Piter…there is andifference between using tax money in general to secure our defense and the individual policies of administrations. As vet too, I reserve the right to be critical of how my tax dollars are spent in Irag or Vietnam for that matter. But I still feel we should invest our tax dollars in general in all areas that help secure our defense…whether it be particle accelerators, GM and Boeing or The makers of clothing for or soldiers. Computers and electronics in general ? That’s perfect example of how we let third world labor greed make securing our sovereignty more difficult. It 's an on going battle that our general philosophical approach to being a country founded upon an idea should hold us in good stead as we continue to recruit the resources we need…that includes immigration; but that’s a different debate.
It’s not “investing” it’s “spending”.
So when China cuts off our supply of microprocessors, what’s your proposal?
Clothing for soldiers? You really see that as a possible problem?
It is spending in one sense, but investing in security in another. You can argue in one sense that the bomber sitting there is a wasted “investment”, but the “talk softly but carry a big (capability)gun” has lots of merit IMO.
Though I’m an unabashed liberal…too much so even for the Democratic party, I am very strong on national defense in general. But like you, I think there are better ways to spend our “defense” money often. I also, if you read my comment, I feel badly that we gave up so much of our electronics capability. Clothing ? Guess you haven’t looked at where most of our clothing is made and where we ask our soldiers to serve. All support materials are potential problems, especially clothing. As long as you don’t diss education as a defense expenditure I see little I could disagree with.
It is investing in the true sense of the word since the government made money by charging interest.
I too served (Vietnam, B-52s), and then spent a good part of the next 23 years on the “other side” in the manufacturing industry creating and manufacturing defense hardware. I understand the arguments, but still don’t believe that the bailout of GM was an apprpriate use of our tax dollars. That doesn’t mean I don’t “get it”, it simply means I see it from a different perspective. Perhaps my perspective is bias toward the federal government having been intended to have its powers extremely limited rather than what it’s evolved into. I’m far more of a “constitutionalist” than I am a liberal. I should add that “constitutionalists” believe in LIMITED government, and that includes rights of the individual to make personal decisions that are often considered “liberal” philosophies. The feds have no business in our personal lives.
I’m not a “conservative”, I’m a “constitutionalist”. They’re different things.
Couldn’t a “constitutionalist” also believe in the fact that many of the founding fathers deliberately created a living document that we could change as time goes on based on our changing needs?
Mr. Devries, Don’t forget that in a macro economic sense, pensions and benefits are spent, and when money is spent, regardless of how the money is collected, members of the chamber of commerce benefit. The right wingers are so disturbed about unions even though only 12% belong? Go figure. Its really about businesses not wanting to compete with benefits and wages to pad their own pockets additionally. In Minnesota it was a republican governor years ago that insisted that all state employees belong to unions. Now the republicans act like it is the bane of everything. What has changed is the party leadership to kooks and evangelists.
Couldn’t a “constitutionalist” also believe in the fact that many of the
founding fathers deliberately created a living document that we could
change as time goes on based on our changing needs?
C’mon, Whitey. They did intend for the Constitution to be changeable as needed. It’s called the Amendment procedures, and is specifically described in the Constitution. You liberals have twisted this around so you can just say, “Today, the Constitution means this.” Or, get some liberal buddy judge to decide what it means today
The problem is if the government does not have to follow the Constitution nor its very clear Amendment procedures, neither do I nor any other citizen. History shows that in the end the people always win. It only takes around 3% of a society to reject the government to eventually bring it down.
As far as whining about those evil Republicans not fixing health care, why should I have to pay for your health care, or you pay for mine?
There are three haplotypes for needed diet. The vast majority of US citizens of European descent are in the haplotype which needs low carb diet, and high fat with adequate protein. So, what does the AMA recommend, and all the disgustingly fat US citizens eat? High carb; low fat.
Yet, in medical school, they teach the digestion process exactly like Dr. Atkins, the cardiologist who invented one low carb diet to eliminate most bad side effects of obesity (there are others) yet all the doctors come out of med school repeating like parrots, low fat; high carb.
Atkins; Taube; several others wrote books explaining the reasons to go low carb. Yet, most people in the US continue to shove carbs down their throats like noodling geese, then whine about those evil republicans who won’t pay for their health care.
If everyone in the US went low carb,that is, the majority who need that, we would not have a health care problem, and there would be doctors tending bar. But, no, eat like hogs, and blame the Republicans. And, hold yourself out as a great American.
“The feds have no business in our personal lives.”
That all depends upon how you define it. If your drinking water is polluted, your personal and or civil rights are violated by some else actions, when you are dropped by your provider from the healthcare rolls, people go kicking and screaming to the town office then up the ladder until they get results they feel they are entitle to. You bet your sweet buttocks they want them then.
.
It just sounds cool to say we don’t.
“As far as whining about those evil Republicans not fixing health care,
why should I have to pay for your health care, or you pay for mine?”
Why should I have to pay my into my healthcare plan just to provide a profit margin for investors and leave the decisions to keep me on the rolls or not and the protocol of my treatment based upon their profit margins. Why do I then have to pay for your police and fire protection when I live safety and never need it…it’s called a society.
So I think irlandes has it. First, this thread is apparently about health care. Second, all problems in the world are apparently about health care. Third, all problems of health care are apparently about obesity. Finally, the Atkins diet is the cure to obesity. Hold the presses!! Its so simple. I just dumped the beer I was on and will only eat bacon for breakfast. Join me and we’ve got it all figured out.
Or one might instead think this: this thread was about bailouts of large corporations. And that stream of convoluted, holy cow simplified, off the topic logic is actually the biggest source of the world’s problems.
Yes, maintenance of diabetics has become one of the biggest cost in healthcare. Yes, diabetes is preventable for the majority by proper diet and weight control. And, most importantly, in our employer based healthcare society, small businesses make their hiring decisions as do many corporations based upon healthcare costs. So yes…employment and bailouts are indirectly related proper eating habits.
Connect the dots…
"Yet, in medical school, they teach the digestion process exactly like Dr. Atkins, the cardiologist who invented one low carb diet to eliminate most bad side effects of obesity (there are others) yet all the doctors come out of med school repeating like parrots, low fat; high carb."
I think that a number of you missed the part about humanity. One thing a government can do is to help citizens when events completely out of their control have severely bad effects on their lives. Remember that GM and Chrysler are made up of hundreds of thousands of employees, mostly from MI, IL, IN, WI, and OH. Letting them go under could destroy those state economies for decades if not forever. If we let these people fend for themselves after such a huge calamity, then why not screw the people of New Orleans? Walk away from them. They should have known better than to live where oil spills damage the environment, hurricanes reap havoc, and annual river floods are a way of life. Let’s walk away from all of them. But if you experience some disaster in your area, should we leave you to handle it yourself? Government in the USA has a history of compassion for its citizens. It seems to me that if we look at it this way, the bailout loans are not so hard to justify.
Taxpayers have paid much of my salary for 44 years. I teach in a public university. Taxpayers provided my graduate education and gave me enough to live on for four years in the form of an assistantship. The students that I teach are supported by taxpayers. The government to which I pay taxes chose to bail out the auto industry so that auto workers could have jobs. I supported this decision.
I don't like to see waste. I am outraged by the CEOs on Wall Street whose companies were bailed out and at the same time got large bonuses. I don't like to see waste in public universities. I believe that a student in a public university gets one opportunity when he/she signs up for a course. If the student has to retake the course, the student should foot the entire cost and not be subsidized by taxpayers.
I do hope that Wall Street, the housing industry and the auto industry learned a lesson from all of this. The CEOs of these industries have a large responsibility to those they serve and this includes the workers.
irlandes: "As far as whining about those evil Republicans not fixing health care, why should I have to pay for your health care, or you pay for mine?"
We are losing and have lost our competitive edge in manufacturing to countries who either, supply NO healthcare to their people, or provide it on a non profit basis either through govt. or regulated private sector non profits. The choice is ours. Be ready for more bailouts if you expect small businesses who supply more than 3/4 of our jobs and large corporations who are responsible for our manufacturing to hold on to the ARCHAIC ideas of employer based healthcare and for profit providers.
It’s a total no brainer that BOTH conservatives and liberals can wrap their brain around. If we can recognize so many non profit organizations as beneficial to our economic and personal needs; why not healthcare. It doesn’t have to be govt. controlled but it should not make decisions based upon profit. Especially, if it means saving jobs here in the US. Ask any employer about their HC responsibilities and their employment decisions. The fix is easy, the will to do it is not. There are a lot of wealthy people who thrive on denying care for people or providing minimal care at great expense to their employers. Putting more money in the hands of manufacturing corporations should be a goal of everyone , conservative or otherwise. Wonder why it isn’t ?
"It's a total no brainer that BOTH conservatives and liberals can wrap their brain around."
One big problem with going to a different method of suppling health care is that there is such a large industry supplying the service now. Altering the business so dramatically is too controversial to work at this time. It would take billions out of sales for the insurers and could force employees to change to other organizations; another big change. This is why the Clinton healthcare package failed to gain acceptance. It seems to me that we need to accept the current business model and expand it to include everyone. Actually, everyone is included at this time. But services are denied until the uninsured show up at the emergency room with a more serious (read: expensive) condition that could have been treated more economically if they only had access to healthcare services.
"Altering the business so dramatically is too controversial to work at
this time. It would take billions out of sales for the insurers and
could force employees to change to other organizations; another big
change. "
I don’t buy that for one moment. It’s a contrived excuse on the part of money grabbers to maintain the status quo. Facts—
1.Blue Cross Blue Shield use to be non profit. It took them very little time convert to profit. They still conduct busy while it was done. It can be done the other way.
2.Other democracies that offer private non profit carries simply told “for profits” to provide a basic non profit plan for all and made profits on their Cadillac plans. They did it months while still conducting business as usual. HC costs will drop dramatically.
3. All present smaller carriers have to do is apply for non profit status, sell off their stock shares and continue conducting business as usual. Premiums payed are put into a HC account for their controlled investments so in reality, they only have to provide coverage for illnesses over accumulated payments. That’s what is done in demos that are not govt provided and the businesses are already in place.
4 A future requirement in the Obamaplan stipulates that insurance companies must spend within about 20% of their premiums collected on healthcare. That moves them very close to non profit expenditures. Guess what, just leave the plan alone and that’s where we are headed w/o contrived excuses. It’s already worked out ! I would like to see HC accounts, as done in some countries, included to lower costs more and take it off employer based completely.
3. If you want a govt option, Medicare is already in place. Once these changes take place, people will not want to go back to having their HC decided upon profit making factors for stock shares and not need.
While conversion to non-profit status is possible, it seems impractical to me. Someone has to pay off the stockholders, and what if the stockholders don’t want to convert the company to nonprofit? The managers would probably not want to be nonprofit either. I think they will make more money as a for profit business. That makes conversion adversarial, and is one of the big reasons why the Clinton plan failed. It isn’t just a little bitty change. It’s the end of the world as they know it for the health insurers. If it is enacted by congress and signed by the president, they will do it. But such measures seem like nationalization to me. I’d like to give the industry the chance to make universal health care work and then decide if nationalization is needed. I’m not worried about me. I am insured at work and will have Medicare when I retire. I am concerned about my children and want to put a system in place that will take good care of them and my grandchildren when they arrive.
Medicare is a nationalized HC plan that most seem satisfied with. Unfortunately it only insures those, the older, whom the insurance companies don’t want or will have to charge outrageous premiums to make a profit. So, we citizen who pay taxes are subsidizing insurance company profits. A nationalized HC plan that would include those with fewer needs, the young, would benefit from their premiums thus saving money for the tax payer. Non profits accomplish the same thing. We can always find an excuse to deny those less fortunate then us the same care we are privilege to have. Medicare or some other non profit is fine for you and me, but not everyone.
What makes us so special you are willing to excuse a change on the grounds it’s adversarial. It’s ridiculous that the same people who want Medicare for themselves would vote for those who would take it away from them if given a chance, or deny others the same opportunity.