patrick.net

How sad ...that lot of people don't understand free markets. free market does not just mean free "market". it also means (atleast by my definition) that market participants are free and EQUAL. there are no lions and dears in free market.everybody has equal oppurtunity and treated equal under law. BTW, health care in US in NOT free market.Don't look at flawed systems in US and blame free markets. Just for the record, "Without the rules so far, lions and tigers were having feast every weekends and obesity had become a major issue " This is theoritically impossible and never happens. ask any ecologist. the more the deers the more the lions and the lions compete for food. Only when somebody interferes with the eco system , like killing lions that excessive grazing turns the land barren and forrest become deserts. the financial meltdown that happened was not because of free markets ... the markets were not free at all. Free markets means everybody has equal oppurtunity and are treated fairly under law. when did that happen in the past bush era?...never. Free market doesn't mean a group of people cheating the rest ( housing bubble and financial bubble) You need rule of law and proper regulation for free markets to work. people manipulate the system to thier advantage under the guise of free markets ( when the govt is republican) and under the guise of regulation (when govt is democratic). free markets and regulation are just scape goats.greed and evil don't have party affiliations/color/creed.

renter for ever_san jose says

How sad …that lot of people don’t understand free markets. free market does not just mean free “market”. it also means (atleast by my definition) that market participants are free and EQUAL. there are no lions and dears in free market.everybody has equal oppurtunity and treated equal under law. BTW, health care in US in NOT free market.Don’t look at flawed systems in US and blame free markets. Just for the record, “Without the rules so far, lions and tigers were having feast every weekends and obesity had become a major issue ” This is theoritically impossible and never happens. ask any ecologist. the more the deers the more the lions and the lions compete for food. Only when somebody interferes with the eco system , like killing lions that excessive grazing turns the land barren and forrest become deserts.

Dude, You are so wrong on this. Health care cannot afford to have complete free market only. In your free market a begger hit by a car will have nowhere to go. You need to have money in a free market to go to a doctor. I am saying no problem in that. But we need a basic system where we can provide basic "free" (tax paid) health care to anyone who needs it. Be it the begger on the road. After all you don't want a begger on the road to die from excessive bleeding in your so called most successful society. If we can provide this basic common denominator, having free markets where henry paulson and steve jobs can get kidney transplant is fine.

>>The only problem with universal health care is that its a one way. once we adopt it, its over.. Reason: it is so much better that we'd never look back again.

You are so wrong on this. Health care cannot afford to have complete free market only. In your free market a begger hit by a car will have nowhere to go. You need to have money in a free market to go to a doctor. I am saying no problem in that. But we need a basic system where we can provide basic “free” (tax paid) health care to anyone who needs it. Be it the begger on the road. After all you don’t want a begger on the road to die from excessive bleeding in your so called most successful society. If we can provide this basic common denominator, having free markets where henry paulson and steve jobs can get kidney transplant is fine. We already have that..anybody can go to emergency and get treated. i was never against removing that. We are not animals and know how to take care of fellow beings. You have to understand though that its a necessary evil so we want to limit to as minimal as possible( welfare) because it breaks the system and should be used only when there is no other option. What about the rest of the stuff in heath care ( non emergency - non catastrophic cases) ? do you support free markets there ?

Also the definition of basic “free” (tax paid) health care is very vague. how about basic food, shelter and health care for everybody ...we are not animals..right? I think the way you determine that you need to help a fellow being is when something bad happens to them which is beyond thier control and they have no means to recover.Accidents and medical catastrophies are the only ones under that category.

renter for ever_san jose says

You are so wrong on this. Health care cannot afford to have complete free market only. In your free market a begger hit by a car will have nowhere to go. You need to have money in a free market to go to a doctor. I am saying no problem in that. But we need a basic system where we can provide basic “free” (tax paid) health care to anyone who needs it. Be it the begger on the road. After all you don’t want a begger on the road to die from excessive bleeding in your so called most successful society. If we can provide this basic common denominator, having free markets where henry paulson and steve jobs can get kidney transplant is fine. We already have that..anybody can go to emergency and get treated. What about the rest of the stuff in heath care ( non emergency - non catastrophic cases) ? do you support free markets there ?

"We already have that..anybody can go to emergency and get treated".... You can get treated but don't assume it is free. I just had first hand experience for this when I had to go to emergency just because of cough and fever which I happened to contract from a friend. My bill came out to be 2500 dollar...then they made me feel good by saying I will get 75% discount....so okay 500 bucks for prescribing few medicines....just when I was thinking it was not so bad after all ...I got another bill for doctor'ss services which was another 600 bucks...It seems previous bill was only for hospital..where I spent like 1 hour....so 1100 + 150 for drugs...for just regular cough and fever... You made this ludicrous statement without doing ample research...what made you think it is free... I am not for a govt only health care...I am for a mixed system where there is a common denominator health care and then there is also private health care where those who do not want to go with the basic system can choose to go if they can afford it... We pay thousands in taxes...at least we should have the option and security in the back of the mind that in case we lose our jobs and we fall sick with common stuff like fever we would be able to go and get treated with nominal charges like 50 to 100 bucks...That is not asking too much...Taxes are not just for building best defense system or bombing some countries across the world...they are also to provide basic services and I think basic health care comes in that... Tying health care to working for a company is another way to continue indentured labor system..... In a free country the freedom to quit your job should also be foremost .....

">> it’s called free market - which made US the most powerful nation economically… I think you’re misguided. The US is the most powerful nation for many entirely different reasons" You missed reason #5 called World War II where we bombed every other industrialized nation flat. Sort of like Goldman Sachs, get rid of the competition then make LOTS of money.

"You need rule of law and proper regulation for free markets to work. people manipulate the system to thier advantage under the guise of free markets ( when the govt is republican) and under the guise of regulation (when govt is democratic). free markets and regulation are just scape goats.greed and evil don’t have party affiliations/color/creed" This is contradictory. The second you publish the first regulation by definition you don't have a free market. Any regulation manipulates markets to someone's advantage. Who determines proper regulation? I'm all for free markets within the rule of law, but there is no such thing as a totally neutral free market system. All regulations are within the political realm and will always be influenced by someone's political agenda. So I keep hearing about this nebulous free market in health care from rentor. Care to step up to the plate and explain exactly how such a thing would work in the real world? Or give a real life example of a working free market health care system in the world today. If all you need to do is give health care over to a free market system then why hasn't it happened anywhere on earth that I am aware of?

I'm all for good cheer, but housing have gone up considerably less than the amount of government money thrown into the housing market. This ain't good and that's a fact.

warblah says

The Original Bankster says

knewbetter says

Money will be valueless before homes.

BINGO!

Salary Shmarlary. We will monetize the debt and there will be no money. Wipe it out, then start making our own plastic crap again. If you can make it 20 years then what does it matter. I don't think there's a rush to buy for the next 5-10 years, but if you'd rather have kids when you're 30 than when you're 40, there are some "good" deals out there. Most of the doom-n-gloom about housing comes from spoiled bitches who think they deserve more than they can afford. That's what started this: Spoiled bitches. And with all those inflated money, did you see a salary increase?

I did'nt read each and every comment ofcourse.Just too much BS for me.Ilove theway this and all govt. talk makes one thing happen.

You can have kids without buying a house and it was spoiled boys and wanting their toys that caused this so either keep your arguments balanced and civil or keep it to yourself.

So I take it that TPB supports the a plan for healthcare reform WITH a public option? And if Obama gets that passed he will celebrate the success of the president? OK, we'll check back in a few months.......

If all you need to do is give health care over to a free market system then why hasn’t it happened anywhere on earth that I am aware of? Its live and kicking in countries like india, thailand...etc nobody uses insurance in these countries. People just go to a doctor's visit and pay them cash. if somebody has a cold, they go to a cheap doctor and pay him $2. if its some serious illness they would go to skilled and popular specialist and pay him $10. The pricing pressure keeps the system very efficient and there is little wastage.Both the patients and hospitals feel the pricing pressure and they work to keep prices low.patients shop around for cheap priced.The hospitals compete for good doctors and always try to keep thier pricing competitive to attract patients.Same with testing labs ( X-rays, blood testing ..etc). For the GDP and wealth of the country , india is much more efficient in providing health care compared to US. If US was that efficient, i can gurantee that just the free market health care system would be enough for everybody ( even the small guy). Health care is very very affordable and the prices i have quoted are real ($2 and $10).Why do you think medical tourism is flourishing in some of these countries.what is so special in these countries that we cannot do? they buy equipment from US and thier doctors read the same books.. its just that the system in US is f**ked up. If you can fix these problems in US , you will have free market in health care : demand side : Current Insurance System making patients price insensitive and thus killing the most important aspect of a free market - pricing pressure ! supply side : regulation/red tape/licensing..etc limiting supply of doctors, medical schools, drug lobby..etc If you have any ideas to fix these, you can make health care free market.

From Price Waterhouse Coopers 2007 report on health care in India: http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/healthcare/pdf/emerging-market-report-hc-in-india.pdf "When it comes to healthcare, there are two Indias: the country with that provides high-quality medical care to middle-class Indians and medical tourists, and the India in which the majority of the population lives—a country whose residents have limited or no access to quality care. Today only 25% of the Indian population has access to Western (allopathic) medicine, which is practiced mainly in urban areas, where two-thirds of India’s hospitals and health centers are located. Many of the rural poor must rely on alternative forms of treatment, such as ayurvedic medicine, unani and acupuncture." or "some communicable diseases once thought to be under control, such as dengue fever, viral hepatitis, tuberculosis, malaria, and pneumonia, have returned in force or have developed a stubborn resistance to drugs. This troubling trend can be attributed in part to substandard housing, inadequate water, sewage and waste management systems, a crumbling public health infrastructure, and increased air travel" or "While the rural poor are underserved, at least they can access the limited number of government-support medical facilities that are available to them. The urban poor fare even worse, because they cannot afford to visit the private facilities that thrive in India’s cities." or "Because so little insurance is available to the population of India, out of- pocket payments for medical care amounted to 98.4% of total health expenditures by households, as of the most recent (2001–02) census. Without insurance, the poor must resort to taking on debt or selling assets to meet the costs of hospital care. It is estimated that 20 million people in India fall below the poverty line each year because of indebtedness due to healthcare needs." Sorry to have to tell you this but Thailand has a public health care system. From Thailand Health Profile 2001 to 2004 published by the Thai government: "The MoPH is the core agency that implements the universal coverage of health care or 30-baht healthcare scheme, beginning on a pilot scale in six provinces in April 2001 and later expanded to another 15 provinces on 1 June 2001, finally to all provinces in January 2002. As a result, in FY 2003, 47.7 million Thai citizens or 74.7% of all 63.8 million people nationwide were covered by the universal healthcare scheme, leaving only 3.2 million people or 5% of total population without any health insurance coverage, while the rest had already been covered by other health insurance schemes" The Indian model certainly represents a bright future for America. After all India ranks 112th in health care according to the WHO. Since America ranks 37th (pretty bad since we rank #1 in costs) this is certainly something we should aspire to. Denying allopathic health care to 75% of the population would certainly cut costs in a big way. Good plan. No politician should have any trouble selling this to the American public. Want to take another stab at it?

Well, TPB, I have also noticed that your position is all over the map at different times. This is why I label you as being confused (and confusing).

interpretame says

nowhere but up from here says

BTW, another sign of our nation’s DWINDLING ability to garner RESPECT: after a FIFTEEN YEAR ABSENCE the Russkies have at least TWO “nucular” subs patrolling off our West Coast.

Must have something to do with Putin taking his shirt off…..

No comrade, I think it’s most probably related to the fact that WE’RE BROKE, WEAK & STUPID.

Speak for yourself.

chrisborden says

I will never understand why some of you think that “owning” a house somehow makes you better than those of us who don’t play the debt game. Who cares what you think your house is worth? Does that make you somehow better or deserving of some kind of praise? I don’t care about your obsession with material “wealth.” You are spiritually bankrupt if you base your entire self worth on the supposed “value” of your home or you believe that somehow life is not worth living unless you can prove to everyone how “rich” you are, even if inside you know you are bankrupt. You are kidding yourself if you think that debt is good and that having a house is the ticket to pure happiness. It is far from it.

There are billions of poor people who are morally and spiritually bankrupt. The sum total of your net worth does not make any difference when it comes to spiritual or moral questions.

House is investment of lender not you house norminal owner who is debtor.

bob2356 says

While the rural poor are underserved, at least they can access the limited number of government-support medical facilities that are available to them. The urban poor fare even worse, because they cannot afford to visit the private facilities that thrive in India’s cities.

You sit here and read about India in Pricewaterhousepoopers and think you know everything. The above is blatantly false. What do you think India is run by some Bush kind of idiot who has outlawed government-support medical facilities in Cities ? Does it even make sense ? Govt run medical facilities exist at both rural and urban level. Search for AIMS new Delhi and then figure out if new delhi comes under urban or rural area ? I hope you can figure out at least that ? There must be at least 10 govt hospitals in a typical metro in India. Agreed quality of care will be far worse than a private run hospitals, but at least it is there. Some health care is better no health care ? Even a fool will not argue with it ? Would you ?

The Original Bankster says

bob2356 says

When it comes to healthcare, there are two Indias: the country with that provides high-quality medical care to middle-class Indians and medical tourists, and the India in which the majority of the population lives—a country whose residents have limited or no access to quality care.

thats true for more than just healthcare. For instance, the technology companies operate in what is called a SEZ ( Special Economic Zone ). They have a completely different tax schedule, basically a country within a country. Those who are not involved with the SEZ basically live in an entirely different political body, a much poorer, much more poverty stricken political body.

Again all lies...SEZ are there to give favorable tax treatment to some industries to promote them. It is not free market, but then India is a mixed economy. Some aspects are free market, while others are socialist. They did not have a banking system collapse that US just went through. There are 2 sides to every story. So yeah when you go to a typical nationalized bank in India you see the employees don't give much shit to the customer...that is wrong...In a private system you get at least fake smiles when the person behind the counter sees a customer with cash...Try arguing this lack of a good customer service to a bank employee in India, he or she will immediately point to bank failures in US...So what is better: losing your money entirely or just dealing with few rude bank employees ? :-) Go figure and then post your answer here. Regarding your comment regarding SEZs having a separate political structure ..it is so full of crap ...that it is not even worth commenting.... Also do not assume that every software company in India is in SEZ (special economic zone), some are outside of it too...Even china has SEZ....and they also have some red communist willing to shoot anyone who does not agree with their point of view...At least India has a functioning democracy...

Comparing Indian health care and US health care is a waste of time....India has a long way to go before it can catch up to the west in terms of per capita income etc..In India rich and the middle class just like USA can get the best care health care by going to private doctors, except that there is is no concept of health insurance. You pay from your pocket. And when your pocket is empty you go to the nearest govt hospital. For a rural patient that govt hospital may be very far away sometimes...In US that "govt hospital" does not exist....if you are a poor inner city ghetto patient you probably have to go to emergency room ...and ignore the bill when it is sent to you ? Is there any other way ? Also In India when people die in Hospitals and even when it may be because of some malpractice, people usually do not sue etc...Hindu society has been in general quite fatalistic...If you happened to die in a hospital it is probably because of your bad Karma...Hope for better luck in the next life rather that trying to find a medical malpractice lawyer :-) Bottom line India and USA are very different societies and cultures. Only commonality is democratic system. So don't waste your time here pointing India's bad health care. Better focus on fixing US health care.

I gave india just to illustrate one thing : efficiency in private health care system. If you just look at the private health care system in india, its much more "efficient" than US...period. Don't compare a poor developing country to a developed rich country in absolute terms. BTW, is this the same price water coopers which was involved in the biggest ponzi scheme in india ( satyam scandal) ?. I have stopped reading a while back, these fake reports that these yuppies write to impress thier bosses. Just because its in fine print in glossy paper from price water cooper does not make it true. These are the same guys who wrote reports for the derivative trading.anyway..i am from india and i know that health care is better than US for a common man. If US was as poor as india , with the current health care system, 90% of people would die outside the emergency rooms waiting.

interpretame says

“More Good News….” I think we’re quickly approaching the point where the only ‘Good News’ left would be to read that Air Force One went down in flames with the President, ViceP & Treasury Secretary aboard. Of course if it crashed & burned right onto Goldman Sach’s main corporate offices, then it would be GREAT NEWS!!

What is all with the presidential bashing. This problem started way before him. Although I do not agree with some of his plans, I am happy we actually have a person who is trying to fix things instead of pretending that nothing is wrong. I am against universal healthcare, but I like the fact that for once we have someone who has the guts to take on the problem.

wrong forum>?

Some Guy >Because there are die-hard republicans who are so bent on blaming the democrats for EVERYTHING, that >they completely ignore reality. They have already forgotten that the republicans had control of the White >House AND Congress, and far from solving any problems, they in fact CREATED the problems we are >currently stuck with. Their myopia is so complete that they can’t even remember that we had a housing >market crash and a failing economy before Obama even got into office. They forget that Goldman Sachs >was bailed out under Bush’s watch. So what exactly are you saying here? It is ok for Obama to make bigger mistakes than the previous guy? Our illegal president is pawned off to us like he is a genus. I can't make up my mind on who to laugh at, him or us? BTW, I can't find any die hard repulicans anymore. Here is reality some guy... BOTH republicans and democraps made this entire mess. The democraps happen to be the ones running the show right now. So hell yes, they get the blame.

Most politicians are crooks! Prostitution is illegal everywhere in Illinois, but for some reason every Chicago suburb has brothels running legally. The reason why is politicians & police officials are stuffing their pockets with cash from the Outfit while they look the other way. Same thing is happening with gambling when local bookies use the same local phone number for 10 years for giving odds & placing bets without any worry at all. It's one big corrupt clusterfuck & elitist morons like Nomo want to give these crooks even more power & control over us...

zetabeos1 says

” We don’t call it socialized Postal Service” Because there isnt one. What is DHL, UPS doing ? There will be no socialized postal service in the future, its obsolete. In socialist nations, progress at the price of job loss for workers would not be permitted.

The postal service is a pretty efficient enterprise. If you discount the pillaging of their retirement and benefit accounts (pretty much the same thing done to every other company unlucky enough not to go bankrupt) you start to see that their a pretty tight ship.

Funny how 'community organizers' hate it when communities organize against them.

justme says

When TPB says he is not a Republican and not a liberal, I think his heart is more or less in the right place and he is just confused because he just “knows” he is not liberal or progressive. When the Wanker says he despises W Bush, I do not believe him for a second. Wanker is full-blown neocon shill.

What a total moron and unrepentant idiot you are, justmoi. Just because someone is not in favor or in support of one thing they must, in your shit~for~brains world, be in favor and/or support of the other. WRONG. Yours is the logic of the simple~minded~baboon. But thanks for playing, retard.

Police and firemen and elementary school teachers are all "socialized" but they also all work reasonably well. And you still have the private option if you want extra. Even the military is "socialist" isn't it? Involuntary taxes pay for it. I like free markets in general, but you have to admit some socialized things work well enough via involuntary taxes, and would be only for the rich in a totally market-oriented system.

Here we go false left vs right paradigm again. Obama is simply a continuation of the previous administration's agenda - with a few tweaks to keep those on the D branch entertained. How pathetic. Neoturds and Libtards - you're being used wake the fuck up before it's too late. If the secret were to get out that 45 million ILLEGAL ALIENS were going to be covered by this I think it would fail instantly.

9 out of 10 of the protesters don't even know what they're protesting. Other than "whatever Obama wants, we disagree with", I haven't seen a single unified message. Do you people really think that the current status quo is good? Polling indicates that more than 85% of people think the current system is in need of reform. If not single payer, if not a public option, if not swiss or denmark-style insurance requirements, what do you propose to keep costs down? Be honest. Instead of yelling and looking like a bunch of raving idiots, have a plan and present it. Negative ideologies don't win arguments, well-reasoned opposition does. If the plan is to keep the status quo, then you're going to lose the debate no matter how loudly you yell. So what's the plan?

zetabeos1 says

You can say the same when Asian nations took much of the highly paid manufacturing jobs from Silicon Valley back in the 80-90s. For the past 5 years, highly paid R&D and tomorrow Doctors. The bottom line is global competition.

Well, no, not really. Talented skilled positions will always be in demand locally, particularly jobs that simply can not be done remotely, like physicians. "R&D" hasn't and won't "go" anywhere. Competent companies learned long ago that you hire the best designers, most brilliant researchers, and smartest engineers that you can afford to if you want to compete, and you hire them wherever you can find them. Of course, there aren't nearly as many of these skilled positions as the unskilled ones, which is why the apples and googles of the world have revenue per employee numbers in the millions while manufacturing industries are lucky if they can make $50k per employee. What we're seeing now is the end of the industrial era. Much like tractors, combines, and other farming equipment put an end to the agricultural era over 100 years ago, automation and robotics are putting an end to the factories. As margins were squeezed in agriculture, farmers were increasingly turning to practices like indentured servitude and slavery at the end. Today, industrialists are turning to cheap labor in china and the like. Manufacturing jobs will never return to the west. Manufacturing itself will, but the jobs will not, because factories are increasingly automated. The only human labor required for many products is machine maintenance. As soon as shipping costs exceed the labor cost of maintenance technicians, all those factories will relocate to the country where the products will be sold. As a society, we must accept another decrease in standard work weeks. When agriculture declined, we went from a standard 72-hour work week (12 hours a day, 6 days a week) to a 40-hour work week (8 hours a day, 5 days a week). It is inevitable that we move to a 20 to 30 hour week (5 or 6 hours a day, 4 days a week) to maintain employment levels as they are. This is not a bad thing. The primary benefit of human progress is to make our lives more enjoyable. Less working and more living is the entire reason why we have "growth" in the first place. This is what prosperity means.

The majority of idiots who voted for Hussein Osama didn't know what or whom they were voting for either. Most of them saw a mulatto and thought it would be 'cool' to vote for someone who was such an unlikely candidate: paper thin resume and with a checkered past ('Reverend Doctor' Jeremiah Wright Junior the Third, anyone?). It didn't matter to these nimrods, as long as he was not a republican. I despise what 'W' did to the country and I hate the morons who voted for him, but the asswipes who put Hussein in power are no better than the one's who gave 'W' his victory. The politics may be polar opposites, but the mentality of both groups is not very different: get someone into the White House you'd be comfortable sharing a beer with.

blah says

If the secret were to get out that 45 million ILLEGAL ALIENS were going to be covered by this I think it would fail instantly.

Well, there are only 11 million illegal immigrants in this country, so who are the other 34 million that we're going to cover? Are you really trying to claim that every uninsured person in this country is an illegal alien?

When does health care legislation really depend on town hall meetings? This is a total red herring made into a political-media football. Appealing to some high notion of civil discourse is laughable, especially by those who will eventually blame the failure of health care reform on some right wing conspiracy despite having control of both Congress and the Presidency. Sure, there is misinformation, but the problem and potential solution are complex and difficult--a rare, but more objective headline.

What is your explanation of Obama's behavior when it comes to hiding documents from his past: original birth certificate, school records, passport information (travelled to Pakistan while in college when it was not hospitable place for US passport holders)?
What is so special about his birth certifiacte that he would rather pay large sum of money to lawyers fighting for the dismissal of eligibility lawsuits rather than submit the evidence of being a natural-born citizen to the court?

It does not make any sense.
It should be a trivial issue, yet we still do not have a proof that Obama was indeed born in the USA.
There are rewards out there for anyone who can prove Obama's birthplace. Yet nobody is claiming them.

What happened to the transparency promise? Was it just another election campaign lie?

I think that he is not a natural-born citizen, and that is the reason he does not want courts to examine the evidence.

An interesting article on media coverage of recent presidential candidates:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106051

"You’re RIGHT of course. This problem started way before Obama. However Obankster has managed to do MORE DAMAGE to the U.S. economy in a mere 200 days of office than the moronic GW Bush was able to inflict in 2920 days. Obama’s promises of change and reform were all BS and he’s proven to be an even GREATER lackey of Wall St than his mentally-impaired predecessor." I would like to know specifically "how" he has caused more damage to the ecomomy? I would probably not have made all of the same choices he has, but I also do not have all of the information he has to make choices with. I personally think it is WAY too early to fully predict the impact of his politics on the nations long term economy. It is much easier to judge someones choices from a far then it is to be that person who has to make the choices.

Well, you can bet giraffe something's wrong.

As you can see from the above birth certificate, not only is Nomograph born in Kenya but he is also related to our president. And the most egregious: His mother's name is Stanley Ann. Why no "e" on the end of her name, Nomo? What was she hiding?