Re: OT who said this ?

Bruce S wrote:
"Robert Allison" <rimshot27@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
Under socialism, there is no tax money. Everything belongs to the state. You work and the state gives you what it thinks you need. Tax free society.

And that is exactly the attitude shown by the liberals in our government today. They would not complain about tax cuts "giving" money to the "rich", if they did not believe that the government already owned that money. Not taxing a person is not giving him anything - it is simply letting him keep what is already his. If you believe that reducing taxes is giving something to the rich, then you are saying that it was yours to begin with.


Although Hillary is called a socialist, she actually isn't. Unless she is calling for the abolition of private property and the abolition of the accumulation of wealth, she would be laughed out of the socialist party.

Actual, direct abolition of private property, is not the only way to reach the same end. When Hillary says that she wants to deprive the oil companies of their profits, that is exactly the same thing as privatizing the business. (Except that it lets a private person deal with the hassles of actually doing the work.) The business is private in name only - the government gets everything. Same for individual taxes. If the government has the right to take 38% of all your wealth (and I remember when the top tax rate was over 70%) they have the ability to stop you from accumulating wealth - just raise the rate until you can no longer accumulate anything. And with death taxes (inheritance taxes), they can stop you from passing on your wealth to your heirs - thus preventing the long term accumulation of wealth. The only difference is that they pretend that they are letting you have private property (while they take it, and restrict your use of whatever they leave behind). It is still Socialism - in final effects, even if not in the means of achieving them.


As far as health care goes, if a health care system existed which saved you money, would you be for that?

Maybe - how is the saving accomplished? Is it because someone decides that heart surgery is too expensive, so you get to die? Is it because we have decided to switch over to acupuncture and herbs instead of modern medicine with drugs and surgeries? Is it because someone tells a doctor that he is not permitted to charge a free market rate, but must conform to a set fee - determined by the government? Or is it because we have gone to a total free market in medicine with the benefits that brings? Guess which one I support.

Bruce



Bruce you say it so much better than I could.

There are a number of ways we could reduce the cost of health care for most of us but you won't see these solutions coming from D.C.

Reduce paperwork by having a single claims filing system that all providers (insurance Co and various Gov bodies) must use. Stop forcing private hospitals to provide "free" health care to those that can't or won't pay for themselves and reduced payments by Gov that don't cover actual cost. Type hospital bill is padded 25% to cover non and under payments. Tort reform so doctors and hospitals don't have to practice defensive medicine. Room for big time savings here.

A decade ago I spent a week in a intern program at a Portland hospital. There were some eye openers regarding costs. While standing at the head of a patient undergoing open heart surgery I made a comment about the number of people in the room and the amount of equipment being used. One Dr said, in Australia, they have a same success rate as in the States but don't to worry about facing a judge if something doesn't come out perfect. Because of this, there is not nearly the number of people directly involved in the operating room or the necessity for all the equipment.

Lots of way to save money in health care but the typ congress critter wouldn't support the change. They believe there are too many "Uncle Sam should pay" voters that can affect the outcome of their next election.

Heard on the local news a couple days ago about a new survey regarding gov provided health care. To my surprise, only 20% of the respondents favored Gov provided health care system. Maybe there is some ray of hope in this area.

Mickey
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Going to GP
    ... Our government run military hospitals used to be among the very best ... Now they have moved over to private firms providing services, ... consider that medical care provided to even many illegal mexicans ... how many Mexicans enter the USA to get free health care? ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: The greatest Mystery to me is Republicans
    ... > government, since government arranges itself in bureaucracies that are ... What about the universal health care thing? ... and other services that private business is not motivated to provide. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: [OT] Health Care Nanny-State to the Nth Degree
    ... > all aspects of health care except who pays the bills. ... the government guarantees the existence of a class of people who always ... In our current heavily regulated system consumers ... thing that does not bow to any legislature is wealth. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: Heath Care in the US
    ... address the inadequacies of Canada's government care. ... "Canadian doctors, long silent on the health care system's problems, are ... having opened his own private surgery center ... And Americans aren't always ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
    ... I agree with you in general about a "nanny state". ... that a working national health care plan is necessarily a nanny state. ... Private industry can also create the nanny state mentality. ... then the existing government run health system is thoroughly broken. ...
    (Debian-User)