Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 251562" data-attributes="member: 2189">Geez, lighten up Francis! Most of that post was meant more as a joke and sorry if it failed to be seen that way. I've just seen here in the past where certain sources of info are on the one hand ridiculed and condemned as "this political type and that political type" (and it happens from all sides of the spectrum) and then at some point that same source previously condemned on a political level is now hailed as the fountion of truth so to speak. Not pointing directly at you on this but just pointing at a bigger and broader element that I've seen here in the past. As a result of your post, I just thought I'd make some fun of us so to speak as to how we all treat sources of info depending on their slant of the facts at the time they are made. As to the article, Sweden if I'm correct was #2 behind the US and they have a centralized healthcare system if I'm correct. Now how it differs from the British model, I don't know that but why is England so down in the standings while the Sweds are up there? The article to my memory also didn't discuss the raw number of cases and also the number of cases per number of population. We know cancer is effected by environmental conditions as much as genetic so is there something in England not seen in the US or Sweden that is either causing more cancer or a more aggressive type and thus the reason behind the numbers and not the long waiting lines like the story suggests? I'm not for any type of federalized, centralized healthcare because at the end of the day, like the spoils of taxation, Washington will use standing and position as the politicians dole out who gets what. Healthcare like road and playground projects will become politicized and thus be rationed out among porkbarrel projects in order to buy and sway voters on election day. The more standing and seniority you have or if your party is in power, the more you are likely to get. I have no problem doing these things on a State or local level if the citizens feel the need but keep the control local so if it gets out of hand you either see it quicker or if the citizens are hell bent of this course and it goes wrong, the effects of the disease so to speak are not widespread and are limited to smaller area.  The upside to is if a community hits on something good and has a nice working model, others can see and duplicate and if those communities try and modify the model which doesn't work, it has no ill effects on the original perfected model. Gov't IMO should always be voluntary and never compulsive. Voluntary always leaves room for the very best to rise to the top as anyone and everyone can not only suggest ideas but even implement those ideas in the free arena. However, if the wrong person or persons take charge, then citizens are free to walk away leaving those corrupt persons holding an empty shell and thus the incentive to take control and manipulate is vastly reduced.  The problem with healthcare is the simple fact it's not a true Free Market arena. It is controlled and a lot more than people realize. I find it ironic that the 2 sides here argue either for or against some format of centralized healthcare. Here's something to ponder in your stew of thought on this issue. We already have centralized healthcare. We have the very socialist model (more Mussolini than Karx Marx however) of healthcare so you guys are arguing over the level this plan will take. Under the current model, as a certain late age in life, it's mandatory you take part in a centralized healthcare plan that over your working life you paid an excise tax to support. EXCISE TAX! Yep, read it and weep: <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003111----000-.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003111----000-.html</a> They place an excise tax on your liberty to labor for the sole purchase of a centralized healthcare system for old folks. Now take the next step if you dare and study the nature of excise taxation and compare that process with the idea that you have freedom and liberty in the same manner as Jefferson wrote " the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."  Have we been had or what? At the other end of the age spectrum we have something called  SCHIPS. Now contrary to myth, Bush is not opposed to SCHIPS but rather he wants $4 billion less to the SCHIPS budget than what the democrats want. The argument is over the level of funding and nothing else.  Bush, if you will, is a socialist lite only by the dollar amount as to what he'll pay to implememnt it.  And if he could get the republican votes next year with that other $4 billion, you can bet the ranch in Crawford he'd be singing from the rooftops in support of.   As to SCHIPS, in effect for the little people, with the democrats you get the harder stuff and with Bush you get what I can socialized lite. So in the end folks, we have socialized healthcare and we've had it for some time. The only thing left is which socialized model will prevail when it comes to the rest of us.  Even Newt's in the socialized game by suggesting a law be passed that would require every person to have health insurance and then subsidize where it's needed.  I see Newt has read Mussolini.   The only thing now is you guys are caught up in their BS spin and arguing with one another while they sit in Washington and decide who wins the political spin and gets to feed the taxdollars at the end of the day and buy the votes they need to get elected next year.   The democrats are promoting the harder stuff because they've been seen through on the war in Iraq.  The war will continue even if they are elected so they need to throw a bone to the base and healthcare is the bone! Read again what I wrote in the 3rd paragraph from the top and how healthcare will become a porkbarrel project and guess what boys and girls, it's already here! That My Dear Friends Is the Evil Nature of Centralization of Power! I'm gonna vote for Walter the Puppet and how many of you will tell me I wasted my vote.  But 10 years from now when things are worse, will you have the courage to admit in the end that you really wasted your's? I know, foolish me!</blockquote>

Verification