You sound like a lobbyist. How much are they paying you? This is from another debate, I copied and pasted. Follow the links, learn grow, sound less paid off:

Here is the Obama Healthcare Proposal link

First the fear tactics being used by the Insurance industry:

1. Death Panels - they don't exist, end of life counseling is simply when a person at any time in their life, (they don't even have to be dying that's just when people do it usually) discusses with their doctor (not the government) what to do in the event of life support, donating organs, etc. All of the choices are the individual's, doctors have no say, the government has no say.

As Jon Stewart pointed out very well part 1 part 2

2. We would pay for the healthcare of illegal non-citizens:

Simply not true. There is nothing in this or any proposed bill that would lead one to believe it were true. There is nothing that could even be mistaken for something that could lead to this being true later. It's a lie aimed at a specific group of people to get them riled against the bill.

3. They are going to take money away from Medicare:

Ignoring that Medicare is a government program and the naysayers should be all for taking money away from Medicare - if they were basing their arguments on principle at least - this is not true either.

Here is where Medicare is mentioned

A. in a pricing section stating a public plan shall not exceed the price set in a Medicare program where the price has been set, ie, you can't charge more than Medicare charges an individual.

B. in defining "qualified person" one of the qualifications is to not already have Medicare Part A and B

C. again referring to cost, it states pricing should "substantially" reflect the pricing under Medicare

Those are the only scare tactics I've heard so far, but I'm sure there are more, and if anyone is scared by them, feel free to read it yourself or ask me.

Now for what it does say, cliff notes, the whole bill is there if you want more details:

1. a person cannot be denied coverage for any pre-existing condition

2. a person cannot be denied renewal based on anything at all

3. prices should reflect prices set in existing government health programs (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, government employee healthcare, etc) and should not exceed these costs and where prices have not already been set should be determined by the Secretary

4. healthcare is mandatory for all citizens (the 30 million who don't have it need to get it, kind of like you can't drive without insurance)

5. individuals choose their own doctor. An insurance co. can no longer tell you what doctor they will or won't cover, and of course the government does not tell you what doctor to see.

6. medical decisions are made by health professionals (doctors, nurses, chiropractors, etc) and the individual, and insurance companies no longer have any say in the care of a patient

7. no one can interfere with these rights

I fail to see the downside outside of the initial cost, which could easily be compensated by 30 million people paying into the system who currently do not.

However, no program in the history of mankind has ever been perfect, and I'm sure there will be problems,

but again, we have the worst Healthcare system of the industrialized world. There are third world countries with better Healthcare right now. Every country with some kind of public healthcare has better Healthcare than we do.

I fail to see how this wouldn't be much better than what we have.

And to answer Kuk's debate exactly,

1. It is fairly socialistic, so is the military, fire departments, police, and education, and those are all good things. It maintains the good properties of capitalism as there would still be the exact same incentives to come up with new cures and the free market is still free to compete. Anyone with funding could still start a health insurance company if they think they can do it better, the ones that exist aren't being shut down. The only difference would be they have rules... which obviously they don't want.

2. Support for healthcare reform is actually overwhelming. More people are for it than are for Obama,

it's anywhere from 70-77% approval. link

The health insurance industry is spending millions every day to fight it, and as is sometimes the case with money, it's louder than people.

I think though that once people become more aware of the actual facts, and as the proposed bills become more available to the public like that link I provided in the argument above, that 70-77% will start being more vocal about their support.

lmao Jake,

Where was this indignation at an entire news station that "praise this Presidency no matter what it does" during the Bush Administration? Holy s--t you would need the Jaws of Life to pull Faux out of Bush's ass after 911.

For you're information, many of the shows are very critical of much of what the president has done.

1. He hasn't done away with don't ask don't tell.

2. They think single payer is the solution to Healthcare, and are tired of Obama trying to compromise with the right (especially in light of the sorry miseducation of people like yourself who actually think this President is a Lefty)

3. They want out of Iraq last week.

4. They want plans for leaving Afghanistan starting now

You need some perspective Jake, Obama is center left. And the Left has plenty of gripes about it. All the right spews all day is "blah blah, socialist, blah blah, most liberal President ever, blah blah guns, blah blah, he wasn't born here"

It's retardation bordering insanity.

ABC and NBC are far far far closer to the center than Faux. The only "liberal" media to even come close to faux in it's distance from the center is MSNBC, and even Olbermann and Maddow have questioned this administration more in the short short time it's been in charge, than Faux dared question that draft dodging war criminal Bush in his entire 8 year fiasco.

Don't come talking to me about class act.

If the Insurance industry wants to air a commercial, maybe they should try airing one that isn't a 30 second string of lies.

There is nothing in the first amendment that says a privately owned news station has to air every piece of bs that comes across their desk.

1. Youtubes search engine effing sucks and any douche who spams keywords will get their lame video to pop-up a million spots before any relevant information.

That said, I couldn't link the actual commercial for you.

2. I did watch the full 30-32 second commercial on this guy's blog, but I hate this guy so I'm not linking it.

3. The commercial covered all of the false fear tactics,

-old people will lose Medicare,

-there will be rationing and people dying on the streets,

-Canada and UK look like post-apocalyptic death zones due to their socialized healthcare

-four horsemen of the Apocalypse (not literally, but that's the feel they're going for)

So good for them. Maybe the the private health industry should be spending the millions a day they are spending on commercials that lie on treating people who they insure instead,

maybe this conversation wouldn't even be going on then.

Is there a better way to organize scarce resources than the mixed economies we have now? Something that could work in the real world?

I think it's evident our current system does not organize scarce resources in any kind of responsible way at all. I would even say non-scarce resources are only organized in such a way that is most economically efficient for those with the means to have a say in how this "organization" is achieved.

At the very core of capitalism is greed.

And this works in places where there is plenty, for a time, on its own, because the goal is always to give the most people what they need and want at a price they are willing to pay.

Prices are idealy determined of course by 1. competition 2. need/want / means of obtaining.

If there is plenty of something, and there is competition, then it's okay to utilize the negative characteristic of greed for the greater good.

Ex. Soda,

There's plenty of supply, plenty of competition, and the need vs want ratio is very low, no one really needs soda. Greed on the side of corporation does just fine in providing something people want for what ends up being an acceptable price.

Now the problem though is:

1. monopolies (even the hidden ones, and the inside deals between companies to set a minimum price and squeeze out new competition through corporate take-overs and undue influence in the law-making process)

2. scarcity

an example of the second is oil. We know there's X amount, and only a few people have it.

The regulations we have in place do nothing to conserve resources, or even ensure everyone gets what they need or want.

In fact, in many cases it pays to pretend something is more scarce, and deny people it in order to excuse raising prices. This is okay for say a Rolex watch, which is not a necessity. It's not okay when it's food or a doctor.

Competition can work to curb this. But it does not necessarily have to. If another watch company comes up with a high-end watch that costs just as much to make as a Rolex, does it pay to price it cheaper so more people can get one?

We've seen the answer is not always yes. Often making something harder to get increases desire for it.

The only point here is that capitilism does not ever work to regulate use of resources, it actually pays to use more resources in order to make things more rare, thus raising the value. And increased competition from this perspective only works to increase the rate at which resources are consumed.

And price is a crapshoot. Sometimes competition lowers prices, but often it does not.

The point is, in spite of the shouting from the church of capitalism on the right. Capitalism is not a solvent for all of the worlds ills, and can only work in conjunction with social programs where need is considered.

So how to better regulate capitalism:

1. Start actually enforcing the current monopoly laws, which have basically become a joke akin to j-walking in the corporate world.

2. Enforce current laws on price gauging, which again have become a joke to many.

3. Begin enforcing conservation where resources are not renewable. This encourages these companies to invest in renewable resources and advances in technology and is actually good for them if they can look past their next quarters numbers for once.

4. Instead of tearing down the current workers rights and unions and high pay of Americans which have lead to us being the wealthiest nation on earth, start enforcing fair trade laws, tada, being undersoled, and jobs moving to S. America is solved.

5. Price caps and salary caps.

The last would go a very long way toward improving the value of the dollar as well. Which consequently is getting its ass kicked (and has been for quite some time) by the "socialist" euro these capitalists are so hell-bent against.

The bad thing about social network sites, is people tend to "network" less in real life.

That, and I hate the word network when referred to in human interaction, but that's just a personal prejudice I have.

But as for knowledge, there is nothing better.

Sure there's misinformation, but I find that the right information is spread faster online, and corrected faster when wrong, more than anywhere else in the world.

I disagree.

Actually specifically to the "what and how" people are typing,

I find that some come to a social network site, (not necessarily this one, but I've seen it here too) and they type like this

YO IM HERE ALL WHAT UP WIT DAT ECONOMY DAWGS!!!!! HIT ME UP

Or whatever.

Then they either disappear because they're simply too dumb to function productively, or they improve, get a little brigher.

Good job calling me out.

1. By getting the Taliban, I mean actually specifically Osama and specifically for 911. But it's impossible to fight an ideology with force, it has to be fought with knowledge, so on the one hand, we've basically let him get away with it for almost 8 years, and justice has to be served at some point, on the other, our continued overbearance in the region seems to only serve to make that type of ideology (whether it culminates in more Taliban, or some other anti-western-civilization cult) more attractive to those people. So when I say get the Taliban and get out, what would have been better to have said was to get the one's specifically to our knowledge involved in 911, then once that is done, instead of strutting our military might, start looking for ways to communicate and be involved with these people in order to make the ideology of these terrorists less attractive to the next generation.

2. Yes, I do know we're pulling out, and am very happy for it. But I sense a dog and pony show. I don't believe the speed we withdraw has any bearing at all on the end result for that country other than more American and Iraqi deaths. I think that we are waiting for an excuse for a permanent military presense and nothing more, and I also believe that is a mistake. Hopefully I'm wrong, but either way, the 2011 timetable seems a long ways away.

we await your genius invention of free energy device that creates unlimited energy at no economic cost with zero pollution

You don't have to wait:

1. sun

2. wind

3. rain

4. tides

5. geothermal heat

I realize you may need some time to take in the pure genius of these revolutionary inventions.

No one has ever won a war in Afghanistan, the Soviets couldn't and they had far more troops there and lived right next door.

I think it's important to remember, and hopefully this administration keeps this in mind,

We're not there to nation build, bring in a new regime, or change the people in some way,

we're there to get the Taliban and specifically Osama, that's all, then we need to get the f--k out.

And as far as Iraq, who knows, I don't even know what we're still doing there. They want us out, the only thing fueling insurgents seems to be our presence, they already have a new gov. for better or for worse, so I really don't know what the goal of remaining there is.

er, you're arguement is actually brilliant.

It may be unfair to have such a short reply,

but it would seem to me that the financial circumstance of the individual, namely those of a third world country, has no real bearing on the impact to those impacted, of an environmental collapse. Whatever that may be.

I would even say that as you pointed out very well, Westernized nations would survive extraordinarily well comparitively (compared to those dying of say the ocean rising two inches... yeah that's all it takes to kill millions) if the entire economy were to completely collapse but if the environment were saved.

Luckily, as is always the case with technology it seems, you do not have to take a step back to go forward two.

We simply must go forward with completely clean energy, and whether the environment is effected by it or no, one thing is for sure, the world economy, not just Western, would improve drastically.

I have a feeling you see that already though.

that, or we can get rid of ufair trade laws.

btw, unemployment in the 80's was greater than the 90's, and Clinton raised taxes on the upper class. So how do explain that one?

I don't buy into the "atlas shrugs" bs. Let 'em leave.

er, I think the internet bubble had much more to do with the economy in the 90's than any other single issue. And when that bubble burst, it didn't lead to the kind of issues the housing bubble has.

The gdp was great because the budget was balanced for the first time ever. The governement and the people were taking in more money than they were spending. Again though, gdp is only one issue. The basic living standard was much higher, and the debt to income ratio much lower. This has everything to do with jobs and pay rate, and very little to do with tax cuts, as there were none at that time.

gdp is not a good basis to judge whether people in a country are in a good economic shape. ie, the Swiss have one of the highest standards of living, much higher than the US. They also make more money on average, something like 60k on average, we're around 48k on average. A recent poll was taken of who the happiest people in the world are, guess what? It's the Scandinavian countries, followed by a few other random places around Europe, followed by the US.

Outside of the US, one thing all these countries have in common are high standards of living, socialized medicine, greater average income... and none even are in the top 10 for gdp except for the US.

More, China has the second highest gdp, it's people are miserable and poor and mistreated.

Judging the health of a nation by the gdp alone is a huge mistake.

So sure, maybe cutting taxes on the rich, getting rid of social programs, and making the poor pay a bigger chunk of the taxes may lead to a greater gdp, just like China. But why would anyone, dem or repub, want that?