- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 0
I mostly agree with your points JackADeli, but there are several ways that healthcare can be paid for, they are just unpopular. We could definitely cut national defense funding, restructure social security, and increase the retirement age. You mention these things and are right on the mark. I am personally in favor of a clean living tax for individuals who are obese amongst other things. Things such as tort reform or importation of drugs from Canada are other ways to bring down costs but have only been given a glance. We can agree that there is certain basic level of healthcare that all human beings are entitled, as always the devil is in the details. How much do they deserve? Is it possible to redistribute without grossly infringing on the rights of citizens with healthcare? It it worth mentioning that the majority of these people do not want to give up their govt goodies (social security, medicare, elderly drug prescription plan) but cry foul when someone else is in danger of receiving the same. This bill forces the first step which I am in favor of, hoping that people will now address the tough issues mentioned above. Especially considering that there are approximately 50-60 million people are under-insured or w/o insurance, and most people who are happy with their coverage are on medicare or have never had to deal with a major health crisis. As with most things in this country, civil rights, medicare, and now healthcare, we have to force the ball forward even if the country is not ready and then play defense like hell to recover. I know its crazy, but the house was smoldering and we just put it on fire, maybe now the fire department will come.
On another point, it has been shown that if everyone with a subprime mortgage defaulted it would not have led to the "great recession" it was the OTCs(over the counter derivatives) that did the damage. Which was actually recognized by a woman, Brooksley Born, but Greenspan and SEC chair actively discredited her because of their love for invisible hand of Adam Smith. As I see it, Democrats benefit from putting their relatively poor constituents in homes, but Republicans benefited from the increased business generated from the shady dealings. Point being, it was not the moral drive to put everyone it a home that caused the trouble but rather greed(red states) and political positioning (blue states).
On another point, it has been shown that if everyone with a subprime mortgage defaulted it would not have led to the "great recession" it was the OTCs(over the counter derivatives) that did the damage. Which was actually recognized by a woman, Brooksley Born, but Greenspan and SEC chair actively discredited her because of their love for invisible hand of Adam Smith. As I see it, Democrats benefit from putting their relatively poor constituents in homes, but Republicans benefited from the increased business generated from the shady dealings. Point being, it was not the moral drive to put everyone it a home that caused the trouble but rather greed(red states) and political positioning (blue states).
Last edited: