Dewey Beats Truman

[Jeremy Harris]

Dang, why does the whole world want America's corporate healthcare when their own socialized medicaid is OBVIOUSLY so much better? No thinking person can take up that argument. (

Trust me, the last thing anyone here in the UK wants is "America's corporate healthcare".......................

We may moan about it from time to time, but our 64 year old state funded health care system looks after everyone in the country pretty well, irrespective of income, social class, political leanings or whatever. As I mentioned before, our main problem is that people from other countries end up coming here for free treatment. Sure a few doctors and nurses leave state funded health care and move abroad to work in the private sector, that's their choice, as in general private sector funded health care pays better wages than the state funded systems can afford. It's not a major problem though, as in percentage terms this drain on resources is small - it's just market forces at work.

The US problem is that it's ignored health care for decades and allowed a massive problem to grow to the point where it's now trying to do something too late. Most countries around the world with state funded health care put their systems in place a long time ago, before the growth of greedy corporate health care insurers, who only ever want customers who are wealthy enough to make them profits. As I see it, the US is caught between a rock and a hard place; it either continues to accept that a large percentage of its population will have limited or no access to good health care, or it introduces some form of universal health care system. Either way is going to piss a lot of people off, either those who are currently without good health care or those who make big profits from providing health care insurance.

[salty9]

Here in the US - a person is a person until he leaves the womb. Postpartum, he had best be either rich or lucky.
.

[Kingfish]

Here in the US - a person is a person until he leaves the womb. Postpartum, he had best be either rich or lucky.
.

I like that! For me, it was a box of crayons and tasty paste that got me through the poorest part of my tiny life.

Dabbling with watercolor, KF

[salty9]

I like that! For me, it was a box of crayons and tasty paste that got me through the poorest part of my tiny life.

Dabbling with watercolor, KF

Been there, done that, got the tongue to prove it. Things still taste funny after kindergarten paste.

My previous post was prompted by a comparison of Teri Schaivo (sp?) and a baby Texan some years back. Teri was brain dead, had a large insurance settlement and was being kept on life support due to argument between her parents and husband. The poor baby was capable of life but needed expensive care so it was bye,bye baby without much comment. The right-to-lifers really only care about the unborn, the lucky, and the rich.

[StudEbiker]

This point above may help you to understand why many of us are opposed to this idea Philistine. It really doesn't matter how good something is, if you are forcing someone to do it then it's tyranny.

I also think sometimes people don't appreciate the implications of the Hayek quote "the government should build roads, not tell people where to go", in this case I believe that healthcare IS the roads. Making healthcare a state responsibility is the building of the road. When we build roads we have to interfere with peoples property rights, and expropriate land on fair terms (to build the roads), and sometimes that upsets certain individuals but we accept it as being for the greater good. That is how I feel about healthcare, it is for the greater good, and just like major infrastructure like roads, it is a burden that should be borne by all.

It's interesting you bring up the point of eminent domain(ED). I think it illustrates a great point AGAINST gov't run healthcare.

In the beginning, ED was used just as you describe it. For the greater good. Often times the person forced to give up their land wasn't happy about it, but they were reimbursed at fair market value. The system worked pretty well for awhile, but this is not a utopian world we live in and eventually this idea has been perverted to the legal case Kelo v. City of New London. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London This case established that gov't entities can now confiscate land for the sole purpose of extending a tax base. Not for improving roads and for city/state/federal projects for all of the public to use, but if there is a blighted neighborhood that is not generating any (or even as much as it could) revenue for the gov't then they can use ED to take the land and sell it to developers that will presumably improve the land (for PRIVATE purposes) that will lead to more tax revenue. This is how it is deemed for the public. You see, the public benefits because the gov't takes in more taxes.

How many ways can you think of that gov't involvement in our healthcare COULD be corrupted Philistine?? I can think of hundreds without even straining. The very thought is enough to make me want to go live in a cave somewhere and vanish from civilization.

As I know you know. This is not a perfect world. Many may have the absolute best INTENTIONS for gov't involvement in healthcare, but eventually, maybe not in the first year, maybe not in the first ten years, it will grow to a vicious behemoth that no one will be able to stop.

The education system (at least in this country) is another great example against public health care, but I'll post on that another time.

[The fingers]

Opposing tyranny is what Independance Day is REALLY about!

[TylerDurden]

Health care options for young, healthy and broke
By CONNIE CASS, Associated Press – Tue Jul 10, 1:44 pm ET

WASHINGTON – They're young, healthy and flat broke — and now the government says they have to buy thousands of dollars' worth of medical insurance. What should tapped-out twentysomethings do?

Well, some may just do nothing. The annual fine for shrugging off the new federal insurance requirement, which is to begin in 2014, starts out at a relatively low $95, depending on income. That would be far cheaper than paying premiums.

But that doesn't necessarily make blowing off the mandate a good idea for the fit and frugal. Millions of young people will qualify for good deals on health care if they take time to sort through the complicated law.

Many will get Medicaid coverage at virtually no cost. Others will qualify for private insurance at a fraction of the full premiums. And health plans offered under the law will limit individuals' out-of-pocket expenses to about $6,250 per year or less — a bulwark against gigantic, unexpected medical bills.

"It doesn't have to be cancer or a heart attack or even a bad car accident," said Karen Pollitz, a health policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation whose own son needed $15,000 worth of surgery after he broke his wrist while skateboarding at age 20. "Once you show up in the ER, it starts to cost you some money."

The plans also will cover at no charge preventive care such as HIV tests, screening for depression or alcoholism, flu shots, hepatitis vaccine, contraception and pregnancy care. And insurers will no longer be able to exclude or charge extra for people who already have health problems.

"It's the 15 percent of young people who have chronic conditions like asthma or diabetes, and the young women looking to have a baby," said Aaron Smith, 30, co-founder of Young Invincibles, which advocates for young adults' health care. "That discrimination won't fly in 2014."

Young Americans are the least likely to be insured: almost three of 10 adults who are under 35 aren't covered. And they go to emergency rooms more than any other group except seniors.

It's still possible President Barack Obama's health care law won't be around in 2014, when the big changes are to kick in. Congressional
Republicans and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney want to repeal "Obamacare" if they win the November elections. Still, with open enrollment for the law's new state-based insurance markets scheduled to begin in October of next year, it's prudent to start considering the options for getting covered.


GOT A JOB? START THERE

More than half of Americans already are covered through their jobs. But young adults have the nation's highest unemployment rate and also are more likely to toil in low-wage jobs without benefits.

Some employers, especially smaller businesses paying lower wages, may now drop their plans and expect their workers to get government help. Other businesses, but not quite as many, will probably begin coverage in response to the law's penalties and incentives for employers, the Congressional Budget Office predicts.


UNDER 26? LEAN ON MOM OR DAD

One of the law's most popular provisions, already in effect, ensures that parents with family plans can keep their adult kids enrolled until they turn 26, if the children don't have a suitable workplace option. Pollitz's skateboarding son is one of them.

The government estimates that 3.1 million uninsured young people already have gained coverage this way.


CONSIDER MEDICAID

Right now, Medicaid mostly covers children and low-income adults who are disabled, pregnant or raising kids. But the health care law will push states to expand Medicaid to also cover other adults with incomes up to around $15,000, adjusted for inflation in 2014. That's designed to account for about half of the 30 million people expected to gain insurance coverage under the overhaul.

It may fall short, however. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the federal government can't coerce states into joining the Medicaid expansion. Some states may decline to add people to their rolls.


THERE'S OTHER HELP

Most people with incomes up to four times the poverty level — which currently comes out to $44,680 for an individual or $92,200 for a family of four — will qualify for some help paying for private insurance. Aid drops off sharply as income climbs, and younger people get smaller subsidies than older folks whose insurance rates are higher.

The lowest earners shouldn't have to pay more than 2 percent of their incomes toward insurance premiums for mid-level plans; those at the high end would have to contribute 9.5 percent. These plans also have significant co-pays and deductibles, but some help is available there, too.

For example, a single 26-year-old earning $16,000 might pay $537 toward the annual premium for a mid-level "silver" plan, according to estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The rest of the premium would be covered by a $2,853 tax credit. (Deductibles and co-pays could cost up to an additional $2,083, depending on how much care the person needs.)

A 26-year-old earning $35,000 would pay $3,325 in premiums — $277 a month — for the same plan, after only a $66 tax credit. (And that patient might be on the hook for another $4,167 in out-of-pocket costs.)


A CHEAPER BUT SKIMPY CHOICE

For those under 30 there's a special option to buy "catastrophic" insurance with the lowest premiums but scant coverage until a deductible of about $6,250 is met. While it may be tempting, caution is advised.

"We really encourage folks to do their homework and look at the details of the plan," said Smith, who's organizing efforts to help young people learn about their choices. "It's not just the premium. You have to look at what's being covered, what the deductibles are."


GO BARE?

People who would have to spend more than 8 percent of their income to buy basic insurance are exempt from paying a penalty if they go without.

For others who feel they can't afford or just don't want coverage, the penalties start off relatively low in 2014.

Private insurers have yet to set the prices for their 2014 plans, because coverage that will comply with the law is still being developed. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that premiums for the bare-bones plan, called "bronze" level, might average between $4,500 and $5,000 per year. Family plans might cost $12,500 per year.

Rates for young adults would be lower. Kaiser's cost calculator gives a ballpark estimate of about $3,400 for an average single 26-year-old who doesn't get subsidies.

In contrast, the first year's minimum penalty for an individual is $95; that's what a worker making $16,000 would pay. A $35,000 earner would owe $255 — not even a tenth of the estimated $3,325 in premiums.

In 2016, the minimum penalty rises to $695 and it's capped at a little less than 2.5 percent of taxable income. That's about a $1,600 fine for someone making $75,000 per year.

Even for the wealthiest folks the law says the penalties can never exceed the average cost of a "bronze" plan. But most of those people already have insurance, anyway.

The Internal Revenue Service could withhold the penalties from taxpayers' refunds if they don't show proof of insurance. About 4 million people are expected to end up paying the penalties.

"For many young people, this is the first time they've had to deal with health insurance and the health care system," said Smith. "There will be a learning curve."
___
Online:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: http://www.healthcare.gov/
Kaiser Family Foundation's health care subsidy calculator: http://healthreform.kff.org/subsidycalculator
Young Invincibles: http://younginvincibles.org/

[amberwolf]

I'll probably have to opt to pay the "fine" for not signing up, because I dont' have what this phrase:
"The lowest earners shouldn't have to pay more than 2 percent of their incomes toward insurance premiums for mid-level plans"
mentions to spare. I don't even have a tenth of a percent of income that isn't already allocated to existing utilities/food/rent/etc., and none of those are going to lower themselves just so I can pay something new.

Can't afford any "fine" either, but I guess that's not going to be a choice. I know I am not going to qualify for any "help".

I'll wait till they send me a bill for what I owe, and then see about setting up a dollar a month payment plan for it. By the time it takes effect prices on food and everything else will have gone up enough I doubt I'll even have that much to spare.

I expect I'm only one of millions in the same situation.


EDIT: FWIW, even if I coudl afford any insurance at all, then after paying hte premiums, I could then never afford the deductibles required to be able to access the insurance itself! It's been this way for years already, maybe a couple of decades or more. Even the cheapest plan thru anyplace I've worked (where they are paying for a large part of the premiums) costs so much I can't afford it, and covers so little without high deductibles (often per-visit or per-incident!) that I couldn't use it evne if I had it.

[Jeremy Harris]

Reading this thread is, for me, pretty shocking, particularly having taken the time to do some research into how health care seems to operate in the US. I can well understand the scale of the major shock that being forced to pay for health care provision is going to cause those on low incomes, particularly the younger folk who maybe don't consider health care to be that high a priority when faced with other calls on their income.

Because we introduced a mandatory health care tax a few years before I was born, I've been lucky. All my life I've lived with the certain knowledge that I will get whatever treatment I need at no cost. For years this meant little, with the exception of a major motorcycle accident that put me in hospital and involved surgery to fix things. A little over a week ago I was told I have arthritis in my hips, getting around has been increasingly painful for the past few months. I go for a scan this Friday, am seeing an orthopaedic surgeon in a couple of weeks time and guess I'll need at least one hip replacement before too long. It won't cost me anything, and will give me back mobility and get rid of the pain. I no longer work, and am retired and living on a pension. What happens to someone like me in the US, if they don't have health cover?

I can't comment on the way this is being rolled out in the US, except to say that I would hope that it would take the money back from the greedy insurers and put it into fair and equal standards of health care for all, irrespective of their means. The underpinning philosophy here was 'the abolition of want before the enjoyment of comfort' and 'a scheme of medical treatment of every kind for everybody' in the words of our government minister responsible for this, Sir William Beveridge, when the scheme was introduced here in 1948.

[amberwolf]

I can't pretend to understand it, but what little I have been able to glean is that the system will still be run by the greedy private insurers, with no regulation of the system of costs, which are already far too high as a direct and indirect result of insurance schemes in the first place.

Since at least here in AZ, it's pretty likely that they will continue to provide any kind of assistance to only females, and only those men with children (the more the better), I will probably be unable to qualify for any assistance, and the cost of insurance will be far out of reach. Thus I will be forced to pay for something with money I don't have.

Oh, also, I fully expect the cost of insurance to go UP once this goes into effect. That is what happened to auto insurance here in AZ as soon as it became mandatory to have it, some decades back. Companies sprang up all over the place charging ridiculous amounts for minimal coverage, and bigger companies raised their rates, too. People for a time registered their cars and got licenses in other states that didn't have mandatory insurance, just so they could get cheaper rates (from the SAME company!), until that was stopped either by the companies or the state; I don't know which, as I didn't have a car then, just heard about it all this over and over from friends and family.

It appears to be implemented quite a bit different from a tax--I ALREADY pay a tax for social security and medicare, neither of which I can collect on (and I probably never will--if I even live long enough to do so the system will probably crash long before then). A tax would probably not impact the poor nearly as badly, as it would probably be based on income, rather like the fines for not getting it will be.

The way this is implemented looks to me as if it is only there to benefit the insurance companies, and nothing else--they will rake in tons of new money they could never get before, and most people are not going to benefit one whit from it, as they'll get burned by the insurance companies as soon as they try to actually use their insurance (this already happens a fair bit to people with work-assisted insurance plans; several people I've worked with were royally screwed over after paying years of premiums only to be told "sorry we changed the terms after you signed up so nothing your'e sick with is covered now...whatever it is, and don't worry if you get sick with something new we'll take that off the covered list, too.").


Personally, I hope this is the beginning of getting people to realize what's going on around them, and have them make some sort of stand against government interference in our lives. I don't really think it will happen, because the "sheeple" as Liveforphysics calls them will just sit back and accept whatever is done to them. I guess I am one of them...I feel less than powerless to change it (or much of anything else)...seems like nearly everything I do to try to build up and make a better life gets intercepted and turned on it's side by something I have little control over. Or i get punished for doing the right thing or trying to help. I know it's not really like that but it most certainly feels like it.

Sorry for the little rants.


EDIT: Added:
I like that philosopy: 'the abolition of want before the enjoyment of comfort' , but I would change "want" to "need", as that is what I try to do myself. But I'm just barely past the abolition of "need", and any added expenses will put me back to "need". I'm sure I could eliminate phone and internet...but then unless I can make a deal with a neighbor for internet access (so far unsuccessful in trying to do that the last couple years), I'll be nearly cut off from the net. Have to fix the laptop and then ride to a place with unsecured wifi, park, and spend time away from the house and dogs exclusively for internet. Right now I steal time for the net when resting after doing other things or when I am unable to sleep but not functional enough to do much of anythign else. If I had to dedicate specific time for the net, I'd spend far far less time at ES and still get less done on my own at the house.

[Jeremy Harris]

I'm sorry to say that I share your views on insurance, (and "sheeple"), as exactly the same has happened here with mandatory car insurance. The insurance companies value profit above all else. One example here is that car insurers frequently pay out to people who have actually caused an accident. A few years ago I was unfortunate enough to run into, and seriously injure, a young chap who ran across in front of my car on a fast dual carriageway (not sure what this is in US-speak, divided highway, maybe?). He wasn't looking, crossed this major road whilst listening to an iPod or similar and the accident was entirely his fault, confirmed by the police. His body did the equivalent of around $10,000 damage to my car, which gives an idea of the scale of the impact. Nevertheless he claimed damages for his injuries from my insurance company, or at least tried to until I intervened and counter-claimed against him for my uninsured losses, when he dropped his claim (as did I). What amazed me was that my insurers would have just paid out, as they could then use that payment as a means to increase premiums and increased premiums mean increased profits.

In my view, as someone from outside the US, the US needs to get a grip on the domination of corporate greed within government. If "health care for all" is to be run by government mandated private health care insurance in the US, then it will surely just make the problem worse, not better. A taxation based system, as we have here, seems fairer, if it is based on the ability to pay. Here health care forms part of a ring fenced tax that also pays for social security. Everyone earning more than a given threshold level pays into it, in proportion to the amount they earn. Employers also have to contribute, again in proportion to the amount an individual earns. Private health care insurance is not very common here, and mainly only used by the few that can afford the high premiums and who value getting a quicker service for elective procedures. Private health care insurance here doesn't cover emergency treatment as a rule, or things like long-term care.

[dogman]

Who knows how it will turn out in the end. If the working poor can get insured for $500 a year that will be progress. At one point, trying to get insured myself, I was quoted monthly fees that exceeded my monthly income. The premimums were in the neighborhood of $4000 a year. Meanwhile my wife, who hadn't married me yet at the time got insured by her employer for about $800 a year.

That's how it was in the late 90's. Impossible to get an affordable plan if you weren't in a large pool.

[Jeremy Harris]

So what happens to things like preventative medicine if you don't have health insurance over there?

During an annual routine medical check up back when I was around 35 I was diagnosed with high blood pressure and put on treatment to lower it (which I've been on ever since). Nothing serious, but finding that early in life and fixing it may have extended my useful life by ten or twenty years. Had we not got universal health care I guess I might not have had that preventative treatment for the past 25 years, and might have already had a stroke or heart attack by now. Do folk in that large group of people in the US who can't afford health insurance just die early from preventable disease?

[TylerDurden]

So what happens to things like preventative medicine if you don't have health insurance over there?
Do folk in that large group of people in the US who can't afford health insurance just die early from preventable disease?

Yes, but only after repeated visits to emergency providers, who by law cannot refuse service.

Those emergency costs are, in turn passed to paying healthcare consumers and taxpayers through raised taxes, rates and coverage restrictions. It is far cheaper to pay for wellcare, than to wait for extreme intervention.

So, we pay, regardless... but paying for mandated insurance with wellcare plans is much cheaper and millions more people will be covered with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

[Jeremy Harris]

So what happens to things like preventative medicine if you don't have health insurance over there?
Do folk in that large group of people in the US who can't afford health insurance just die early from preventable disease?

Yes, but only after repeated visits to emergency providers, who by law cannot refuse service.

Those emergency costs are, in turn passed to paying healthcare consumers and taxpayers through raised taxes, rates and coverage restrictions. It is far cheaper to pay for wellcare, than to wait for extreme intervention.

So, we pay, regardless... but paying for mandated insurance with wellcare plans is much cheaper and millions more people will be covered with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

That basic equation, that it's cheaper for society as a whole to provide "well care", or preventative medicine, than it is to pay for the consequences of not doing so, was one of the reasons for the establishment of our National Health Service back in 1948. At the time we set out to provide free care for all, irrespective of means, we were flat broke as a country and up to our ears in massive debt to the US (paying for all that support we had in WWII). We also had a shortage of working age men in good health and needed to get the country back into production quickly to pay off all the debt. The government of the day saw providing social and health care as one way of increasing productivity - keep people healthy and they work better and for longer, so manufacturing the goods needed to generate trade income and also increasing tax revenue. It was seen as a sort of virtuous circle, with no dis-benefits. The only objectors at the time were doctors, who saw the virtual removal of their freedom to charge whatever they wanted for their services as a threat, but the country as a whole was overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal, so the doctors who objected were forced into line.

I'm just thankful that I live where I do and don't have to face the unpalatable choices some in the US now face.

[salty9]

I suppose Obamacare will be ok for me as I now pay over 25% of income for health insurance. What really disturbs me is that the Reagan era mantra "Greed is good" has morphed into "God is greed" and is spreading to the rest of the world.

[Philistine]

This thread has been enlightening for me, because I now understand the issues with the insurance based model being thrust upon you guys.

This just keeps coming back to what I was saying about certain things being best provided by the state. As I stated earlier in the thread, I consider myself a libertarian, and will almost always prefer the smallest government possible, but health and education are simply two things that I believe should be state provided (at a minimum level of care).

I just don't see how anyone can argue with the healthcare model that is provided in Australia/Canada/UK. You can tweak the edges if you like (eg, the UK model is vastly more generous than the Aus model), but what they all share is the understanding that basic healthcare is a human right (as is at least basic education in my opinion). Who wants to live in a society that doesn't care for the basic health and education of its citizens? I just don't get it.

Our Medicare in Australia is funded with a 1.5% levy on your income (it just eats me up that I have to hand over 1.5% of my hard earned every year, just so every single one of my fellow citizens are cared for and I can access high quality medical care for next to nothing, regardless of my financial situation, it just chews me up - that was in 12 point sarcastic by the way)

When I hear US debates about state provided medicare, and I hear people screaming that it is "SOCIALISED MEDICINE" or "SOCIALISM" I just scratch my head. Yes, that is right, it is socialised medicine, because, as George Constanza would say "WE'RE LIVING IN A SOCIETY!"

[Ykick]

The boggling thing about our USA political process is that it can actually influence people to work against their own interests. Label it "Obamacare", throw some class/race fear on top and you get people worked up enough to ignore the fact Corporate health care is in it for HUGE, inhumane profits. Can you imagine if Police and Fire departments were allowed to operate that way?

I'm with my CA/UK/AU brothers and sisters as they've found efficient ways to take care of sick people. Can it be better? Of course, but obviously the current USA system is not the way to do it...

[salty9]

I can hear Jonn Cleese delivering this screed: "You bleeding heart liberals make me sick! Nattering on about the rights of man and human rights when the facts are - the rights of man are in my right hand which I use to write the checks that buy the Congress and Supreme Court, so take that and shove it up your Declaration of Independence"

[amberwolf]

Can you imagine if Police and Fire departments were allowed to operate that way?

They used to, a century or so ago. (at least in some places, here in the USA and possibly elsewhere).

[StudEbiker]

statism.jpg (34.37 KiB) Viewed 258 times

[Chalo]

Hark! What's that I hear?

Oh, it's just the sound of one pot cracking.

Chalo

[StudEbiker]

Hark! What's that I hear?

Oh, it's just the sound of one pot cracking.

Chalo

Did you stay up late thinking that one up?

[dogman]

Well, we got some things really frocked up here. And they have other things really frocked up elsewhere. I'm pretty tired though, of the division over abortion causing a rift that prevents any deals being made on other important stuff. Nobody dares to vote across the party line anymore.

It really is operating as dysfunctional as it did in the 1850's.

[Kingfish]

Too pregnant to pass up…

Some facts:

Once upon a time, the Democrats and the Republicans were of the same party.

The Democratic-Republicans were founded in 1791. The United States at that time was considered “Liberal”, and this party was no less, especially when compared to the rest of the world. The distinctions within the party coalesced between 1824 and 1832 over the power of the President verses the Legislature, or more to the point:

The power to create and manage welfare of the people by the people verses that which desires the return of elitism and/or monarchy to Government.

Republicans, as they began to call themselves during this time, absorbed factions of the defunct Federalist Party (Hamiltonians). After 1832, the divisions were solidified into the newly renamed Democrats and Whigs. Immigrants and farmers and common folk identified with Democrats whilst the Whigs recruited the well-to-do. In either case, both are liberal down to the marrow in ideology on the concept of Freedom which was completely foreign to reigning kingdoms dotting the world at this time. Understand that the only other world Democracy was France, and it had been perverted by the Napoleonic Wars, followed by periods of restorations to monarchy.

It’s important to comprehend the significance of Whigs: They were expansionists, and believed in balance in government, and national unity. Democrats on the other hand were for social, economic and moral modernization. We can read the differences clearly as subordination of the masses towards profit through private enterprise, and a National Bank to control the flow of commerce as a Whig priority. Conversely, Democrats believed in equality and opportunity with Freedom, and protection from exploitation.

The threat to Union came from within as the country approached the eve of the Civil War, and the issues that destroyed the Whig Party centered upon divisions within over Slavery. The modern Republican Party cleaved from the Whigs in 1854 and aligned itself against Slavery, becoming the 2nd oldest party in the United States… after the Democrats. To be fair, Republicans to this very day adhere to the essential Whig plank of pro-business, expansive, heavy industry, free-trade, powerful banking, with strong foreign policy (read: enforcement). The facts with regards to the Republicans is not a question of whether they are conservative because certainly some thrift must be involved to attain these goals, it is instead about conquest and hegemony. At the time of Reagan, Laissez-faire became a national objective, and it was thought to be achieved through popular adoption by offering tax incentives for the middle classes and by lowering taxes for the rich. This is the beginning of the end of relatively modest deficits (excluding times of war post-WWI).

The modern Democratic Party is today an amalgamation of social causes, popular activism, and policies of plurality, and includes Progressives, “Liberals”, and Libertarians (whether they like it or not). They have been called the party of radicals ever since Andrew Jackson killed the Second Bank of the United States. In reference to the Republican Party, Democrats promote “social liberalism” as opposed to “classic liberalism”, though some cut to the chase and simply call it Liberals verses Conservatives which is entirely inaccurate. Democrats are in many ways the diametric polar opposite of the Republicans within a narrowly defined spectrum, long favoring farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities, in addition to being against unregulated business, for affirmative action, for progressive taxation, and for common welfare. In the first half of the last century “conservative” elements within the party better resembled their Republican counterparts with fiscal responsibility and pro-business ideology; however this gave way after the election of FDR and with it the rise of socialism.

Both parties will claim to want a balanced budget and a strong defense; however the truth of the matter is that both parties are guilty of being subverted by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which is in itself another form of government-sponsored employment. In truth, neither party desires unemployment which is in itself bad for re-election: Following the example of FDR, our government spends loosely to purchase future profit at the expense of our children and their children… There is no accountability; they are both culpable. There was for once a brief glimmer, an open opportunity during Clinton’s Administration with a Republican-led House to have a balanced-budget and a plan to bail us out in 10 or so years; this idea though was jettisoned after 9/11.

There is no question world-wide that the previous Republican Administration adversely harmed American credibility with a phony war. Both parties are guilty of providing carte blanche and open coffers to overt corruption and profiteering beneficing the stakeholders of Halliburton et al. In description, I like the word “pillage”; it’s a little easier on the ears than calling it “bald-faced rape” of American’s fortune.

Through the intervening eight years in office, the Republicans take the House and systematically remove certain checks and balances of regulation to banking and finance and market oversight and mortgage brokerages… under the banner of “let free market reign” – and setting up the big plunder and meltdown just in time for the next sitting president; tank the economy so bad that with a good dose of obstructionism, no matter who was elected (albeit Hillary or Barack) come four years and the garlic & onions scented Republicans will be smelling sweet as rose again.

I don’t buy any of this horse. I don’t support a party with an agenda of obstruction (however both are guilty). I don’t support the nanny-like Democrats that tell me I must have insurance when I’m quite capable of paying my own way. I think that the National Health Care legislation was the wrong thing to focus on at this time when there are other pressing issues; however the blame is not 100% to Obama as much as it was a short-sighted Democratic politicking maneuver hammer-fisted up our arse by Pelosi & tribe.

Our Government has become so entwined with the MIC, Insurance corruption, Social Security insolvency and entitlements, investment fraud, and service to the National Debt when we’re not subsidizing farmers, giving away foreign aid to corrupt leaders, or otherwise lubricating the public for another porking Deliverance-style. Both of these parties have been around for at least 150 years, and they are both responsible for the misguided small-minded prosecution of privateering. Every now and then we have brilliant leadership, but for the most part, and especially following 9/11 – Government in this United States has been appalling. Citizens’ rights have been reduced. Corporations have been allowed to offshore. Our futures are diminished. And I would sack the lot.

Then comes reform. If my words aren’t banned by now, I have a plan for moving forward.

Ever so slightly motivated to improve the condition beyond passive, KF
PS - I have zero interest in attacking indivuals on this forum; it's a waste of time and I'd rather pound dirt. I will however offer opinion that is my own.