Declining coverage-The worst is yet to come

oh no the sky is falling the sky is falling.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before,

but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that?

If somebody is unable to understand THIS explanation, I have serious doubts about their ability to even function in society, much less run our country.

As the late Adrian Rogers said, "you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.."

I am saddened by statements in this post. Some people don't care to hear or listen to "what is", but only care to "stick to what has been for so long" that the need for serious change never enters in for all people. Very sad day in America indeed.

Why did the professor tell them, "no one would fail and no one would receive an A." and then FAIL them all?

He taught them that professors lie.

I would get it in writing.

How did he get permission to pass or fail an entire class? I would have studies and done my best. Why should I fal and not become anurse.

Plus I heard this story decades before Presiddent Obama was elected.

It's a simple analogy regarding the pitfalls of a socialist society.

I'm sorry you were confused, I'll spell things out in simpler terms in the future.

I'm with herring, only my question is - do you think Americans are so lazy that, if they get the same kind of health care model utilised by every other Western society, they'll decide to give up on working, their health, and any personal accoun tability and responsibility? Because that's apretty damning perspective to have of your own citizens.

If I, too, am too dumb to understand your analogy, please explain more clearly.

I think that once healthcare is perceived to be free, the flood of drug seekers ALONE will overwhelm the system, and it will crash & burn.

Why would you believe that a government that can't even get Americans to sign up for SCHIP will be any better at a bigger, more cumbersome system?

Yes, it is damning. The best predictor of the future is the past. Look at how the colonies attempted to institute the 'common stores system.' The analogy above is based on this failed system.

Let's look at the top 10 cities with the highest poverty levels.....

Interesting - on Poverty in the Cities.

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level

1. Detroit , MI 32.5%

2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%

3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%

4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%

5. Miami , FL 26.9%

5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%

7. El Paso , TX 26.4%

8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%

9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%

10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007

What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati , OH (3rd)..since 1984;

Cleveland , OH (4th)..since 1989;

Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee , WI (8th)..since 1908;

Philadelphia , PA (9th)..since 1952;

Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.

Approximately 40% of 'taxpayers' receive an 'earned income credit' which is greater than their scheduled FICA. In other words, they get back more than they pay in....it's a social program meant to offset taxes for the poor. Yes, some get thousands more than they were scheduled to pay in.

Yes, it comes out of your pocket.

You want to pay more? Please, by all means, send in your check today.

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats---yet they are still poor...

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Abraham Lincoln

ozone....what i think yOU are missing is that it is MIDDLE CLASS that is in the squeeze now....that is who this is for........

ozone....what i think yOU are missing is that it is MIDDLE CLASS that is in the squeeze now....that is who this is for........

I think that you are missing the fact that with Obamacare, the middle class will be crushed. Look closer at the definition of 'income'

Cause you're about to become 'rich'

ozone....what i think yOU are missing is that it is MIDDLE CLASS that is in the squeeze now....that is who this is for........

Negative. My wife and I (both RNs) are in the middle class. We pay our own way. Being forced to fund a trillion dollar mistake WILL crush us. Frankly, our taxes are ridiculous now. We work half of the year to fund programs for all of those who don't (or won't) work. We pay into social security and medicare, both of which will have gone bankrupt long before we are eligible to collect a penny. Yet I watch some hump down the road who went on social security disability because of PTSD from an auto accident towing his bass boat past my house when I'm leaving for work. The federal government exists to defend us and secure our borders. That is all. They do a good job at the first, and have fallen on their face on the second. Everything else should be up to us.

I think that once healthcare is perceived to be free, the flood of drug seekers ALONE will overwhelm the system, and it will crash & burn.

I certainly come across a few drug seekers in Melbourne, but as I don't work in Cas I'm sure I only see a fraction of those who present. However, I'm not aware of any statitics about higher rates of pharmaceutical drug abuse in non-US countries, just lower rates of mortality and morbidity (thanks in part to needle exchange programs and the opportunity to get health care access easily).

It would therefore seem that you do think that you're fellow citizens are lazier, less motivated, less principled, weaker or in some other way less than those who live in one of the countries where universal health care covers more people more effectively, with longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates at less cost. That's genuinely fascinating.

A corollary to this position would seem to be that you believe a universal health care program in the US would somehow prevent health care professionals from screening who they prescribe narcotic and related drugs to, and the dosage and quantities. Or is it that you think the only thing stopping them from flooding the system now is the cost of ED presentations and/or the cost of medication?

I don't have time right now to address the statitstics you provided comparing rates of poverty with local political elections, but I have 3 caveats - the first is that, without a comparison of, say, the 10 cities with the fewest people under the poverty line and their voting trends, the statistics tell us nothing about a correlation between welth and election patterns. The second is that two of the cities you cite haven't had a Republican mayor in over 100 years, but are not the poorest, which I'd expect if there was a correlation (ie the longer it's been since a Republican was in power, the worse off the city is). Which brings me to three - the more recently a Republican was mayor, the worse off these cities are, which doesn't seem to support the position I (conjecture) you were making about Democrat mayors and financial ruin.

As I said, however, I only have time to take a cursory look. I would be interested in your responses, though.