RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations

RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

philosophy -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 3:17:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Rationalize all you want - the condition of your argument, and the lack of direct response speaks for itself. ...pot, kettle, black. You've not engaged with the points i've raised, you've just continued to propagandise. Your argument is purely ideological. You don't want government getting involved in health care. Your rationale for that position is shaky, to say the least. All you've got left is to accuse others of the flaws in your own argument and hope some of the mud sticks. Really not your finest hour. Oh, and you're apparently arguing that all the health care reform needed is to switch to a loser pays model in civil litigation. Really? That will suddenly spur health insurance companies to move to preventative medicine will it?

Brain -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corportations (7/20/2009 3:29:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I wonder why the same people who usually want to eliminate "Big Corporations" support "Big Government". The initiative of this administration is pointing to replacing as much of the public sector, both business management and unions with public employees and government run entities. Right or wrong isn't the question, its more basic. What's the difference? What's the different expectation? Better yet, why a different expectation? Why is a big national health insurance company bad, evil, corrupt and inefficient; but the thought of a big government run health provider seen as a solution? Won't they require the same organizational structure which brings with it the same inefficiencies and corruption? Is it personal preference; the desire to pay taxes over paying a company's price? Or is it something more relevant to WIITWD? Is it the desire to eliminate choice and decision? Maybe many people just want to be submissive. After all, if you make the wrong choice, buy a house you can't afford, elect to spend $5/day for gourmet coffee instead of allocating it for health insurance premiums; you have to live with the consequences of those decisions and can blame the big bad bankers or the cost of health care. But if the government takes away that $5 in taxes you don't get to make that choice and, I guess, people are good with that, hoping that big government will take care of them. Is that what it comes down to? Much better to eliminate the envy of success by encumbering it to the point of making it impossible. Much better to eliminate as many personal choices as possible and abdicate as many decisions as possible over to a big government so as many decisions as possible are out of your hands. No choice, submission, acceptance, but; as with many we encountered in socialist northern Europe, a shoulder shrugging; "Oh well, 150% luxury tax on cars, 25% VAT, 71% tax on alcohol, but we have free health care. What can you do?" Government is no longer seen as an entity which regulates and administers policy for the collective good of the majority. Now it appears that its identity and responsibility is to act as a charity. The "pursuit of happiness" interpreted by many to be, the guarantee and provider of happiness. For example, today at CSU there is a student protest because current budgetary issues will raise the fees $1000, from $3,000 to $4,000 for a year's tuition. Was a $3000 tuition fee limit Constitutionally guaranteed? The students are "on strike". How about spending that same time cutting lawns or doing some other work (sorry for using that 4 letter word) to come up with the difference? Just want to know how the expectation of the result of big government don't consider the same result as big government? At least with work, dedication, effort, and a good plan you have the opportunity to be a big corporation. Hell, even being a little successful corporation isn't too bad and, until recently, very easy to obtain. However has anyone a chance to be a new and a little bit successful government? Bureaucracy and bureaucrats, corporate structure and executives; what's the difference? I guess the question is, what's your expectation of difference? It has been stipulated that no government agency or program works. In this era, the question should be asked; which one is efficient and works within a budget? Anybody know of any government project that came in on time and on budget? Compare and contrast; a corporation goes out of business with a bad plan, the executive terminated. A bad government project, for example the Boston Tunnel to the airport, gets more tax money applied and reelects those responsible for planning and budget approval. Which model provides a better example or path to follow? One focuses and rewards failure, one terminates it. One creates wealth, one redistributes wealth. One rewards success and initiative, one taxes it. It seems the preference indicates more than just politics. It may indicate identity. What do you think? BILL MOYERS: What did you see? WENDELL POTTER: Well, I was beginning to question what I was doing as the industry shifted from selling primarily managed care plans, to what they refer to as consumer-driven plans. And they're really plans that have very high deductibles, meaning that they're shifting a lot of the cost off health care from employers and insurers, insurance companies, to individuals. And a lot of people can't even afford to make their co-payments when they go get care, as a result of this. But it really took a trip back home to Tennessee for me to see exactly what is happening to so many Americans. I-- As per Bill Moyers, With almost 20 years inside the health insurance industry, Wendell Potter saw for-profit insurers hijack our health care system and put profits before patients. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html The biggest medical drama on our TV screens this summer is not reruns of "House" or "Grey's Anatomy." It's a high stakes, life and death spectacle inside and outside the halls of Congress, as lawmakers attempt open heart surgery on that most fragile and stubborn of patients — health care reform.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 4:00:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Rationalize all you want - the condition of your argument, and the lack of direct response speaks for itself. ...pot, kettle, black. You've not engaged with the points i've raised, you've just continued to propagandise. Your argument is purely ideological. You don't want government getting involved in health care. Your rationale for that position is shaky, to say the least. All you've got left is to accuse others of the flaws in your own argument and hope some of the mud sticks. Where? What argument did you raise that was not addressed? Are you speaking of your own inability to answer any of the questions? Such "propagandizing" should be easy to derail. In fact, I never even said that government shouldn't get involved in health care. My solution has always been to create a domestic health care 'Peace Core' staffed by people who have their education and training by the government in exchange for a term of service similar to the military. As a condition of use, I propose to eliminate the second largest expense to current US health coverage - civil litigation. Use the government run and staffed clinic or facility and waive the ability to litigate. A fair trade unless winning the lawsuit lottery is as important at getting treatment. Using that critical $100 you were putting out there. Better to use it for treatment or paying a claim to a person scarred for life because they had a bedpan spilled on them? It would be interesting to know what specific argument is "purely" or simply even a mix, of "ideological"? My position is personal responsibility, choice, and consequence. It is practical and you have yet to provide any factual point in direct contrast. However I appreciate your problem in doing so, having actually looked into both sides of the argument. There is no example of a "good" government run industry or program. That is the pot color you can't rationalize into any gray area. Were my position so "shaky" where's your shake? What happened to the "social fabric" critical point? You didn't even get the argument point correct; GM did NOT fail because of government intervention. It should have. It was an example of why government should not intervene. It was the result of cost and consequence. Without rewarding their failure with tax money many other entrepreneurial business could have come into existence; because of the government, they never will. What happened to the "small poor baby" prioritizing in the face of the response that currently in the US ANY pregnant woman will be taken care of regardless of their ability to pay? If that was a critical point - it lacks any real life reference. quote: Really not your finest hour. If that's your agenda it explains your lack of argument. quote: Oh, and you're apparently arguing that all the health care reform needed is to switch to a loser pays model in civil litigation. Really? That will suddenly spur health insurance companies to move to preventative medicine will it? Yes. It will have a positive impact by releasing resources currently allocated to non health care expenses. The biggest being, the cost of litigation. If you don't have the ability to understand that fact from your vantage point in the UK I don't think you can enjoin any discussion regarding US Health-care. It disqualifies you if you have no knowledge of this most basic of fact. Eliminating or curtailing litigation will have a major impact and is a much quicker fix. I won't follow your example - instead I hope you consider reality. There are better references pointing to the exact point and making a better case for my position, but this one is practically neutral and on the same side of the issue as you. Yet they stipulate to an $5.8 Billion per year cost associated with malpractice litigation. That number is limited to claims. Defense of claims, or other payouts and non-reported to insurance company payouts could double that total. NON-MEDICAL HEALTH COSTS Instead of grandstanding with name calling maybe you should learn more about the subject and how the US differs from your county. At least try to make a case in opposition giving similiar examples as I have cited. Or not, and continue to look silly by trying to ignore reality.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 4:28:19 PM)
No it shows the HUGE Gross profit, down to a HUGE net profit that is gained in at least the Durable Medical Supply area. I am probably more aware of Medicare things than you are. There are seiminars for those wanting to go into the Durable Medical Supply business, and they illustrate the areas you want to focus on, to gouge Medicare for the most. 1) Look into who and what determines the prevailing price. 2) Why is Medicare automatically primary for Senior Citizens, even if they have two or three other Insurance carries they have from other retirements? 3) In many areas Medicare lists the max price they will pay for an item, so that is exactly what they get charged. 4) If Medicare negotiated like some insurance companies do, they would get better prices. 5) I am not sure what you are basing lower overhead on, Medicare regularly goes over budget, or puts a freeze on paying vendors towards the end of their budget cycle. Sometimes it takes 180+ days to collect from Medicare, with no penalty. Private insurance has to pay on a timely basis or suffer possible fines and penalties from the state it is filed in. Sorry but Medicare is not a good example to use, if you want to show good efficiency or good coverage. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So low overhead has something to do with the mandated prices? You are aware that medicare is legally forbidden from negotiating prices but must instead pay the 'prevailing' price for all services. So presumably if medicare was allowed to negotiate prices they would get better prices on everthing and still have lower than industry wide overhead costs.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 4:32:09 PM)
quote: As a condition of use, I propose to eliminate the second largest expense to current US health coverage - civil litigation. Use the government run and staffed clinic or facility and waive the ability to litigate. A fair trade unless winning the lawsuit lottery is as important at getting treatment And how do you propose to handle those people who are truly damaged by doctors, staff, and errors within your government run and staffed clinic or facility? It happens, even in the best hospitals. The GI clinic I work in sees probably 3-4 cases a week of missed diagnoses, improper treatment, or botched surgery. Heck, I live with a woman who had her uterus and one ovary removed, but she still has endometriosis and a period ever month (a very PAINFUL period) because her doctor neglected to remove the cervix, and the lower segment of the uterus and the other ovary -- it was time for him to go home and the 2nd ovary had a huge cyst and adhesions that would have taken another 3 hours to remove, so he left them in and then told her he'd had second thoughts and didn't want her to have to deal with premature menopause, even though he'd told her two weeks before that her life would be a living hell if she didn't have everything removed. How do you plan on dealing with situations like that? (BTW, we didn't sue -- and she's still suffering, and nobody else will do the surgery because her previous surgeon left so many adhesions and so much endometriosis and scarring in her abdominal cavity that they'll basically have to take everything in her belly out to fix her -- so we wait, and hope for early menopause). No litigation -- wow, I see a collection point for medical 'professionals' who can't get malpractice insurance or who have already topped out their cap on providing half-assed care. DC

DomKen -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 4:43:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf No it shows the HUGE Gross profit, down to a HUGE net profit that is gained in at least the Durable Medical Supply area. I am probably more aware of Medicare things than you are. There are seiminars for those wanting to go into the Durable Medical Supply business, and they illustrate the areas you want to focus on, to gouge Medicare for the most. 1) Look into who and what determines the prevailing price. 2) Why is Medicare automatically primary for Senior Citizens, even if they have two or three other Insurance carries they have from other retirements? 3) In many areas Medicare lists the max price they will pay for an item, so that is exactly what they get charged. 4) If Medicare negotiated like some insurance companies do, they would get better prices. 5) I am not sure what you are basing lower overhead on, Medicare regularly goes over budget, or puts a freeze on paying vendors towards the end of their budget cycle. Sometimes it takes 180+ days to collect from Medicare, with no penalty. Private insurance has to pay on a timely basis or suffer possible fines and penalties from the state it is filed in. Sorry but Medicare is not a good example to use, if you want to show good efficiency or good coverage. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So low overhead has something to do with the mandated prices? You are aware that medicare is legally forbidden from negotiating prices but must instead pay the 'prevailing' price for all services. So presumably if medicare was allowed to negotiate prices they would get better prices on everthing and still have lower than industry wide overhead costs. Actually it is very efficient in not wasting money on overhead, 3% versus an industry average of 24%. You can keep complaining about how much Medicare pays for the medical services it provides but that isn't part of overhead.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 4:46:29 PM)
quote: And how do you propose to handle those people who are truly damaged by doctors, staff, and errors within your government run and staffed clinic or facility? It happens, even in the best hospitals. The GI clinic I work in sees probably 3-4 cases a week of missed diagnoses, improper treatment, or botched surgery. Current status quo in previously mentioned "industrialized nations" with government run health coverage, "loser pays" would have no impact. Anyone experiencing these worst case examples you site shouldn't have any problem finding an attorney and getting paid if their care was so lax. In the case of my proposed solution I propose to handle is as is currently being handled in every GI hospital currently operating. The administrators for these operations would apply the same standards. quote: No litigation -- wow, I see a collection point for medical 'professionals' who can't get malpractice insurance or who have already topped out their cap on providing half-assed care. Taking this to be in response to my proposed solution of an alternative free 'Heath-care Peace Corp; it seems you are saying that if the government took over administration at these facilities they would be a haven for bad doctors? "Wow" -- why does that circumstance only occur under my proposal but not considered under a totalitarian government run program? Wouldn't you want "bad" Doctors, were they newly added to the bureaucratic mix like bad teachers, cops, firefighters or any public employee, terminated and not protected from further abuse or malpractice? However your legitimate suggestion that all the bad doctors would try to migrate to a government run health care facility is well taken and yet another reason not to establish one in the first place.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 4:53:44 PM)
quote: Taking this to be in response to my proposed solution of an alternative free 'Heath-care Peace Corp; it seems you are saying that if the government took over administration at these facilities they would be a haven for bad doctors? "Wow" -- why does that circumstance only occur under my proposal but not considered under a totalitarian government run program? Not quite -- it has the potential to be an issue in -any- system where those who are damaged have no recourse when confronted with mistakes from those who have shown themselves to be incompetent, and you're right -- whether it is government-administered or privately administered, the results would be the same. I've been through the military system when dependents weren't allowed to sue military doctors for mistakes made in their care. We won't go into the history, but I'll tell you what, there is a -reason- that dependents are now allowed to sue military practitioners for malpractice, and it isn't frivolity. DC

Mercnbeth -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 5:03:34 PM)
My parents currently are the proud owners of 2 scooters, 1 motorized wheel chair, 4 manual wheel chairs, variety of canes, a plethora of various styled walkers, and a hospital bed provided free of charge by Medicare. In the past 10 years they have had no less than 6 other motorized chairs delivered. Prior to my day to day responsibility for their care they got them by calling those ads that show up every 10 minutes on TV. They called and, sure enough, they got them - "free". I have two practically new scooters sitting in my garage that we are considering taking to Folsom someday. quote: Actually it is very efficient in not wasting many on overhead 3% versus an industry average of 24%. You can keep complaining about how much Medicare pays for the medical services it provides but that isn't part of overhead. I think I'd prefer some due diligence overhead to determine need and cut the wasted allocation. If not a visual verification; how about something as basic as a history of prior payments utilized for the same purpose? If that required overhead to move from 3% closer to 24% but cutting expenditures, it would be money well spent. Without any research or direct reference, I'll stipulate that my personal reference is similar to other 'worst case' examples provided concerning the current availability of health care. However at minimum it points to the waste of money when the government is involved. quote: We won't go into the history, but I'll tell you what, there is a -reason- that dependents are now allowed to sue military practitioners for malpractice, and it isn't frivolity. Great - then there is precedent set ready to be used for the proposed 'Health-care Peace Corp' solution. I would hope the certification for the facility and its heath care providers is up to a higher standard than the bureaucracy in charge of authorizing Medicare expenditures. Which brings us back to the original and bigger question - Do you see that happening in the case of a government run anything?

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 5:13:46 PM)
quote: My parents currently are the proud owners of 2 scooters, 1 motorized wheel chair, 4 manual wheel chairs, variety of canes, a plethora of various styled walkers, and a hospital bed provided free of charge by Medicare. In the past 10 years they have had no less than 6 other motorized chairs delivered. Prior to my day to day responsibility for their care they got them by calling those ads that show up every 10 minutes on TV. They called and, sure enough, they got them - "free". I have two practically new scooters sitting in my garage that we are considering taking to Folsom someday. CRIPES... and my private insurance told me that they wouldn't fund my power-chair, even though without it I can't work because of limitations from my MS and mobility -- of course, the scooter company was happy to sell me one on payments... for $5000 (my street scooter cost less than $2000 including my 2 rockin helmets, tax, tags, title, and insurance!). Frankly, it was out of my reach... the street scooter is at least useful to get me to work every day and back and forth to the grocery store or farmer's market (where they're nice enough to have electric carts for the days I can't walk the whole store or market and stand in line for 40 minutes at rush hour--and which I realize I pay for with higher prices, but I have a different value system than many folks when it comes to buying food anyway, so...). Fortunately, I have a 'loaner' gifted by a donor at our hospital that I get to use at work 3 days a week (I share with a part-timer who gets it the other 2 days). DC

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 5:18:54 PM)
quote: 'Health-care Peace Corp' solution Actually, I'm sort of interested in hearing more about the Healthcare Peace Corps -- how it would be funded, how it would allocate care, how it would be managed, etc... I don't really believe in the government any more than I believe in god... but they can't fck it up any more than it's already fcked, in the same way that praying isn't going to fix anything either -- so doing something has -got- to be better than sitting around bitching and doing nothing, IMO. If it gets screwed up, we'll have to fix it, but this standing still and doing bupkus... completely not working for me. DC

Brain -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 5:35:10 PM)
In his first extended television interview since leaving the health insurance industry, Wendell Potter tells Bill Moyers why he left his successful career as the head of Public Relations for CIGNA, one of the nation's largest insurers, and decided to speak out against the industry. "I didn't intend to [speak out], until it became really clear to me that the industry is resorting to the same tactics they've used over the years, and particularly back in the early '90s, when they were leading the effort to kill the Clinton plan." Watch the video http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html#documents Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients

philosophy -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 5:54:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Where? What argument did you raise that was not addressed? Are you speaking of your own inability to answer any of the questions? ....preventative medicine. You still haven't addressed it. You may well be correct that the USA's litigation happy culture imposes an extra cost on health care. However that also applies to the health care supplied by health insurers.....so has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not health care ought to be universal or not. Your idea of a medical peace corps is definitely a step in the right direction. It might work.......after all, it's essentially the UK NHS....or at least a sort of amateur part time version of it. However, you do keep moving the goalposts.........your last post contained this.... "In fact, I never even said that government shouldn't get involved in health care." .....where an earlier post said that Government run health care would have.... " ....no consequence for failure, no termination for bad decisions, and perpetuating bureaucracy through taxes." So, you characterise as inevitable that government run health care would be bad, but somehow you're not saying that government shouldn't be involved in health care.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 6:23:07 PM)
Yeah if I could get away with not paying vendors for bogus reasons, turning down payments to force reviews, and waiting till I felt like paying, and very little review of whether a procedure or equipment is really necessary, I could keep overhead down as well. That is as long as you do not charge back the fraud and unnecesary equipment and procedures back to me. You cannot compare the two because the insurance companies are held to a higher standard of what they can reject, why they can reject, and how long they can wait to pay a claim to a vendor. This does not come from reading websites, a book, or word of mouth, this comes from being in the business for a while and seeing firsthand. Your opinion in this case means little, but the misinformation you spread does cause a problem when you use bullshit to compare to horseshit. Yeah they are both shit, but operate under two different animals. Also, you need to look into Palmetto GBA, who they are, what they do, and the money they make. Look into the 34 trillion in unfunded liabilities it has. 68 Billion in Fraud payments $400 Billion in unnecesary medical procedures This is just a few of the problems of the shining example of "Medicare". quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually it is very efficient in not wasting money on overhead, 3% versus an industry average of 24%. You can keep complaining about how much Medicare pays for the medical services it provides but that isn't part of overhead.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 7:21:30 PM)
quote: ....preventative medicine. You still haven't addressed it. Sorry I'm not a good head bobber and don't comment in agreement. Preventative medicine - For it. So is every US health provider, without exception having a great number of preventative and continuing health programs for a variety of issues. quote: You may well be correct that the USA's litigation happy culture imposes an extra cost on health care. However that also applies to the health care supplied by health insurers.....so has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not health care ought to be universal or not. The context was in your position comparing the US to the UK. Cost is a byproduct of the primary point to that this condition makes a comparison irrelevant. quote: Your idea of a medical peace corps is definitely a step in the right direction. It might work.......after all, it's essentially the UK NHS....or at least a sort of amateur part time version of it. Gratuitous head-bobbing indicated. quote: However, you do keep moving the goalposts.........your last post contained this.... "In fact, I never even said that government shouldn't get involved in health care." .....where an earlier post said that Government run health care would have.... " ....no consequence for failure, no termination for bad decisions, and perpetuating bureaucracy through taxes." So, you characterize as inevitable that government run health care would be bad, but somehow you're not saying that government shouldn't be involved in health care. The condition of government oversight was never in doubt. The effectiveness of it based upon history speaks for itself. To have both administration and oversight run by an entity with money printing capability is a recipe for disaster regardless of perspective.

mcbride -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 7:48:18 PM)
This is a note for Americans who are wondering what the truth is. Watching the US health care debate from Canada has been troubling, and I just want you to know two things. One is simply this: you can have universal health care, and have better care than you have now, and for far less money. The other is that you're being lied to by people who think you won't investigate beyond your own borders. I’m exasperated by what you’re being told about my health care in Canada. I see those endless ads, courtesy of my cable company, and they’re getting on my nerves, because the fake “citizens” groups who pay for them are simply lying about health care in Canada, because they used your health care dollars to buy TV time to air those lies, and because I happen to have lots of American friends, whose lives quite literally depend on how this comes out. I don’t need to tell you, in spite of the one-sided media histrionics, that 47 million Americans have no health insurance, but that’s not the most troubling difference. You probably have health insurance, and you pay much, much more than I do, and yet...you have to worry. If you or one of your loved ones get sick, you’re dealing with a company that spends big money on finding new strategies to wiggle out of paying. Tell me this: if someone at your house gets sick, and you have insurance, will you still pay? That’s the difference. I simply don’t have to worry. Over the past few months, as it happens, I had to show up at an ER five times. Two of those visits lasted more than a week. Number of heart-stopping, life-changing invoices received: zero. Number of invoices received: zero. Finding a family doctor was hard. I had to make several calls. And, if you look hard enough, you could find someone who had to wait for a procedure, but there are far fewer of them than people waiting south of the border. No bureaucrat picked my doctor. No bureaucrat told any of the doctors who treated me what they could or couldn’t do. If the doctor says it’s medically required, it happens, and since I don’t have to re-mortgage the house, I’m quite happy to pay my taxes to support this arrangement. It’s probably lucky that all those columnists, lobbyists, and “moderate” Democratic senators weren’t around when the United States, like other countries, inexplicably chose a public, government-run, single-payer system to fight World War Two. The private sector didn’t do too badly. Alas, times have changed. No one questions that bilge about the horrors of public, single-payer health care. The news shows don’t dissect each new assault on reality, the networks don’t refuse to run ads that contain demonstrable lies, senators can’t bring themselves to whisper the term “single-payer,” and no one mentions that it actually costs American lives. You probably know that Canada spends far less of its GDP on health care, in part because we have a single payer system. Ask yourself this: who has the clout to negotiate a better deal on health services; the federal government, or you, an hour after the heart attack? It’s great, having a decent health care system, and I do feel lucky, and I just wanted you to know it can be done, and has been done, in dozens of countries.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 9:13:33 PM)
I think it can be done too, but not with the kind of politician we have in the US.

Arpig -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 9:37:03 PM)
quote: More interesting would be to hear the answer to this question: If a political structure that merges industries and government with a right wing agenda is labeled 'Fascist', what do you call that exact same merger under a left wing agenda? Fascist?

Arpig -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/20/2009 9:45:36 PM)
quote: I think it can be done too, but not with the kind of politician we have in the US. I have come across this arguement in health care debates both here on CM and elsewhere and I find it troubling to say the least. The thought that the most powerful nation in the world is being run by either corrupt crooks or utter nincompoops worries me, as does the seeming acceptance of this situation. Oddly enough, here in Canada, where we really are very culturally similar, we manage to find politicians who are honest and competant enough to run a health care system, as do they in France, Germany, the UK, and many other places. This begs the question...what is it about the US that renders its political leaders incapable of doing something that other countries' political leaders seem capable of doing with little difficulty?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Big Government v. Big Corporations (7/21/2009 4:15:28 AM)
It is because they are all Corporatist, and work for a corporation or special interest. They play off the fact of the division of a two party system, and promote the distraction of cheerleading. They do not have to worry about answering to the people, because the people will not vote for the other party, no matter what. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig This begs the question...what is it about the US that renders its political leaders incapable of doing something that other countries' political leaders seem capable of doing with little difficulty?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02