On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote:
<< SNIP >>
> Kirby, on the other hand, does the opposite - the point of his writing > is to achieve the opposite, to try to get people to vote against > universal health care by voting accordingly for the party and people > who would not expand and even start to cut the funding for even just > the existing programs. >
I don't think so Paul. Our household benefits from Medicare as well as Social Security. Medicare is already a public-private endeavor i.e. the government does not own the Catholic or other hospitals to which remittance is made. The largest supplier of oxygen is Apria -- again, not any more Federal than Federal Express.
> Either government will be involved in helping to pay for health care > or it will not. Either government's present role in helping to pay for > health care will expand, stay the same, or it will contract. > > I am arguing for it to expand. Kirby argues against that, with all > kinds of hints that he would like to see it contract. >
There's a double meaning to "contract" -- "KON tract" vs. "con TRACT" that's obscuring your argument.
Definitely big governments should contract (KON tract) in the preferred USA model, as the bias is towards small and medium sized businesses on Main Street. The tattoo parlor and medical marijuana dispensary gets the checks for those covered. The big businesses tend to be viewed with more suspicion as they're global and send jobs overseas (although some smaller businesses do that too).
> The necessary result of it even just not expanding is that the only > thing left to meet all that growing unmet need is charity. > > And yes, the unmet need is growing since the private marketplace is > rejecting a greater and greater percentage of the population, leaving > more and more with no health care. We now have close to 100 million > people - close to 1/3 of the entire population - that are either > under-insured with junk insurance with out of pocket expenses so high > they might as well not have insurance, or with no coverage at all.
It's true that hospitals are closing their doors to large numbers who have no coverage. Lots more hospitals and clinics might be needed, to avoid this.
Many Americans get whatever basic health care in prisons, given how many Americans have prison as their lifestyle, at least in some chapters.
The thing I was expressing to Paul was skepticism. Big governments may be up to the job of providing higher living standards, but not every big government is big in the same sense. Some are big dummies.
I don't think his Feds have the brains or the courage to be like Swedes and take care of people with health care needs. They let "mad kings" like Nixon-Kissinger go on bombing-killing sprees with wild abandon, plus there've been other orgies of violence ever since. Gitmo is still open for business.
They have no discipline, these camo-wearing Americans, these Feds with their herbicides and blow torches, taking out mom & pop crops, putting a bullet into junior. They're like the orcs in Lord of the Rings.
I'm sad that Paul only has this failing poor excuse for a government to look up to, to think of as maybe getting "big" someday (in the sense of wise). Sweden's leaders likened the USA's actions to those of Nazi Germany during the height of the Vietnam War. That's when the US ambassador was withdrawn (for a second time?) by the piggish cowards in DC and their fraudulent military (the good guys of whom were in open or behind-the-scenes mutiny).
Good luck getting universal health care from such brainless warmongering numbskulls Paul, seems like a long shot.
I think a better plan would be for the 50 states to gradually distance themselves from DC and make stronger alliances with more mature states that are more likely to last. But if you want to bolster DC then I say go for it. Make it the object of your prayers. I just don't see history as being on your side, that's all.