[Nurse4years]

Zashagalka,
How do you see this country in 100 years? In 500 years? Will we have a nirvana society in the year 5000?
I don't know that I agree that "profit is the best thing invented by man". Perhaps 'the want of profit', which could very easily mean 'the want of money', ....root of all evil?
The need for money is not the same as the want of money.

[Noryn]

My biggest problem is that we are way overtaxed. As healthcare providers we know there really isnt anything more important than health so why isnt public health our priority? Arguably more important than even education and in my opinion definitely more important than wars or foreign aid.

So my position is either cut taxes by 50 percent or provide healthcare to all who need it. We dont call public school systems, "government restricted education" as we shouldnt call universal health government restricted healthcare.

But Timothy is right. As long as we are giving our money to the Neocons, supporting corporations like Exxon and Haliburton and spending billions for wars, we cant afford it.

But maybe, just maybe change is about to come.

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

.... health care and education are a public resource that should be managed for the common good.....

Sorry, but "from each according to his talents and to each according to his needs" has never worked in real life.

Who gets to decide what are "public resources" and what the "common good" is?? It would be interesting to see a referendum on this.....

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Mschrisco

Zashagalka,
How do you see this country in 100 years? In 500 years? Will we have a nirvana society in the year 5000?
I don't know that I agree that "profit is the best thing invented by man". Perhaps 'the want of profit', which could very easily mean 'the want of money', ....root of all evil?
The need for money is not the same as the want of money.

In 100 yrs? For the next 20-30, I think the entitlement bandwagon will keep getting riders, at the expense of the pullers. At the maximum point of boomer retirement, the whole system will crack.

Incredible taxation and benefit limitation will ensue, to shore up the system. SS and Medicare will be means-tested. The gov't will wildly print dollars to make payments that are, as a result, greatly deflated in value while still technically meeting their margin calls.

Move out another 20 yrs, and the system will collapse. The key is the 70.5 rule. You MUST withdraw from your 401(k) by 70.5 yrs of age or pay taxes. Once the boomers begin to reach THAT age and are FORCED to withdraw from the market, the whole pyramid scheme will collapse on itself.

By 2060 the Federal gov't will be completely discredited and the States and individuals, now left with no credible national benefactor, will be forced into self-reliance.

Self-reliance is what built this nation. 20-30 yrs after the Great Federal Collapse of 2050-2060, the nation will rise up again.

By 2100, the Constitution will be back in vogue.

It'll stay that way until the nation is strong enough and prosperous enough that people again forget how we got that way and start to advocate selling us down the river, for our own good.

You asked.

I can't tell you about 500 yrs. It depends on whether or not America ultimately goes the route of Rome, or Greece.

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

We regulate public utilities for the common good and they seem to work efficiently and without any difficulty. Health care can operate under the same model....

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by Noryn

My biggest problem is that we are way overtaxed. As healthcare providers we know there really isnt anything more important than health so why isnt public health our priority? Arguably more important than even education and in my opinion definitely more important than wars or foreign aid.

So my position is either cut taxes by 50 percent or provide healthcare to all who need it. We dont call public school systems, "government restricted education" as we shouldnt call universal health government restricted healthcare.

But Timothy is right. As long as we are giving our money to the Neocons, supporting corporations like Exxon and Haliburton and spending billions for wars, we cant afford it.

But maybe, just maybe change is about to come.

We can deliver access to health care for much less. Jacob Hacker has written a proposal called "Health Care for America." At 400% of poverty income premiums would be roughly 2/3rds of current "efficient" private insurance. See: http://allnurses.com/forums/f287/hea...ca-284592.html for an excerpt. For a full reputable economic analysis see: http://www.sharedprosperity.org/hcfa/lewin.pdf .

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

We regulate public utilities for the common good and they seem to work efficiently and without any difficulty. Health care can operate under the same model....

For example, we regulated MA Bell and got really good service. Everybody that wanted one could get a black rotary phone with local service at a decent price. If you paid significantly more, you could make long distance phone calls. You could save MUCH more if you called long distance at arcane times.

All in all, a functional system.

Then, we deregulated it.

NOW.

All kinds of phones, different colors, wireless, different plans, different extras: call waiting, call forwarding, caller ID.

Cell phones.

VOIP phones.

And the price? WOW. MY long distance is all but free and I never worry about when I have to call.

Make no mistake. You could have a 'functional' system at a steep price with the gov't. I haven't said otherwise.

But why have the waiting times, the lack of choice and the excessive expense of a massive monopoly that doesn't give a darn about you. Functional or not, compared with deregulation, MA Bell was a fair share in a dismal outcome, at least by comparison.

Why settle for the black rotary phone when you can have a cell phone with your own distinctive ring?

You can, and people did, make the argument that a heavily regulated Ma Bell was necessary to ensure that most people had access to a telephone. You could make the argument, and many did, that by deregulating, some people wouldn't be able to afford phone service any longer. You could make the argument, and some did, that only the government, through heavy regulation, could provide this service.

However. The latest census data reports that even among the poorest of our poor, many more have cell phones than not.

How about another example: should I compare the Post Office with Fed Ex next?

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

Tim,
Your claims about SS are nonsense. See:
at http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=8976 . from: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=8976



and
at: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._12/005316.php .

Following your free market philosophy is driving health care inflation up at a dramatic pace. The OECD countries are doing quite well at controlling medical inflation with UHC. Medicare is fixable. Tricare, The VA and FEBP all hold inflationary increases down to a level that is on par with the OECD d/t a combination of large groups, bulk purchasing of prescription medicatioons and administrative efficiency.

See also:

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

you claims about SS are nonsense.

I disagree.

More to the point, the TRUSTEES of the SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM disagree with your assessment.

Alan Greenspan, in the book he published this year, stated that the SOONER Social Security becomes insolvent, the better. At least at THAT POINT, we can sit down and make some realistic decisions about where to go from there.

More people under 30 believe in UFO than believe they will ever see a Social Security check.

In order to keep the system solvent through 2042 we must continue our current budget expenses AND SIMULTANEOUSLY, pay off a third of our national debt. Why? Because the so-called SS trust fund holds a third of that debt, and they will be calling in the markers between 2017 and 2042.

Your advice: there is no problem.

If YOUR retirement expert told you to relax, you have ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD to worry about retirement, tell me, would you consider that good advice?

If you are depending on SS for your retirement, and you are under 40, let me suggest to you that the math that you learned in fifth grade should tell you something doesn't add up.

I'll be more blunt. Progressives say 'no worries' because they aren't concerned. They welcome the crash of the system because they believe people will clamor for more gov't, as a result. Once you get people used to reliance upon gov't instead of themselves, then each new gov't failure is an excuse for an even greater gov't intervention.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Noryn

We dont call public school systems, "government restricted education"

I do.

Radio talk show host Neil Boortz routinely says that the most frequent form of child abuse that occurs in the United States is sending your children to government schools.

Private schools provide superior education, at a fraction of the cost. Plus, they allow parents real input into the flavor of that education.

I'm all for a complete voucher system for schools. Not to mention, eliminating the Federal Dept of Education. How your children are educated should be none of Washington's business.

If the mediocre school system is your example of what the government will do with health care, then I'm very afraid. Will the gov't just declare my health as passing some minimum standard, whether it is, or not?

~faith,
Timothy.