop

As for gas prices, you realize that each of those countries you listed has a nationalized fuel industry and government-subsidized fuel pumps that are paid for by oil exports, right?  The US could do the exact same thing, and set fuel prices at whatever we want.  But it wouldn't be based on a "market price" of gasoline, therefore it's unAmerican.  You can't even make a gallon of gasoline for 15 cents.

As far as the price of private insurance doubling, well the reason is similar.  We have mandated consumption of a product, but allowed the market to set the price.  Under that model, it is economically impossible to have a price set by any market equilibrium, because the demand side of the equation is inflexible.  We could do the same thing with health care that Venezuela does with gasoline:  have a nationally provided product, with a nationally set price.  Any difference between actual cost to provide the product and revenue at the point of sale would be made up through taxes.  To make it work, you'd have to have price controls--but again, that's unAmerican.

[uttexas]

This has wandered OT a bit, but here's a few thoughts on healthcare costs in America Health care in the USA will be more expensive relative to the rest of the world until American's start eating healthier and exercising more. Other issues include the cost of medications, medical equipment, and defensive medicine. Obesity prevalence [URL][IMG]http://thesandtrap.com/image/id/259325/width/640/height/431[/IMG][/URL] Diabetes prevalence [URL][IMG]http://thesandtrap.com/image/id/259321/width/570/height/372[/IMG][/URL]

[ghalfaire]

Originally Posted by dak4n6

This may or may not work in the long run, but I don't think it will even happen because too many American voters vote by trying to pick the winner. I never understood that. This voting paradigm has to go away before incumbant preclusion can start.

That is what I said.  It is our fault because we vote for these crooks and keep voting for them.  So we (all) should be checking out how our representatives vote and letting them know how we feel about how they vote.   If they don't serve our best interests don't vote for them.  It is just that easy.  But if the public continues to believe what the career politicians tell them with out checking it out for themselves, well as I said we get the government we deserve.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

That is what I said.  It is our fault because we vote for these crooks and keep voting for them.  So we (all) should be checking out how our representatives vote and letting them know how we feel about how they vote.   If they don't serve our best interests don't vote for them.  It is just that easy.  But if the public continues to believe what the career politicians tell them with out checking it out for themselves, well as I said we get the government we deserve.

This is a solution in theory only.  Individual voters will never assume personal responsibility for making "informed choice" at the polls in large enough numbers to make a difference.

The reality is that the way elections are currently won is through a never-ending campaign cycle, waged through cable news 20 months out of every two years in off-cycles, and 16 months out of every two years during Presidential election years.  During this time, an officeholder is obliged to adhere to the ideology espoused by whatever media outlet they're trying to get coverage on.

During the full campaign season (about 4 months for off-cycle elections and 8 months for Presidential election years), the campaigns are dependent on television and media saturation, which is expensive.  The candidates themselves become beholden to donors and the parties (which control can swing lots of money to individual candidates in swing districts).  The only way to get this money is to pander (to big donors) or to adhere rigidly to the party line.

None of this really has anything to do with what is best for the country or solving big problems.  It's about winning elections.

The best evidence of how defeated our political system is as a whole is the Presidential elections in incumbent years.  The general electorate is so single-mindedly divided between red and blue that a very large percentage of voters don't even care who the candidate is, only the party.  It's most obvious in the last two incumbent years when people were asked the question "who are you going to vote for?"  In 2004, a far too common answer was "Anyone but Bush"; this year it's "Anyone but Obama."

I'm utterly convinced this is a product of cable news, and the way Americans consume news.  I don't think any news organization reports political issues in a balanced way, and almost everything is a political issue these days.  Add to that the prevalence of blogs and internet news sites, and no one has to read or hear anything that they disagree with.  And, if they do, everyone is now armed with talking points generated by some political marketing firm which are fed to consumers through all of these biased "news" media.

And anyone who thinks it's not getting much, much worse, just think about this.  Mary Mapes and Dan Rather were fired from CBS in 2005 for airing a story that was fully vetted, though with errors, about Bush's National Guard service.  They weren't fired because Bush actually fulfilled his TXANG commitment (which is still seriously in question), but because a document relied upon in the report may have been inauthentic.  Compare that to the Obama citizenship controversy, which is even still repeatedly dredged up on Fox News and national talk shows.  One is an arguably true allegation which was supported in a news report by a questionable document (and some additional sources which were not questioned); the other is base allegation founded on nothing.  Obviously this is just one anecdote, but I think it's illustrative of a real problem in our media.

(And BTW this is certainly not an endorsement of left-leaning news networks; just an illustrative example that happens to illustrate the right, because our current President is D.)

It's a chicken-egg problem though.  The more biased, one-sided, and all-or-nothing the reporting is, the more polarized we become, the more polarized the politics become, the more one-sided the reporting becomes.  Facts and nuanced reasoning don't work well in sound bytes or twitter feeds, so they become irrelevant.  It's pretty boring to report the same crap every day ("still no movement on the budget..."), so everything under the sun gets spun into some massive political issue (see Shaivo, Trevon Martin, the blind dude in China) just so we can have one more thing to argue about.  When half of the country's news outlets can't even congratulate the President for getting Bin Laden, we have serious problems in the fourth estate.