Hillary talking Socialist

[George Gervin's Afro]

TX now has capped tort payments.

Anybody notice your doctor's bills, or your doctor's malpractice premiums, going down?

sshhhh..Boutons none of the resident republicans want anyone to bring that up.. I rememebr the campaign against evil trial lawyers.... and not one reduction is price for anything...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Maybe you should pratice what you preach.

Read this little article by Cal Thomas.



Jewish World Review May 31, 2007 / 14 Sivan, 5767

It takes a socialist village

By Cal Thomas




http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has unveiled her economic vision. Should she be given the power to implement it, we can say goodbye to the prosperity and opportunity we have enjoyed since the Reagan years.


In a speech at Manchester School of Technology in New Hampshire, Clinton said it's time to replace President Bush's "ownership society," which she called an "on your own" society, with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.


Clinton said she prefers a "we're all in it together" society: "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
Except for folks in her position of authority

Doesn't such a society already exist elsewhere? It's called socialism, where government has sought to make all things economically equal and the only equality is that all are equally poor. Wasn't defeating such a society precisely why we fought and won the Cold War? Why does Senator Clinton wish to embrace the principles of the losing side?


Clinton has merely updated the old and discredited (except among socialist dictators) Karl Marx saying: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


Clinton's remarks came before students at a school whose purpose is to train high school kids for careers in the construction, automotive, graphic arts and other industries. She told them, "We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college . . . that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this."


Her assertion is bunk, but it is the typical class warfare bunk that comes from rich white liberals who want to take money from one group of people and give to others who didn't earn it in hopes they will become loyal Democratic voters.


This is not the philosophy that made America what it is. This is not a land of equal outcome, but of equal opportunity commensurate with one's talents, interests and drive.


In his "The Wealth of Nations," Adam Smith wrote: "It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense. . . . (Kings and ministers) are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."


I am not robbed by people who have more money than me. I am robbed by a government that wants to penalize my industry and give increasing portions of what I earn to people who do not emulate my principles, morals and ethics.


What have we come to? We once taught our young people the virtues of hard work, saving, personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions, chas y before and fidelity and commitment in marriage, honesty, integrity and virtue — not to mention the Ten Commandments (especially the one about not coveting that which belongs to your neighbor). We now teach them en lement, victimhood, class envy and rights to other people's money. When one robs a bank, it's a crime. When government takes our money, it's called a tax. Same result.


There is something else about Clinton's speech that offends. She suggested that students at a technical high school are inferior to those of higher social rank. This, too, is typical white liberal bunk. Has it occurred to her that many students prefer technical careers — and some make an excellent living at them — to the jobs held by the elites and that some of those jobs (like politician) fit them for nothing of value and turn them into professional snobs?


Senator Clinton should consider the wisdom of a former president, who said, "The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. . . . The wise and correct course to follow in taxation is not to destroy those who have already secured success, but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance to be successful." (Calvin Coolidge inaugural address, March 4, 1925)


Now there's a real economic vision!

LET'S SEE RAY WHICH PARTY continues to try and cut funding for food stamps, CHIP programs... yet they claim to be the party that truly have the best otions for our poor... so I can assume the GOP's ads on cutting food stamps..

" we are truly the party for the working poor. We cut your food stamps and CHIP programs for your benefit. We are giving you opportunity and optimism. Just don't expect these sloagns to put food on your table or get your sick kid to the doctor..but,but,but the we are the party looking out for the poor.."

[101A]

"

remove profits from health care.

All profits?

Or just insurance company's? (to think government waste and inefficiency will be less than the profits of insurance carrier?)

What about the profits of: Doctors, Hospitals, Pharceuticals, Pharmacies - Wheelchair manufacturers, Companies who make tongue depressors, X-Ray machines, artificial limbs, band-aids????? Nursing homes, ho es? Ambulance companies, both air and ground? How about the companies that sell cleaning supplies to all of the above, or run the cafeteria in the hospitals?

Whose profits are you talking about? Or would you just rather eliminate ALL profit?

[101A]

I think tort reform and good, common-sense, futile care legislation would go a long way toward bringing down medical costs.

Then, privatize healthcare completely. Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid in favor of affordable insurance; made so, by reducing the risk of litigation and the incidence of futile care.

Here's an interesting graph I found:

The sickest 5% of people incur 50% of the medical costs. And the vast majority of that is spent in the last weeks of life, treating terminal, irreversible, catastrophic, and futile conditions.

Bingo.

Stop trying to cure the incurable will pretty much solve the problem. Also let vegetables kick; and premature babies, too. You really want to save money, you GOT to lower your expenses.


Also, shame on us for making heart disease less of a killer. Heart attacks are a of a lot cheaper than cancer!

[xrayzebra]

Bingo.

Stop trying to cure the incurable will pretty much solve the problem. Also let vegetables kick; and premature babies, too. You really want to save money, you GOT to lower your expenses.


Also, shame on us for making heart disease less of a killer. Heart attacks are a of a lot cheaper than cancer!

Many a true words. They actually do this under their
health care scheme in the UK. You are incurable, they
just send you home. See Ya! You smoke, sorry but
that is a dirty habit, causes disease, so we wont treat you.
Oh, they do have ho e, at a hospital.

Or, how about just close a few hospitals, yeah they
do that to. You have an emergency, well just go to
one they left open.

[xrayzebra]

LET'S SEE RAY WHICH PARTY continues to try and cut funding for food stamps, CHIP programs... yet they claim to be the party that truly have the best otions for our poor... so I can assume the GOP's ads on cutting food stamps..

" we are truly the party for the working poor. We cut your food stamps and CHIP programs for your benefit. We are giving you opportunity and optimism. Just don't expect these sloagns to put food on your table or get your sick kid to the doctor..but,but,but the we are the party looking out for the poor.."

Yep, the poor have always starved in the United States,
even before food stamps and have never gotten
health care before Medicaid. Give me a break and get
your hand out of my billfold.

God forbid that someone should stand on their own two
feet or teach someone to stand on their own two feet.

The last session of the Texas legislature they just
resume funding more Children. Because of a law suit
that was pending. Can you tell me how many children
suffered because they didn't have this CHIP program.

I am sure you will come up with a figure, same old
junk. And the same old crap, well, if we take care of
the small problems it stops them from going to the
emergency room. How come my hospital taxes haven't
gone down and wont?

[Yonivore]

God forbid that someone should stand on their own two
feet or teach someone to stand on their own two feet.

I actually think it's more fundamental -- and simpler -- than expecting people to stand on their own two feet.

Somewhere along the line, it became politically incorrect to expect people to humble themselves and approach charitable organizations for help. It became more about protecting people's self esteem and allowing them (however poor they may be) to look, as much as possible, like any other middle-class family.

It's why we've gone from a Welfare check, to Food Stamps, to Lone Star Cards, and now, fake credit cards that get loaded once a month.

Government has increasingly made getting a handout easier and less stigmatizing, thus, increasing the chances of fraud and abuse.

I think people would be more likely to get off their lazy asses and work for a living if they had to approach a private charity, that will actually do a means test, before receiving a hand out.

And, those who are unable to get off their asses -- because they aren't lazy, just unable -- will have more resources available to them.

Charity is not the business of government.

[Marcus Bryant]

"and caps on compensation for medical professions. That'll lead to quality care for all. No doubt."

Exactly, just like $1M/year doctors guarantees their competence and absence of malpractice.

Moreso than the alternative. If you remove the financial incentive for someone to spend anywhere from 6 to 12 years of their post-undergrad life in intense study and training then the quality of the care provided as well as the number of qualified providers will diminish. It is rather expensive in terms of tuition and forgone income for someone to become a MD, let alone to become a specialist. We can all wax about how great a world it would be without money and hold each other's s while we sing 'Kumbayah' but that's not how the world works.

[xrayzebra]

I actually think it's more fundamental -- and simpler -- than expecting people to stand on their own two feet.

Somewhere along the line, it became politically incorrect to expect people to humble themselves and approach charitable organizations for help. It became more about protecting people's self esteem and allowing them (however poor they may be) to look, as much as possible, like any other middle-class family.

It's why we've gone from a Welfare check, to Food Stamps, to Lone Star Cards, and now, fake credit cards that get loaded once a month.

Government has increasingly made getting a handout easier and less stigmatizing, thus, increasing the chances of fraud and abuse.

I think people would be more likely to get off their lazy asses and work for a living if they had to approach a private charity, that will actually do a means test, before receiving a hand out.

And, those who are unable to get off their asses -- because they aren't lazy, just unable -- will have more resources available to them.

Charity is not the business of government.

It also makes many people feel better to know that
Uncle Sugar is taking care of the "poor souls".
Example SA210. She thinks "We" whoever "We" is,
is responsible for every "Homeless" person, we called
them bums for most of my life, until like you said that
was demeaning and hurt their self-esteem.

There have always been poor people, I was one at one
time, as I suspect you were. It is a phase most folks
go through on their way up the ladder of life. Except
now it has become an industry with many people
livelihood depending on the poor like the race s
depend on maintaining the race wars.

Those in San Antonio saw a good example of how
people in power, who are liberal, get upset when
God forbid, accountability is called for. I speaking
of project Quest, the so called job training program
sponsored by our tax dollars by the City of San Antonio.
The mayor had a baby that City Council put more
accountability controls in place.

We need a job training program sponsored by the city
like we need a hole in our head. We have how many
public education ins utions in this city? And how
many State/Federal programs and yes, more than
like private programs.

And Government derives their money from one source
and one source only. The T A X P A Y E R. But they
get votes from the receivers of this tax money. And
God forbid we ask them to prove their citizenship to
register or vote in our elections. Wonder how they
prove it to get welfare or the benefits of the programs.

Besides I thought everyone wanted the uneducated
hard working folks. Like ILLEGAL workers.

[boutons_]

"If you remove the financial incentive for someone"

who's removing incentive from individuals?

I'm talking about taking the overheads of private corps, corporate profits, dividends, and stock market demands out of the national health bill.

Individual doctors are not the target.

[101A]

Individual doctors are not the target.

Doctors = Corporations

(that's what "LLC" stands for)

[boutons_]

LLC don't have stock price pressure, pay dividends, not publicly quoted, don't have a heavy load of over-paid execs who deliver no health care.