Here It Comes: Governement Health Plan

[Guest]

By the way, who is going to pay for this one?

Who do you think? I know you live in Georgia, but don't they teach economics there? Who pays for the food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid and all the other social programs you want to get rid of so that people will starve and die in the streets? Who is going to pay for it? YOU are, I am, and everyone else... unless of course you have a special tax loophole where YOU pay no taxes... but sure as hell want everyone else to. I swear, you conservatives get more stupid each day.

They are printing money so fast now they can't keep up.

We've been printing money since the Depression. You sure had no problems when Reagan and Bush did it. Even at the junior college you went to, didn't they teach basic macro economics?

Short term fix with unbelievable long range consequences.

Yeah, allowing everyone to have the same health care that YOU neo-cons have WOULD be an unbelievable consequence. How do you people (collectively) live with your greed, selfishness, avarice and total lack of compassion? You must get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say "Wow, I look great. I am great. F--k everyone else... it's all about ME!"

We will find out very shortly how your INEXPERIENCED commander and chief is going to lead this country into the biggest disaster we have ever seen!!

Oh you mean we didn't find that out with George Bush already? Pardon me for knowing a little bit about current events... beyond the price of chewing tobacco in Georgia.

If you want to live in the gloom and doom of Georgia of 1967, go ahead. The rest of us are "movin' on" to a better society for everyone. Give my best to Lester Maddox. Get me a new ax handle when you see him. Mine's gettin' kind of old. (You don't even know what I'm talking about, do you? Sigh.)

 

[Newby]

Al, I'm with you that the entire health care system needs revamped. They need to start with a blank sheet of paper.

But I don't want any low-expectation, hoping to make $60,000 a year doctor cutting me open and yanking out my spleen.

I also don't believe the politicians are the answer to the problem.

 

[stuy119]

In all seriousness, WTF happened to survival of the fittest?

Why should people be allowed to reproduce that can't even sustain themselves? Why should people who can't afford health care have it paid for by others?

At what point do we realize that the overpopulation of the earth is killing us in many ways, and despite our humanistic efforts, we can't support all of us?

Government can't be the be-all/end-all for something that doesn't work, and people need to stop relying on government for every last item they can't get for themselves.

People are weak now, and don't understand personal responsibility (on the whole). The bailing out of companies, the bailing out of mortgages, etc. MUST stop. Founding fathers are rolling over in their graves watching us slowly piss away a great country.

And what about socially, you say? Even the founders wanted to get away from religious persecution, so why are we NOW trying to restrict gay marriage and abortion?

For all those who are free-marketeers, why not allow gay marriage? All it will do is create new opportunities for goods and services to be sold, including tourism (honeymoon), all services needed for weddings (photogs, florist, reception halls, etc.), more homebuying opportunities, and even services related to divorces.

Why is that bad? What, gay people might get divorced at a rate similar to heterosexual marriage? Yeah, that's a good argument.

Be realistic, people. The government is a group of the best public speakers who were unable to do well in the private sector, and we're relying on THEM to solve all of our problems?

Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[bluemarlin08]

Lets face it, after 8 years of Bush and crew, we conservatives don't have much to stand on. If Barry can pull it off, more power to him, there isn't going to be much in the way of oppositon that anyone can believe in, sick of the whole political mess, wish Texas would secede I would move there.

 

[Guest]

Al, I'm with you that the entire health care system needs revamped. They need to start with a blank sheet of paper.

But I don't want any low-expectation, hoping to make $60,000 a year doctor cutting me open and yanking out my spleen.

I also don't believe the politicians are the answer to the problem.

Interesting. The analogy I find see in your statement is what is happening in CA. There are several ballot measures up for election a week and a half from now... and one side is saying if they are not passed we will have a financial melt-down. The other side is basically saying "bring it on" in that the politicians have failed us and perhaps we need to "shut it down" so that we can "clean out" the garage so we can build a new vehicle (ie. state budgetary system.)

I am really torn as to how I will vote. One side says that the devil you know... etc. The other side says that this is just a bandage over a severed leg. I'll listen more to what each side says as well as what those who follow these issues closer than I do say... and decide soon.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

I really believe the government should control health care. After all, look at the state we're in right now...hasn't the government done just a fantastic job for us in the past?

 

[STIBROKER]

Interesting. The analogy I find see in your statement is what is happening in CA. There are several ballot measures up for election a week and a half from now... and one side is saying if they are not passed we will have a financial melt-down.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_12280934?nclick_check=1

California's increasingly severe and largely self-inflicted economic crisis will deepen on May 19 if, as is probable and desirable, voters reject most of the ballot measures that were drafted as part of a "solution" to the state's budget deficit. They would make matters worse. National economic revival is being impeded because one-eighth of the nation's population lives in a state that is driving itself into permanent stagnation. California's perennial boast — that it is the incubator of America's future — now has an increasingly dark urgency.
Under Arnold Schwarzenegger, the best governor the states contiguous to California have ever had, people and businesses have been relocating in those states. For four consecutive years, more Americans have moved out of California than have moved in. California's business costs are more than 20 percent higher than the average state's. In the last decade, net out-migration of Americans has been 1.4 million. California is exporting talent while importing Mexico's poverty. The latter is not California's fault; the former is.
If, since 1990, state spending increases had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus instead of a $42 billion budget deficit, which is larger than the budgets of all but 10 states. Since 1990, the number of state employees has increased by more than a third. In Schwarzenegger's less than six years as governor, per capita government spending, adjusted for inflation, has increased nearly 20 percent.
Liberal orthodoxy has made the state dependent on a volatile source of revenue — high income tax rates on the wealthy. In 2006, the top 1 percent of earners paid 48 percent of the income taxes. California's income and sales taxes are among the nation's highest, its business conditions among the worst. Unemployment, the nation's fourth highest, is 11.2 percent.
Required by law to balance the budget, the Legislature has "solved" the problem by, among other things, increasing the income, sales, gas and vehicle taxes.
Proposition 1A would create a complicated — hence probably porous — spending cap, and a rainy-day fund. Realists, however, do not trust the Legislature to obey the law, which may be why some public employees unions cynically support 1A. Another May 19 proposition, opaquely titled the "Lottery Modernization Act," would authorize borrowing $5 billion from future hypothetical lottery receipts. The title is a measure of the political class's meretriciousness.
If voters pass 1A's hypothetical restraint on government spending, their reward will be two extra years (another $16 billion) of actual income, sales and vehicle tax increases. The increases were supposed to be for just two years. Voters are being warned that if they reject the propositions, there might have to be $14 billion in spending cuts. Even teachers might be laid off. California teachers — the nation's highest paid, with salaries about 25 percent above the national average — are emblematic of the grip government employees unions have on the state.
What actually ails California is centrist evasions. The state's crisis has been caused by "moderation," understood as splitting the difference between extreme liberalism and hyperliberalism, a "reasonableness" that merely moderates the speed at which the ever-expanding public sector suffocates the private sector.
California has become liberalism's laboratory, in which the case for fiscal conservatism is being confirmed. The state is a slow learner and hence will remain a drag on the nation's economy. But it will be a net benefit to the nation if the federal government and other state governments profit from California's negative example, which Californians can make more vividly instructive by voting down the propositions on May 19.
Remember the story of the mule that paid attention only after being walloped by a two-by-four? The Democratic-controlled state Legislature is like that. Fortunately, it has handed voters some two-by-fours — the initiatives. Resounding rejections of them should get Sacramento's attention.

 

[Dave020]

It's all about power and control, not concern, at least when it comes to California.

California is the lunatic fringe of liberalism relative to any democratic moderation. It's virtually pointless to be a moderate democrat here.

California had a law for universal employer health coverage, had an Assembly Bill that also would have provided universal health coverage to all, and ran a democrat out of office.

*SB 2 was signed into law (by Gray Davis) the voted out of law at the next state election (??)
*AB-X was killed in committee before it could become law
*Gray Davis (moderate democrat) was kicked out of office and replaced by Arnold (rino)

There was at least one constant in all three of these things and her name kind of rhymes with "Beila Buehl". Beila went out her way to garner support and kill AB-X because it was not single payor government controlled. It was universal, but that was not the point (same with SB 2). Same in Washington right now.

BTW - Arnold was chosen as replacement because of the way the ballot was structured, not by popular support. Both parties agreed to a ballot in two parts. First part, do you support a recall yes or no? Second part, if there is a recall, even if you do not support it, who do you choose to replace the governor. So, we had to pick someone no matter what.

Now, the choices were Arnold, a prostitute, Gary Coleman, Ariana Huffington, a Madame and so on. Who else could you possible choose?

 

[Winter_123]

Now, the choices were Arnold, a prostitute, Gary Coleman, Ariana Huffington, a Madame and so on. Who else could you possible choose?

Well, indeed, and that same issue arises in regard to Bush. There is somehow an undercurrent that people deserve Obama's spending after Bush. How so? Most of us dont control the frigging process from top to bottom and have to go with what is in front of us. You can shake your head at Bush but that doesnt mean that you wake up in the middle of the night wishing that Al Gore and John Kerry had their hand on the tiller either for protecting us after 911 or on budget expenditures. Certainly that would not have been pretty either.

We keep forgetting that Obama basicly won by only about 5 percentage points or so. Maybe 6. Can't remember. Yet there is this aura that there is no one in the country who is not drinking the kool aid and on board with him. That is not true. He has a perfect alignment right now due to the majority in the Senate so he can spend money on practically anything that comes across his mind for the next six months or so. However, nothing has changed the fact that this is still basically a center-right country and his margin of votes does not change that. Sooner or later, certainly before the year is out, those two opposing factors will collide and we will see who Obama is when he has no more money to hand out.

The analogy is that the time is coming or has come where the rest of the country is saying to California, "look we dont care one way or the other, be liberal or dont be liberal, do whatever you want just dont ask us for any money." But how popular is a liberal in California who has no more money to hand out? A liberal with no free stuff to hand out has no identify or power base left. Perhaps there is a little message there for Obama. Not immediately, but on the horizon.

Yes, my state is broke too but we are robbing all the stimulus funds that were intended to create jobs. As with all states these stimulus funds are going to create an enormous drop-off when they run out because every state is using them to subsidize basic operating expenses that still need to be cut. What a mess.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Interesting. The analogy I find see in your statement is what is happening in CA. There are several ballot measures up for election a week and a half from now... and one side is saying if they are not passed we will have a financial melt-down. The other side is basically saying "bring it on" in that the politicians have failed us and perhaps we need to "shut it down" so that we can "clean out" the garage so we can build a new vehicle (ie. state budgetary system.)

I am really torn as to how I will vote. One side says that the devil you know... etc. The other side says that this is just a bandage over a severed leg. I'll listen more to what each side says as well as what those who follow these issues closer than I do say... and decide soon.

You guys are playing a high stakes game because you have no way out other than through a federal hand-out. Yet if you fail to vote for tax increases and cuts that means that you are coming to the rest of the country for help without helping yourseves first. That is not going to play well in the heartland. That very heartland which you despise for not being educated and liberal like you, allegedly. You know the saying, be careful about the toes you step on because they may be attached to ass you need to kiss someday.

If you folks were smart you would sell off some offshore drilling rights and not only raise some cash but set yourself up for some future revenue but you dont think that way so the hell with ya. Nothing like trying to rebuild your economy when your state's bonds have a junkbond rating. Probably doesn matter anyway. Whatever you raise in taxes or revenue you will piss away anyway. Just like when a welfare recipient wins a million bucks. You think they are going to put it into an annuity and draw it down for the next thirty years or that it will be gone in two years? Okay, that is exactly what it will be like if the feds (ie. the rest of the country) bails out California. I am not a Libertarian but you guys could use a few more out there.

 

[Guest]

You guys are playing a high stakes game because you have no way out other than through a federal hand-out. Yet if you fail to vote for tax increases and cuts that means that you are coming to the rest of the country for help without helping yourseves first. That is not going to play well in the heartland. That very heartland which you despise for not being educated and liberal like you, allegedly. You know the saying, be careful about the toes you step on because they may be attached to ass you need to kiss someday.

If you folks were smart you would sell off some offshore drilling rights and not only raise some cash but set yourself up for some future revenue but you dont think that way so the hell with ya. Nothing like trying to rebuild your economy when your state's bonds have a junkbond rating. Probably doesn matter anyway. Whatever you raise in taxes or revenue you will piss away anyway. Just like when a welfare recipient wins a million bucks. You think they are going to put it into an annuity and draw it down for the next thirty years or that it will be gone in two years? Okay, that is exactly what it will be like if the feds (ie. the rest of the country) bails out California. I am not a Libertarian but you guys could use a few more out there.

I never agree with Winter. Not ever... until now... at least with the above two paragraphs.

The one thing he misses is WHY so many people live here. It's because they can get away from conservatives like him... the old order... the doom and gloomers... the stale "Alabama of 1958" attitude full of the religious crap and intolerance that Winter's sainted "heartland" is so full of.

Outside of Boston or Manhattan or DC, no one wants to live anywhere else but California. We are to the intellectually stagnant US what the New World was to Europe in the 1800s to 1920... a place to get a new start... where new ideas are given a chance and where people get judged by what they do not by their color or race or religion.

Everyone has always wanted to come here because it has always been BETTER here. Perhaps not as much anymore... as STI pointed out we are losing population... but not because people don't like the CA "tude" it is because they can't find jobs. From what I see, it is not that people don't like the culture here... it's the economy (stupid.)

I've never met anyone who came to CA who wanted to go BACK to Texas or South Carolina or Indiana. People who LIKE Texas STAY in Texas. They don't come here for the most part. But those who do, come because ... well if you are a black or a Jew in Texas you are going to get the s--t beat out of you by Texas State cop if you roll through a stop sign. If you are oriental you don't have a chance of getting a loan at a bank in South Carolina. If you are gay, your chances of living another day is slimmer in Indiana than California.

Yes, we have the "fruits and the nuts" here... but that's because we're all ALIVE here. Everything is dead in Texas... (except maybe Austin which has a budding intelligentsia.) The same is with the South... good jobs perhaps... nice people (if you are white) but god forbid you wish to live your life differently... perhaps be a Hindu... or a gay... or wear saffron colored robes... or no clothes at all (in your house or a nudest camp) and you are simply going to have a hard life. Not in California. No one gives a rip what you do, whom you worship, what color you are, or what language you speak.

Those of you who have spent time in multi-lingual and multi-cultural European cities will know what I mean when I say that California is "continental." We are "large" because so many people WANT the kind of culture we have here.

So yes, we have our political and economic problems... which will get solved. But What we don't have here are the Winters and the Freddies and the Mr. Bills and all the rest of you who are content to live you life in the mediocrity of your old, tired, and worn out aphorisms. And that's fine for you. You don't know any better. But believe me, your kids want to live HERE... because they can breathe free.