quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I don't trust anyone, not even my mother. But I will be a bloody son of a bitch if I'm going to choose a health insurance company over a government plan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhodes85

The key words there are 'in theory.' In theory communism works as well. But everyone knows how that turns out in practice.

Everyone... knows... what?

Is this a reference to Soviet Russia? The fall of the Berlin Wall seems like less of a death knell for communism than before our current financial crash. So that's the ultimate proof that 'capitalism' is better? An extra twenty years?

Again, we need to remember that a country's chosen designation (democratic, communist, capitalist, ...) rarely ever corresponds with its actual functioning.

Not to mention, also, that Russia's floundering, corrupt-oligarchic current status directly reflects the kind of libertarian 'free-for-all' capitalism that the OP is, I believe, misguidedly promoting. China, on the other hand, shows that a guided economy can possess major strengths, at least given a certain frame set. (Switch frame sets -- look toward global warming, for instance -- and both models suck.)

The financial crisis resulted from a lack of government regulation, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc., not 'lazy socialists' on their government-funded couches. The problem is an excess of capitalism, not a deficit. Unbridled selfishness, hoarding, and accumulation are contradictions, not virtues. Our government is suffering a type of Midas-touch syndrome -- we want food (1/4 of Americans hungry), water, shelter, education, health, free time to enjoy life, but the business-power elites know only how to produce gold, to the extent that these elites and the politicians they've hired, on both ends of the spectrum, are seizing assets both real (your house, your food, your livelihood) and virtual (your money) for sheer virtual gains (i.e., the greatest profits in the history of Wall Street wizardry). Possibly the greatest instance of accumulation by dispossession in history. Self versus society, public versus private, competition for the sake of competition-- these struggles have created a golden short-circuit (M-M'), like that squeal a microphone makes when pointed toward the speaker---

Private versus public -- how again does the OP's model account for global warming? How does the selfish-competing-nodes system account for public spaces, e.g. water, air, temperature?

If democracy really existed in this country, and a democratic distribution of resources existed, the excess of capitalism (excessive war, excessive bonuses, excessive spending, excessive pollution (i.e., excessive excess!), excessive privitization) would subside naturally. We see evidence that the collective opinion of people (represented in polls, etc.) again and again strikes more to the heart of reason and decency that the collective will of vertically-oriented, tyrannical, systemically profit-driven enterprises that operate as inflated individuals (and even perversely share in the rights of 'real' individuals.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhodes85

'I'm not sure that's true. There's a lot of examples of communism working very well indeed, it's just that all of those are on a much smaller than national scale. '

Umm...Would you mind explaining what you are referring to? It is intended to be implemented on a national scale, at least in the context of a government. Clearly those governments do not uphold the concept of what communism is intended to actually be.

Probably communes, lmao.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Notice, that wasn't specific to a Democratic or Republican led government. Why is it that so many here point to government, whether through regulation or entitlement, as a source to improve their own personal situation?

Scientific and social studies have generated results that rationalize our race, age, sex, personal experience, are the cause for our issues. There are no more misbehaving children, they are only suffering from ADD, ADHD, or the newest rage aspergers syndrome. I remember when that fad was starting in the schools. Now those children are 'adults'. Yet it appears they still seek rationalized excuses for their misbehavior; few look in the mirror. "I was coerced to take on a house and mortgage I couldn't afford." "I didn't think to try and buy medical insurance at my age until I found out I had cancer." Is anyone at fault anymore for their personal situation?

Don't misunderstand, the people behind those entities who "took advantage" deserve similar scrutiny. "We had to cave in to union demands and bankrupt GM." Or as Bernie said on his way to jail. "I took advantage of a regulatory loophole. I had the best intent to pay back everyone as soon as the economy turned around." It's never the fault of the person, even when they are caught.

Have so many been told for so long that personal accountability is no longer the case that the majority believe it as fact, abdicate any hope for self sufficiency, and find their only hope in government regulation, laws, and benefits to lead them in their daily life?

There is still so much opportunity. The window may not be as wide as it was, but it's not closed. Whether you can tell the difference and your identity is locked into the philosophy of one political party or the other; what do you see from those in power that gives you confidence that the condition of your life will improve even marginally as a result of action take by the government, not needing any more effort from you?

What result can you point to that supports any hope that government involvement is beneficial to you personally or the country at large?

I'm sincerely curious and hope to see some good reason to trust the current ruling class, under current the entrenched PAC and Lobbying environment, doing anything for any of us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhodes85

'I'm not sure that's true. There's a lot of examples of communism working very well indeed, it's just that all of those are on a much smaller than national scale. '

Umm...Would you mind explaining what you are referring to? It is intended to be implemented on a national scale, at least in the context of a government. Clearly those governments do not uphold the concept of what communism is intended to actually be.

Probably communes, lmao.

Try looking up "kibbutz" on wikipedia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhodes85

'I'm not sure that's true. There's a lot of examples of communism working very well indeed, it's just that all of those are on a much smaller than national scale. '

Umm...Would you mind explaining what you are referring to? It is intended to be implemented on a national scale, at least in the context of a government. Clearly those governments do not uphold the concept of what communism is intended to actually be.

Probably communes, lmao.

Try looking up "kibbutz" on wikipedia.

• Universal Access
  
• Full Participation
  
• Catastrophic Coverage
  
• No Prior Condition Exemption
  
• To Termination

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Here's what it took to get one vote. Do you "rely and trust" the that is the only example of the deceit and pork buried in this bill?

At the risk of being bashed by both sides of the debate, I have to say that I don't expect the health care bill they pass now to be a good or a workable one. Still, I support it's passage? Why? Because only after the issue of whether the governement is going to do something to fix the unsustainable and unworkable state of current health care can the real work of getting something that comes close to working be accomplished. As it stands now, if someone were to come up with something that would cover all americans, add not a cent to taxes or the national debt and cure bad breath, it still would be under the same attack as this current bill. The problem is that some people see the need for health care reform, others either don't or are making a profit on the way things are.

No matter what form the health care reform bill takes in this first incarnation, it will be a first step and a first step only. But it is a first step I think has to be taken.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhodes85

'I'm not sure that's true. There's a lot of examples of communism working very well indeed, it's just that all of those are on a much smaller than national scale. '

Umm...Would you mind explaining what you are referring to? It is intended to be implemented on a national scale, at least in the context of a government. Clearly those governments do not uphold the concept of what communism is intended to actually be.

Probably communes, lmao.

Try looking up "kibbutz" on wikipedia.

Try learning the difference between communism and collectives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhodes85

'I'm not sure that's true. There's a lot of examples of communism working very well indeed, it's just that all of those are on a much smaller than national scale. '

Umm...Would you mind explaining what you are referring to? It is intended to be implemented on a national scale, at least in the context of a government. Clearly those governments do not uphold the concept of what communism is intended to actually be.

Probably communes, lmao.

Try looking up "kibbutz" on wikipedia.

Try learning the difference between communism and collectives.

Collectivisation is the basis of communism. Sorry. There are right wing elements in Israel's body politic who've been shitting blood over the kibbutzim since they were established for that very reason. Or are you going to argue that statist autocracies bear more resemblance to communism than any social establishments organised along crypto marxist principles? Given you're capable of saying that a right leaning centrist president distinguishable only from the last right leaning centrist presidents by his skin colour and his party alignment is a communist, I'd suggest you refresh your own grasp of communist principles if you're going to start splitting hairs like that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

On some areas the government is reliable etc.

In other areas - no.

One problem is corporations being equal to people.   

I can not think of any good legislation in the past 30 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Notice, that wasn't specific to a Democratic or Republican led government. Why is it that so many here point to government, whether through regulation or entitlement, as a source to improve their own personal situation?

Scientific and social studies have generated results that rationalize our race, age, sex, personal experience, are the cause for our issues. There are no more misbehaving children, they are only suffering from ADD, ADHD, or the newest rage aspergers syndrome. I remember when that fad was starting in the schools. Now those children are 'adults'. Yet it appears they still seek rationalized excuses for their misbehavior; few look in the mirror. "I was coerced to take on a house and mortgage I couldn't afford." "I didn't think to try and buy medical insurance at my age until I found out I had cancer." Is anyone at fault anymore for their personal situation?

Don't misunderstand, the people behind those entities who "took advantage" deserve similar scrutiny. "We had to cave in to union demands and bankrupt GM." Or as Bernie said on his way to jail. "I took advantage of a regulatory loophole. I had the best intent to pay back everyone as soon as the economy turned around." It's never the fault of the person, even when they are caught.

Have so many been told for so long that personal accountability is no longer the case that the majority believe it as fact, abdicate any hope for self sufficiency, and find their only hope in government regulation, laws, and benefits to lead them in their daily life?

There is still so much opportunity. The window may not be as wide as it was, but it's not closed. Whether you can tell the difference and your identity is locked into the philosophy of one political party or the other; what do you see from those in power that gives you confidence that the condition of your life will improve even marginally as a result of action take by the government, not needing any more effort from you?

What result can you point to that supports any hope that government involvement is beneficial to you personally or the country at large?

I'm sincerely curious and hope to see some good reason to trust the current ruling class, under current the entrenched PAC and Lobbying environment, doing anything for any of us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Based upon the responses so far trusting the US Government is only seen as a better option to a public sector choice solution. I'll point to a key distinction. The US Government is a monopoly for most. You can't leave and buy their product in another store. When they don't respond to market conditions and serve their customers, public sector businesses die; unless of course like GM, AIG, and other big campaign contributors, you get bailed out as payback.

Let's look how the big issue of the day - 'Health-care' is being addressed. Digesting all the posts identifying problems in the current market the problem boils down to a few basic problems that just about everyone, including myself, need to be corrected.

They are:

• Universal Access
  
• Full Participation
  
• Catastrophic Coverage
  
• No Prior Condition Exemption
  
• To Termination

Over this weekend, at night, the Senate will be debating their 2000+ solution to these problems. They need 60 votes. Here's what they added to the bill to get one:

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for certain states recovering from a major disaster. The section spends two pages defining which states would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that "during the preceding 7 fiscal years" have been declared a "major disaster area."

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill. In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana's Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Here's the incredibly complicated language: SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and2001(b)(2), is amended� (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking "subsection (y)" and inserting "subsections (y) and (aa)"; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:u2

‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.

‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.

‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.

‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.

Having attended and run many a Board of Directors meetings, solving those five critical and necessary aspects of our current health care industry would never be considered under these conditions.

Here's what it took to get one vote. Do you "rely and trust" the that is the only example of the deceit and pork buried in this bill?

Do you trust that a solution requiring that; (like auto insurance) an individual must purchase coverage at a maximum cost of an agreed upon percentage of a family's household income, no health insurance entity could terminate coverage, pre-existing conditions would not be a exclusion for obtaining coverage, a 'Cat-Fund' 'Umbrella' policy must be included in any policy sold; really requires 2074 pages to write into law?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

The product of an entitlement mentality is being exhibited today in LA at UCLA.

About 30 students stormed UCLA's Campbell Hall and barricaded the doors with chains and bike locks early this morning to protest a student fee increase that is expected to be endorsed by the University of California�s Board of Regents today. The proposed two-step student fee increase would raise UC undergraduate education costs more than $2,500, or 32%.The annual cost of a UC education, not including campus-based fees would rise to $10,302.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

The product of an entitlement mentality is being exhibited today in LA at UCLA.

About 30 students stormed UCLA's Campbell Hall and barricaded the doors with chains and bike locks early this morning to protest a student fee increase that is expected to be endorsed by the University of California�s Board of Regents today. The proposed two-step student fee increase would raise UC undergraduate education costs more than $2,500, or 32%.The annual cost of a UC education, not including campus-based fees would rise to $10,302.

But you're not factoring in the cost of housing.  When you add housing into the mix, the UC system is very expensive.  And when you look at the furloughs and other cost cuts to research, professors are starting to leave for other states.  You're talking about $900-1100 for a one-bedroom apt.  In '91, a studio in university-owned apartments was $750.

When I got my BA in '82, fees jumped from $240 (in 1977) to $553 in '82. In '77, a single loan of $2000 was enough to pay for fees, books, and most of the rent (if you were sharing a room).  When I left UCSB in '93, fees were about about $1100/quarter (they were only $710 in '91).   Now you couldn't even pay fees with a single loan.  So even if you went to a community college for the first two years, then transferred in, you're racking up a lot of debt.

Even though secondary education sucks in CA, the post-secondary UC and CSU were a real source of pride for the state. 

Expect to see even more middle- and lower-income students squeezed out of the system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Even if you add in 1100 for 12 months $23,500 is extremely low compared to other state Us and of course ridiculously low compared to similarly respected privates.