Artful Dodger: Well you in America (or some do) want this crappy old system of yours that has allowed the cost of healthcare to get out of control. The OTT raises in past years in costs have been caused by whom?

... Not Obama.

The fact that the healthcare companies have been denying what most of the rest of the 'western world' get in terms of.. little clauses to cop out of covering treatment... who caused that?

... Not Obama.

As for the new costs.. has anyone done a money trail to work out who wants paying more. Looked at the accounts for the companies? Think it's ok for 40 million Americans to be without healthcare... who is already paying for that. You... and if 20 million Americans take up care through this new bill.. Isn't that less money the federal and states have to pay out to cover people getting sick or injured through medicare and the likes??

Artful Dodger: I'm so peeved about this whole healthcare scam. I mentioned a month or so ago, that my policy was increasing by 89%. (and the agent specifically said pretty much all insurance companies are raising prices more than ever to "prepare for the reforms")

My employer could not justify absorbing such an increase (and I definitely can't afford to contribute more than I am), so we have switched companies/policies. The one I now have is still about a 40% increase, and is a horrible plan. My deductible has tripled, and it doesn't cover many things (like cat scans, etc) until I've reached my deductible.

THANKS Obama. I can't wait until that jerk is gone.

rod03801: That's what people are now beginning to discover as their insurance policies begin again (at least in education this is true). In some cases, people who were paying nothing now pay over 1000 out of pocket per year. That's for single coverage. And a friend who has his family on his plan, still has to pay about 3500 per year.

I think Obama's plan is to control everything. In the last few days, there's been chatter about a Wallstreet "obamacare" where Obama (through his Czar) is dipping his hands into the financial markets. What business the federal government thinks it has in the private sector is beyond comprehension. It's exactly the opposite of what the federal government is supposed to do.

It's going to take a lot of work just to undo the damage Obama has caused. And he still has a lot of time to do even more damage.

Artful Dodger: protect from enemies foreign and domestic.

There is an old saying about banks being more dangerous than standing armies

Artful Dodger:

> What business the federal government thinks it has in the private sector is beyond comprehension.
> It's exactly the opposite of what the federal government is supposed to do.

I wonder if people thought the same with dick Cheney and Haliburton, or the Bush family and Arbusto Energy, or Condaleeza Rice and Chevron, or Adam Rumsfeld and Monsanto, or Todd Palin and BP, etc.

The American government IS made of capitalists, and that applies to both political parties.

Übergeek 바둑이: apples and oranges
contracting out vs. taking over

Vikings:

> apples and oranges
> contracting out vs. taking over

It seems to me more a matter of semantics. In the end politicians and their capitalist friends line their pockets with money. Call it "taking over" or "contracting out" or "outsourcing" or whatever. In the end greed is just greed, no matter what we call it.

Übergeek 바둑이: Obama took over banks and car companies and the health care industry, whereas halliburtan was a hired business,
one is a lobbying problem and the other is a Kensian socialist takeover
Big difference and I would agree with you that the lobbyist need to go

Vikings: No he didn't. He rescued the banks from meltdown which, if it had happened would have set off a depression and mess in the banking system that would have killed the USA economy and affected many other countries. See the Iceland bank disaster and you'll understand.

Many businesses, charities and local councils lost millions in the UK n' Europe when the Icelandic bank system went under.

.. I mean.. if the Banking system in the USA went down through bankruptcies and the aftershocks..... Do you know whether you'd find that your bank would be affected or be dragged under?

Your car companies are an important employer, directly and indirectly.. when they recover isn't the federal gov going to get back their money like with those the UK bailed out?

As for your health system... it seems mixed markets can work.. at least when it comes to economies. China has gone from a 'communist' to a mixed economy and is booming.

Or do you expect the Federal gov to keep paying for people that through a joint system will pay for or part pay for themselves?

.... you want to pay less taxes but don't want the system in place to make that possible!!!!

Übergeek 바둑이: I think they did think of it. I don't think the US Government has any business operating outside of their Constitutional mandate. And since we know from history what the Founders were against, we ought to pay attention to that.

Artful Dodger:

> I think they did think of it. I don't think the US Government has any business operating outside of their Constitutional mandate.
> And since we know from history what the Founders were against, we ought to pay attention to that.

I think that all governments suffer from a contradiction between what they preach and what they do. If modern capitalist governments were to truly follow "free market" economics, the government would have no contracts for private companies at all. The entire industrial-military complex would have to be dismantled, and so would construction contracts, healthcare contracts, etc. If the government did not "outsource" all the things they do, companies would have to fend for themselves. Imagine boeing or Lockheed-Martin without the defense contracts. GE, General Dynamics, Haliburton, etc. They would all lose billions in revenue, and tax payers would save billions in deficits. It is a problem that extends beyond healthcare or banking. It is almost every aspect of the economy.

Übergeek 바둑이: so the government would have to communicate with tin cans and a string since they couldn't hire a phone or internet service, there would never be a new government building since they couldn't hire construction companies which would be alright since they couldn't move without hiring a moving company or have any furniture without contracting for the purchase of it.
You see the government couldn't function with out hiring the private sector, but as I said before lobbyist are more the problem and also the private sector hiring family members of government officials (which goes hand in hand with lobbyist) is where the spending and corruption lies, private business would survive and prosper

Vikings:

Like I said, "outsourcing" is in every aspect of the economy. Both political parties represent different large corporations and monopolies. Government and private companies are so tightly intermingled that one could not survive without the other. If the government did not spend on infrastructure, construction companies would go bankrupt. If the government did not spend on defense, defense contractors would go bankrupt. It goes on and on.

We say that lobbying is bad, but it is how contracts are awarded and how private companies protect their own interests. Companies will lobby to kill some legislation that could cut down on their profits, and they will lobby to get lucrative contracts. At the present we have healthcare insurance giants crying foul over the healthcare bill. That is just because their lobbying efforts to kill the bill failed. Taxpayers groups are angry at the expense of the healthcare bill involved, but interestingly they have no problems with wasteful defense spending.

Individual interests are what rule lobbying and contracts, but then capitalism is about individual interests. The US could eliminate its deficit and pay for healthcare if it cut defense spending in half, but then in some cases the same people who oppose healthcare will fight against cuts in defense spending. There is a lot of hypocrisy in the system. It is OK to maintain weapons of mass destruction, but it is not OK to take money and use it to give healthcare to ALL the poor.

In the end, all western democracies suffer from the same problems. People focus on the US because it is the biggest economy in the world, but just about every country suffers from the same conflict between the public good and the economic and poilitical interests of individuals.