On Jun 26, 12:59Â am, Dale Houstman
skypoint.com> wrote:> Amanda Reid wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 7:45 pm, "ggamble"
you.net> wrote:>
>>>So far, you have: Dale, Blue and myself (all of us at that far end of the
>>>curmudgeon scale) more or less enthusiastically endorsing Obama; Jeanne and
>>>Karla uh, hating Obama, but not saying whether they'll vote, not vote, or
>>>vote for someone else; and I'm not quite sure where Dennis stands.
>
>> I stand foursquare before you to stand behind you.
>> Â I wholeheartedly endorse education for the intelligent and stupidity
>> for the stupid -- it's /so/ much cheaper in the short run, and /
>> infinitely/ cheaper than a car designed by an enginer who can't even
>> spell it.
>> Â Not to mention a "government."
>> Â I am a strong proponent of National Insurance -- or State Fume,
>> American Formaldehyde, Prude Dental, or small lizards -- provided the
>> choice to insure is up to the insured, and not up to a little boy (or
>> girl, let's be Fair) with a Degree in coc... ah, Political "Science."
>> Â I am absolutely for Universal Socialised Medicine -- the kind /
>> everybody/ can get out of a bottle for $3.95 for 500 tablets at Wal-
>> Mart or $10.95 a liter at Happy Harry's.
>> Â d00d, it don't get no more social than that.
>
> The reason "socialized medicine" works is precisely due to what even
> Newt Gingrich (in one of his many unguarded moments) said: it provides
> the largest possible pool of participants - everyone. "Opting out" is a
> recipe for disaster. It isn't so strange or foreign - this "socialist"
> thing - society provides many services using exactly the same formula:
> police, firemen, transportation, education. Why? Because a real
> civilization realizes that some things are best shared, and that it
> behooves some of us to sacrifice a little so that many of us can have a
> lot, and - what's more - the same. I'm afraid your formula is no more
> than glib...Allowing someone whose house hasn't burnt (yet), or someone
> who hasn't been mugged (yet), to "opt out" of paying for those services
> just because they "feel lucky" renders the service useless for those who
> are not so lucky - which might include them in the future.
>
> The "rugged individualist" while an enduring and often endearing
> caricature of an American type, is essentially a myth, and - I think -
> basically a damaging one in the long haul. The original settlers were
> not "rugged individualists," the West wasn't (tamed/slaughtered) by
> "rugged individualists" and not much else on a civilization level was
> done by "rugged individualists": enacting a society-wide healthcare
> system will not preclude a future Johnny Cowboy from thinking individual
> thoughts - it will just provide a modicum of security and wellbeing in
> which Johnny Cowboy can live out his fantasies of "roaming the purple
> sage"...
>
> dmh
Dale,
The coverage you mention was Hillary/Edwards notion, not Obama's.
She said she wanted everyone to have access to the plan she is in.
Made perfect sense to me. We need the well to pay before body rot
renders them unhealthy, just as you outline. Insurance companies
have one mission: profit. When they railed against her first foray, I
saw the fear instilled by ads succeed and it reminded me of how
formidable they are. They will not go gently, ever. No matter how
many Sickos we view, medical care for many will be second to profit.
Look at what happened to FDA under Bush/Cheney and ask who
benefits? May Obama have the good sense his mother, a leftist
of a special kind ago, put into his bones. May he engage Hillary
who knows the territory wherein money makes mice of everyone
and move toward her view of offering what she is in to everyone
and ensuring the majority pays. May nations who get it consult
with Obama's aides and fashion what Hillary tried and true knows
is needed.
Jeanne
