Why Does The US Right Distrust Representative Government?

[Don Quixote]

Why do the American right fear goverment so much?

Why are unaccountable, unelected corporate leaders better suited to guide and run a nation than elected, representative leaders?

some good and some bad on both sides

if we were better people as a whole we would not need much in they way of government - it is the crooks that require regulation

 

[TuTu Monroe]

That's because you've been listening to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and haven't taken the time to find out what the facts are. Do a little bit of research about the rest of the world. Learn how other wealthy industrial nations manage their health care, how they spend half the money we do (as a percentage of GDP) and achieve higher outcomes then we do. Maybe you'll find out why they spend far less then we do and achieve those higher outcomes or are you one of those arrogant nationalist who believe we have nothing to learn from the outside word and that we should build a wall around our borders and ignore the rest of the world?

If we fully implement health care reform to reflect what the rest of the modern world is doing then we can fully expect to reduce our health care expenditures to the levels that these nations do, approximately 8% of GDP. So do the math. We have a 16 trillion dollar economy. We spend 16% of that on health care (2.5 Trillion) annually. If we can cut that to 8% of GDP (about what most modern nations spend) then we can save 1.25 trillion dollars anually. Several years of those savings would pay off our national debt!

So by reducing health care expenditures to those levels we can save this nation over 1 trillion dollars a year and improve outcomes. That's no pipe dream either, those are cold hard facts. That's the reality. That's why those who oppose these reforms are insanely on the wrong side of history. It's just simply the math.

JHC, you are talking just like a DNC robot. Funny how you don't mention the rising healthcare cost crisis in other countries.

 

[Topspin]

It's very funny, we have the best quality hc but not the best access. Democrats wisely used republican bumbling to pass this liberal monstrocity. Many more to come.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The sad thing is that originally, all Americans were distrusting and fearfull of government. Somewhere along the line, segments of the population stopped acting like Americans...

 

[Topspin]

Next you get the fuck taxed out of your gas, in the name of cooling the environment.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Next you get the fuck taxed out of your gas, in the name of cooling the environment.

Yes, that is always fun.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The European systems along with the Canadian system have been running for over 40 years. Some much longer. Not bad for something that doesn't work.You keep saying the systems are half as efficient and I keep telling you those countries have a life span equal to or greater than the US. That is proof they are efficient and accessible. People live just as long or longer than in the US. What is it about that fact you don't understand?

No, that is proof that indigenous people of certain regions live longer for a variety of reasons, unrelated to health care. Medicare and Medicaid have been running for over 45 years!! How long something lumbers along as unsustainable, doesn't say anything about how good it is. Proof they are not accessible or efficient, is the waiting lists for routine surgeries, and the influx of wealthy foreign patients coming to the US, so they don't have to wait.

Unnecessary spending like what Cheney said about the Iraq war. "It was an option and we could afford it." That type of unnecessary spending. Let's hope we never hear such craziness from a politician again.

Then there's Bush's tax cuts. No money for SS but let's give the folks a tax cut. Obviously if one runs a country like that there are going to be problems.

Problem is, you are not likely to cut spending on things like this, because Congress continues to operate and function... did you have some plan to 'freeze' Congressional spending that I wasn't aware of? Wail on and on about Iraq as a policy, the MONEY for it came from Congress, so did the money for tax cuts. The health care bill doesn't cut congressional spending. So let's go back to your contention that "money will be redirected to medical" ....where is that money coming from again?

The only thing that needs to be understood is dozens of countries have government health and have had it for over 40 years. Big and small, rich and poor, capitalist and socialist and communist....they all managed to implement a government health policy but you're saying the US can't do it? You're saying the US can't afford to look after it's ill citizens?

Apparently you are unaware that we've had government health for over 45 years... it is called Medicare and Medicaid... Medicare is for elderly people, Medicaid is for poor people. Most of the rest of us have jobs and get health care insurance through our employer.

Europeans are different from Americans, they are accustomed to their government telling them what to do, it's been that way for centuries over there, WE are the ones who embarked on the journey to freedom and personal liberty, and threw off the shackles of government, centuries ago. So the people are very different, in terms of what they expect, what they anticipate happening, and how much of a personal inconvenience it is. European's wait two hours to buy a loaf of bread, it doesn't seem unreasonable to wait 10 months for heart surgery. Here in America, we don't want to wait more than 10 minutes for an oil change! None of your examples are anywhere close to the size of the US, nor are they likely to have the number of cons and cheats who will exploit every possible loophole of the new system.

What more proof can be offered? 45+ years later and not one country has reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system and they all started out with that system. Not one political party campaigning on reverting to the the old system. Why, Dixie? Why?

I've explained it, did you fail to read my explanation before? It is because, once you have destroyed the capitalist system, and the government has taken control of it, there is nothing to "revert" back to. Insurance companies have either gone under or found a different product to sell, doctors have all retired and moved to the Bahamas, it's government's baby then, politicians can't "restore" something that isn't there anymore.

 

[apple0154]

Replies in blue.

Originally Posted by apple0154 The European systems along with the Canadian system have been running for over 40 years. Some much longer. Not bad for something that doesn't work.You keep saying the systems are half as efficient and I keep telling you those countries have a life span equal to or greater than the US. That is proof they are efficient and accessible. People live just as long or longer than in the US. What is it about that fact you don't understand?

No, that is proof that indigenous people of certain regions live longer for a variety of reasons, unrelated to health care. Medicare and Medicaid have been running for over 45 years!! How long something lumbers along as unsustainable, doesn't say anything about how good it is. Proof they are not accessible or efficient, is the waiting lists for routine surgeries, and the influx of wealthy foreign patients coming to the US, so they don't have to wait.

Indigenous people? Canadians? Australians? The British? Those and other countries have large immigrant populations.

As for Medicare and Medicaid “lumbering” along I’m sure the people who benefitted from those programs preferred lumbering to nothing.

When it comes to waiting think of it like an interstate highway. One can wait or take a toll highway. The way medicine is run now it’s like there’s no interstate and those who can’t afford the toll don’t go anywhere.

Unnecessary spending like what Cheney said about the Iraq war. "It was an option and we could afford it." That type of unnecessary spending. Let's hope we never hear such craziness from a politician again. Then there's Bush's tax cuts. No money for SS but let's give the folks a tax cut. Obviously if one runs a country like that there are going to be problems.

Problem is, you are not likely to cut spending on things like this, because Congress continues to operate and function... did you have some plan to 'freeze' Congressional spending that I wasn't aware of? Wail on and on about Iraq as a policy, the MONEY for it came from Congress, so did the money for tax cuts. The health care bill doesn't cut congressional spending. So let's go back to your contention that "money will be redirected to medical" ....where is that money coming from again?

It will come from other spending cuts. Health care will be financed first as it will be the law. Then to support other programs either taxes will be raised or the programs scaled back.

The only thing that needs to be understood is dozens of countries have government health and have had it for over 40 years. Big and small, rich and poor, capitalist and socialist and communist....they all managed to implement a government health policy but you're saying the US can't do it? You're saying the US can't afford to look after it's ill citizens?

Apparently you are unaware that we've had government health for over 45 years... it is called Medicare and Medicaid... Medicare is for elderly people, Medicaid is for poor people. Most of the rest of us have jobs and get health care insurance through our employer.

Europeans are different from Americans, they are accustomed to their government telling them what to do, it's been that way for centuries over there, WE are the ones who embarked on the journey to freedom and personal liberty, and threw off the shackles of government, centuries ago. So the people are very different, in terms of what they expect, what they anticipate happening, and how much of a personal inconvenience it is. European's wait two hours to buy a loaf of bread, it doesn't seem unreasonable to wait 10 months for heart surgery. Here in America, we don't want to wait more than 10 minutes for an oil change! None of your examples are anywhere close to the size of the US, nor are they likely to have the number of cons and cheats who will exploit every possible loophole of the new system.

I doubt people wait two hours for a loaf of bread in England or France or Germany or Italy or Australia and Canada or Holland or…
As for loopholes the plan will be fine tuned. It’s only a start.

What more proof can be offered? 45+ years later and not one country has reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system and they all started out with that system. Not one political party campaigning on reverting to the the old system. Why, Dixie? Why?

I've explained it, did you fail to read my explanation before? It is because, once you have destroyed the capitalist system, and the government has taken control of it, there is nothing to "revert" back to. Insurance companies have either gone under or found a different product to sell, doctors have all retired and moved to the Bahamas, it's government's baby then, politicians can't "restore" something that isn't there anymore.

That is sheer nonsense. There are countries where investors are fighting the government so they can get a piece of the health care action.
Talking about doctors there will always be doctors and considering almost all industrialized countries have government medical to which country are they going to run? Again, more nonsense.

 

[Damocles]

Why would Britlandia distrust representative government and go and protest and stuff when they decide to send Britlandia to war? Shouldn't they sheep up and just go along with whatever their representatives decide?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As for Medicare and Medicaid “lumbering” along I’m sure the people who benefitted from those programs preferred lumbering to nothing.

I am sure of this as well, but that would be analogous to Obamacare being preferable to nothing, and we certainly had a health care system in America before Obamacare. If we, like... didn't have any doctors or hospitals, didn't care for the poor and elderly, didn't provide emergency indigent care... and people were like, dying in the street due to lack of medical care, and Obamacare was introduced to address that crisis... that would be one thing... but that isn't reality.

What was signed into law, was a piece of partisan hack legislation, designed to entrench government power and intrusion into our privacy and our lives. It will restrict and limit our choices, and it will do nothing to lower cost. The burden it will place on the medical professionals having to deal with the 30-million new patients, will cause the system itself to collapse, because there is already a severe shortage of nurses and doctors. The mandates it establishes for small business, all but guarantees it will kill new jobs and commercial growth. Meanwhile, those "evil corporate insurance companies" are going to make out like bandits while they can. The government just mandated that every American buy the product they sell... what could be better for them?

 

[apple0154]

I am sure of this as well, but that would be analogous to Obamacare being preferable to nothing, and we certainly had a health care system in America before Obamacare. If we, like... didn't have any doctors or hospitals, didn't care for the poor and elderly, didn't provide emergency indigent care... and people were like, dying in the street due to lack of medical care, and Obamacare was introduced to address that crisis... that would be one thing... but that isn't reality.

But that's the problem. Medical care isn't offered until someone is in crisis. We have to think prevention and one thing the government plan will do is encourage people to get check-ups.

An example would be borderline diabetes. A check-up will detect high sugar levels and the doctor can advise the patient on necessary diet changes and perhaps temporarily prescribe pills. If not addressed in a timely manner the patient will end up requiring injections of insulin. Why wait until that happens?

The same with high blood pressure. People don't know they have it so they don't go for a check-up. Then one has a stroke. Consider the cost of a check-up compared to looking after someone disabled from a stroke. That's where the savings enter the picture. Why wait until our body breaks down before being seen by a doctor? I makes as much sense as waiting until our car stalls on the highway before getting a tune-up.

What was signed into law, was a piece of partisan hack legislation, designed to entrench government power and intrusion into our privacy and our lives. It will restrict and limit our choices, and it will do nothing to lower cost. The burden it will place on the medical professionals having to deal with the 30-million new patients, will cause the system itself to collapse, because there is already a severe shortage of nurses and doctors. The mandates it establishes for small business, all but guarantees it will kill new jobs and commercial growth. Meanwhile, those "evil corporate insurance companies" are going to make out like bandits while they can. The government just mandated that every American buy the product they sell... what could be better for them?

What intrusion? Being covered for a check-up is an intrusion? Medical costs will decrease as more and more people are advised of possible problems and given a chance to address them.

Then there's the nonsense about small businesses collapsing. There are subsidies built in. The goal is to show the public the benefits of government medical. Once the public experiences the benefits change will rapidly occur just like what has occurred in dozens of other countries.

Here's what is comes down to. There have been so many distortions and outright lies about universal medical/single-payer systems that further talks are not possible at this point in time. Most people have taken a position and their minds are closed so there's only one way to go and that's to start implementing certain aspects of a universal medical/single-payer system and let the people see for themselves. In other words we have to let the people "come around" by themselves, at their own speed.

The idea different aspects of the plan come into effect over time gives the people a chance to experience the benefits in a step-by-step fashion. As time passes people will look forward to increased coverage resulting in a complete "180" from the attitude we see now.

How do we know this? We know this because that is what has happened in virtually every country with a universal plan. There are no exceptions. The citizens in those countries won't allow any politician to put their hands on their plan. It's been proven over and over and will be proven here, in time.

 

[christiefan915]

JHC, you are talking just like a DNC robot. Funny how you don't mention the rising healthcare cost crisis in other countries.

Rising to the level of our costs?

 

[evince]

The people are morons.

From one who thinks democracy is not a good idea.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

JHC, you are talking just like a DNC robot. Funny how you don't mention the rising healthcare cost crisis in other countries.

Which one? France? Oh yea, they are definately debating the issue in France. Why? Because they spend 10% of GDP and they consider that far to much. They also are rated #1 in the world in outcome by the WHO. The USA? Why were #1 in the world by far in expenditure. 16%+ of GDP and guess what? We only rate #37 by the WHO in outcome. In other workds France spends slightly more then half of what they do and they consider it a big problem but you're ok with us spending nearly double what they do while laging far behind in outcome?

That's just an ignorant comment TuTu. There's not a country on the planet that expends as much of their national wealth and productivity on health care then the United States. There's a bot here and it's you. Quit reading your RNC talking points and go do some homework.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well for one he's pulling us out of Bush's messes. For second he's governing the fiscus responsibly. Third the deficits he has run up have been have been a direct result of Bush's and Republican mismanagement and fourthly by reforming our health care system he can save the nation trillions (that's right, trillions with a T) of dollars.

So what did Republicans do other than irresponsibly cut taxes when we couldn't afford it and then spend money they didn't have like drunken sailors on an immoral war in Iraq and then fell asleep at the wheel and stayed blissfully asleep while a city drowned and our banks became so corrupted that they disintegrated?

Oh that's right! They told us how they were going to protect us from guns, gays and abortion.

1) Agreed, he inherited messes from Bush that he has to clean up

2) The mismanagement however goes deeper than Bush. It extends back to Ike's last year in office.

3) This health care reform is NOT going to save this country trillions. Unless of course you are one of the sheep that buy into the accounting gimics used by the idiots in DC to pretend this bill will reduce deficit spending.

4) The banks went into a free for all when CLINTON repealed Glass Steagall. The bill that repealed it had broad bi partisan support. Even now, the two parties are trying to come up with a 'plan' to regulate the banks. That plan already exists. It worked for 60 years. It is called Glass Steagall. Yet for some reason the idiots in charge want to try and re-invent the wheel.

5) The deficits Obama has run are not a direct result of Bush... at least not entirely. The continued stop gap measures (aka... the 'stimulus' bills) are on Obama. Had he actually created long term solutions rather than one stop gap after another, then perhaps we wouldn't still be standing on the edge of the cliff.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It's very funny, we have the best quality hc but not the best access. Democrats wisely used republican bumbling to pass this liberal monstrocity. Many more to come.

That's not true either Top. We arguably have the best available medical technology in the world but measured in terms of over all performance and outcomes for health care the US lags behind all the developed industrial nations of the world while simaltaneously spending far more money then they do. Our system is insanely expensive, denies acces to far to many and does not give us the value per dollar that we as a nation should and do expect and it needs reformed badly.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Next you get the fuck taxed out of your gas, in the name of cooling the environment.

Hey if it gets us out of the clutches of foreign oil companies then that's a very good thing. We need to tax the hell out of oil products for national security reasons. Taxing the hell out of oil will drive development of alternative fuels and will make America more secure since we won't be at the mercy of a bunch of unstable third world cleptocracies for our fuel/energy resources. If it also cleans up the environment well that's just gravy but lay off the bull shit. We need to discourage oil consumption for national security reasons.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The sad thing is that originally, all Americans were distrusting and fearfull of government. Somewhere along the line, segments of the population stopped acting like Americans...

That's a crock of shit and it has become a self fullfilling prophecy for inept and incompetent government. Well I got news for you. Katrina and Iraq proved that good governance is damned important.

No one wants an all invasive totalitarian (or even authoritarian) government dictating their lives but equally as imporant is affective and competant govermnent.

This is where the Repbulican party has fallen short of the mark in recent years. They have become so ideologically opposed to government that they have become incapable of governing a large nation affectively.

Hell they couldn't organize a bun fight at a whore house.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's not true either Top. We arguably have the best available medical technology in the world but measured in terms of over all performance and outcomes for health care the US lags behind all the developed industrial nations of the world while simaltaneously spending far more money then they do. Our system is insanely expensive, denies acces to far to many and does not give us the value per dollar that we as a nation should and do expect and it needs reformed badly.

1) The WHO ranking of '37th' is based in part on 'fairness'. It is also based on our costs.

2) For the 100000000000th time.... ARE THERE EFFICIENCIES OF SCALE in health care? Why is it none on the left will ever answer this question????

3) We have THE best medical technology available. Others are on par with us, but none are superior. That is part of the reason why our health care costs so much more.

4) Our system IS insanely expensive and will become more so. Because this health care bill does NOTHING to address rising costs.

5) Agree that we need reform badly... unfortunately the idiots in DC passed 'reform' for reforms sake. They didn't actually address the problem of rising costs (for the most part). They were more concerned about government involvement than about addressing costs. They were more concerned about creating a villain (insurance companies) than they were about solving problems. They were more concerned about their 'legacy' than they were about what is in the best long term interests of this country.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That's not true either Top. We arguably have the best available medical technology in the world but measured in terms of over all performance and outcomes for health care the US lags behind all the developed industrial nations of the world while simaltaneously spending far more money then they do.

Then why do high level foreign government officials come to the US for delicate and risky procedures?

you fail.