How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage ."

I believe Mr. Tyler had a good grasp of human nature.

America wasn't founded on socialism, it was founded on individual rights and freedoms. Not those granted by big government.

Some societies like to have a nanny government dumb down everything and take care of them.
Mediocrity is the result.
In a system where everyone has the same opportunities to improve themselves, make more money and achieve a high standard of living no one needs big government to make all their decisions for them.

A government can't destroy wealth and penalize those who achieve the most by oppressive taxing and then redistributing wealth. It won't survive. The people who achieve the most are robbed in order to "help" others who won't work?...

two more quotes, if you will.

"Anything received by someone who didn't work for it, was worked for by someone who didn't receive it"

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.

It's really not that hard to stay on topic....is it?

Universal Health Care =/= Socialism

now that that's been established there shall be no more discussion of socialism or political philosophy in a thread on health care in the United States.

...ok. No more discussion will be allowed, as you decree. hahaha

..but socializing health care in the United States, and raising taxes to do it in a (formerly) free market/free enterprise (formerly) democratic society has a lot to do with political philosophy and should be discussed and explored by Americans...regardless of what Canadians think.

Right, but a lot of people's arguments against it [i.e. mine] is that it's more how it would hurt an already aching economy and put an industry in a horrible position at a time of very high unemployment. Basically a socialized health care in theory vs. in practice. The arguments for those should be/are much different.

Bringing this up again. lol at wanting to include coverage for illegal aliens.

America is going to regret this a ton if it passes. Just search into Hawaii and Massachusetts attempts.

You know, I didn't write much in this thread prior because I honestly didn't know too much about it. But since having gone out and read up on whats being discussed, and really listening to every side The issue that every side has a problem with is "rationing."

And dispite it being the issue for each side, they cite "rationing" as the reason we need to jump from one form of rationing to the other"

The press secratry for Kathleen Sibelias (probably spelled that wrong) is claiming that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is projecting a more expensive Public Option because of poor accounting from the previous administration.

I.e. it looks like a lot more because things (like the war) are being accurately accounted for at this point. I can't comment on whether or not thats true, but it seems like its too easy an answer to just patch things up.

If their looking for a public option, then they should (in my opinion) set up blanket coverage for a finite amount of things; Emergency Room visits, Immunizations, Pregnancies/Births, and basic blood work. This would greatly reduce a few thigns...

1. The concern that if people are really hurt, they're going to receive sub-standard care which as most Americans know is par for the course.

2. It would alleviate quite a few of the strains on current HMO's (which are superficial and propped up to justify gouging, but its gives them one less argument)

3. Speaking as someone who deals with a highly regulating government, I'll mention two things about good ol' MA.

a. we have a state mandated obligation to be medically insured. If we can't afford an HMO, there is a state plan we can opt into.

If we aren't insured we get roughly a $6K fine on our tax returns.

b. Our current auto insurance policy is what I'll call "half regulated" (you'll have to look it up) where in people aren't legally allowed to be denied coverage. If no companey wants them, their put into a lottery and given an insurance companey who can dictate their price.

Agencies are required to have X number of "lottery'ds" our they are fined.

Based on these two plans and the knowledge that the current system is coming apart at the seams because its failing to keep costs down, the Capitalistc natture of some Congressional members - as noted by experience - won't do what they are claiming it will.

I guess this leaves us with a Single-payer option, which I'm not opposed to but brings up the "horrid" idea of Rationing again.

My entire comment on that can be summed up like this:

Rationing is politicizing this debate, which is slowing the process of fixing a broken system that gouges poor, sick people.

If we don't ration, we end up writing black checks to Drug Companies for some useless pill that may possibly stop you're intestines from exploding. But the side effects are heavy. And its $40 a pill.

The horror stories you read about are people generally demanding an experiemental drug that won't bring people eternal life, but maybe another year. Maybe.

If you fund those things, who then do you deny coverage for? Or, how expensive does the tax become - which would screw the working class.

Rationing is fine - American's are just scared of dying. My time will come and I'll roll my wheelchair in front of a train before I live via tubes.

My understanding is that Obama's plans to fund the initiative isn't through raising taxes across the board but only on those earning millions and millions which essentially just does some work to negate the loopholes they're using to get out of paying what they're already meant to. Throw in the fact that a nationalised healthcare will free up the money you were spending on insurance premiums. Overall unless you're earning a heck of a lot you're looking at nothing but benefits, and if you are earning a heck of a lot you lack my sympathy. I'll look into some statistics and figures to back up my wild claims some other time.

Personally I'm very socialist when it comes to healthcare and believe if you have national healthcare you should do away with private healthcare which leaches the more the better doctors. The main reason your healthcare costs so much and keeps prices up are the ridiculous lawsuits brought against doctors, frankly that should be dealt with at the same time as this change to ensure that the doctors don't get to expect ostentatious wage packets.

The healthcare system and health insurance has to deal with many people who are sick because of smoking, drinking and bad eating habits. Public health education programs should be created (funded by increased tax on tobacco, booze and fast foods) to show people how to make healthy lifestyle choices. This is only one "long term" solution, but if it can keep more people healthy, instead of becoming heart/liver/kidney patients, it will help the system provide for those who are sick through no fault of their own. Why don't we promote "resposibilty"?

Please read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/ma...pagewanted=all