Todd I too am a Libertarian and do not believe that it is a return to a pre-industrial state. It is about being a Constitutionalist. What you say about individuals controlling their stock is correct, but how many of the common man actually own enough stock to make a difference? I would like to see tougher laws against CEOs and executives preventing them from getting away with some of the BS they seem to so often seem to get away with.

The goal to strive towards personal freedom cannot actually begin until all are free to live the lives they wish to live, without harming another’s. We do not allow gay marriage, still have prejudice and bigotry, and attempt to control ones choice of their own bodies to make ourselves feel more at peace with ourselves. Until we all are free to do with our lives as we chose the Libertarian ideal cannot truly begin.

Jack, any common man with a pension is likely to own stocks, at least indirectly, as stocks make up a portion of most pension funds.  If ‘own’ is bad, they at least benefit from them doing well in general terms.  Now, if their company forces them to ‘invest’ in company stocks for their pensions (such as Enron), that’s a problem.

You also cannot escape human nature - the more we use government to regulate any given group of producers, we provide incentive for those groups to seek to lobby the process in their favor.  If you believe gay marriage is a personal freedom issue, you shouldn’t be supporting its sanction by the government. Instead, demand the government remove itself from those agreements!  Treat them like contracts and let each church follow their own collective moral dictates on the matter.  If marriage is ordained by God, I trust he can handle those who would defile it. 

Also, we cannot legislate the human heart to reject bigotry or prejudice.  They exist.  They will always exist.  Sometimes race is the object.  Or religion (or lack thereof).  Or gender. Or sexual orientation.

The problem with the ‘Libertarian ideal’, is that it is an ideal we can never achieve, given human nature, however we can and should always strive to move toward it.  The libertarian way isn’t to coerce or force freedom on those who desire security, but to persuade them a tumultuous liberty is preferable to quiet servitude.  It used to be the American way!

I agree that the Government should have no business in marriage, but when "marriage" gives benefits according to the Government in areas then we must allow that option to all. It makes no sense to me that we can deny a thing that gives so many rights to only a certain group of people. If this was just a purely religious thing it would be one thing, but it no longer is it is merely the religions who go off on it the most.

Yes, we need to move towards the Libertarian ideal, but it is baby steps not giant leaps and bounds.

Jack,

I agree with you mostly, though whatever legal benefits are gained via marriage would be transmuted into enforcing and respecting the implicit contract.  I favor civil unions as a compromise - let the traditionalists have the definition and the word, but give anyone the right to join themselves legally.  In the long run, I’d like to see Americans persuaded to reject government sanction/interference of their private business (which includes income taxes, btw).

A thornier issue where I see little room for compromise between sides is on adoption.  On one hand, I believe the optimal home is the traditional two parent nuclear family.  On the other hand, that isn’t always an option for many kids in the system, which allows for gay foster parents (at least in Florida), so long as the prospective adopter is a stable and mature person, why should their sexuality be an issue?  Have their been any long term studies on gay foster parents?  I have no clue.

I think the first libertarian steps must recognize the truth that human rights to life, liberty and property are enduring principles which transcend time and culture.  If those rights are inalienable - and I’ve not heard any good reasons to believe otherwise, then we have a point of reference from which to evaluate most ideas, especially in the social realm of politics.

It is not true that "rights to life, liberty and property are enduring principles which transcend time and culture." The first two, probably, but not property. In fact, the Founding Fathers (who I agree meant "property" by "happiness," which is what they actually wrote in that phrase), could not write "property" because that was not — as it is not now — a "right" on the same plane as life and liberty. People do not recognize it as an inalienable right — they did not then, they do not now, and they have not in MANY cultures throughout history.

And remember, everyone, property is different from possessions. I’m not saying you don’t have a right to your diary and your wedding ring, we’re talking about capital and investments.

What blows my mind, Todd, is that you constantly whine that "healthcare is not a right," but you think property is a right. Really? So your right to capital, to 10 houses, to an airplane, trumps my (nonexistent) right to medical treatment? That means government should provide police to protect your inanimate property, at MY expense by taxing ME, but when I get sick, YOUR tax money doesn’t have to pay for my treatment? How do you justify that? What sense of decency would place inanimate property (and capital!) before human health?

Now, a true libertarian would argue, fine, I’ll pay to protect my property, and you pay to protect yours. I’ll pay for my healthcare, and you pay for yours. But I don’t think I have to explain why that’s a nightmare scenario…

BBB

Brian, when was free healthcare a right in the past?  I can’t think of any point in history when the masses were cared for by one universal system. 

This is what I ask for:

1.  A system that is free of the disgusting red tape (The government did a great job with the VA)
2.  A system that does not dis-incent people for their crappy lifestyles (will the lazy. fat, and/or infirm continually abuse the system?)
3.  A system that does not demand that a select few pay for the masses.
4.  A system that provides safeguard for abuse.
5.  A system that doesn’t force me to pay co-pays while others get waivers.  (Guys, I am paying 300 a month plus co-pays for my wife and I to have coverage…  what will that go up to)

Okay, with that said, who is going to pay for the prescriptions?  Is that something else that is going to come out of the government treasury?

I have no problems with certain programs… I just have problems with how people choose to pay for it.  I come from the school that we should have a usage tax instead of income taxes.  If sales tax is 15%+, that would change the way we do things.  No one has told me the costs yet.  I can NOT go forward with believing in any plan until I do.  And whatever the US Govt tells me, I will double it.  They haven’t done anything under budget, ever.

I’m already paying for your schools.  I am paying for your roads.  I am paying for your police fire and ambulatory services.  I pay for your libraries (and the internet many jack off to while there).  My money pays for the parks you use.  My money is going to social security that I will probably never see. My money already pays for the emergency rooms many fill up when their kid has a sniffle.  I have yet to hear a thank you from anyone.

Boo-hoo, John. You seriously expect a thank you? You pay for other people’s roads, libraries (do people really jerk off there?), fire depts, etc? But not for your own? Give me a break. It’s called public services. It’s an ages-old concept. If we didn’t pay taxes (I pay plenty, too), we wouldn’t have any of it. Period. So are you saying you don’t want that stuff? And you also don’t want healthcare, either?

If you want evidence that a single-payer system would be less expensive to us than the current one, just look to the north. Canada has comparatively better health care and LOWER costs per capita. Why don’t you believe we could do the same thing? Don’t you believe the US is as good as Canada? Sounds like you’re selling us short, John…

while ours may be the better of the two options, it should be mentioned that although you can get in to have a sprain looked at just by flashing your CareCard, our system has huge line ups.  There are so many people there in emerg. for piddly stuff, that you end up waiting longer than you would if it were during business hours at your family doctor’s instead of emerg. at the hospital.  I had the ACL in my right knee rebuilt 8 years ago.  If I had the money, i could have had it done within 3 months, or the route I took, which spanned over a year to get it done, by the SAME ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON.  However, i still think i prefer our system here in Canada to yours. 

Oh, and as for when was healthcare ever considered a universal right — for thousands of years of early human history healthcare was granted on a need basis, not on a class basis. I guess, then, you could say the conscious choice to let the poor suffer and die was part of our "evolution."

And by the way, make no mistake about it — if you do not beleive in universal healthcare of some kind (and I don’t mean the Massachussetts/Hillary kind), then you do implicitly believe in letting a lot of people suffer and die on the basis of their lack of privilege. There’s really no getting around that. That’s kind of shitty, don’t you think?

I dont think we are a caste society with "privledge" in the manner you put it.  Heck, the gas station up the street gives healthcare to all its employees… I don’t think that those people feel like they’ve made it.

Personally, I feel that there are too many people who voice out the need of this system are the same ones who plan to abuse it.

Do what Pete did.  Work your ass off and work your way up to a good job that provides benefits. 

Again, show me how we are going to pay for it first.  I will not condemn it until I know.  If it is through usage taxes (like your beloved Canada), I will gladly put my support behind it.  OR, why don’t we tax the shit out of things that make you sick instead????  For instance, cigarettes, fast food, booze.

Where in the past did any government provide for the health care needs of its people?  I don’t think monks bloodletting people really counts. 

oh, and yes, people do jerk off at the public libraries. 

Personally, I feel that there are too many people who voice out the need of this system are the same ones who plan to abuse it.

John, I’m sure you "personally" do "feel" that way. But do you have a reason to believe this? Maybe a study? Or maybe you can name one person? Maybe in countries that have single-payer healthcare, fraud and abuse are rampant? You can look all you want, but you’ll actually find that isn’t the case. I don’t want to challenge your "feelings," Mr. Colbert, but the facts kind of belie them.

Besides, right now we have a system that abuses us. Private insurers are fucking us over every day. They are colluding with healthcare providers.

Maybe you think in a public-financed system, people would have no incentive not to overuse the system, or they would have no disincentive to mistreat their bodies. But that’s the case today, more or less, among people who do have private health coverage now, so what are you losing? In fact, in a public-financed system, those costs would just be spread out, and we would have to eat it. But in a private system, those costs are used as excuses to raise premiums disproportionately. So your insurer can see a 5% increase in costs and bump your premium 15%. That happens all the time. (There are studies backing it up if you need me to find them, but I assume you believe a for-profit company would do this, because I know you are skeptical of corporations.) In other words, there would be less impact of fraud and abuse.

But I don’t think either of these things would be very widespread.

Do what Pete did.  Work your ass off and work your way up to a good job that provides benefits.

And in the meantime? Suffer? You do know that most health packages come out of what would otherwise be salary, right? And in many cases they are inadequate. And in many cases the employer only pays part. So we’re paying for it either way. Thus, a system that LOWERS COSTS is still in order. No matter how hard one works, even if we had a system that rewards hard work consistently (which we don’t), the fact that we OVERPAY for health care should still get even a Republican upset, no? Don’t you like conserving your money? Wouldn’t you rather keep more of your paycheck, rather than having some private, for-profit company suck a bunch of it out in order to pay for fatcat CEOs who in turn blame rising costs on fat fellow co-beneficiaries of yours?

As for how we pay for it, there are plenty of plans. But in terms of the economy, and your personal finances, for most people it will LOWER COSTS. This is NOT rocket science, John. It is VERY simple economics. You place caps on costs, you consolidate bureaucracy (right now we have hundreds of terrible HMO and insurance bureaucracies where we could have ONE — the savings would be phenomenal), you remove the "payer’s" profit margin to zero, and you can provide better jobs while reducing healthcare costs. I’m not even sure any of that is the controversial part, except the price caps on providers, but I say let hospital administrators and pharma CEOs cry into their martinis about that.

Okay, John, and I’ll answer your question, even though you responded to virtually none of what I posed, as usual. I never said — and you never asked — when a government provided healthcare to its people. I said for thousands of years, it was a right, until we devolved and it was considered a privilege. But since you asked, many have, and many do: Canada, most of Europe, Cuba. As for the past, who cares about the past? In the past, governments didn’t provide for ANYTHING for the people. What’s your point? If it wasn’t available in the Middle Ages, it should not be available now? Fire? Roads?

Regarding my belief… I HAVE seen many people who go from hospital to hospital claiming this pain and need drugs… And they get them.   I have seen many uninsured people get rushed into care while I waited in the lobby. 

You did say that "for thousands of years of early human history healthcare was granted on a need basis, not on a class basis" That is completely untrue.  Since the dawn of man, the best care went to those with the money to afford it.

Again, I will need to know how we are going to pay for it.  You claim I answer nothing, and I am still begging to find this answer out.  Personally, I will not give any plan my approval until I know how it is going to be paid for.

While the belief that taking away healthcare costs from the corporation will lower costs, I disagree again.  We will all burden the costs when it becomes a part of sales taxes or income taxes.  It is just shifting costs elsewhere.  Salaries may have to be increased to cover the additional expenses people pay at the pump or the register.  Essentially, my paycheck would have one less item on it (a pre-tax expense for medica) while another one would be created along side all the others that I reap the rewards from all the time.

People DO have a reason not to misuse their bodies.  Most health plans have a maximum they will cover over a year.   

It just scares me that so many people use this bullshit "privledge defense" for the poor.  The Dems are hanging an election on it, it seems. 

I just saw a woman’s credit report with multiple chargeoffs (defaults) for her Section 8 housing… (Where I used to live there were people who wouldn’t pay their $10/month in rent while I paid $600 for the same size place.  I failed to mention that she needs a newer car because hers doesn’t work so well… I also failed to mention the last two she got reposessed (one of which she "just didn’t like" and felt that she didn’t have to pay for it).

So, aside from the apartment that I pay for, the food stamps she collects, and the student loans that will never be repaid (government backed btw), the additional interest I pay to cover her credit transgressions, it is your belief that I should be more than happy to start giving her other benefits on my dime.  I’m sorry, I just want incentives for these people to work.

Keep in mind, I want to punish these drug companies that work on diseases that only help the elderly…  We spend billions per year on these maladies that do no harm to virtually anyone under 70 years of age.    BUT, SINCE MEDICARE WILL OFTEN PAY FOR THESE DRUGS, THEY WILL KEEP MAKING THEM!!!  Another shining example of a superb government-backed healthcare plan already in the making.  Don’t get me started on the overcrowded VA hospitals or the failing charity hospitals.

Sorry if I don’t answer everything, I am trying to work as well.

I have seen many uninsured people get rushed into care while I waited in the lobby.

John, I give you credit for stamina. You sure can take a beating
First of all, no hospital in the country would tell you if the person being rushed into care ahead of you had insurance or not. I think you’re making this up, but of course I can’t be sure, so I have two more responses to trounce you with.

Second of all, you do realize that hospitals have a very strict triage system. If someone goes ahead of you, they are more in need. Do you think your umpteenth herpes flare-up should trump a major trauma or heart attack? Wait, don’t answer that. I don’t want to know…

Third, you are aware that people who do not have insurance still get billed for those expenses, right? It ruins them, quite regularly. Maybe you’ve seen this on those credit reports you’re privy to. They have to pay or their credit tanks. Which, by the way, is NOT good for the economy, as you well know.

You did say that "for thousands of years of early human history healthcare was granted on a need basis, not on a class basis" That is completely untrue.  Since the dawn of man, the best care went to those with the money to afford it.

This is so demonstrably false as to not even be fun, John. Unless you are a Creationist, which is what it sounds like. That would make the timeline fit a little better, and it would be fun.

Do you know when currency was invented? Do you honestly believe it coincided with the "dawn of man", by any definition of either concept (man or currency)? Are you aware that currency has been around only for about 4000 years? Whereas human cultures have existed for 10s of thousands of years. Medical specialization would have predated currency in most societies — probably all — as it is known to be a skill of preliterate peoples. This is all basic anthropology.

So you want me to explain how we will pay for it. We will of course use taxes. I don’t have a detailed plan — for all I care, you can devise whatever one you want, whichever you think is least upsetting. The revenue is not the problem. We drop healthcare premiums and copays and deductibles, and we switch to taxes. And the total pricetag, even with 40,000,000 new recipients, will go down. It’s like magic. Or it’s elementary economics.

John, you are not paying attention. I already explained that medical costs will be LOWER, system-wide, under a single-payer plan. That is not a theory. Right now, we have higher per-capita costs than Canada, and lots of Americans don’t even go to the doctor. That’s because we have no price controls and insurers collude with providers, and we have way too much bureaucracy. I explained this all before. It’s plain as day. COSTS WOULD GO DOWN, CARE WOULD IMPROVE. There is really no argument against it. You just keep burying your head in the sand and pouting about red herrings.

You really don’t understand that right now you are paying for other people’s health care with your taxes and your premiums, but you are paying at MUCH HIGHER rates because there are no controls on the system? You seriously haven’t figured that out? You really would defend a system that charges you MORE for people you consider deadbeats or dead weight, and you refuse a system that would charge you LESS? You are seriously that stubborn and that irrational?

As for the people you encounter at work, John, if you didn’t have a job in one of the scummiest, most lecherous fields around, you wouldn’t have to put up with those people. But you make a living off of exploiting them, so you’re bound to bump into them at work. And yeah, it does suck for you that you get exploited on the other end by them. But you wouldn’t have that paycheck to get exploited. Seems like you have a symbiotic relationship with them. Of course, then there are the big corporations, like military contractors, that exploit you unilaterally. You don’t even get to get back at those guys! If I were you, I’d be 10 times as mad at them!

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about keeping old people alive. Yeah, capitalism creates a TON of waste that could easily be done away with in a better system. But you can’t have it both ways. If you want your precious capitalism, then someone has to take care of old sick people, and that means pharma companies are going to exploit you, me and them. But to suggest we abandon the elderly to the free market, which it sounds like you’re implying, is to enter a realm of moral depravity that I refuse to follow you into.

Big Bro kicks ass!

I know triage….   I also know how to fake it to get around waiting in the hallway.  I live in Cleveland… Remember, we basically have two incredible hospitals downtown.  Their ERs are always filled with people, insurance or not.  HOWEVER, a hospital can turn someone away if there is no emergent need.  All a hospital is required to do is stabalize someone (or let them have a child).  If someone is complaining of nausea, they may get some pills and shown the door.   If they complain of chest pains, they get right in and all the attention they need.

I see medical collections all the time.  Many banks discount them now.

Economies didn’t always have currency.  There was the barter system. 

Price Controls scare me.  Just another step down the socialist path.
I find it completely unfair that you say that I am praying on the weak.  That is an obvious flame and I won’t stand for it.  Even if you are Pete’s brother, that is completely uncool.  You honestly have no fucking clue what I do exactly.  Just because I deal with car dealers, it doesn’t mean that I only deal with the group that you have already mentally objectified.  You get angry at others when they say shit like this.  You are being extremely hypocritial here.  

My company never approved loans for people that didn’t qualify.  That is why you never hear about us in the news.  There is a reason that Warren Buffet pour billions into the company.  In my job, I get to see these people’s credit reports because dealers ask me to give these people loans.  It shocks me that others approve them.  Surprisingly enough, Spanish and German companies are now VERY aggressive in sub prime auto lending here.  They are the ones who charge the usury rates, not me.

I am glad that you feel that the credit-poor society is full of "these people".  These are the same people you want to freely give healthcare to.  They deserve that as a right.  I am just wondering what is next.

John, I’m sorry I upset you for saying your industry preys on the weak. I was trying to be clever. I think by definition sub-prime lending is preying on the weak. I don’t know how else to put it. They are desperate, so you charge them higher/worse interest rates. By definition, even the best sub-prime lending is exploitative. But then again, all lending is exploitative, I suppose, so maybe I shouldn’t make judgments on it.

This is not flaming, though. I think you know I like you as a person. I did not mean to make it personal. But I do have a point, don’t I? If there is not a desperate underclass, there is not subprime lending, and then there is not John’s health care.

Anyway, since you didn’t respond to my substantive argument about the system except to dismiss it as "socialism" which I guess makes it bad since you used a word we’re all supposed to hate for some reason none of us actually understands… then I guess I’ve made my points and you’ve made yours, and maybe we should move on. This doesn’t need to get nasty, certainly not between us. I mean, you’re making me the godfather of your first child, so…

Again, I am sorry if what I wrote upset you. That’s really not what I meant. I’m kind of a dick. I guess that’s sort of my thing, since I don’t eat animals or give shitty loans
Peace?

Damn, gone a few days and I come back to this. John, it sounds like (and I could be wrong) but you go to the emergency room often and for no real reason to be in an "emergency" room. The ER is for the dying, broken and seriously injured. Too many use it as their main practitioner. Go to an urgent care, no matter what your problem is you will get called in the order you come in.

Yes, people relying on credit is a HUGE problem in this country and the corporations, banks and such have not helped the situation in recent years, but how much does it really effect healthcare? People being laid off in places because of insurance prices going up and companies not being able to afford paying it for everyone and therefore having to make cuts.

Those who most often think that insurance isn’t that difficult have never experienced not having it. I know of one friend who was dropped by her insurance…right before she was to have three surgeries, and there in lies a major problem. There is no recourse for people who are dropped by their insurance providers because the insurance doesn’t want to pay for what you’re paying them for. Until there is some sort of system that protects the clients and prevents insurance companies from this kind of BS there will be a call for Universal Health Care.

I actually believe there would be fewer health problems in this country in regards to your smokers, eaters, etc since folks wouldn’t have to pay to get a physical. People could check on their health on a more regular basis. Look at Canada, England and France. Three countries with some form of UHC and all three don’t nearly have the obesity and other health issues that we have. Of course they also have (least France and England do) a better public transportation system as well which produces more walking and thus a healthier citizen.

I’m with BB though, you say socialism as if it was a curse. One of the BIGGEST problems this country has had for the last 8 years if people not understanding that the Cold War is OVER. We must stop thinking and acting like we’re fighting the Soviets and learn to evolve beyond that.

Urgent cares are closing all across the country.  They are running at a deficitThey do triage as well.  I never go to the ER for myself.  I was just always there for other people (my mother in law who broke her arm, my mother who had gall stones, my wife who broke her leg)… 

I have no problems with a well-run program.  Our government has an awful history when it comes to efficiency.   I don’t want them to handle one of the biggest programs in our nation with the track record they have.

When you say that france and canada don’t have the obesity that we have becauce of universal health care, I would like to point out that the two are not interchangable.

We give people with a 575 (pretty bad) credit score a new car loan in the 11% range.  If you feel that this number is exploting them, you really should get your head out of the clouds.

If you ACTUALLY knew what you were talking about, you’d be able to relate.  The industry, in fact, protects the poor credit customers more than others.  People with shitty credit can only get so much of an advance (% of the car’s value) to borrow.  In our case, it is 100% of the NADA retail value (not that inflated Kelly crap).   We don’t let dealers pack in other options like huge service contracts or lame insurance products with large markups.  We know that if a customer gets raped by a dealer, the chances of them paying us back are slim. 

If you want to complain, go look at the Spanish-owned company called Drive Financial.  They charge a "fee" to the customer just to get a loan.  This is often up to 20% of the car’s value…. yes, up to $4000+ and it never goes toward the loan.  But, no one else but them will approve a customer.

I do know the difference between socialism, communism, capitalism.  Any government run program with price controls reeks of socialism. 

I understand what you are trying to say that price controls and the government running the system will lower costs for everyone… I just don’t see how.  We will just be shifting the costs elsewhere.  We will end up with another huge government program where thousands of people work doing something no one truly knows.  The money will come from somewhere! 

Doctors don’t always take new medicare/medicaid patients because they don’t want to deal with the govt bullshit.  Others have found a way to charge these programs millions through loopholes.  Doctors will always want to make the money they do now.  If we tell them that they will have to expect to make less, who knows what they will do!?

I do know the difference between socialism, communism, capitalism.  Any government run program with price controls reeks of socialism.

Socialism has to do with ownership of the means of production, not price controls. You obviously don’t know, literally, the very first thing about socialism. It’s just a buzzword used to demonize a whole range of ideas that are a) sensible, b) threatening to your beloved status quo, and c) largely unrelated to socialism (certainly not defining factors).

But if demonizing good ideas as "socialism" helps your case, then I guess it’s as fair a tactic as putting a candidate’s picture up next to a photo of bin Laden. Same concept (except that socialism isn’t inherently bad, and bin Laden is, but it’s perception that counts).

I understand what you are trying to say that price controls and the government running the system will lower costs for everyone… I just don’t see how.  We will just be shifting the costs elsewhere.

I’m not putting forth a theory, John. I’m looking at other countries where these systems are in place. They have cheaper AND better healthcare.

Doctors don’t always take new medicare/medicaid patients because they don’t want to deal with the govt bullshit.  Others have found a way to charge these programs millions through loopholes.  Doctors will always want to make the money they do now.  If we tell them that they will have to expect to make less, who knows what they will do!?

So your answer is, because we don’t know what doctors will do if we put caps on their extraordinary pay (we could even pay for their medical school and keep costs LOWER than they are now, BTW), your answer is… fuck 40,000,000 Americans, let them suffer. Really? I don’t believe you’re that cold. I just can’t believe that you are. Aren’t you solution oriented? It’s not like you to throw up your hands and say, let 40,000,000 people suffer because I don’t like one answer.

But there is an answer. The first thing we’d have to do is pry the AMA’s grip off of medical schools, give more med school scholarships, etc, and get more doctors into the pool. Also give nurses, NPs and PAs more powers that are now monopolized unnecessarily by MDs. This would lower costs tremendously. Then the doctors who want more money for their efforts can go fuck themselves. We have a nation to care for, and if they don’t want to parcicipate, they can go into banking or whatever. People who became doctors to help people will finally not have scumbag profit-mongers getting in the way, which is one of the main problems with our healthcare system: too many powerful elites place profits before people. We’re talking about a revolution of the medical profession, and it’s long overdue.

But John, you MUST realize that the argument against universal single-payer healthcare cannot be "doctors are greedy." All that says is our medical system needs to be changed. It’s an argument FOR a revolution in the industry, not against.

First off, I never said that our system was that much better…  I have said that I can not get behind any system that has not told me how they are going to pay for it.  I can not get behind a system that is run by people with a horrible track record.  I just like an evil that I know much better than an evil that I do not.

It is the large expenditures that we all pay in the United States that help aid the research that the world ungraciously accepts (like MRI technology, ultrasound, and many hundreds of others).  Your system may greatly endanger this. 

Your comment of: "We have a nation to care for, and if they don’t want to parcicipate, they can go into banking or whatever" is again horrifically insulting.   Again, you are being an assholic hypocrite right now and I will not stand for it.  Making personal attacks after being asked not to is completely fucktard-like.  Sadly, you are the one who wrote the rules for this board… I should expect you of all people to follow them.

John, your skin is way too thin, man. I cannot believe you see a personal attack in everything I write. Stop being a whiner (that was personal). It’s so ridic’!

Are you under the impression that your profession — banking — is somehow akin to the ideas of healthcare? If you are, then wake up. Assuming you are not, then it should not be an insult to say people who want to make money but do not have the interests of the sick in mind could move to banking instead of doctoring. It’s just reality, dude — get a grip on it. I cannot believe you want me to be politically correct about banking or something. If you have some kind of latent guilt issues, you’re better off not airing them here. I’ve said it before and will say it over and over, I like you personally and am not taking jabs at you personally. Your profession is not off limits. Mine is not off limits either, if anyone can figure out just what I do for a living…
As for our booming medical innovations, are you awar that a HUGE portion of medical innovations attributed to private industry were developed under NIH programs or government grants? There are TONS of these projects. We’re already subsidizing medical innovation with our tax dollars. Meanwhile, the more we give to pharma companies, the less they do with them. There was a GAO report a few years ago that found innovation is trailing profits, and the more procits corporations make, the less proportionally they invest in research.

Capitalists do NOT care about your health, John. The sooner you figure that elemental truth out, the sooner we move on.

As for how we pay for it, my answer is again, YOU chooise the way. Whatever form of tax you prefer. It will still be CHEAPER than what we’re doing now. YOU will save money. YOU design the tax. And keep in mind, no more health insurance premiums, no more copays, no more deductibles. Enjoy!

John wrote,

I do know the difference between socialism, communism, capitalism.  Any government run program with price controls reeks of socialism.

I think it more reeks of fascism, which is essentially socialism with private property.

Brian wrote,

for thousands of years of early human history healthcare was granted on a need basis, not on a class basis

Yeah, and it was granted by witch doctors and medicine men and people still suffered and died.  It wasn’t until the industrial age and the technological innovation produced by (mostly) free markets which has made the level of care what it is today.

To say one must believe in universal health care or implicitly allow suffering and death to the under privileged is illogical.  It is the fallacy of the false dilemma.  The fact is, under a government run system, the privileged will STILL get better care, only the number of ‘privileged’ people will be much smaller than it is today.  I daresay universal healthcare will produce universal results - with quality & innovation universally diminished.