"what will it take for us to find common ground and truly begin working on our nation's problems?"

I believe it will require more people like you, openly exposing the problems and biases of the status-quo to ensure that more people understand what the problems are. I also like your cartoon.

I am going to recuse myself on the healthcare issue since I am one of those who "stand to lose the most money if it's enacted". Suffice it to say since I have over 20 years experience in this business and nearly 47 years experience as a citizen of the world I have very strong feelings on this subject.

However as far as the "bailout" I have developed a better understanding of what was done in this case. Since this was primarily a liquidity issue I think the government did the right thing. If you disagree I would refer you to Milton Friedman"s "Capitalism and Freedom" chapter 3. He gives a very complete discussion of the events leading up to the Great Depression and what the government DIDN'T do that completely collapsed the US economy. Quite frankly I'd take the advice of a dead Milton Friedman over any live hack we have today. As far bankers gambling their money away, well that may be true but they did that at the behest of the US government for nearly 30 years. This is a classic example of the government intervening in the free market and not understanding the long term consequences.

Nathan, if you are in such awe of the socialist system,I suggest you move to one of those countries. By the time you get your toothache fixed, you will be mad with pain. If you break an arm,go ahead and set it yourself. You'll be better off. I wonder why so many from around the world come to the U.S. for medical treatment when they can get such fine treatment at home?

Chef Boy R.D.,

You must have went to the same dentist I went to in Georgetown with socialist medicine.

The only way he could tell which tooth was hurting was to tap on it with a little metal tool. When I was hanging from the light fixture on all fours he knew which tooth it was.

After coaxing my back off the ceiling into the chair he could not remember which tooth it was and wanted to try again. I asked why we could not just xray it. He said that I would have to go 2 miles down the road to the veterinarian if I wanted an xray. The animal clinic was the only place around that had an xray machine.

The good part was I got all my medicine and the total bill was only $5.00 for it and the dentist visit.

The following year we had a cocker spaniel get poisoned while we were there and had to visit the veterinarian he had mentioned. It was a state of the art facility. The floors were so clean you could eat off of them unlike the dentist floor that had dust blowing in my eyes everytime the wind blew through the open doors. The bad part about the veterinarian services were it cost $300.00.

After "experiencing" both I would have to say my dog received a higher degree of care than its owner did in a country which had a system than bore resemblence to socialized medicine.

parkerbrothers, I agree with you that socialized medicine in general has a lower quality of care in many instances. That being said, many injuries, illnesses and preventative care procedures do not require a state of the art MRI and a full work-up. The key is separating the two.

Governmental interference and support works both ways. For example, Nathan mentioned generic drugs and their availability. Do you believe it is okay for a person to suffer or even die because they cannot afford an expensive medication because the government supports that pharmaceutical company's rights to keep the medication overpriced until the protections expire? If so, are profits more important than life? If not, then what about the research and development of future medications? Could there not be a middle ground somewhere? If government supports the medical industry, there should also be some support of the people.

Parkerbrothers are you speaking of Georgetown, Guyana? You're view of universal healthcare is based on the system provided by a small African nation? What a joke!

Chef Boy R.D. I already addressed your ignorant love it or leave it comment in my original piece. Thank you for proving my point.

And cherokee2, please explain to me again how our government forced banks to make loans. The current crisis really has very little to do with the actual loans. The loan itself has a piece or real property attached to it. The problem was the derivatives and the illegal, unregulated insurance that the banks created and sold that was only backed by the good faith and trust of the investment banks and given a high rating by the rating agencies.

memyselfi I would be glad to give you my thumbnail version of my opinion (at the great risk of seriously derailing this thread).

If you look back, government intervention into healthcare really began in the 1960's with LBJ's Great Society programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. At that point, government set the prices for the fee for service model which we work under today. All other 3rd party payers now use the CMS guidelines. Unfortunately, there was no way for those politicians at the time to know the technical and medical advances that would take place over the next 40 years.

Fast forward to today. We still work under the fee for service model but the services have exploded. Consequently, the CMS budget has exploded, but they still get to set the price. Quite frankly, those in charge at CMS have little or no expertise in the fields they try to price regulate. Not only does this drive price up due to the lack of competition, many prices are not reflective of the true cost since all individual reimbursement codes are subject to political pressure from various interest groups. That means if there is a shortfall in reimbursement for a particular procedure, that cost gets shifted somewhere else.

For a moment, let's pretend there is a true free market approach to healthcare. That means the government is out of the healthcare business period. What you would see is true competition for healthcare dollars. Yes I do know that there are folks who on the surface think that they couldn't afford it. But if there is a mechanism by which people, from the time they start working even in high school, could bank healthcare dollars while they are healthy there should be money available when they need it (assuming they don't have any private insurance at all). Between the reduced cost of care and increased savings most people would be able to afford at least basic care.

When I was a tech here in Alabama (back when the earth was flat) I was told by a hospital administrator once that the cheapest healthcare is no care at all. That quote always comes back to me when someone brings up universal care. Having spoken to other physicians from other countries, I can tell you that physicians hate it. The government restricts access to non-emergent services in an effort to restrain cost. They theory is that if you ask for a service and it's high cost, you'll get better on your own or die waiting for the service. If you're still around then you can have it. Sound appealing?

From a personal standpoint, if the government had taken over healthcare back in the 90's when the Clintons tried, I would be doing something else. Yes I love the practice of medicine. But when I walked off the stage for my graduation, I was staring straight down the barrel of a 120k loan repayment. If this country thinks that it can expect a hoard of people lining up to be doctors with that kind of debt burden (and I went to a state funded school, private school-double it) and work for the government, there are some seriously delusional people here. Since we have some semblance of personal choice, those people will find other less stressful and better paying careers. That means by and large the best and brightest won't be going into medicine. Let that sink in for a while.

And yes, this really was the thumbnail version. :)

But when I walked off the stage for my graduation, I was staring straight down the barrel of a 120k loan repayment. If this country thinks that it can expect a hoard of people lining up to be doctors with that kind of debt burden (and I went to a state funded school, private school-double it) and work for the government, there are some seriously delusional people here.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 6:31 PM

The military pays for college for those that serve honorably in the military and provide a much needed service. If our nation had a form of universal health care why could the same type system not be utilized? Those that complete the medical school with a passing grade would be required to serve a required term and their debt would be paid. Paying for a person to go to college that is willing to devote their life to protecting the health of others is an excellent way to spend tax dollars.

nathan.evans,

Are you not going to be happy until we are all wearing government uniforms?

Are you so lacking in self confidence that you think you need to suggest the government to be everything.

Dianatn,

I would not want to be a teacher in todays society. They are grossly underpaid for the enviroment they have to work in and the responsibilities they have.

Out of curiousity. Why do you think there is such a big difference in the price of treatment if you have insurance versus non insured. Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 8:20 PM

That is because those of us with insurance are paying the difference. You don't really think Hospitals pay $50.00 for those aspirins they are giving you, do you? Although if you look at the billing they send to insurance companies that is what they are charging. That's why my insurance premiums continue to increase even though I rarely use it.

So you see parkerbros we who have insurance are already paying for your medical services.:>)

Parkerbrothers . . . from what I understand, Nathan already wore a government uniform by serving in the military. Let's leave the negative comments aside like that.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 8:47 PM

jaxspike,

I am glad if he has served our country but I was more questioning does he wish to leave it on all the time in the sense of letting the governmnet take charge of everything and provide all things.

As much taxes as they are already taking it looks like we would have all been provided uniforms as employees of the government. Expecting them to provide even more only reinforces the demand they provide everyone with work uniforms.

Sure Parkerbros, head on down to DHS to apply for Food Stamps and over to South Central Human Resources for your electric, courtesy of my tax dollars, which I don't mind at all your using when you are hungry or in need of heat. That is if you qualify, we don't want you getting these services if they don't deem them necessary to you, no matter how hungry or cold, you really are, do we?

Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 10:18 PM

Duh, that was Posted by parkerbrothers

Sure Parkerbros, head on down to DHS to apply for Food Stamps and over to South Central Human Resources for your electric, courtesy of my tax dollars, which I don't mind at all your using when you are hungry or in need of heat. That is if you qualify, we don't want you getting these services if they don't deem them necessary to you, no matter how hungry or cold, you really are, do we?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 10:18 PM

Dianatn,

Let's not forget about disability. My back is hurting from all the work I have done. Where can I sign up for it so I can get some more of this mailbox money.

I have seen a lot of healthy people get some of that good stuff here lately. They are laughing all the way to the mailbox and all the way back inside to watch TV.

Dianatn,

Let's not forget about disability. My back is hurting from all the work I have done. Where can I sign up for it so I can get some more of this mailbox money.

I have seen a lot of healthy people get some of that good stuff here lately. They are laughing all the way to the mailbox and all the way back inside to watch TV.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 11:11 PM

There are alot of people in this nation that do not have the ability to work for very valid reasons. Should we just have a nation full of people that live in the deepest state of poverty? You do not believe in abortion, but who do you think is going to take care of these children born with major problems that cannot feed themselves? You have your priorities all screwed up and you really need a lesson in humility. I am sure you can quote some fine bible verses about walking a mile in someone elses shoes. You think just because you have been blessed with a strong back that every single person in the world has been as fortunate? I myself consider myself very blessed, but I don't look down upon someone that has been less fortunate than I. I happen to believe that the hearts of most men are good and although there are that 10% out there that lie, cheat, and steal, the majority of people try their best. Have some faith in your fellow man and quit being such a jackass.

But for some unforeseen reason you can't comprehend that George Bush has doubled the national debt with record spending during his eight years in office

Posted by nathan.evans on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 11:16 PM

nathan.evans,

I comprehend it very well along with why he has had to do what had to be done.

If Clinton would have spent a dollar in the right place during his 8 years in office Bush would not have had to spend 10 to straighten out the effects of the moronic Willie Wonka.

Some of you guys can not seem to comprehend that the last station you filled your car up at did not have the water in the gas that made your car quit running today. It might just have come from a few fill ups back.

Much like this bailout is nothing more than Bush having to straighten out one of Willys' messes.

It is not that I dislike Democrats. There are several Democrats that are embodied with a Republican type mindset that I vote for. Again it is not the Democrats that I dislike, it is the short sided Democratic way of thinking that I do not like. In general their intentions are great. It is just most of their programs are failures long term.

I happen to believe that the hearts of most men are good and although there are that 10% out there that lie, cheat, and steal, the majority of people try their best. Have some faith in your fellow man and quit being such a jackass.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Sun, Oct 26, 2008, at 11:24 PM

nathan.evans,

Have some faith in reality and quit being such a dumbass.

10% of the system is not abused. 90% of the system is abused. The 10% that is not abused deserve 10 times what they are getting. 90% of the system is drawing on what should be going to the truly needy.

To answer a couple of questions:

parkerbros the difference in charges is part of the sham. Your insurance was charged more for two reasons 1) They may pay more (but probably won't based on CMS guidelines) 2) If they pay more your covering for the no-pays that they have to image. The 300.00 is the least amount they can accept and not lose their shirts. Just remember there is a HUGE disconnect between what is charged and what is actually paid.

Dianatn I have no doubt that teachers are worth more than they get. No physician would be a physician without teachers. Between my B.S. and M.A. degrees, the lost wages for 9 years of medical school (working during med school is not an option) and residency my higher education cost around 400k. As I write this it's 12:30am and I'm at work covering 5 hospitals. I'd much rather be sleeping. It's my 3rd night in a row. I love what I do but suffice it so say that if I were on the government payroll, I wouldn't be here.

nathan there are programs available to help defray the cost of a medical education already. I chose not to participate, as did most of my classmates. The government already subsidizes medical education in this country, even at private schools. Now you propose adding the rest of the cost onto the government as well. On top the the actual care. My question to you is, how big do you want this government to be? All this has to be paid for through taxes. We currently have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Our top marginal rate is about to go up to nearly 40%. At some point, we have to take a long hard look at our country and realize that the federal government is simply not set up for this. The people are not just a source of income for Washington.

I meant to say add instead of had in regards to illegal aliens.

nathan

My question to you is, how big do you want this government to be? All this has to be paid for through taxes.

Posted by Tim Baker on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 1:26 AM

Tim Baker,

That is the ultimate question. It seems you can find comment on top of comment on here from young people who use the phrase "I am okay with it since the government will be paying for it".

Do they not understand who the "government" actually is.

jaxspike,

I agree that age does not always equate to wisdom.

However, it can be more properly said that wisdom almost always equates with age.

There are a lot of people who have forgot more than you will learn from reading quite a few new books in a year.

Live it and learn. Read it and ponder.

Sometimes but not very often.

Relax, time passes quickly and you will absorb more in your future day to day walk than your imagination can conjure in a lifetime of reading books.

Live it and learn or read it and still ponder?

Nathan,

Not to start an argument, but why do you think the government should be respobsible for our every need, which is a form of socialist thinking, and then get upset because some "right winger" throws around the word socialist. That does not make any sense to me, and I am just trying to figure out if you are just repeating something someone is feeding you or if you really believe what you say.

Well, you couldnt prove it by me. On almost every issue you think there should be more govt control/intervention, unless it benefits the wealthy or corporations.

Well, you couldnt prove it by me. On almost every issue you think there should be more govt control/intervention, unless it benefits the wealthy or corporations.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 12:36 PM

I don't know why you think I am in support of the wealthy or corporations. I have been opposed to big business running our country since day one. It is true that I do not support deregulation of certain industries and you would not either if you were faced with that possibility. Television for example is regulated by the FCC. While television is raunchy as it is, how much worse would it be if the FCC did not exist to place limits on what is broadcast over the American people's airwaves? Enron is another prime example. Because they control the supply of electricity, they discovered that they could simply take power plants offline for "maintenance" and manipulate the cost of electricity that they sold. The latest example of deregulation is the current financial meltdown. Investment banks sold credit default swaps which were nothing more than bets placed by investors that were backed by nothing.

I was trying to make the point, not very well I might add, that the only time you are against govt intervention or control is when it benefits the wealthy. Who for some reason are evil in most peoples eyes.

Hey Marvin don't you have some charges pending that you need to be preparing for? I am sure you will get your own special uniform to wear and you will fit in just fine.

Darrick_04,

I have always wondered that if the oil originally belongs to the United States (which is you and me), who are the oil companies paying for the oil? Does our govt give it to them to sell? If indeed it belongs to the govt, then wouldnt the profits from the crude be ours anyway. I am not trying to defend Palin or the state of Alaska, I just have never thought of it until now.

Hey Marvin don't you have some charges pending that you need to be preparing for? I am sure you will get your own special uniform to wear and you will fit in just fine.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 2:05 PM

nathan.evans,

I think all the preparations have been taken care of but thanks for your concern.

You sure seem sure about something you know nothing about. You could be another newspaper reporter with those credentials. But that seems to be a trademark of yours lately.

darrick_04,

WOW, you really are uncapable of answering a simple question without going psycho. I was trying to get a simple answer to a question. Just so you know, the bottled water company owns the springs they get the water from. Dirt, rocks, and trees are all sold with the money going to the property owner. My question was if they are drilling on federal land would the oil not belong to the American people. So you can see, well maybe you cant, but the logic is completely different.

I am glad you finally admit to Obamas socialism though.

And no I do not agree with a windfall profits tax. I hope to make a windfall profit someday, and would like to give it away however I see fit. Without forced "neighborliness".

nathan.evans,

As I said earlier you seem sure about something you know nothing about. You are actually clueless. You should have become a newspaper reporter. You have the makings for one.

Greasemonkey . . . now you see what I have endured the past few days.

We shall all find out soon enough.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 5:13 PM

nathan.evans,

Yes indeed and you will ever so ever find out the truth.

Also, how is "buying up $300 billion in bad mortgages" not socialism? OR "Redistribution of Wealth?"

Anything the government is involved in is socialism right?

Whether it be:

Paving Roads

Providing Electricity

Providing safe water

Building infrastructure

Funding education

NASA

Social Security

National Security

Military

FDA

USDA

EPA

USPS

or the thousands of upon thousands of other government entities....

See, I am no advocate of socialism, however we experience on a day to do basis whether you realize it or not. I don't want the government choosing my health care provider, and that would not be the case if Obama were elected.

Just read that... It's absurd.. talk about civility ...

"If you truly believed in what Ron Paul stood for and voted for him, then how can you support either Obama or McCain."

The same reasons millions will...

Darrick some of your examples simply legitimate functions of government, any government. It undercuts your argument.

Oh well, if Obama gets elected then I will wait for my welfare, um I mean stimulus check, so I can buy me a new computer.-- Posted by jaxspike on Mon, Oct 27, 2008, at 7:00 PM

I hope those that get a stimulus check and have some type of dept, will be smart and pay their dept off. To me that is more helping "Main Street" rather than going to spend it on buying something to motivate "Wall Street" and leaving themselves still owing a dept. That is what I plan on doing.

Momof3&3step&1gran . . . actually my computer is starting to act up some so I actually need a new computer. :-P

Tim Baker, Okay, that is a lot to think about. I hope I am not trying to narrow down your comment too much, but I am assuming that you believe truly free markets with no government interference would be a good solution. If so, do you really mean truly free markets? I am pretty sure that would lower the costs of many basic services, but I also think there are a couple of problems with free markets controlling healthcare. For example, would you support a wider availability of many prescription drugs OTC, or at the very least consider lowering the requirements of who is allowed to write prescriptions? Allowing non-physicians to operate in some practices that deal with minor medical issues, say someone with the education of an LPN? Things like that are currently protections for the medical field and are also a result of government policies and do interfere with free markets. To take that to an extreme, does a person have a right to diagnose and treat their self? (I'm not asking you if they should, just if they could.) In a truly free market they should have that option, anything else involves protections and provide monopolies to a group somewhere. Most people in the field that advocate free markets do not want truly free markets. It seems they want free markets for the consumers, but highly regulated markets for the providers which does not address the underlying problem to my way of thinking.

The second problem I have with free markets is that they have no ideals or foresight. The only objective is to get more for less. That applies to the consumer, the employees, the small business providers, the suppliers and the capitol behind the large providers. Everyone would be so busy watching their own bottom line, I do not know who would be watching the overall picture. I fear we would see the costs of common basic care drop, but the costs that would be cut, would be at the expense of the newer and more expensive treatments and diagnostics. To cut costs and be competitive on a small scale, the providers would cut back on everything they could, and still be offering good basic care. That is great for most consumers as prices would drop and basic care would become more affordable. The problem comes when smaller markets can not justify the more expensive treatments and diagnostics and they are relegated only to large markets that can afford them, as their cost can be justified and a profit made from their use. Remember, the providers would not have as much room to transfer costs from one thing to another. The nice people producing these high end items are not selling as many, therefore they have less desire or the extra funds to develop them for the future. The same goes for pharmaceutical companies and all the way down the line, I believe we would see the exact same race to the bottom as we would with completely socialized medicine. A portion of the doctor/hospital/pharmacy bill paid today goes to fund the items hopefully being in demand tomorrow and with the market bearing down full force, I think the cuts to R&D would arrest our investment in the future, which is what has made our system as good as it is, even if the price is bordering on the extreme.

I do not think completely socialized medicine is the answer, but at the same time, truly free markets is just as scary to me. I believe there must be a way to have both. Perhaps 2 systems, 1 low-cost, providing very inexpensive but quality basic care (for example, an expanded fully funded health department system, with a provision of a major medical policy or central hospitals for serious health-care issues.) and 1 operating business as usual could succeed in increasing availability to everyone, but not destroy our current system. I also think the current system is inflated and more competition should be encouraged as opposed to further concentration.

There are a lot of people who have forgot more than you will learn from reading quite a few new books in a year.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 8:29 AM

I'm curious to know what book you draw your ideas from. Who has influenced you, Ann Coulter possibly?

I wasn't privileged enough to see the Carter character assassination in my lifetime, but I did watch Dukakis' and Clinton's and Kerry's.

So many times you read on here 'everyone is so divided.' Maybe this is the rift began -- personal attacks, horrible tactics, and bad politics.

You claim to have been having intelligent conversations then, too. (Maybe on the cell phone you mentioned having 20 plus years ago in a previous post). I imagine they were probably the same abstract comments meant to skew the view of people breaking into the political arena for the first time.

Tim, I really enjoyed your post about UHC. I myself have been a supporter for it, and you gave a very intelligent reason for standing on the other side of the fence besides the conservative rhetoric of the 'free loaders who will take advantage of such a system.'

There will absolutely be problems and issues that such a system would face that stretch even outside of healthcare -- as you pointed in with education of medical professionals.

At the end of the day, I still, in the larger scheme of things, believe people far outweigh numbers. I know it won't be fair to some if such a system is instituted, just as it isn't fair to many today who do not have access to health care.

I hear the argument that people under 30 don't need healthcare. I bit on this myself and am still under 30 and have a very meager insurance policy. I've been lucky enough to not need to use it very often. My younger brother who had not even reached an age to qualify for cheaper car insurance racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills for a car accident he didn't plan or foresee. He was working double shifts for a company that wouldn't offer him insurance because he had not completed his 'introductory' period at the company. If it wasn't for CoverTN and other government programs he was able to use to offset some of these cost, he would never have been able to climb out of such crushing debt at such a young age.

Just because something is hard and would have predictable setbacks doesn't mean something shouldn't be done to improve the lives of all of our citizens.

I think too often the ones who are successful in life forget about the people who did try but were not or those who never even had the opportunity to incur such a debt as you were privileged enough to place on yourself.

The author Tim O'Brian talks about the first time in war he saw a dead mean he grew ill and couldn't stop thinking about his own demise. After the second, he stepped over him and was thinking who was going to fill in for the dead solider in the next pick up basketball game. Have we all become this desensitized?

And, just to clarify one more time. Obama does not support Universal Health Care.

Darrick_04,

I wonder do you understand whhere the govt gets its money?

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 11:00 AM

greasemonkey,

Interesting comment. I read a lot of others' comments on here who make it sound like they actually belive the government is some rich Uncle named Sam that has more money than he knows what to do with and he is going to give all of us nephews and nieces everything we "want".

I have asked that question many times.... "Do you actually know who the government is" and have yet to find one of these thinkers that will answer it.

greasemonkey, I know you didn't ask me, but;

"What pure capitalism? There is none in this country, most of the economic problems we are facing right now come from govt intervention of some sort." ----The reason for the different protections on both sides of the equation is that pure capitalism is an un-achievable ideology. The closest you may come to it is best represented by the slave/master relationship to my way of thinking. Capitalism represents social Darwinism. The strong will thrive and oppress the weak, then use their advantage to keep the weak in their created subservient position.

"The govt has made a very unfriendly environment for capitalism." ---That can not be evidenced by the disproportionate division of wealth in this country, and the consolidation of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. I believe the reality of the situation proves beyond doubt that our government has created a very friendly environment for capitalism.

"Tim, I really enjoyed your post about UHC. I myself have been a supporter for it, and you gave a very intelligent reason for standing on the other side of the fence besides the conservative rhetoric of the 'free loaders who will take advantage of such a system"

I would invite you to reread my post and show me where I made such a comment.

"I think too often the ones who are successful in life forget about the people who did try but were not or those who never even had the opportunity to incur such a debt as you were privileged enough to place on yourself."

This is typical class warfare tripe. I, sir, grew up in very modest means there in Shelbyville. Some of the people here know my family. I take great offense to the tenor of that comment.

"And, just to clarify one more time. Obama does not support Universal Health Care."

No, what he's proposing is more akin to TennCare. However I feel that this a further step toward true universal health care. If you read my comments this is not only a financial issue but a patient care issue.

"At the end of the day, I still, in the larger scheme of things, believe people far outweigh numbers"

Very commendable approach. Now take 50% of your income and give it away. Afterall, people should outweigh numbers for everyone right? After all the federal, state and local taxes I"ll be paying in a few months that's what I'm looking at. I invite everyone to join me.

I wasn't privileged enough to see the Carter character assassination in my lifetime, but I did watch Dukakis' and Clinton's and Kerry's.

-- Posted by Mike_10 on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 11:37 AM

I notice you only mentioned the character assassinations of Democrats. Don't you think this is a bipartisan issue?

And, just to clarify one more time. Obama does not support Universal Health Care.

-- Posted by Mike_10 on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 11:37 AM

Mike_10,

Oh yea of misguided understanding.

Let's see what the charismatic one has to say for himself.

Below are some quotes straight out of the horses mouth at a speech he gave to the FAMILIES USA Conference.

_____________________________________________

The Time Has Come for Universal Health Care

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Families USA Conference, Washington, DC

___________________________________________

"In the 2008 campaign, affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether, it must be a question of how. We have the ideas, we have the resources, and we will have universal health care in this country by the end of the next president's first term."

"Now is the time to push those boundaries once more. We have come so far in the debate on health care in this country, but now we must finally answer the call first issued by Truman, advanced by Johnson, and fought for by so many leaders and Americans throughout the last century. The time has come for universal health care in America. And I look forward to working with all of you to meet this challenge in the weeks and months to come. Thank you."

And you say "Obama does not support Universal Health Care".????????

He seems to have you mesmerized into a state of stupor. It's not really your fault, he just happens to be very, very good at it. As good as I have probably ever seen. Actually, I have only read of one that is supposed to be any better at it and he has yet to surface.

Absolutely - affordable mental health care.

-- Posted by Mike_10 on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 11:45 AM

Mike_10,

Now I understand why you support it.

An affordable way to cure the effects of the crackpipe that you said you did know had an off switch. :):):)

Actually, I have only read of one that is supposed to be any better at it and he has yet to surface.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 12:46 PM

At least you are not exactly the fringe that believes he already is (since your not calling it by name, neither will I.)

But, you are scheming enough to once again throw in comparisons of people's worst fears to something totally unrelated - such as the election for president.

Very good sir, for proving my point earlier about character assassination and what I believe are the reasons for a deeply divided country. I bet you picked up these skills in your highly intelligent debates on Carter and Regan.

Also, Obama's current plan is not Universal Health Care, and I have not been 'mesmerized into a state of stupor.'

I actually voted for Edwards early in the primaries against Obama. And, after watching it through to the end (debates and primary) I STILL think Bill Richardson is probably a better candidate for president. (Unfortunately, he would not have been a good candidate for election.)

And, just to clarify one more time. Obama does not support Universal Health Care.

-- Posted by Mike_10 on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 11:37 AM

Mike_10,

Let's make one thing clear right here, right now, Obama is for Universal Health Care. That was a pretty good line, wasn't it. I got it from your leaders direct quote from his speech below. Read it again. This time real slow so some of it will absorb.

OBAMAS" SPEECH TO THE FAMILIES USA CONFERENCE

"There will be many others offered in the coming campaign, and I am working with experts to develop my own plan as we speak, but let's make one thing clear right here, right now:"

"In the 2008 campaign, affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether, it must be a question of how. We have the ideas, we have the resources, and we will have universal health care in this country by the end of the next president's first term."

Is that clear right here and right now. :):)

You have got to admire Obamas' charismatic movement.

Mike_10,

I guess it did become clear to you after reading it slowly that Obama is for Universal Health Care.

If only everybody would slow down long enough for a little understanding to take over the mesmerizing they are under they might emerge from under the cloud of delusion.

"I like the idea of UHC, and don't buy the figures of paying up to 50 percent in taxes. "

Currently I pay a 35% marginal rate. With state income tax (remember I get to help pay for Alabama Medicaid) that gets bumped to 40%. When you count property taxes, sales taxes, various license fees etc I'm currently sitting at just over 45%. That doesn't even count SSI or Medicare. Now bump that up under BHO's plan and I now work a full six months out of the year just to pay my tax obligations.

This entire problem is CREATED by government. The notion that it will be fixed by the government is pure folly. The entire tax and government healthcare system is constantly manipulated to maximize votes, not the well being of the people. The Medicare drug plan is a classic example. AND WE'RE SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE. That's the part that appears to confound folks.

Diana I addressed this somewhere waaaaaayyyyy up there (this blog thread won't die LOL). While I was not a big fan of handing the money over either at first I did some further reading. Specifically regarding the Great Depression. What the government did in this case was exactly the opposite of what the government did in 1930. In that case the Fed and Treasury did nothing to ease liquidity and took a moderate recession and turned it into the worst depression in US history. Your question was

"How exactly has that helped one American outside of Wall Street? "

It may have saved your job.

We've been down this road before with a liberal president (FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter). The financial effects of those presidencies are still being felt today. Currently entitlement programs make up 70% of the federal budget, most of those began under these presidents. We borrow money from outside sources just to make up the shortfall since there is no way we can tax the populace and produce the revenue needed. This adds to the deficit which devalues the dollar. This in turn drives inflation. We will reach a point at which this is no longer sustainable. At some point, all the loans we've made will come due probably all at once. That point will be unlike anything we've seen in the history of the United States.

We've been down this road before with a liberal president (FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter). The financial effects of those presidencies are still being felt today. Currently entitlement programs make up 70% of the federal budget, most of those began under these presidents. We borrow money from outside sources just to make up the shortfall since there is no way we can tax the populace and produce the revenue needed. This adds to the deficit which devalues the dollar. This in turn drives inflation. We will reach a point at which this is no longer sustainable. At some point, all the loans we've made will come due probably all at once. That point will be unlike anything we've seen in the history of the United States.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 7:56 AM

Tim Baker,

Good and very accurate information. It can only be critiqued by mentioning the fact you left off Bill clinton in your list of Presidents. One of his last efforts was the infusion of 2.4 trillion dollars into this housing delima trying to put people into home ownership before the banks thought the people were ready according to their standards of safe lending practices. This was nothing more than a cleverly disguised entitlement program itself.

One of the things I think so many miss seeing is the fact that these entitlements have a doubling effect. If you took away the entitlements that make up 70% of the budget and instead had the people that draw this mailbox money out working they would be contributing now to the system instead of sucking on it. They could probably each contribute as much as they were drawing and you might then have a 40% surplus.

These entitlements, although they were originally intended for good, have become the most crippling factor to our country.

Years ago it became evident that our work ethics were changing. The infusion of hard working Mexicans into our country was being seen on the rise in order to fill a vacuum left by the ever growing unproductive Americans. I made the comment to several during the early 90's that if we were not careful our systems of entitlements would even destroy the work ethic of one of the hardest working people on earth once they learned the system and how to use it. Today, years later I see the fruit of our system evident upon the workforce of all.

Why are the banks using this money for mergers, acquisitions and handing out, YET even more loans with the potential of defaulting?

They don't care how they spend the money, because they just witnessed how our government (both parties) are willing to fit the bill. What's next $5 trillion in loans to banks? $10 trillion? Where does it stop and when do we begin to realize that no matter how much you give the rich and powerful, those who could not afford the loans 3 years ago are in no better position today. Yet the banks are beginning to start the process over again.

PB I am not going to respond to your comments any longer because I have addressed this and other issues many times with you and I don't really like talking to you because you speak nonsense, but in your mind you are a scholar. Personally I think that you are a total and complete idiot that is not worth my time and I generally just don't have anything else I want to say to you .

PB I am not going to respond to your comments any longer because I have addressed this and other issues many times with you and I don't really like talking to you because you speak nonsense, but in your mind you are a scholar. Personally I think that you are a total and complete idiot that is not worth my time and I generally just don't have anything else I want to say to you .

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 9:15 AM

nathan.evans,

Reality that you can not understand will always be nonsense.

Learn the facts and you can have something else to say to me.

You can either accept the facts or refute the facts.

The claim of future Silence is usually considered to be an acceptance of the facts presented or the lack of ability to refute the facts presented. In this case I believe it is both.

I could care less what you believe.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 9:36 A

No doubt.

Neither could FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae almost 5 years ago when I told then they would become our biggest competitor in a few years. Competing against the foreclosures is tough.

Dianatn,

It is indeed a hard maze to see through. I know where you are coming from but I hope you can understand why some see the bailout as more of a solution to the problem caused by an entitlement.

It seems what you view as a problem I view as a solution to a problem that you thought was originally a solution to a problem.

You thought and probably still think that loans should be given to people who the government thinks should qualify instead of who the banks originally thought would qualify. I think you used the word "worthy" but in essence you qualified "worthy" to mean qualify.

I personally feel the government had no choice but to take responsibilty for a failed program of clever entitlement and rescue it.

The first bucket of water is never needed to bail out a fire that is never started.

Once a fire is started the numbers of buckets needed is determined by how quick the bucket brigade acted upon the fire to extinguish what got started.

This was a fairly good size fire that got started about 8 years ago.

I bumped into this statement from NY Times Columnist David Brooks. "Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices."

Parker Brothers, don't become someone who could easily have thier name substituted in this statement.

Responding to that challenge, many financial institutions seized the opportunity to create or expand revenue opportunities for themselves with instruments like interest only loans, no doc (uments) loans, expansion of ARM loans (adjustable rate mortgages) and high interest, high risk loans targeted to home owners with poor credit ratings.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 11:39 AM

Of course they gave loans to anyone at would sign on the dotted line. At the same time that the banks were giving money to anyone with a pulse, they were writing laws in D.C. to protect themselves from citizens being able to declare bankruptcy and erase their debts. While I don't entirely agree with a person declaring bankruptcy, I also don't agree with a person ending up as a slave to a bank. The sad part of the entire meltdown is that we now have a portion of people that have lost everything and will continue to pay for it. To add insult to injury the banks get a government hand out as the masterminds collect massive paychecks for their cleverness.

I also don't agree with a person ending up as a slave to a bank.

Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 11:56 AM

nathan.evans,

The Banks just can't win can they?

If they do not make bad loans they are a racist bank and if they do make bad loans they are a racist bank.

Very interesting.

I also don't agree with a person ending up as a slave to a bank.

Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 11:56 AM

nathan.evans,

The Banks just can't win can they?

If they do not make bad loans they are a racist bank and if they do make bad loans they are a racist bank.

Very interesting.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 12:05 PM

Nathan,

I might add that I suspect you probably would support ACORN if they sue the banks on this theory of Slavery this time?

I can only give you my understanding that is derived from living it. I guess I will always trust my own experience that creates my understanding more than I can yours that I believe is created by sources you can choose to draw upon such as the one you funrnished by a link.Posted by parkerbrothers on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 11:58 AM

Actually parkerbros I live with it everyday also but I can see who suffers and who benefits from this 'meltdown".

I have no problem when honest people make a huge amount of money, I think it is wonderful that Bill Gates has made Billions. What I have a problem with is companies, businesses or even the average American House Flipper making loads of money at the expense of someone trying to live in a decent home. Payday loans, credit card companies charging 28% interest, loan companies like World Finance, CitiFinancial, Capital one charging interest so outrageous it would make a loan shark look like a charity. This is what has caused our financial system to break apart and that one thing is pure and simple GREED.

The stock market is a gamble, when you play the stocks you are betting the company you invest in will make a profit. There is no guarantees you will make money. To me it is no different that someone spending their life savings at a Casino or on the lottery trying to hit the Powerball. The only difference is there would be no bailout for you if you did.

dianatn,

If a credit card, or loan is 28% interest whos fault is that? If a person decides they want to pay that amount of interest then thats their own fault. If people would stay away from these places, then they would go out of business. People not wanting to live within their means is a much larger problem than greed.

This is going to sound bad, but if people are borrowing from these fly by night loan places to live, they desperatly need to learn some basic money management. I can see borrowing once to get by, but people have to learn to go without some things until they can get back on their feet. I have been in a situation, where I was basically homeless, because of poor decision making, so I know what its like. We have had to adjust some things in our budget lately, and weve had to slow down on some unnecessary spending.

Payday loans, credit card companies charging 28% interest, loan companies like World Finance, CitiFinancial, Capital one charging interest so outrageous it would make a loan shark look like a charity. This is what has caused our financial system to break apart and that one thing is pure and simple GREED.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 12:25 PM

Dianatn,

GREED was definitely it but it was GREED of people wanting things before they saved their money so they could buy it.

The interest rate is usually in direct proportion to the risk taken. Which is what it should be.

I am amazed you are not voicing an outrage about the lending institutions use of weaponry to force these people off the streets and hold on them while they sign the papers. You do know that is against the law don't you. Call ACORN and get them on it. It would make more sense than anything they have pursued so far.

Yea, greasemonkey not so long ago these same people were able to cut back on unnecessary spending in order to make ends meet. Unfortunately, now they have come down to the necessities that are all that's left to be cut. It's got to be hard trying to decide if their children should eat, go to the doctor or have a warm place to sleep. Decisions like that are probably the hardest to make, I thank God I have never had to make those type of choices but I have cried along with many who live here in Shelbyville that make these choices everyday.

greasemonkey, Okay, I'm replying to 2 comments. 1) No, your comment was okay, I just really cannot tell sometimes if an answer is required or not. Now I understand why we do not see things exactly the same. You appear to be going on the assumption that the government actions are accidental ad-hock clumsy adjustments, and they mess up the "pure capitalism" for everyone. You see, I believe most decisions are very calculated, and serve a purpose. The most obvious objective for almost everything done in Washington is the further concentration of wealth and the further separation of the classes. Healthcare for example, it does not matter if you call it socialism or free market, when the public pays more funds into an already inflated industry which will happen with either future president, it makes the rich richer at the expense of everyone's labor and resources. Again, it's not a partisan issue. Both parties appear to have the same objective covering many different areas of policy.

2.) Charity is a more difficult subject, especially if you have never been exposed to this segment of society. I can tell you with certainty that the churches and community at large failed in their administering of charity. I have great respect for some churches that still to this day feed the hungry and house the homeless, but what kind of life is that? There is a segment of our society that is simply not capable of providing for their self and will never be. I could, if you would like, take you to meet some of these people. It may do you well to see where some (very little) of your tax money goes. Aside from basic charity, what do you advocate should happen when someone is able to work, and is working, but cannot make an adequate living? Should these families be hungry living here in the land of plenty? Should the children of the poor be alone and unsupervised and have their schoolwork and education suffer because their mom is working every evening trying to supplement her low income so that the rent gets paid? I wonder if you have had any personal experience with true poverty. True poverty is not hard times, it is a future with nothing but hard times in sight. True poverty is not having the option to significantly improve your condition on your own.

If we put Americans back to work then the stock market will flourish again.

Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 7:24 PM

Dianatn,

Great idea. Let's get everybody to work though. Cut out the mailbox money and convert these people into producers insteads of takers that are meant to be more than baby making machines that have to waddle to the mailbox with one cheek hanging off each side of the sidewalk. Needing food?? Most of the ones I see could clothe 2-3 people with one pair of their breeches. Educate some of them to put a beer back on the shelf and buy a condom. They need to quit producing so many second and third generation government dependent children that have no idea that the government is not their mommy and daddy.

The sad part of it all is that some of the most brilliant and talent capable people have been duped into a way of life in which none of their talents come forth due to the government providing a way for those talents to lay dormant through their inherited dependence on the government.

Drugs have destoyed many a good mind but they are only second to the government induced poison.

parkerbrothers, The same invitation goes out to you. If you are so confident that everyone who needs assistance is a bum and that people choose their conditions, I can show you differently. I have heard of people portraying the victim as the victimizer, but your logic exemplifies this perfectly. The Spirit of America is alive and well, just currently slightly oppressed.

Consider this an irrelevant thread extender :)

"The problem begins with greedy drug companies, greedy insurance companies, and greedy hospitals."

Nathan most large hospitals lose money or work on very thin margins. To consider them greedy, well, that's just plain wrong. Drug companies and insurance companies may be greedy, I guess it depends on your perspective. They have boards of directors to answer to and are in the business of making money. If you consider that greedy, I'll buy that.

I stand by my contention that government has created most of the various messes contained in this thread. Healthcare is crippled by artificial price fixing through CMS, limiting competition for healthcare dollars. The current financial mess was caused primarily by government insisting on issuing home loans to less than creditworthy individuals then having those loans packaged as securities through Fannie and Freddie, both government back institutions. They have compounded this by borrowing galactic sums of money to pay for both entitlements and discretionary spending.

As much fun as it's been, I'm bowing out of this thread. Hopefully we've all gotten a little something out of this. If nothing else we've gained insight into how the "other side of the aisle" thinks.

I feel like I have been beating my head against a brick wall, parkerbrothers. None of us want anyone to fail we do not have a bad taste in our mouths for those who wish to succeed. We only wish the same opportunities for everyone to succeed, the same opportunity that you and Tim have enjoyed. And if that means the government must help those less fortunate achieve their dreams then, so be it. If my taxes can help the single mother become a nurse or even a lawyer, I am happy that I could do my little part in her success. In the long run it is much cheaper to help her through college and help her take care of herself and her children while she is in school than it is to have her on welfare her entire life barely scraping by.

What we do expect is fairness from hospitals, drug companies, doctors, bankers, car dealers and anyone else who preforms a service to be fair and equal and if these services can not be fair on their own good honesty then by all means yes the government must step in to require them be fair and equal. And unfortunately it seems as if that is where we have landed as of now.

Parker,

Not everyone has the same mentality as you... I, for instance know several people who were unemployed as of last year and have searched diligently for jobs in their related fields of expertise, but it just so happens a couple of those respective industries are dwindling (housing industry). So, instead one chose to stay at home for a few months and raise her child and experience the most precious years of life for her child.

The problem is most of us work just to pay the bills, and have no time to enjoy for ourselves... Discretionary income has become a thing of the past real wages have continuously stagnated or even declined.

Again, I am not for the government intervening in every aspect of life, but their comes a point, when the little person needs SOMEONE to stand up to the multi-billion dollar corporation who only thinks of them as ends to justify the means rather than actual human beings.

And to your last paragraph, in the 1990s, to no individuals particular credit, government welfare was much lower than it is now, unemployment was lower also(relative to population). Corporate earnings were increasing but so were real wages for everyday Americans (average family income increased $7500 across the board, and the last 8 years it has decreased $2000). The wealth disparity was much more realistic in democratic terms rather than a monopolistic system where the top 1% has 1/5 of all the money in the U.S.

I believe in survival of the fittest which is what reproduction and capitalistic thinking is all about, but what is wrong with giving a helping hand when someone is in need?

Frankly, I get SICK and TIRED of living in the richest country on earth where families have to have FUNDRAISERS just to pay for their child's immediate medical bills, even though both parents work 40 hours a week, but with the increase in other commodities, they simply can't afford it. I get sick and tired of corporations who put profit about social responsibility. We, the United States of America have become so deluded with this idea of every man for himself that when someone gets knocked down that's where we want to keep them, rather than do doing the slightest thing to lift them up.

Not everyone has the same mentality as you... I, for instance know several people who were unemployed as of last year and have searched diligently for jobs in their related fields of expertise

Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 7:53 AM

darrick_04,

Why the limited search?

Why don't you hire them all PB, apparently business is booming for you because you have nothing better to do than post from 9-midnight... GO build something, perhaps a new jail would nice since ours is about to run out of room.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Oct 30, 2008, at 2:35 PM

darrick_04,

I just asked why the limited search?

No, business is not booming. It is kind of slow. Even with the labor market adjusted out and building materials down low it is still tough to sell homes when people still have a lot of these foreclosures to choose from. Until all of the homes that were a product of the 2.4 trillion dollar influx work their way through the pipeline it is going to remain slow at best. Only time will remove the glutton of these homes out.

Although it is the best time I have seen since 1990-1993 to buy a house it is still tough for people to qualify since the mortgage companies have swung back hard from the far left of leniency to a little over cautious right recently. Time will hopefully adjust everything out.

I wish I could offer them a job but we really have very little going on here and have no plans to do anything of any size here in the States anymore. We do not really agree with the way things are being run here and the general direction this country is moving toward. Instead of continually complaining about it to death ears we decided to just move on to where we viewed as better about 8 years ago.