patrick.net

"I do not know if the price of a procedure as involved as a heart transplant would be cheaper under a new system." - Well, in other countries it would currently be much cheaper than here, so the odds are yes.

drfelle - "That’s because it’s not a crisis!" - Let me guess, but you think Social Security IS in a crisis?

Some Some Guy says

2ndClassCitizen says

Right, if anything it is a bubble. Get government to quit subsidizing health care and the bubble will burst.

That is utter bullshit.

I keep trying to point out the differences between an asset bubble scenario and the healthcare price increases over the past 25 years, but... oh well.

We also have an education bubble. Without government subsidies a college education might be affordable.

srla says

“I do not know if the price of a procedure as involved as a heart transplant would be cheaper under a new system.” - Well, in other countries it would currently be much cheaper than here, so the odds are yes.
drfelle - “That’s because it’s not a crisis!” - Let me guess, but you think Social Security IS in a crisis?

I can't speak for anyone else but social security more of a travesty than a crisis.

Some Guy says

2ndClassCitizen says

Right, if anything it is a bubble. Get government to quit subsidizing health care and the bubble will burst.

That is utter bullshit.

No the real copros is the idea that if we all just send more money to washington we will all magically have more money in our pockets. Zhazam out of thin air... prosperity!

I generally hate both democrats and republicans ...because common sense and goodwill are generally in the middle and is not affliliated to parties. All party stuff has some hidden agenda

Some things i like from republicans :

Tort reform and illegal immigration reform : no matter how much it contributes to health care issue is not a question.
if its the right thing to do , we need to do it...whats the problem demorats..huh ?

Things i like about democrats : kicking insurance companies in the ass and "trying" to fix the problem because its thier condidates ( lower middle class and poor) who are mostly suffering in the current system

Things i hate about republicans :"fuck the poor guys, its thier problem" attitude
Things i hate about democrats : "govt is the saviour" attitude and thier distrust in free market enterprise.

I have searched the entire internet and still never found a convincing answer as to why free market doesn't work in health care. thiere are some lame answers but not convincing ones. Its also interesting that most people don't discuss why health care is broken( both democrats and republicans).looks like we as a nation are still clueless on why its broken and how to truly fix it.we are 300 million people and still can't find a good solution ? the no.1 nation on planet in innovation. ..seems something is fishy...looks like there are major forces behind all the drama..too much money involved.
Rush limbaugh and chrish mathews are too caught up with thier own agenda and insurance companies are fighting for thier survival.

Constitutionalist,

I said: cost of malpractice is 0.46% of health care cost.

You now try to cast doubt on what exactly is included in the number. Allow me to post the details, as provided by poster Kevin.

"You’re still wrong. Try digesting this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136632 (in 2001 the figure was 0.46% for the combined cost of defending, insuring, and settling malpractice claims; less than a quarter of that was awarded to victims. At best, completely banning lawsuits is going to reduce medical care costs by less than 1%. Awesome. To clarify for the non-believer, this includes ALL cost of underwriting."

Reference:

/?p=16417&cc=427

All the issues i see are linking to one single thing : lobbying and political contributions.

democrats don't want to do tort reform because they get significant money from lawyers as political contributions. They don't want to touch immigration because they don't want to lose hispanic votes.

republicans are in bed with insurance giants so won't do anything which hurts the insurance companies.
they also want to protect the rich class's right to buy health care rather than see it rationed. They wan't to do this because they represent the rich class.
BTW, i personally know a doctor who pays half of his income for malpractice insurance ( around 100K).I don't give a fuck about internet stats when i personally know from many aquaintances that malpratice insurance is huge part of thier income drain.

The free market SHOULD decide.

LOL...do you really believe we have free market in healthcare.

both supply side ( excessive licensing) and demand side ( price insensitive patients) of the market is broken.

To all: If the FED, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the VA Hospital/Veteran's Health Care plan, and The wars in Vietnam and Iraq are any indication of what government can do for you, I hope the public health plan lobbyists get what they deserve rather than what they want. Because we all deserve better than GovernmentCare.

Wow I live in the UK and I think our healthcare is great...I also live in Florida for 4 months of the year and I am a little concerned as what ads will be on the tv breaks...as the only ones I see are prescription ones like ask your Dr if ........is good for you...We dont have any such ads over here...

By the way the WHO (world health org) ranks us at 18 and the USA 37

Constitutionalist,

>>Lame facts…

You are the type of person that cannot be bothered with facts, that is the problem.

Then you complain that I refer to an earlier posting that laid out those facts. How completely bogus. When someone like you is making bogus claim, the proper way of correcting them is to refer to previously established facts, and also one should of course give credit to whoever did the work of finding the data.

You are here to argue a position, and you do not care that you are utterly wrong, because your objective is not to establish fact. You simply do not want health care reform, so you are trying to derail the debate by bringing up strawman arguments, plain falsehoods and red herrings to sow doubt.

I'm here to debunk your errors and point out your dishonesty. I don't expect you to change, but people should not be exposed to your lies and propaganda without getting a chance to hear the truth. It is that simple.

PS: Which type of reform denier are you? The categories can be found here, via Paul Krugman:

“Steve Benen, asked to explain why people are against health care reform despite the obvious, gave a useful taxonomy. He divided opponents into the Greedy (who stand to lose), the Partisans (who want Obama to fail), the Tin-Foil Hats (who think reform is Soylent Green), and the Dupes (the useful idiots for any and all of the above).”

All,

This is another one of the Constitutionalists lies:

>>Try reading some numbers from August 2009 where the actual total is 10% annually and increasing.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/08/06/the_high_cost_of_medical_malpractice_97346.html

Here is what the reference really said:

"malpractice litigation costs $30 billion a year and has grown at more than 10% annually since 1975."

Are you listening, LIAR? Your reference DID NOT SAY that cost of malpractice was 10% of health care spending. You just fucking MADE THAT UP. Why? Because the truth just is not good enough for you.

Phew, what a dishonest loser you are. Go and crawl back up under drfelle's skirt, you slimeball.

Some Guy says

O.K., I am officially sick of retarded anarchists spouting anti-government dogma. Get a fucking life.

Again,

Were the writers of the constitution and declaration of independence anarchists? I have a life and I just want to live it the way I choose.

BTW how do we know you aren't Patrick's sock puppet? You speak with the same language and hatred /venom for anything anti-government takeover. It seems neither of you can behave civilly either (so full of foul language and personal attacks that bring nothing to the "debate").

justme says

Constitutionalist,
>>Lame facts…
You are the type of person that cannot be bothered with facts, that is the problem.
Then you complain that I refer to an earlier posting that laid out those facts. How completely bogus. When someone like you is making bogus claim, the proper way of correcting them is to refer to previously established facts, and also one should of course give credit to whoever did the work of finding the data.
You are here to argue a position, and you do not care that you are utterly wrong, because your objective is not to establish fact. You simply do not want health care reform, so you are trying to derail the debate by bringing up strawman arguments, plain falsehoods and red herrings to sow doubt.
I’m here to debunk your errors and point out your dishonesty. I don’t expect you to change, but people should not be exposed to your lies and propaganda without getting a chance to hear the truth. It is that simple.
PS: Which type of reform denier are you? The categories can be found here, via Paul Krugman:
“Steve Benen, asked to explain why people are against health care reform despite the obvious, gave a useful taxonomy. He divided opponents into the Greedy (who stand to lose), the Partisans (who want Obama to fail), the Tin-Foil Hats (who think reform is Soylent Green), and the Dupes (the useful idiots for any and all of the above).”

Yes, it is very useful to call people who don't agree with you names.

Constitutionalist,

Thanks for posting the article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul
It is heartening to know that the American people have spoken and the president is actually listening. I may not agree with him on a lot of things but he is no fool when it comes to facing political realities. In fact maybe he knew all along there was no way public health care would pass but made a show out of pursuing it anyway just to make his base happy. He is a master politician.

Thank you for the yahoo link.

I would have no problem with the consumer owned non-profit co-op option as described here in the yahoo article:

[Begin Quote]
Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.
With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates, but independent of the government. They would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims.
[End Quote]

Constitutionalist says

[Begin Quote]
"2nd Class, you may be right. I do find it odd he would push so hard for it prior to the recess if he wasn’t bent on ramming it through. Not sure I buy that he knew all along this is how it would go, and really think he underestimated the opposition to his “plan” … if not, why the “Angry Mob” references, etc.?
I think the reality is a combination of what you state above in addition to the fact this is the first time he hasn’t “gotten his way”. He was forced to adjust or watch his approval ratings plummet.
Also not sure I will concede the “Master Politician” moniker. Master Campaigner? Yes .. but governing is not campaigning and he was woefully inept at articulating to the American people just exactly what it is he was proposing. The President was put on the defensive from the get go and never recovered.
The good news is its back to the drawing board and as Americans we will not have this debacle forced down our throats."
[End Quote]

Obama is a one-termer.

The questioning elderly will NEVER forget how they were marginalized, lumped together and described as a "mob," "astroturf," "tea-baggers," "Republican operatives," "Nazis," and other insulting descriptors.

They will NEVER forget the Unions being called in, the black man being beaten for handing out leaflets, and being locked out of their own town halls all the while only supporters of the President were allowed such as ACORN.

Obama is OVER.

btw, I am NOT a Republican, I am a Decline to State which is generally viewed as an independent voter here in California.

chrisborden says

Maybe now we can have honest, open debate and do this thing properly without rushing (I sincerely hope).

Actually, what you will likely now get is mandated healthcare without even an anemic mechanism (like a public plan) to drive down policy costs, which is what the insurance and pharma lobbies have been angling for behind the scenes all along. Without any true competition in many markets, you will be mandated to buy helathcare at a price set by the biggest player in the market. As a person who is serious about understanding healthcare, you, of course, know this is exactly what has happened in Massachusetts - they mandated that everyone buy healthcare without any mechanism to control costs and insurance premiums went through the roof.

drfelle says

Sweet Victory!

Yes, a victory for insurers, pharma companies, the AMA, and every other healthcare interest. Of course that writing has been on the wall for months due to massive lobbying efforts and PR campaigns aimed at the feeblest of minds. That's why we've been discussing actual healthcare reform here like single or multi-payer or other national approaches - for the inevitable NEXT time Congress takes up this issue. It would have been delusional to hope or fear truly nationalized healthcare would never come out of the current environment, as it was never even on the table. But by instituting a Massachusetts style plan nationwide, we're basically tossing gasoline on the fire and accelerating premium costs by giving insurers a captive audience to charge what they will. This just boots reform down the road and sets the stage for more massive gouging of consumers in the interim.

2ndClassCitizen says

Constitutionalist,
Thanks for posting the article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

It is heartening to know that the American people have spoken and the president is actually listening. I may not agree with him on a lot of things but he is no fool when it comes to facing political realities. In fact maybe he knew all along there was no way public health care would pass but made a show out of pursuing it anyway just to make his base happy. He is a master politician.

Your naivete in this response is pretty surprising to me, given your level of distrust for government actions in general.

This is not about "the people" speaking or government listening to "the people". It is about the group of Senate Democrats, claiming to be moderates, who were elected in historically Republican districts and who have, more relevantly, been taking absolutely massive money from healthcare interests all along. These Senators have been trying to steer the legislation in the direction that those same lobbying interests want it to go. That direction is mandated health insurance for everyone without any mechanism to control what the industry charges us. This is about lobbyists speaking and the government complying.

The only question has been just how much of the industry's agenda we will be forced to swallow, and will there be any mechanism at all to control costs, no matter how weak, built into the legislation. It now appears we have our answers: mandated care, YES. Cost controls, NO. The only sane people who should be cheering that specific outcome are insurance companies and other healthcare interests. They about to score big time. Yet again.

srla,

I agree, the fight is not over. We cannot allow the government to force anyone to buy health insurance (no matter who the insurer is).

2ndClassCitizen says

srla,
I agree, the fight is not over. We cannot allow the government to force anyone to buy health insurance (no matter who the insurer is).

Good luck with that. As should be pretty damn clear from the current scenario, "We" are not in control of this. Lobbyists are. Just as they were with the financial bailouts, etc.

You don't need to go searching for conspiracies in dark corners when you have control of the government wrested away by lobbying interests before your eyes and in broad daylight.

srla says

2ndClassCitizen says

Constitutionalist,

Thanks for posting the article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul
It is heartening to know that the American people have spoken and the president is actually listening. I may not agree with him on a lot of things but he is no fool when it comes to facing political realities. In fact maybe he knew all along there was no way public health care would pass but made a show out of pursuing it anyway just to make his base happy. He is a master politician.

Your naivete in this response is pretty surprising to me, given your level of distrust for government actions in general.
This is not about “the people” speaking or government listening to “the people”. It is about the group of Senate Democrats, claiming to be moderates, who were elected in historically Republican districts and who have, more relevantly, been taking absolutely massive money from healthcare interests all along. These Senators have been trying to steer the legislation in the direction that those same lobbying interests want it to go. That direction is mandated health insurance for everyone without any mechanism to control what the industry charges us. This is about lobbyists speaking and the government complying.
The only question has been just how much of the industry’s agenda we will be forced to swallow, and will there be any mechanism at all to control costs, no matter how weak, built into the legislation. It now appears we have our answers: mandated care, YES. Cost controls, NO. The only sane people who should be cheering that specific outcome are insurance companies and other healthcare interests. They about to score big time. Yet again.

Oh, and I still believe in the long run it doesn't matter if we elect a republican or a democrat (in the end they are both pushing a fasco-socialist agenda). But each party still wants to be in power and politics is still a game because the elite political class that quasi-wars against one another in public (but secretly are really great friends in general) do profit from making their case and brainwashing the public to believe their lies. The only way the people have chance to rectify the situation is to support third party and independent candidates and throw off the powers that be.

srla says

2ndClassCitizen says

srla,

I agree, the fight is not over. We cannot allow the government to force anyone to buy health insurance (no matter who the insurer is).

Good luck with that. As should be pretty damn clear from the current scenario, “We” are not in control of this. Lobbyists are. Just as they were with the financial bailouts, etc.
You don’t need to go searching for conspiracies in dark corners when you have control of the government wrested away by lobbying interests before your eyes and in broad daylight.

agreed

So long as the Supreme Court of Kangaroos keeps interpreting monetary contributions to Congress as a form of freedom of speech, nothing will get done.

Constitutionalist,

>>Doesn’t matter at this point, thankfully. Not even in the majority and the Republicans have handed the President his proverbial ass on a platter.

We'll see about that. I'm not going to let people be fooled by the likes of you (or any of your multiple net personae).

One thing that matters with certainty is that you have been exposed as a the conniving LIAR that you are, and that will stick with you.

I know one person who earns more than 500K/year and this is what he had to say about the failure of obama to have govt run health insurance.
"I am glad he failed. i am very happy with my health insurance and i don't give a fuck about others who don't have it. you need to earn it ..dude !"

Does not sound like a good friend to have. Any friend of mine that speaks that way to me is no longer my friend. Friendship: you have to earn it, dude. I too have friends that make very very good money, and none of them (except for a heart specialist I know) opposes our President. Your friend sounds like a real .

You would think that would work, just go to a cheaper hospital, but that is not how the system is set up. You don't get price disparities of that magnitude, unless you go overseas for care. Hospitals are now big business, like insurance companies. Unfortunately insurance companies don't put any downward pressure on hospital pricing. Logically, you'd think they would. After all, if they could arm twist both hospitals to offer the care at $300,000, that's $200,000 they don't spend, and can pad their numbers with for Wall Street, but they don't. It's all 'industry' collusion to prevent any party in the system from being regulated to the benefit of the consumer. I wouldn't discount Obama yet, though. Something tells me there will be a few October surprises. Nothing is settled in Washington until Obama signs the legislation or congress gets a vetoproof majority.

renter for ever_san jose says

I agree that a perfect free market exists only in the academic world but i don’t agree that there is no free market solution to the problem.
“Imagine if you will, a middle class family with combined assets of $400,000 (owned assets, not debt). Their child gets sick, and the cost of a care is $500,000. They will sell their home and everything they own, then indebt themselves the additional $100,000 if possible to save that child. The rational thing, baring the couple having infertility issues, is to let the kid go and have another, using their assets to do as much prenatal testing as possible to ensure the next child will be healthy. However, in a situation like this, most people can’t do the purely rational thing. Human instinct is too powerful, and human instinct doesn’t permit most people to put pricetags on their own lives and the lives of those they care about. As a result of human sensibility, in this example the price the market would bear for the care to save the child would still $500,000.
If there is another hospital which can give the same treatment for $300K, the couple will choose them so the market price would be $300K not $500k. The market price is not determined by just demand but also by supply. your demand is inelastic …but what about supply.I believe supply is screwed up too.
Another thing thats screwed up is that the couple would not even choose $300K for the same service because the insurance pay’s $500K not them …so they don’t care. Its a very very difficult problem to solve and comes inherent with any insurance system.

OTS rides again, spouting more drivel:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies."

This is a completely false dichotomy. There are other options than the two listed here, and this is the type of argument which Robber Barons like to present. And has Lewis somehow *proven* that his "busybodies" are worse than baron tyrrants. Of course he has not, he just wants you to think so. Bullcrap all around.

AppleAnnie says

Once this bill is DEAD AND BURIED, then victory can be claimed. If BHussein can be defeated on this, the right will be invigorated and a real possibility will exist of retaking congress in 2010. BHussein will have trouble passing any more socialist legislation with a conservative congress.

You are an utter parody. Maybe in your bizarro parallel universe the corporatist powers that be will manage to eliminate "socialist single payer care" (aka Medicare) and Social Security and you will get to suffer in squalor in your golden years. Yay. Have fun with that.

>>Nobody is proposing that we put robber barons in charge.

Then what is the point of what you wrote? That we should follow the Republicans, because they are the closest to Robber Barons?

I'll answer that: All you are doing is to try and sow doubt among the simple-minded that cannot see through your propaganda.

Omnipotent moral busybodies - kind of sounds like Jesus. If Lewis was hot for the Guilded Age, he would just LOVE living today.

Appleannie, I don't understand why you are fighting so hard to be fucked over by insurance companies and the wealthy. Stockholm syndrome? You've always been a loser and can't picture anything different? Go fuck yourself.

This has been the most interesting blog debate I've yet seen on the web about this, despite all the flame-throwing. Seems to boil down to people who can afford health insurance and haven't had to use it for anything serious or complicated yet (nor seem to know anyone who has), and everyone else. Forget pro- or anti- Obama. Or socialist or whatever. Sounds more like something between people with a compassion-ectomy and those with either the experience or imagination to care about themselves and the people around them.

This healthcare bill, even with a single payer option in place is such a mealy mash of special interest clauses it would do little to change very much about the US healthcare system besides (possibly) make it available to more people. It will be just as expensive whether people exercise their 'choice' for private insurance or to take the government plan. I'm not surprised there aren't loads of 'lefties' shouting the 'tea baggers' down - what's there to defend on principle?

What the rest of the industrialised world realises is that health is largely a matter of luck - your genetic inheritance, what your family fed you, how you were treated as you grew up, how much/what kind of education you had, what job you end up doing, how you live now. Only the last three are matters where any individual choices can be made, limited as they often are.

Sorry guys, but it is up to us to collectively look after our brothers and sisters - and as our primary collective institution the government is therefore involved. Are the 'I'm alright Jacks' happy for the government not to regulate (and subsidise) medical research? Do they think Medicaid should be abolished and old people without money left to die on their own? That the people who show up in the emergency rooms of our public hospitals should be left to die of that blood clot or heart attack which had they been able to get to a doctor without worrying about money earlier, might have not have cost the hospital the huge expense of a bed in the IU?

I've lived in the UK for 30 years and the National Health Service is a big reason why I stayed. For all its problems (and of course every system has them), the principle of healthcare 'free at the point of delivery' is justly held up by nearly everyone here as one of the UK's major post-war achievements. It frees employers from having to set up a plan for employees, it frees doctors to make clinical decisions based on what the patient needs and from the huge amount of paperwork administering and chasing up insurance payments, it frees patients to get help in dealing with any health issues when they first arise, when there might actually be some 'choices'. This doesn't feel like tyranny, it feels like common sense.

There are also several private health insurance companies here, some with their own clinics and hospitals. Sometimes this is available as part of an executive package, sometimes chosen by those who can afford it, but even these patients rely on the NHS for help with difficult or chronic problems. Generally what they get for their money is a bit less of a wait for specified GP appointments (most surgeries will see you on the same day without an appointment, and do emergency call-outs) and for surgery.

And you know what? We're taxed at 20%, not 40%, for all this. I don't have to worry if my son breaks his wrist, we get regular check-ups, and I've had a great range of treatments for both major and minor problems, as have friends. I also have friends who are doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and medical researchers, who are all proud to work for the NHS. This general trust in, and support of, the NHS by users and providers means that malpractice cases are rarely brought (and often against the whole local health authority as opposed to an individual doctor) and doctors are generally free from having to insure for it.

This is not a fantasy. http://www.monetos.co.uk/insurance/health-insurance/nhs/advantages/

Friends and family in the US have endless tales of woe about negotiations with their insurance companies to get the care they need approved; another, a GP, had her practice bankrupted by insurance companies not paying up on claims.

Why not just go the whole hog - have a nationalised system and eliminate the middleman? I fail to understand the great difference in individual 'freedom' between healthcare being provided by a bunch of large insurance corporations and it being provided by the government. The government has at least a theoretical responsibility towards us, it is up to us to make this practical. Insurance corporations are responsible to their shareholders only - and from friend's reports, increasingly having not patients but the profit margins uppermost in their minds.

Ironically I've been involved in campaigns here- with several other ex-pat Americans - to stop the creeping privatisation of services currently sponsored by the UK government. We understand the tyranny of private health care from our relatives and friends back in the States. Private three or four tier healthcare delivery has been shown to cost double to three times as much as direct delivery by the state. (If you want facts and figures, the magazine Private Eye published a well-documented book on this, sorry no URL, seems to be sold out) We are often battling unelected government quangos chosen to make decisions about the service, but ultimately we can go to our elected officials to challenge those decisions. They do have some sensitivity when elections are looming.

Where can you go in the US? The head of the corporation which runs the insurance company? The shareholders? Why should they give a mouse-fart about you? So you can sue in the courts, maybe.

What kind of freedom is that? I'd vote for freedom from worry every time.

Londoneyrie says

We are often battling unelected government quangos chosen to make decisions about the service, but ultimately we can go to our elected officials to challenge those decisions.

My Grandmother, who lived in Salford, Lancs, had a case of macular degeneration. She was told by the NHS doctor that it will take nine months waiting to see someone who could then make an appointment to see about treatment. However, if she were to pay privately, she would see that same doctor within two weeks.

My Grandma did not like that concept, so she wrote a letter to then PM John Major. His office got involved straight away and the NHS was ordered to see my Grandmother immediately. This rapid response suprised me (I thought the PM would be a bit busy for it), and surprised my extremely Labour partisan English uncles (who believe all Conservatives to be pure evil).

When I was born in England, I was born at home. Home birth, and not hospital birth, was typical in England back then. Is that still the custom? I say this because virtually all Americans are born in hospitals, with virtually all males being circumcised. Being born in hospitals and not at home may be a part of the "extra spending" by American health care.

The best treatment for all the right wing nut cases is to snatch all natural resources from them because they belong to everybody and then ask them to start over fresh.
We should do it every ten years. take all the natural assets ( land, mines...etc) and also capital ( because it gives access to assets).let them keep all that they have produced ( walmart plastic stuff and all the other crap in the supermarket). If you look at it the right way, most of the things that the right wing nuts cases truly enjoy are the ones which are every body's right. If the down trodden really wakes up, the right wing idiots will know what individual freedom means. Individual freedom also means that when you are born, you have access to all the natural resources as everybody else ( land, air, water and CAPITAL). I know, lot of people can't digest it because they have limited imagination and IQ. we can make that happen by banning inheritance. Why should a kid born to a rich family get access to better education, money and easy living than everybody else ? Everybody is created equal..right.
the kid has not earned anything, then why the discrimation just because of the family of birth ? this is the kind of debate people will have if you press them too hard against the wall. keep the poor happy and you can enjoy the loot.
The right wing nut cases have been enjoying thier loot in the name of a perverted definition of individual liberty for too long..
If you can produce something from ingredients which does not belong to anybody , you can have it all for yourself and shove in your ass and nobody will touch it.

You cannot even fart without other people giving you the right to use thier share of air to breathe.

You make do with what God gave you. Self-reliance and personal responsibility — that’s the American way.

need to add equal oppurtunity to it as well.

banning inheritance will make sure we can accomplish that.

"...but I want to point out that war (or defensive actions by our military) protects all Americans and the entire free world - rich/poor/taxpayer/welfare taker/prisoner/free guy/black/green/yellow/white - all protected from the same threat evenly. And Conservo’s like me do not mind spending money on having the biggest stick and the meanest monster to swing it."
What utter shit that is. You mean maintenance of the empire--call it what it is and don't give us this "white man's burden" crap.
You'll be happy to note that our new president is too young to understand the lessons of Vietnam and is expanding the empire's wars--much to our future detriment.
And the "public option" is off the table, according to today's news, so you don't have to worry about our slide towards third-world status--right on track