Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / 93 Million To Lose Present Health Care

93 Million To Lose Present Health Care

35 posts
  1. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    11/12/2013 3:11 PM
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: The role of government doesn't cover much beyond national defense, fire, police, roads, water, trash etc. Those are perfectly ok to tax people and business to provide the infrastructure for growth. The city, state or feds provide the infrastructure and business grows creating jobs for everyone. The people, companies or corporations take the risk, spend the money and build business that creates profit and jobs for those in the area. If schools were all charter or privatized or in some form, allowed to compete you would find them greatly exceeding the learning standards for the students. Health care is no different. Government loses to private industry every time and it is due to profit motive and competition.


    So that's why insurance companies were dropping people when they got sick and needed their insurance in order to make a profit? That is disgusting in my mind making a profit on other people's misfortune and misery? Please stop the ride and let me off now. Does their need to be an overhead for reinvestment? Sure there should be, but for a true profit motive, please, we are better than that. Part of the problem might be some health care has a different goal compared to insurance when it comes to "profit". Healthcare needs to profits to help improve facilities and treatments, and gets those by maybe overcharging, while insurance is beating them to get the best price for service and less treatments.

    I disagree with the school issue as well. The biggest cost of schools are benefit packages, and it is my opinion that they were introduced to try and keep some good teachers in the system due to the lower pay compared to what they could earn in the private sector. Is some of it out of hand, or are there teachers that probably shouldn't be teaching? Sure, that is true in every job. But when you gut paychecks for educators are you really getting the best person for the job? Then what recourse does your town or city have to bring in another educational group? Schools are so important to the community and can be a big benefit to the businesses. Also would some schools in the name of profit not spend the money for continuing education of their facility? That would be like your course not sending you to the GIS for continuing education, yet we know through that process we either save the facility money or improve the bottom line.

    I think we should be careful to paint the government loses to private industry statement with too broad a brush, look at space travel now compared to the 60's and 70's and what innovations came from that back in the day. Would private industry do it? They didn't rush to step into the void by the loss of the shuttle, I don't think so, there is not enough profit in it, or they don't want to wait for their efforts to pay dividends too far down the road.

    I like the concept of private industry taking the risks, but look at tax breaks and other incentives government give to those companies to entice them to locate to their areas. So sometimes those companies aren't really risking anything. I don't think what is given away always amounts to the benefit. So before praising the private sector, really look at what they are risking.


    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  2. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    11/12/2013 4:11 PM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Dennis, what most people on this forum do not recognize, because they are not old enough, is a famous quote by the Soviet Premier, Nikita Kruschev. He said communism would never need to fire a single shot to take over America. He stated that we would be taken over from within. I think it was Stalin that used the phrase useful idiots when referring to the United States press. If you take the emotionalism out of the political argument and just review the beliefs, you will find very little difference from a socialist philosophy and what the current democrat party is preaching. We currently are into wealth redistribution as seen in Obamacare and every other program they are touting. The global warming issues are all tied up in wealth redistribution. We have done a great job internally of killing the American work ethic. Success must be punished while making everyone equal. Ruining the plans of those that had good healthcare to make it more fair for those that have none isn't the answer to solving the problem it is simply spreading the misery. We need to get back to challenging our country to succeed and we should have done that when revamping the health insurance system!


    Great points, Sandy. There is a book titled "Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. The book chronicles why nations have failed since the beginning of nation building and explains why seemingly indestructible nations collapse from within. The common denominator, always, is a lack of incentive. Each failed nation tries to either steal from its citizens or give everything to their citizens or both. To use your example, Sandy, the Soviet Union decentivized its citizens from creating, building, expanding, seeking higher education, and so on. The citizens were not allowed to own much, if any, land. Their earnings were distributed amongst the masses, they had no basic freedoms, the government gave the citizens their basic living needs such as food/water/shelter/transportation/communication/etc., etc at no cost. Squaller and poverty became the norm and the only people enjoying any kind of luxury were those leading the government. As is always the case, eventually the citizens figured "why bother expanding my business or getting a higher education or trying to better my situation because 3/4 of my earnings/land/possessions will be taken and the government will provide for me anyway" which resulted in a collapsed economy. Always.

    The similarities path, that America is on, is staggering. If history is a precursor to things to come, America will fail within two generations unless something drastic occurs. Whatever that something is, it will be ugly and very possibly bloody. Currently approximately 40% of American citizens are on one form or another of government assistance and the number continues to rise. The only way the government can continue to pay for more and more public assistance is to take more and more from the earners. Eventually the air within the American creative machine will burst thus collapsing upon itself.

    The saddest part of this is that the majority of the population is unaware that they are contributing to their own demise. Quite frankly, they are too stupid and lazy to know better. Politicians will continue to run campaigns based on "free stuff". The more people become hooked on government "free stuff" the less likely they will vote-out those who provide the "free stuff" and the downward spiral will continue.

    Now for those of you who wish to challenge me on this topic (Mel), I will encourage you to read the book.

    Additional reading here, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/11/10/president-obama-clearly-never-worked-for-goldman-sachs/?partner=yahootix


    "...but the one thing I probably disagree with is, I don't think it can be laid all on the back of the democratic party, or one person such as President Obama."

    Mel


    Mel,

    I went back and re-read my post, even though I wrote it, just to make sure. I did not utter the words democrat or President Obama. Fascinating that you picked those two based on general/non-descript comments.



  3. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    11/12/2013 5:11 PM
    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Dennis, what most people on this forum do not recognize, because they are not old enough, is a famous quote by the Soviet Premier, Nikita Kruschev. He said communism would never need to fire a single shot to take over America. He stated that we would be taken over from within. I think it was Stalin that used the phrase useful idiots when referring to the United States press. If you take the emotionalism out of the political argument and just review the beliefs, you will find very little difference from a socialist philosophy and what the current democrat party is preaching. We currently are into wealth redistribution as seen in Obamacare and every other program they are touting. The global warming issues are all tied up in wealth redistribution. We have done a great job internally of killing the American work ethic. Success must be punished while making everyone equal. Ruining the plans of those that had good healthcare to make it more fair for those that have none isn't the answer to solving the problem it is simply spreading the misery. We need to get back to challenging our country to succeed and we should have done that when revamping the health insurance system!


    Great points, Sandy. There is a book titled "Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. The book chronicles why nations have failed since the beginning of nation building and explains why seemingly indestructible nations collapse from within. The common denominator, always, is a lack of incentive. Each failed nation tries to either steal from its citizens or give everything to their citizens or both. To use your example, Sandy, the Soviet Union decentivized its citizens from creating, building, expanding, seeking higher education, and so on. The citizens were not allowed to own much, if any, land. Their earnings were distributed amongst the masses, they had no basic freedoms, the government gave the citizens their basic living needs such as food/water/shelter/transportation/communication/etc., etc at no cost. Squaller and poverty became the norm and the only people enjoying any kind of luxury were those leading the government. As is always the case, eventually the citizens figured "why bother expanding my business or getting a higher education or trying to better my situation because 3/4 of my earnings/land/possessions will be taken and the government will provide for me anyway" which resulted in a collapsed economy. Always.

    The similarities path, that America is on, is staggering. If history is a precursor to things to come, America will fail within two generations unless something drastic occurs. Whatever that something is, it will be ugly and very possibly bloody. Currently approximately 40% of American citizens are on one form or another of government assistance and the number continues to rise. The only way the government can continue to pay for more and more public assistance is to take more and more from the earners. Eventually the air within the American creative machine will burst thus collapsing upon itself.

    The saddest part of this is that the majority of the population is unaware that they are contributing to their own demise. Quite frankly, they are too stupid and lazy to know better. Politicians will continue to run campaigns based on "free stuff". The more people become hooked on government "free stuff" the less likely they will vote-out those who provide the "free stuff" and the downward spiral will continue.

    Now for those of you who wish to challenge me on this topic (Mel), I will encourage you to read the book.

    Additional reading here, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/11/10/president-obama-clearly-never-worked-for-goldman-sachs/?partner=yahootix


    "...but the one thing I probably disagree with is, I don't think it can be laid all on the back of the democratic party, or one person such as President Obama."

    Mel


    Mel,

    I went back and re-read my post, even though I wrote it, just to make sure. I did not utter the words democrat or President Obama. Fascinating that you picked those two based on general/non-descript comments.


    Clay you are correct, you didn't mention President Obama, or democrat, but it was in the section that you quoted by Sandy, that would be where my comments came from. I also didn't particularly call you out on that as my quote below just stated that I disagree about laying all blame, about President Obama or democrat, which was in Sandy's statement. So I guess I was calling Sandy out on that. My apologies to you. But it wasn't like I picked it up out of thin air like you suggest

    "Clay I don't so much disagree with your premise, there are parts of it I might agree with, and I'm answering before I read the book, but the one thing I probably disagree with is, I don't think it can be laid all on the back of the democratic party, or one person such as President Obama."

    Thanks,

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  4. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    11/12/2013 7:11 PM
    My bad, Mel. I thought you were referring to my post.

    Carry on...



  5. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    11/13/2013 9:11 AM
    You would not want to see the face of medicine or insurance without a profit motive! Unfortunately, you will begin to see just that if Obamacare isn't replaced. It is undeniable that doctors are closing practices and retiring early, all because of government interference in their vocation. As with anything government does, the lack of doctors in many areas will lead to rationing for lack of a better word. You will wait months to find a specialist to take care of you. The bad part is the GP population is also dropping so nurse assistants will be doing things doctors do. As noble as the profession is, they don't do it strictly to help people. They are smart people that planned to be greatly rewarded for their valuable service rendered. With no incentive for unlimited success, you will find the brightest among us studying in some other field that will prove lucrative. Success breeds success. Government can't create, mandate or control success without horrible outcomes. Yes, it is noble sounding to think that medical care should be pure, not dirtied by the evil of profit but it is another panacea that just isn't reality. I think we all feel that a way can be found to provide the opportunity for everyone to have some form of health care. Has anyone honestly seen anything positive about the progress of Obamacare? They can't even get people registered, whats more actually finding a doctor that will be available. Something like only 50,000 nationwide have even got through to register and only a miniscule % actually have functioning insurance. This isn't just a glitch, the system is already melting down in front of our eyes. This would not have happened in the private sector. Yes, the ability to profit makes things succeed, it always has and always will in spite of what is currently taught in colleges and universities.



View or change your forums profile here.