Just in case you were considering voting for Hillary

[Funkmasta]

That is the main problem I have with goverment programs. If goverment had a good track record of actually running decent programs, I wouldn't be so worried. But Joe, FEMA is the least of the problems, lets take a look at Social Security, Medicare/caid....

FEMA is the one government agency that I have the most intimate knowledge of.
I had some friends go down to help with Katrina. Most of them jacked off in the hotel room for the majority of the time (awaiting sexual harassment training). Oh yeah, they came back after 3 months with $15k each.

[Funkmasta]

Plus, until they start talking about closing the border, I think responsibilities should be taken away from the gov.

...maybe it will give them more energy to focus on what is important.

[Joey Link]

Joe Funk FTW.

Darren, my feelings are exactly parallel to Trent's. The problem with the government is that it's programs don't work too well, and once you institute a program which people rely on, it's nearly impossible to take it back and reverse it no matter how bad it gets. Like Trent said, if the government had a good track record of running things, I may consider it, but they don't. They can't (or won't) keep SS funded because they steal from it, they can't (or won't) handle natural disasters, they throw money around with no accountability thinking it's going to solve problems (it never does), etc.

Hillary and Obama are both utopianists, plain and simple. Don't believe me? They both talk about banning handguns and assault rifles. They can't even keep their state prisoners safe, although they have control over every one of their actions 24 hours a day. It's nice to 'imagine' and ideal society, but it's much more practical to be realistic.

I hope my typing and grammar is OK, Wild Turkey = /end

[CorvallisBMW]

Yeah and I would have to pay a portion of the expenses of every lowlife drug addict that overdoses and every illegal Mexican mother that has a child in one of our hospitals.

You already do pay for that. Every time they go to the emergency room for treatment, the cost gets transfered to you in the forms of higher premiums, copays and taxes. Emergency room services are by far the most expensive form of medical treatment. Preventative treatment (i.e., the kind you get with health insurance) is far less expensive. The amount of their cost transfered to you would actually go down dramatically in a universal insurance system.

To all the naysayers to think universal healthcare doesn't work, I've got 33 other industrialized nations on earth that would beg to differ. As previously stated, our government spends more money on health care (both in total and per capita) than any other nation in the world, yet we cover less than 20% of the population. Sorry, but any new program is going to be better than that. Especially if it is designed new from the ground up and we take the time to look at other western countires who have working systems and we try to learn from their mistakes and figure out what works and doesn't work ahead of time.

But the bottom line is that we HAVE to have a universal health insurance program. In today's global economy we can't afford not to. GM durrently spends over $1 Billion every year on healthcare costs alone. That's a $1 Billion disadvantage they have over BMW, Toyota, Audi, etc. because those companies don't have to shoulder that burden. Our US companies are at a huge disadvantage compared with the rest of the world because they are forced to pay for the cost of keeping all their employees healthy.

I'm not saying that we are going to create a perfectly efficient universal healthcare system, that's impossible. But whatever we do it's sure to be better than what we have now (imagine eliminating both medicare and medicaid!). And so far, I haven't heard any other alternatives proposed. McCain has said he's just going to let the market solve itself, which is just fancy politician speak for "do nothing".

[DarkWing6]

But the bottom line is that we HAVE to have a universal health insurance program. In today's global economy we can't afford not to. GM durrently spends over $1 Billion every year on healthcare costs alone. That's a $1 Billion disadvantage they have over BMW, Toyota, Audi, etc. because those companies don't have to shoulder that burden. Our US companies are at a huge disadvantage compared with the rest of the world because they are forced to pay for the cost of keeping all their employees healthy.

Ya and Airbus is gov't subsudized as well, so should our gov't be giving Boeing money? Hell no! Both of my parents work at Boeing (my dad just hit 30 years and my mom is at 15+) and I wouldn't want that. Do you really think it is the job of the gov't to make a business competative with others? Read the Constitution. Let me know what it says about the purpose of gov't.

Also, if the gov't quit taxing the hell out of the businesses and executives that are running them we could be more competative on a global scale.

And if our gov't currently is receiving more funding for healthcare than any other country and taking care of less people with it than other countries are, why should I give them more money to use poorly? Our gov't has a history of bad programs and poor money management. The last thing I want to do is give them more money to waste. Maybe they should manage what they have better. Again, read the Constitution and tell me what the purpose of our gov't is.

[blunttech]

THIS SAYS IT ALL.

Again, read the Constitution and tell me what the purpose of our gov't is.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Form a more perfect union.

[Funkmasta]

But the bottom line is that we HAVE to have a universal health insurance program. In today's global economy we can't afford not to. GM durrently spends over $1 Billion every year on healthcare costs alone. That's a $1 Billion disadvantage they have over BMW, Toyota, Audi, etc. because those companies don't have to shoulder that burden. Our US companies are at a huge disadvantage compared with the rest of the world because they are forced to pay for the cost of keeping all their employees healthy.

Wait, so either the companies pay for it out of INCENTIVE to get employees to work for them, or companies pay for it through excessive taxing?

I can tell you one thing... if we start RAISING the tax on companies, they have two options: raise prices to accommodate the extra taxes, shift overseas, or go out of business. Let me guess, you are anti-walmart right? Well, keep on the taxing, and that is all you are going to have left.

Edit:
Oh yea, and GM is stupid for adopting the union's policy that is FORCING them to pay out such high healthcare costs.

union \ˈyün-yən\ n: For when your work ethic can't support your job.

[CorvallisBMW]

According to the constitution, the purpose of our government is to protect it's people. Well, we protect our every citizen from terrorism by spending money on defense. Shouldn't we protect every citizen from disease by spending money on healthcare?

The government includes protection for all citizens from fire (fire dept) and from crime (police dept, legal system), so why is health care so exclusive?

[Funkmasta]

According to the constitution, the purpose of our government is to protect it's people. Well, we protect our every citizen from terrorism by spending money on defense. Shouldn't we protect every citizen from disease by spending money on healthcare?

The government includes protection for all citizens from fire (fire dept) and from crime (police dept, legal system), so why is health care so exclusive?

Why should the government be responsible for maintaining peoples bodies? Are you really THAT unable?

Why don't you run a little, or ride your bike? Or eat less McDonalds? Or don't smoke?

Kinda hypocrisy, when people chant "keep your laws off our bodies", but then want healthcare?

[CorvallisBMW]

Yes, some diseases are preventable. but many are not. Are you going to tell people, "Hey, don't get cancer!"

The government is not responsible for our bodies. OK, so why have a police dept then? Why should they protect us from traffic incidents? Maybe the roads should just be a free-for-all? By your resoning, we shouldn't have a fire dept either since they're not responsible for out homes.

There's a big difference between saying 'keep your laws off our bodies", which means don't force me to do something I don't want to, and "healtchare" which just means providing the means to stay healthy. Those are 2 completely different animals.

Case in point: My dad recently recovered from surgery after getting prostate cancer. The total hospital bill was over $120,000. Now thankfully he has good insurance. But what if he didn't? What if he had no insurance and he had to come up with $120,000 out of pocket? Should he be condemned to death because he doesn't have the $? Are YOU going to tell me that my dad should die a slow and painful death because you don't like the idea of providing insurance to those that can't afford it?

[Funkmasta]

Yes, some diseases are preventable. but many are not. Are you going to tell people, "Hey, don't get cancer!"

See what happens when incentive is taken away from scientists ($). I guess at that point we can outsource medical breakthroughs to India. I think people should be responsible for taking care of their own bodies. And yes, that means don't smoke a pack a day. Don't eat 5x the daily recommended sodium, or fats, or SUGARS. Likewise, don't go tanning every day, etc.

The government is not responsible for our bodies. OK, so why have a police dept then? Why should they protect us from traffic incidents? Maybe the roads should just be a free-for-all? By your resoning, we shouldn't have a fire dept either since they're not responsible for out homes.

Traffic incidents are accidents. Similarly, the general population does not possess the knowledge or skillset to put out a fire. People know how to not eat twinkies.

There's a big difference between saying 'keep your laws off our bodies", which means don't force me to do something I don't want to, and "healtchare" which just means providing the means to stay healthy. Those are 2 completely different animals.

You cant do that, but you must give me this? Doesn't work like that. All or none.

[CorvallisBMW]

See what happens when incentive is taken away from scientists ($). I guess at that point we can outsource medical breakthroughs to India.

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean. I was talking about non-preventable diseases that aren't caused by lifestyle choices (i.e. most cancers, birth defect, genetic disorders, etc)

Traffic incidents are accidents. Similarly, the general population does not possess the knowledge or skillset to put out a fire. People know how to not eat twinkies.

Again, you are assuming that all health issues are caused voluntarily by the people that have them.

The world is not a black-and-white place. You can't just say "all or nothing", the world simply does not work that way:

Case in point: My dad recently recovered from surgery after getting prostate cancer. The total hospital bill was over $120,000. Now thankfully he has good insurance. But what if he didn't? What if he had no insurance and he had to come up with $120,000 out of pocket? Should he be condemned to death because he doesn't have the $? Are YOU going to tell me that my dad should die a slow and painful death because you don't like the idea of providing insurance to those that can't afford it?

[DarkWing6]

According to the constitution, the purpose of our government is to protect it's people.

Protect liberty, not its people. That is drastically different.

[delfin]

Protect liberty, not its people. That is drastically different.

Correct, but it IS the state's responsibility to protect it's people. The Fed isn't obligated to do shit.