Deception at Core of Obama Plans

WINEX_IHB

New member
<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/a_dishonest_gimmicky_budget.html">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/a_dishonest_gimmicky_budget.html</a>



Deception at Core of Obama Plans

By Charles Krauthammer



WASHINGTON -- Forget the pork. Forget the waste. Forget the 8,570 earmarks in a bill supported by a president who poses as the scourge of earmarks. Forget the "$2 trillion dollars in savings" that "we have already identified," $1.6 trillion of which President Obama's budget director later admits is the "savings" of not continuing the surge in Iraq until 2019 -- 11 years after George Bush ended it, and eight years after even Bush would have had us out of Iraq completely.



Forget all of this. This is run-of-the-mill budget trickery. True, Obama's tricks come festooned with strings of zeros tacked onto the end. But that's a matter of scale, not principle.



All presidents do that. But few undertake the kind of brazen deception at the heart of Obama's radically transformative economic plan, a rhetorical sleight of hand so smoothly offered that few noticed.



The logic of Obama's address to Congress went like this:



"Our economy did not fall into decline overnight," he averred. Indeed, it all began before the housing crisis. What did we do wrong? We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care, and education -- importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf?), not reforming health care, and tolerating too many bad schools.



The "day of reckoning" has now arrived. And because "it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament," Obama has come to redeem us with his far-seeing program of universal, heavily nationalized health care; a cap-and-trade tax on energy; and a major federalization of education with universal access to college as the goal.



Amazing. As an explanation of our current economic difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people.



At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the entire banking system. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful homebuyers.



The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe in the first place.



And yet with our financial house on fire, Obama makes clear both in his speech and his budget that the essence of his presidency will be the transformation of health care, education and energy. Four months after winning the election, six weeks after his swearing in, Obama has yet to unveil a plan to deal with the banking crisis.



What's going on? "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," said Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. "This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."



Things. Now we know what they are. The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.



Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime.
 
Sorta off topic, but more of a correction of assumption of the writer. BTW, for the most part, I agree with the writer's rant.



<blockquote>The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. <strong>Nor the lack of college graduates</strong>. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of <strong>overeducated, Gucci-wearing</strong>, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe in the first place.</blockquote>


I would just like to remind everyone that many, many... oh so many, of the mortgage schleps barely graduated high school. I have a friend who was making $20k a month, and never graduated high school, never even got his GED. Daniel Sadek only had a third grade education, and he made and lost millions in this. I know people that were dumb enough to sign on the dotted line of the piece of paper to make over $50k a month to let a two time drug convicted felon and convicted of futures fraud douchebag, who had to pay back over $1mil while working for Sadek, to run a subprime mortgage shop. So... to say it was the overeducated that were are fault is a bit misleading, and it should be pointed out how they all took advantage of the undereducated, all the way down to the borrower. I'm not saying that if these people were educated would things be different, but I do think the lack of education played a significant role in this. There were a lot of dumb a$$ mofos f'ing people over in this. I blame the failed models of the overeducated, but I also blame the undereducated morons who should never have been allowed to do a mortgage for another person, let alone get for themselves. Most of them are part of the foreclosure numbers anyway.
 
<blockquote>MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments</blockquote>
He's talking about the people who supplied Sadek, not the ones working for him. If they had not created the pipelines of cash to lend, Sadek would still be selling used cars.
 
Kruthammer.

Now there is a piece of NEOCON work. He might as well be working for Mossad.

That guy is WAY too fringe for even Fox News most of the time.

And watching him speak is down right creepy.



If Kruthammer had his way we would nuke Iran and start a Crusade against all of Islam.



Winex you might as well post some text from the New Leader of the Republican Party.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1236642825]Kruthammer.

Now there is a piece of NEOCON work. He might as well be working for Mossad.

That guy is WAY too fringe for even Fox News most of the time.

And watching him speak is down right creepy.



If Kruthammer had his way we would nuke Iran and start a Crusade against all of Islam.



Winex you might as well post some text from the New Leader of the Republican Party.</blockquote>
So, you are going to completely ignore any of Krauthammer's points and just focus on ad hominem attacks? Why is it that people on the left are always preaching tolerance, acceptance, truth and accountability but never practice it?
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1236647346][quote author="bltserv" date=1236642825]Kruthammer.

Now there is a piece of NEOCON work. He might as well be working for Mossad.

That guy is WAY too fringe for even Fox News most of the time.

And watching him speak is down right creepy.



If Kruthammer had his way we would nuke Iran and start a Crusade against all of Islam.



Winex you might as well post some text from the New Leader of the Republican Party.</blockquote>
So, you are going to completely ignore any of Krauthammer's points and just focus on ad hominem attacks? Why is it that people on the left are always preaching tolerance, acceptance, truth and accountability but never practice it?</blockquote>


Do as I say not as I do.. the Demoratic way!
 
Kruthhammer thought Palin was the new hope for the Republican Party

after the convention.

He also joked that Obama`s speech in Berlin was similar to Hitler in popularity.



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1236642825]Kruthammer.

Now there is a piece of NEOCON work. He might as well be working for Mossad.

That guy is WAY too fringe for even Fox News most of the time.

And watching him speak is down right creepy.



If Kruthammer had his way we would nuke Iran and start a Crusade against all of Islam.



Winex you might as well post some text from the New Leader of the Republican Party.</blockquote>




Are you denying the facts? It's pretty easy to back up the Emmanuel quotes in the article. And it's very clear that universal health care and universal college tuition on the tax payers dime won't help the economy. And the tax increases coming are even worse.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1236667167]

Are you denying the facts? It's pretty easy to back up the Emmanuel quotes in the article. And it's very clear that universal health care and universal college tuition on the tax payers dime won't help the economy. And the tax increases coming are even worse.</blockquote>


That article is so slanted and plays so loose with the facts, it is hard to know where to begin. It isn't worth the effort to address it. It won't change anyone's mind.



I will say however that it is NOT very clear that addressing health care won't help the economy. Many US companies have trouble competing globally due to the high costs they pay for employees' health care. If we can somehow lower those costs, they might be more competitive which could help the economy. Now, is this going to happen? No one knows because the "plan" is still being worked on.



Basically, if we do nothing, Medicare will become way too expensive. So, something has to be done. I'm sure we will disagree on what, but hopefully we can agree that doing something soon is better than doing something later. Nixon wanted to address the US health care system. His ideas would be considered liberal now. Clinton tried and got no where. Bush didn't really even try - he just made things worse. Maybe Obama will get something good done. Maybe not. But I don't think it makes sense to criticize him for trying.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1236668549][quote author="WINEX" date=1236667167]

Are you denying the facts? It's pretty easy to back up the Emmanuel quotes in the article. And it's very clear that universal health care and universal college tuition on the tax payers dime won't help the economy. And the tax increases coming are even worse.</blockquote>


That article is so slanted and plays so loose with the facts, it is hard to know where to begin. It isn't worth the effort to address it. It won't change anyone's mind.



I will say however that it is NOT very clear that addressing health care won't help the economy. Many US companies have trouble competing globally due to the high costs they pay for employees' health care. If we can somehow lower those costs, they might be more competitive which could help the economy. Now, is this going to happen? No one knows because the "plan" is still being worked on.



Basically, if we do nothing, Medicare will become way too expensive. So, something has to be done. I'm sure we will disagree on what, but hopefully we can agree that doing something soon is better than doing something later. Nixon wanted to address the US health care system. His ideas would be considered liberal now. Clinton tried and got no where. Bush didn't really even try - he just made things worse. Maybe Obama will get something good done. Maybe not. But I don't think it makes sense to criticize him for trying.</blockquote>


The government is not capable of creating wealth. It can only confiscate resources from one part of the economy to another. In doing so, a large amount is inevitably lost through inefficiencies of the government machinery itself. In fact, a large part of the reason why health care insurance became a universal job perk is because tax law treated this particular benefit as untaxable income. Therefore companies could provide a benefit that was more valuable to employees than the actual cash outlay.



I somehow fail to see a way that increasing government outlays by 50% or so will result in US corporations being more competitive in the international marketplace. Government can't create the funds for universal health care out of thin air. It's going to have to tax people and companies to fund the service. And, of course, there will be a massive government bureaucracy that will consume a lot of resources that could be used more efficiently in a free marketplace.



So while you don't think it makes sense to "criticize him for trying", I think the opposite is true. This is clearly a case where Obama shouldn't just do something. He should stand there.



Now back to the original topic. Do you deny that Emmanuel said what was quoted in the article?
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1236668549][quote author="WINEX" date=1236667167]

Are you denying the facts? It's pretty easy to back up the Emmanuel quotes in the article. And it's very clear that universal health care and universal college tuition on the tax payers dime won't help the economy. And the tax increases coming are even worse.</blockquote>


That article is so slanted and plays so loose with the facts, it is hard to know where to begin. It isn't worth the effort to address it. It won't change anyone's mind.



I will say however that it is NOT very clear that addressing health care won't help the economy. Many US companies have trouble competing globally due to the high costs they pay for employees' health care. If we can somehow lower those costs, they might be more competitive which could help the economy. Now, is this going to happen? No one knows because the "plan" is still being worked on.



Basically, if we do nothing, Medicare will become way too expensive. So, something has to be done. I'm sure we will disagree on what, but hopefully we can agree that doing something soon is better than doing something later. Nixon wanted to address the US health care system. His ideas would be considered liberal now. Clinton tried and got no where. Bush didn't really even try - he just made things worse. Maybe Obama will get something good done. Maybe not. But I don't think it makes sense to criticize him for trying.</blockquote>


Did you really just use a failing government-run healthcare program as an example of why we need a government-run healthcare program, when you freely admit the first attempt is failing due to cost? The answer then is to add the rest of the country to this plan in the hopes that adding more consumers will reduce costs, is that it? No, of course not... adding the rest of the country simply means that the money previously going to private insurance companies via employer funds will now go directly to the Federal government and chango-presto, the failing program that was once too costly is now fully funded. Neveryoumind that now the failed government-run healthcare program is the defacto standard of services, we will surely make adjusments in both care levels and taxation so that we can balance care and costs.
 
<blockquote>Basically, if we do nothing, Medicare will become way too expensive. So, something has to be done.</blockquote>


No it doesn't. Where in the constitution does it say we are required to get healthcare?



<blockquote> I?m sure we will disagree on what, but hopefully we can agree that doing something soon is better than doing something later. </blockquote>


This makes no sense if we disagree something needs to be done why would anyone agree something being done sooner is better then something being done later?



<blockquote>Nixon wanted to address the US health care system. His ideas would be considered liberal now. Clinton tried and got no where. Bush didn?t really even try - he just made things worse. Maybe Obama will get something good done. Maybe not. But I don?t think it makes sense to criticize him for trying. </blockquote>


No one should just try. In business people create ROI models and have cost benefit analysis to decide what direction to move.



I am tired of paying everyone elses bills. I do fine paying for my own insurance and supporting my family. I don't want to pay for anyone elses.



I did not give the government permission to take my money to insure someone like OCTO mom. So no I don't agree people should just get health insurance.



I am starting to lean toward social darwinism. Stop making babies unless you can support them. In this case stop making them if you can't pay the doctors bills.
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1236676460][quote author="T!m" date=1236668549][quote author="WINEX" date=1236667167]

Are you denying the facts? It's pretty easy to back up the Emmanuel quotes in the article. And it's very clear that universal health care and universal college tuition on the tax payers dime won't help the economy. And the tax increases coming are even worse.</blockquote>


That article is so slanted and plays so loose with the facts, it is hard to know where to begin. It isn't worth the effort to address it. It won't change anyone's mind.



I will say however that it is NOT very clear that addressing health care won't help the economy. Many US companies have trouble competing globally due to the high costs they pay for employees' health care. If we can somehow lower those costs, they might be more competitive which could help the economy. Now, is this going to happen? No one knows because the "plan" is still being worked on.



Basically, if we do nothing, Medicare will become way too expensive. So, something has to be done. I'm sure we will disagree on what, but hopefully we can agree that doing something soon is better than doing something later. Nixon wanted to address the US health care system. His ideas would be considered liberal now. Clinton tried and got no where. Bush didn't really even try - he just made things worse. Maybe Obama will get something good done. Maybe not. But I don't think it makes sense to criticize him for trying.</blockquote>


Did you really just use a failing government-run healthcare program as an example of why we need a government-run healthcare program, when you freely admit the first attempt is failing due to cost? The answer then is to add the rest of the country to this plan in the hopes that adding more consumers will reduce costs, is that it? No, of course not... adding the rest of the country simply means that the money previously going to private insurance companies via employer funds will now go directly to the Federal government and chango-presto, the failing program that was once too costly is now fully funded. Neveryoumind that now the failed government-run healthcare program is the defacto standard of services, we will surely make adjusments in both care levels and taxation so that we can balance care and costs.</blockquote>


Though economics certainly wasn't one of his strong points, McCain's proposal during the campaign to make insurance benefits taxable, and offset that by a $5,000 tax credit would have done wonders for containing health care costs. When there is no perceived cost to a benefit, consumption goes up. About two months ago I ran into a woman in the elevator at work who was taking her husband to the doctor to get a shot of antibiotics to supposedly help him get over the flu. Aside from the fact that the overuse of antibiotics is a huge problem in this country that leads to the rise of antibiotic resistant germs, the cavalier attitude towards what justifies and what doesn't justify the need for medical care is one of the drivers of cost. Change the system so that there is a tangible benefit to consume health care services only when necessary and you will go a long way towards containing health care costs.
 
Take a look at the world. National Healthcare has become a fact of life for the civilized world. You even get it in Afghanistan and Iraq at our expense. But not for all America.

Does that not seem strange ? The prisoners in Guantanamo get better health care than the survivors of 9/11. For America to compete in this world. Healthcare will become Nationalized.

The Doctors want it. The Patients want it. The Employers want it.

Now the Insurance and Health Care Corporations DONT. And of course the Pharmacutical companies dont. Trial Lawyers Dont.

Its time to welcome the United States to the Modern World when it comes to Health Care. This will happen very soon



<img src="http://www.bltserv.com/images/WORLDHEALTH2.png" alt="" />
 
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html">NY Times article on Canada's Healtcare System</a>



<blockquote>While proponents of private clinics say they will shorten waiting lists and quicken service at public institutions, critics warn that they will drain the public system of doctors and nurses. Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor.</blockquote>


Why would there be a doctor shortage?



<blockquote>Over the last 18 months, the hospital has been under contract by overburdened local hospitals to perform knee, spine and gynecological operations on more than 1,000 patients. Since the Supreme Court ruling in June, it began treating patients unwilling to wait on waiting lists and willing to pay their own money.</blockquote>


The system is so great that people are willing to pay out of pocket for their own treatment.



<blockquote>"This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/28/business/russhealth.php">Russia's National Health care</a>



<blockquote>In theory Russians are supposed to receive free basic medical care. But patients and experts say doctors, nurses and surgeons routinely demand payments - even bribes - from those they treat. And critics say the practice persists despite Russia's booming economy and its decision to spend billions to improve the health care system.</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html">Against Universal Healthcare</a>



Click on any of the links and it will show you actual articles from those countries with Universal health care and the problems they are having.



Pointing to countries that have universal healthcare that are not working isn't a good argument.



I do not trust the goverment to run Universal Healthcare. What other government program are they running effeciently?
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1236681506]<blockquote>Basically, if we do nothing, Medicare will become way too expensive. So, something has to be done.</blockquote>


No it doesn't. Where in the constitution does it say we are required to get healthcare?

</blockquote>


I didn't say that. If we do nothing, then Medicare will bankrupt us. I guess if you want that, then okay, I won't discuss this further. I would prefer we avoid going bankrupt.
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1236676460]

Did you really just use a failing government-run healthcare program as an example of why we need a government-run healthcare program, when you freely admit the first attempt is failing due to cost? The answer then is to add the rest of the country to this plan in the hopes that adding more consumers will reduce costs, is that it? No, of course not... adding the rest of the country simply means that the money previously going to private insurance companies via employer funds will now go directly to the Federal government and chango-presto, the failing program that was once too costly is now fully funded. Neveryoumind that now the failed government-run healthcare program is the defacto standard of services, we will surely make adjusments in both care levels and taxation so that we can balance care and costs.</blockquote>


You are making it sound like I said we should add people to Medicare to save Medicare. I said that if we do nothing about the rising costs of health insurance in this country, we will be in financial trouble. I didn't say what the answer to the problem is. Addressing this problem could actually help the economy. It could also make it worse. I'm just pointing out that it isn't so clear and obvious as Winex said.



Anyway, this whole thread started with a slanted, polarizing post. I see no point in discussing it further. No one really wants a discussion. People just want to tell the other side why they are wrong.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1236726578]<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html">NY Times article on Canada's Healtcare System</a>



<blockquote>While proponents of private clinics say they will shorten waiting lists and quicken service at public institutions, critics warn that they will drain the public system of doctors and nurses. Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor.</blockquote>


Why would there be a doctor shortage?



<blockquote>Over the last 18 months, the hospital has been under contract by overburdened local hospitals to perform knee, spine and gynecological operations on more than 1,000 patients. Since the Supreme Court ruling in June, it began treating patients unwilling to wait on waiting lists and willing to pay their own money.</blockquote>


The system is so great that people are willing to pay out of pocket for their own treatment.



<blockquote>"This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/28/business/russhealth.php">Russia's National Health care</a>



<blockquote>In theory Russians are supposed to receive free basic medical care. But patients and experts say doctors, nurses and surgeons routinely demand payments - even bribes - from those they treat. And critics say the practice persists despite Russia's booming economy and its decision to spend billions to improve the health care system.</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html">Against Universal Healthcare</a>



Click on any of the links and it will show you actual articles from those countries with Universal health care and the problems they are having.



Pointing to countries that have universal healthcare that are not working isn't a good argument.



I do not trust the goverment to run Universal Healthcare. What other government program are they running effeciently?</blockquote>


Congratulations trrenter

You have been sucessfully brainwashed by the Health Care Companies. You have seen a few snipits and sound bites and drawn a broad conclusion from just a little information.



Lets look at some other facts. A general rule of thumb is "infant mortality rates"

are an excellent way to determine a country`s level of health care.



Lets see where we fall on that list.



<a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html">https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html</a>



Now who would have thought. A baby has a better chance of surviving childbirth in Cuba.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1236732650][quote author="Oscar" date=1236676460]

Did you really just use a failing government-run healthcare program as an example of why we need a government-run healthcare program, when you freely admit the first attempt is failing due to cost? The answer then is to add the rest of the country to this plan in the hopes that adding more consumers will reduce costs, is that it? No, of course not... adding the rest of the country simply means that the money previously going to private insurance companies via employer funds will now go directly to the Federal government and chango-presto, the failing program that was once too costly is now fully funded. Neveryoumind that now the failed government-run healthcare program is the defacto standard of services, we will surely make adjusments in both care levels and taxation so that we can balance care and costs.</blockquote>


You are making it sound like I said we should add people to Medicare to save Medicare. I said that if we do nothing about the rising costs of health insurance in this country, we will be in financial trouble. I didn't say what the answer to the problem is. Addressing this problem could actually help the economy. It could also make it worse. I'm just pointing out that it isn't so clear and obvious as Winex said.



Anyway, this whole thread started with a slanted, polarizing post. I see no point in discussing it further. No one really wants a discussion. People just want to tell the other side why they are wrong.</blockquote>


Actually you are wrong. LOL just kidding.



I misread what you wrote and upon rereading I apologize I misunderstood what you were saying.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1236735754][quote author="trrenter" date=1236726578]<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html">NY Times article on Canada's Healtcare System</a>



<blockquote>While proponents of private clinics say they will shorten waiting lists and quicken service at public institutions, critics warn that they will drain the public system of doctors and nurses. Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people in the province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor.</blockquote>


Why would there be a doctor shortage?



<blockquote>Over the last 18 months, the hospital has been under contract by overburdened local hospitals to perform knee, spine and gynecological operations on more than 1,000 patients. Since the Supreme Court ruling in June, it began treating patients unwilling to wait on waiting lists and willing to pay their own money.</blockquote>


The system is so great that people are willing to pay out of pocket for their own treatment.



<blockquote>"This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/28/business/russhealth.php">Russia's National Health care</a>



<blockquote>In theory Russians are supposed to receive free basic medical care. But patients and experts say doctors, nurses and surgeons routinely demand payments - even bribes - from those they treat. And critics say the practice persists despite Russia's booming economy and its decision to spend billions to improve the health care system.</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html">Against Universal Healthcare</a>



Click on any of the links and it will show you actual articles from those countries with Universal health care and the problems they are having.



Pointing to countries that have universal healthcare that are not working isn't a good argument.



I do not trust the goverment to run Universal Healthcare. What other government program are they running effeciently?</blockquote>


Congratulations trrenter

You have been sucessfully brainwashed by the Health Care Companies. You have seen a few snipits and sound bites and drawn a broad conclusion from just a little information.



Lets look at some other facts. A general rule of thumb is "infant mortality rates"

are an excellent way to determine a country`s level of health care.



Lets see where we fall on that list.



<a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html">https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html</a>



Now who would have thought. A baby has a better chance of surviving childbirth in Cuba.</blockquote>


Come on BLT I used the NY Times article because you have personally defended the NY Times on more then one occasion. I let a admittingly liberal newspaper brainwash me into believing universal health care is a bad idea.



Your proof that our system is broken is based on infant mortality. A statistic that even the world health organization admits is flawed. That it appears that the USA is one of the only countries that uses the strictest definition of what a live birth is.



Switzerland has a lower infant mortality rate then the US as well.



Switzerland, for instance, doesn't count the deaths of babies shorter than 30 cm, because they are not counted as live births, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, Ph.D., Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and formerly a Visiting Fellow at the Harvard University Center for Population and Developmental Studies. So, comparing the 1998 infant mortality rates for Switzerland and the U.S., 4.8 and 7.2 per 1,000 births, respectively, is comparing apples and oranges.



<a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/commentary/orange_grove/article_443950.php">Register article</a>
 
Back
Top