Prexisting Conditions & Insurance

[JJ Husker]

OP- I don't think you need any clarification. Sounds to me like you understand it fully. It is simply our government helping to replace personal responsibility with other peoples money. Really just more of the same.

 

I'm pretty sure that ass in your avatar isn't yours, but thankfully you hand picked it, and it's the absolute most fitting avatar for you, an ass. A pretty nice ass, but an ass none the less.

 

Of course, neither of you understand this fully, no wonder you'd assume someone other then you with barely a basic grasp does. Then you place the blame for it on the government, but don't actually understand what insurance does and therefore what you are talking about.

 

This is introductory level statistics here. The supposed "universal" language of math.

 

It's shameful that so few Americans can speak it, especially older voting Americans, it should be a requirement before you can vote. There should be a test to understand statistics, since anything you vote for is going to affect a population and thus affect an entire statistical population. Let's hope.

 

Wow, simply wow. That's what you took away from my short post? May God help you since the mental health professionals apparently have their hands full.

[Mavric]

I'm not an expert on the numbers but don't Medicare and/or Medicaid keep cutting back what/how much they pay for services? I believe that's why medical facilities are dropping Medicare/Medicaid patients.

 

If I'm thinking of that correctly, it's pretty easy to see where that leads down a bad path: Government pays less for their part -> medical facilities have to charge other patients more to make up the difference -> private insurers have to pay more -> insurance premiums rise.

 

I'm probably over-simplifying but I don't think that's too far-fetched.

I wasn't referring to amounts paid out under the current fee schedules. I was referring to administrative costs. Medicare/Medicaid and the VA are run more efficiently than private insurance. A higher percentage of each dollar in these programs is paid out for actual health care rather than bureaucratic overhead/profits than in private health insurance. I was surprised when I learned that. But, yes, the government provided/paid for health care is more efficient than the private market. Draw from that what you will but those are facts.

 

Edit: Here's one example - http://www.cahi.org/...hnicalPaper.pdf

Yeah, I was trying to catch up on this thread and realized after I posted that my post didn't really follow up on your post that I quoted.

 

Like I said, I'm not really up-to-date on all the numbers. Do you have any comments on my post?

[Mavric]

I wasn't referring to amounts paid out under the current fee schedules. I was referring to administrative costs. Medicare/Medicaid and the VA are run more efficiently than private insurance. A higher percentage of each dollar in these programs is paid out for actual health care rather than bureaucratic overhead/profits than in private health insurance. I was surprised when I learned that. But, yes, the government provided/paid for health care is more efficient than the private market. Draw from that what you will but those are facts.

 

Edit: Here's one example - http://www.cahi.org/...hnicalPaper.pdf

I guess I'm not really sure what all to take from that paper. It does seem that Medicare is somewhat more efficient but I'm not really convinced it's by all that much. According to the paper:

• Costs for both Medicare and private are estimates, including trying to figure out how much more cost should be allocated to Medicare above what the government reports
  
• Other Medicare liabilities "can create issues just as significant as costs" but aren't included in the paper (pg. 2)
  
• If Medicare had to cover as many people as private, the cost "would increase to perhaps 6-8%" (pg. 3) which is pretty close to the base 8.6% they put for private.
  
• "Private industry costs are based on [reported data] ... and our experience and judgement" (pg. 3)
  

I'm sure they did an honest job of trying to compare the two but even they seem to admit it's somewhat like comparing apples and oranges. There are a lot of estimates included but the number that jumps out at me is it seems like most of the efficiency gains are due to covering far fewer people under the plan - which would also be true of the VA.

[carlfense]

Good questions Mavric. Im heading out on the town tonight but I'll rejoin the discussion tomorrow.

[krill]

IMO there are two possible paths forward; free market capitalism or socialism.

 

You essentially have to close your mind to all the real world examples of higher quality health care being delivered at a much lower cost than our system to say that unfettered capitalism will solve the health care crisis. Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and all of Western Europe...i.e. the bastions of Marxism-Leninism, all have better access to and higher quality health care than we do at a lower cost.

 

Also pretty interesting that there's widespread animosity towards the affordable health care act, which creates more mechnisms for insurance providers to compete outside employerer sponsoered benifits and forces provideres to actually spend at least 85% of their premiums on benifits, while at the same time people screaming socialism! jealously gaurd their Medicare benifits. As of yet, I've not seen a single instance of a retired person with Medicare, an expensive terminal illness, and a conservative personal responsibility mindset committing an honorable suicide rather than forcing the rest of sociesty to pay up so they can live. But I guess it's way easier to angry at Obama and poor people.

[Marf]

And you believe the bolded red above does NOT happen in a federal bureaucracy.............?? I know the last few times I've attempted to navigate the morass that masquerades as "the Fed", I was unbelievably frustrated.......! Just sayin...........

Go look at the margins in Medicare/Medicaid and the VA system and compare them to the overhead in the private health insurance market. I think you might be very, very, surprised.

I'm not an expert on the numbers but don't Medicare and/or Medicaid keep cutting back what/how much they pay for services? I believe that's why medical facilities are dropping Medicare/Medicaid patients.

 

If I'm thinking of that correctly, it's pretty easy to see where that leads down a bad path: Government pays less for their part -> medical facilities have to charge other patients more to make up the difference -> private insurers have to pay more -> insurance premiums rise.

 

I'm probably over-simplifying but I don't think that's too far-fetched.

 

Government paying less for their part?!?! Their part of what? A bill that is grossly inflated to begin with? Who is setting these prices? An MRI costs 90 dollars in Japan right now... How much does one of those suckers cost ya here nowadays?

 

Private insurance be the devil. The sooner people realize that our current free market healthcare system is subsidizing the rest of the planets' cheap socialized systems, the sooner we can move in another direction and fix this damn mess. Obama care ain't gonna do it either.

[carlfense]

1. Costs for both Medicare and private are estimates, including trying to figure out how much more cost should be allocated to Medicare above what the government reports

 

2. Other Medicare liabilities "can create issues just as significant as costs" but aren't included in the paper (pg. 2)

 

3. If Medicare had to cover as many people as private, the cost "would increase to perhaps 6-8%" (pg. 3) which is pretty close to the base 8.6% they put for private.

 

4. "Private industry costs are based on [reported data] ... and our experience and judgement" (pg. 3)

 

5. There are a lot of estimates included but the number that jumps out at me is it seems like most of the efficiency gains are due to covering far fewer people under the plan - which would also be true of the VA.

1. Yes. Both are estimates by necessity. Those estimates are an attempt at accurate numbers rather than just relying on government or private claims. In fact, if the author had relied on the government numbers rather than his own research estimates the results would be skewed even further in favor of government health care.

 

2. You are not quoting this correctly. The quote from the paper is " [l]iabilities accrued can create issues just as significant as costs, whether they are funded or

not." Your statement hints that this applies to Medicare only. That is not correct. The context of the prior sentence shows that it applies to both Medicare and private insurance.

 

3. Again, you are not quoting this correctly. The paper states that if claim costs were equal in the private and public sector that Medicare administrative costs would rise to 6-8%. This is not related to the number of people covered. It is strictly a per claim cost estimate. Note also that the total administrative costs in the private sector is around 16.7%. Even if the 6-8% projection is correct that is approximately half of the costs of the private sector.

 

4. I would also like to know what factored into "our judgment." Luckily this topic is addressed in many other studies.

 

5. Where are you reading this? Please quote it for me. I think you might be reading something into the study that isn't there.

[Mavric]

1. Costs for both Medicare and private are estimates, including trying to figure out how much more cost should be allocated to Medicare above what the government reports

 

2. Other Medicare liabilities "can create issues just as significant as costs" but aren't included in the paper (pg. 2)

 

3. If Medicare had to cover as many people as private, the cost "would increase to perhaps 6-8%" (pg. 3) which is pretty close to the base 8.6% they put for private.

 

4. "Private industry costs are based on [reported data] ... and our experience and judgement" (pg. 3)

 

5. There are a lot of estimates included but the number that jumps out at me is it seems like most of the efficiency gains are due to covering far fewer people under the plan - which would also be true of the VA.

1. Yes. Both are estimates by necessity. Those estimates are an attempt at accurate numbers rather than just relying on government or private claims. In fact, if the author had relied on the government numbers rather than his own research estimates the results would be skewed even further in favor of government health care.

 

2. You are not quoting this correctly. The quote from the paper is " [l]iabilities accrued can create issues just as significant as costs, whether they are funded or

not." Your statement hints that this applies to Medicare only. That is not correct. The context of the prior sentence shows that it applies to both Medicare and private insurance.

 

3. Again, you are not quoting this correctly. The paper states that if claim costs were equal in the private and public sector that Medicare administrative costs would rise to 6-8%. This is not related to the number of people covered. It is strictly a per claim cost estimate. Note also that the total administrative costs in the private sector is around 16.7%. Even if the 6-8% projection is correct that is approximately half of the costs of the private sector.

 

4. I would also like to know what factored into "our judgment." Luckily this topic is addressed in many other studies.

 

5. Where are you reading this? Please quote it for me. I think you might be reading something into the study that isn't there.

1 & 4 - I just noted that there were - by their own admission - a lot of estimates in the report. As I stated earlier, I'm sure they did an honest job as best they could with the data they had to work with. I have not argument with them, just noting that it's not an exact science.

 

2 - I do not think you are correct. The full explanation reads:

"Other sensitivity tests could have been tested, but none was likely to alter the basic conclusions that the size of Medicare produces some benefit related to Medicare Administrative cost alone, although not nearly as much as the government claims. Further, significant increases in benefit costs is helping to reduce the Medicare Administrative cost, but this is misleading due to the issues raised by increasing Medicare benefits/costs. A separate paper on Federal Budget liabilities created by Medicare examines this issue in part."

That is only talking about Medicare. Also, it states that "Private Health Market expenses are expressed as a ratio of administrative cost to premiums paid. The reason premiums are used in the private market is that they consist essentially of claims and administrative costs, thus it is the same measure as used for Medicare." That says premiums (income to the insurance company) equal administrative costs plus claims paid (expenses). Any liabilities of the company would have to be included in the administrative costs, thus included for private insurance.

 

3 & 5 - I think you are right in that I did slightly misquote that specific phrase. I combined two separate statements into one.

Medicare covers around 42 million individuals with one program which should provide it significant economies of scale. The private under age 65 market covers around 165 million individuals through hundreds of companies, suggesting much less ability to create economies of scale.

In comparing Medicare and private market administrative costs, the risk covered and the size of the population should be taken into consideration. The average annual cost per person under Medicare is more than double that under private health insurance. In 2003, the average medical cost for Medicare is estimated to be about $6,600 per person per year, while the average medical cost for private health insurance, excluding out-of-pocket cost is $2,700 per person per year. Further, Medicare covers 42 million people versus numerous private insurers/employers covering a total of about 160 million people. If Medicare’s claim costs were the same as in the private market, Medicare’s administrative costs would increase to perhaps 6-8% of administrative costs and claims.

These are two more examples of why it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. There is one Medicare program versus hundreds on private programs. Why are there hundred of programs? Because the government says there has to be. It's tougher to compete when your competition sets the rules. Also, Medicare is covering a segment of the population that has nearly three times the claim cost (bigger, more expensive problems). It's like two cars with different sized gas tanks. A person driving a car with a 30 gallon gas tank will have fewer fill-ups (overhead) than a person driving a car with a 10 gallon gas tank (all other things being equal in my example).

 

Finally, they are the ones who suggested that the lower number for private insurance would be "more comparable":

For private insurance, administrative costs include all functional costs, including commissions, premium taxes and profits, although results in this report are shown both without and with commissions, premium taxes and profits. The exclusion of these items could be considered more comparable from the standpoint that government does not incur commissions for selling, pay any profits to shareholders or policyholders, nor does it have to pay premium taxes or other taxes for that matter. Private market administrative costs do include acquisition costs over and above commissions, such as underwriting and advertising, where applicable, but investment income is ignored. Private insurance costs are estimated separately for the individual, small group and large group markets and averaged together. Large group includes self-funded plans.

Again, part of the problem is the competition is setting the rules (taxes) and refunds to policyholders should obviously be taken out. I'm not quite sure why they say that commissions and payments to shareholders could be excluded (other than Medicare doesn't have similar costs) but they didn't break down how those costs are distributed. Thus, they said the "more comparable" number is 8.9% versus possibly 8% for Medicare (adjusting for claim costs). With all the estimates I'd say that's pretty close to statistically equal. I think the closest "comparable" number would probably be somewhere between the 8.9% and the 16.7% that they list but I'm not sure where. However, there are a lot of things that make this comparison very tough to make.

[carlfense]

Yikes. I started to format a full fledged reply on Word but it is entirely too bulky. I'll try to parse down the areas of disagreement to keep it manageable. Please let me know if I am not accurately representing your statements.

 

2. After a second look, you are absolutely correct. The Executive Summary section doesn't exactly line up with the Sensitivity Testing section.

 

Also, Medicare is covering a segment of the population that has nearly three times the claim cost (bigger, more expensive problems). It's like two cars with different sized gas tanks. A person driving a car with a 30 gallon gas tank will have fewer fill-ups (overhead) than a person driving a car with a 10 gallon gas tank (all other things being equal in my example).

I don't know if that analogy really works. It requires the assumption that a higher claim cost is because of a bigger/less frequent problems. That's not necessarily the case. In fact, it might well be that these claimants just have more frequent and pervasive claims rather than being larger and less frequent.

 

 

Finally, they are the ones who suggested that the lower number for private insurance would be "more comparable"

My argument is that the government is (surprisingly . . . to me at least) able to provide comparable or better care for less money. Therefore, maybe administrative costs is not the best label for this discussion. However, costs not used for actual medical care seems awkward.

 

What the discussion comes down to is what percentage of each dollar (private v. government) is used for care and what percentage goes to other uses. For that reason, I think the total of 16.7% is more applicable in this context. Private profits shouldn't be excluded just because Medicare is not burdened by those costs . . . in fact that further bolsters my argument.

 

Summarized:

Private Health Insurance: roughly 16 cents of each dollar doesn't go to health care providers.

Medicare: roughly 5 cents of each dollar doesn't go to health care providers. (Or if you want to use the hypothetical claim costs if Medicare claim costs equalled that of the private market: roughly 6-8 cents of each dollar go to health care providers.)

 

That number would undoubtedly move upwards if the other liabilities like federal buildings were included in the total. It appears that even if those expenses were double the amount of the administrative costs and added to the total Medicare would still have a higher percentage paid to actually providing care than private health insurance. That's astounding.

[JJ Husker]

IMO there are two possible paths forward; free market capitalism or socialism.

 

You essentially have to close your mind to all the real world examples of higher quality health care being delivered at a much lower cost than our system to say that unfettered capitalism will solve the health care crisis. Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and all of Western Europe...i.e. the bastions of Marxism-Leninism, all have better access to and higher quality health care than we do at a lower cost.

 

Also pretty interesting that there's widespread animosity towards the affordable health care act, which creates more mechnisms for insurance providers to compete outside employerer sponsoered benifits and forces provideres to actually spend at least 85% of their premiums on benifits, while at the same time people screaming socialism! jealously gaurd their Medicare benifits. As of yet, I've not seen a single instance of a retired person with Medicare, an expensive terminal illness, and a conservative personal responsibility mindset committing an honorable suicide rather than forcing the rest of sociesty to pay up so they can live. But I guess it's way easier to angry at Obama and poor people.

Actually I don't believe I have said unfettered capitalism will solve the health care crisis. I stated that there are 2 possible ways forward and I would prefer capitalism over socialism. Realistically however, on this issue, I don't think it can be solved without some socialistic interference. I think it will require some mandated regulations such as the requirement that 85% of premiums be spent on actual care. I would also like to see some caps on what providers can charge for certain procedures, drugs, etc. I simply feel Obamacare neglected to address enough of the cost issues and, either willingly or unwillingly, failed to look at the unintended consequences of this bill. It is not an easy problem but there are a few things I think I know; 1-The more the government is involved the worse it will be. 2- There is room in current margins/profits to lower costs due to overcompensation in the insurance, medical, and drug industries BUT if we remove all competition or get too heavy handed with regulations, then innovation and quality of care will decline. 3- There is definitely a huge problem and it needs to be handled. Premiums are still increasing, costs are still increasing, and the amount of people without access to affordable, quality care is unacceptable.

 

I would just like to see a little different approach to how we resolve these things. I think the first step for all of these social programs should be to determine how much we are going to agree to spend on them and how many people we can realistically help. Throughout history there have always been haves and have nots. I am not delusional enough to think that will ever change. Some people will always have less than others be it quality health care, retirement, money, etc. I would like us to determine as a society exactly how many people we can afford to take care of; 20%, 30%, 40%, whatever the number, and THEN attack the problem through income redistribution. But, that's how I run my house. If I can't afford something, I don't buy it and if it's a necessesity, then I determine what gets cut to make room for it. Seems like too many in our society skip a lot of those steps and simply say "gotta have it so gimme." If we've learned anything over the last 10 years, it would be that that model isn't sustainable.

[Mavric]

I don't know if that analogy really works. It requires the assumption that a higher claim cost is because of a bigger/less frequent problems. That's not necessarily the case. In fact, it might well be that these claimants just have more frequent and pervasive claims rather than being larger and less frequent.

On another reading, you're probably right. I was looking at a "claim" as an individual event. But it does say that is total claims for the year. However, it is still obvious that they aren't working with the same population base, statistically speaking.

 

Summarized:

Private Health Insurance: roughly 16 cents of each dollar doesn't go to health care providers.

Medicare: roughly 5 cents of each dollar doesn't go to health care providers. (Or if you want to use the hypothetical claim costs if Medicare claim costs equalled that of the private market: roughly 6-8 cents of each dollar go to health care providers.)

 

That number would undoubtedly move upwards if the other liabilities like federal buildings were included in the total. It appears that even if those expenses were double the amount of the administrative costs and added to the total Medicare would still have a higher percentage paid to actually providing care than private health insurance. That's astounding.

I agree that it is surprising but I'm still far from convinced that it's really all that far apart. Taxes (US corporate tax rate is amongst the highest in the world) and premium refunds (probably minimal) would need to come off the 16 cents. Also, Medicare covers everyone at once while the government mandates that private insurers are split up, decreasing efficiency.

[redblooded]

This isn't scare tactics, it's socialism by it's very definition. What I don't understand is why Obama care supporters simply don't admit it is socialist and embrace that it. Would you be embarrassed to be called a socialist? I think it would be more productive to back the arguments of why socialism is good instead of always trying to say something isn't socialist.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is a political ideology and economic system. There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.^[1] However there have been common elements identified by scholars.^[2] Angelo S. Rappoport in his Dictionary of Socialism (1924) analyzed forty definitions of socialism to conclude that common elements of socialism include: general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital - as being the cause of poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security; a general view that the solution to these problems is a form of collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements); agreement that the outcome of this collective control should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people, and should provide a more satisfying life for most people

 

With the exception of what the "right" in this country want's to portray as socialism (which is 1920s Italian socialism)... And basically ignore everything at the end of the actual definition where it sates... "should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people, and should provide a more satisfying life for most people" So that their definition of it should nullify completely the altruistic overtones and ultimate goal.

 

I think every "socialist" i.e. pretty much everyone that has any left lean in the US (unfortunately propaganda wise for us) basically believes we can have a democracy that is out for the "common good" without controlling every aspect of our lives, and in my personal case exist without controlling anything but a few should be state funded seperate aspects of life.

 

yet with the patriot act and plenty of other Bush (and Obama with this last bill) era National security acts I find the whole "socialism to the left" concept laughable at best.

 

However I do believe... two things should absolutely be "socialized" in this "democracy." Number one is health care, because we all, everyone of this nation has the obligation to make sure our neighboors are doing as well as they can in this or any time if we have the ability (knowledge, not cash) to provide care for them. This isn't some question of how rich you are, and anyone that wants to think it is need only look down and imagine where you're going to end up, probably sooner rather then later, when your neighboors take that same self centered non-christian view towards you.

 

Secondly education, it needs to be standardized, and universal (and based on god-damned science). look at the difference between first and third world countries. The difference is the education of the population (mainly, sure natural resources play a part too). There also needs to be investment in post high-school education. To keep research and break-throughs in-house(nation).

 

But damn right I believe in state sponsorship mislabled as "socialism" in areas that should just be basic overall good of the human species issues (plus they'd also benefit the state). In no way do I believe in a state controlling all markets. In fact I believe that Ron Paul is right in his views in almost all other areas except what I just stated, especially with regards to personal liberites, and these other three areas: The state also needs to maintain a good national infrastructure. The state also needs to keep a close watch on monopolies (keeping free markets actually free) and it should protect people from violations of their human rights and properties. And one more that goes without saying the state needs to keep a strong national defense, but not like it is now spying on it's own citizens, and fear/war-mongering to justyfy itself with troops in 150 countries and able to sustain 2+ foreign confilicts at once. A national defense, simply protecting our international trade, and keeping people from attacking us.

 

It's common sense, especially long term.

 

Edit: and if you are going to do this, reply and convince me socialism is bad in those areas, I was going to come back with discrete mathmatics argument logic... so if you could look that crap up too, that'd be a big help. Actually don't I'll just ask how may ferraris make a collection. Or how many spy agencies do we need? Because we have socialism now comrade! Just we don't get it fed to us over the TV in that light. My personal doctor, middle of this great country, has a personal collection of ferarris. That is no bullsh#t. Congrats to him. right? but it's a family practice he took over from his father. This is insurance money with pharma kick backs... I sure as sh#t didn't choose him, my private insurance HMO/PPO did. Did I have options, well sure, whatever they tell me they are. Think we are getting the best deals we can now?

 

"Yet they'd stop treating us if they ever found somewhere they could make more money." Which is the freaking point - keep science and innovation in this country, and reasonable copyright laws, make the innovators stay here, and raise the whole planets sandard of living. Be the bastion of democracy and a light to the rest of the world.

[Sub-Husker]

Introducing socialism gave this nation a soul.

 

Introducing capitalism made this nation an economic powerhouse with a soul.

 

Introducing unrestrained capitalism is killing our soul.

[JJ Husker]

This isn't scare tactics, it's socialism by it's very definition. What I don't understand is why Obama care supporters simply don't admit it is socialist and embrace that it. Would you be embarrassed to be called a socialist? I think it would be more productive to back the arguments of why socialism is good instead of always trying to say something isn't socialist.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is a political ideology and economic system. There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.^[1] However there have been common elements identified by scholars.^[2] Angelo S. Rappoport in his Dictionary of Socialism (1924) analyzed forty definitions of socialism to conclude that common elements of socialism include: general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital - as being the cause of poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security; a general view that the solution to these problems is a form of collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements); agreement that the outcome of this collective control should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people, and should provide a more satisfying life for most people

 

With the exception of what the "right" in this country want's to portray as socialism (which is 1920s Italian socialism)... And basically ignore everything at the end of the actual definition where it sates... "should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people, and should provide a more satisfying life for most people" So that their definition of it should nullify completely the altruistic overtones and ultimate goal.

 

I think every "socialist" i.e. pretty much everyone that has any left lean in the US (unfortunately propaganda wise for us) basically believes we can have a democracy that is out for the "common good" without controlling every aspect of our lives, and in my personal case exist without controlling anything but a few should be state funded seperate aspects of life.

 

yet with the patriot act and plenty of other Bush (and Obama with this last bill) era National security acts I find the whole "socialism to the left" concept laughable at best.

 

However I do believe... two things should absolutely be "socialized" in this "democracy." Number one is health care, because we all, everyone of this nation has the obligation to make sure our neighboors are doing as well as they can in this or any time if we have the ability (knowledge, not cash) to provide care for them. This isn't some question of how rich you are, and anyone that wants to think it is need only look down and imagine where you're going to end up, probably sooner rather then later, when your neighboors take that same self centered non-christian view towards you.

 

Secondly education, it needs to be standardized, and universal (and based on god-damned science). look at the difference between first and third world countries. The difference is the education of the population (mainly, sure natural resources play a part too). There also needs to be investment in post high-school education. To keep research and break-throughs in-house(nation).

 

But damn right I believe in state sponsorship mislabled as "socialism" in areas that should just be basic overall good of the human species issues (plus they'd also benefit the state). In no way do I believe in a state controlling all markets. In fact I believe that Ron Paul is right in his views in almost all other areas except what I just stated, especially with regards to personal liberites, and these other three areas: The state also needs to maintain a good national infrastructure. The state also needs to keep a close watch on monopolies (keeping free markets actually free) and it should protect people from violations of their human rights and properties. And one more that goes without saying the state needs to keep a strong national defense, but not like it is now spying on it's own citizens, and fear/war-mongering to justyfy itself with troops in 150 countries and able to sustain 2+ foreign confilicts at once. A national defense, simply protecting our international trade, and keeping people from attacking us.

 

It's common sense, especially long term.

 

Edit: and if you are going to do this, reply and convince me socialism is bad in those areas, I was going to come back with discrete mathmatics argument logic... so if you could look that crap up too, that'd be a big help. Actually don't I'll just ask how may ferraris make a collection. Or how many spy agencies do we need? Because we have socialism now comrade! Just we don't get it fed to us over the TV in that light. My personal doctor, middle of this great country, has a personal collection of ferarris. That is no bullsh#t. Congrats to him. right? but it's a family practice he took over from his father. This is insurance money with pharma kick backs... I sure as sh#t didn't choose him, my private insurance HMO/PPO did. Did I have options, well sure, whatever they tell me they are. Think we are getting the best deals we can now?

 

"Yet they'd stop treating us if they ever found somewhere they could make more money." Which is the freaking point - keep science and innovation in this country, and reasonable copyright laws, make the innovators stay here, and raise the whole planets sandard of living. Be the bastion of democracy and a light to the rest of the world.

Thank you for making an honest response and admitting to a preference for some socialism and logically explaining it. I can respect that. Personally, I am just a bit more leery of heading further down that road in any aspect. I agree some things like healthcare probably require some stipulations for the common good. But I am just not convinced that those means will get us the end that we want or need. If you have some history to share, showing where these types of social policies have actually delivered long term, viable results, please show where and when it worked. Europe is falling apart due to these very policies. Countries that took them to the extreme (ie USSR) really crashed and burned. I believe the socialism the US has dabbled in is more responsible for our current wealth gap and the continued marginalization of the middle class than anything greedy capitalists have ever done to us. I know that goes against the current blame the rich, make the rich pay for everything, storyline of late. The result of any socialism has not been an elevated standard of living for everyone or really anyone except for the very bottom rung. Generally it has lowered the standard of living for the masses and still allowed a proletariat class to exist. One resultant of the government rather than capitalists. I don't think it can be avoided that there will always be haves and have nots. It is the nature of the beast. It's been that way since man walked on earth. The thing about capitalism is that you always have the hope and possibility to raise your rank in life. In socialism, it is highly unlikely and largely out of a persons control. And you can feel that me calling it "socialism" is extremist but, I do not believe you can dabble in it. It will continue to grow until it overshadows every aspect of life. Once 50%+ of the people can eek out enough of an existance on the backs of of others, I believe it is just a matter of time for the rollercoaster plunge to the bottom. Why work when the unemployment check buys just enough? Why pay for health insurance when you can get care (no matter how lousy) without it? Why buy a house you can actually afford when somebody will bail you out or forgive your debt? Why work your ass off to get ahead when so much of the spoils get redistributed from you to the masses? Why save for your retirement when you can live large today and the government will send you a check later? The greed problem in this country is not limited to the ultra wealthy. Anytime you supply a person with something they did not earn, you encourage less personal responsibility and more expectations of not having to do it yourself. I don't think that will work long term and history has proven me correct.

[redblooded]

I absolutely completely disagree almost everything you just said. but I am sorry I called you an ass before, That was meant in jest, but not really funny looking back.