Capitalism is based on competition, and consumers compete for goods. The good we were discussing when I wrote what you quoted was healthcare. Healthcare is a good that consumers compete for. I think government should use its resources to level the playing field in this area because it is a good that everyone needs equally. Access to healthcare shouldn't be based on whether or not you can afford it, but if you need. There are many factors that exist in our society and economy that give some people more access to things that everyone needs than others. I think government should universialize/socialize healthcare so that the competition that occurs in a relatively free market doesn't leave out so many people for no other reason than that they can't afford it, for whatever reason. I don't however believe that doctors, as a whole, should have to work for the government. The "free" market should still exist, but those who want to opt out of the market, in this instance, should be given that opportunity.

I'm still curious on how the while balancing people's property rights thingy fits in. That statement sounds like some past failed scheme.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Sorry I didn't address that the last time around..."balancing people's property rights" meant not to ignore the rights of people to their personal property or ignore other peoples need for medical attention(in this specific case). This goes on all the time. Sometimes, property rights are pushed to the side for the betterment of society, sometimes to society's deteriment. The same happens with all our other rights. No right is absolute. You're not free to yell fire in a theater, an analogous example can be easily thought of in relation to property rights, guns rights, or any rights sanctioned by a government. The rights given to us in the Constitution should be balanced with the needs of our country.

...ignore the rights of people to their personal property or ignore other peoples need for medical attention(in this specific case) Ah okay

Getting back to the health care issue.

I think government should universialize/socialize healthcare so that the competition that occurs in a relatively free market doesn't leave out so many people for no other reason than that they can't afford it, for whatever reason.

I'm curious, what competition and free market do you see if the government socializes health care?

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Socialized Health Care is Marxist, and Obama is pushing for that.

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

I can only assume that "conservatives" think that anything a person is able to do for themselves---regardless of intelligence or pay--should not be done as a group, sponsored by the government.

Well, we could protect ourselves--not have an army.

Georgia could deal with China about trade---not Washington.

Interstate commerce could be handled by "buyer beware."

All states could build their own Interstate Highways---to where I don't know!

Airplanes could fly where ever they dang well pleased and just use Georgia controls---right!

Our GBI could handle all spys who come here without any gumment hep!

I could go on, but I want my appendage out when it busts, now--whether I got no money or what! I also want my babies to get first class treatment along with Jay Rckefeller's.

People can, as millions and millions of Americans do, support universial/socialized healthcare without accepting the tenents of Marxism, and, thus, without being marxist. Some people think that the current economic system has left a lot of the population's medical needs unaddressed. If thinking medical care shouldn't go to only those who can afford it is marxist, then America is full of marxists.

I doubt you really understand Marx's thought(few do) anyway. Take the opportunity to read what he wrote and then tell me if Obama is a Marxist. Also, give me an example of an action by Obama that is purely Marxist. Homework is good for you.

As one who does understand Marxism, I'll spot you that although I cannot brand Mr Obama as a Marxist, I will challenge the universal healthcare proponency with you. Currently, the US possesses the world's premier healthcare system that is agreeably imperfect. Few, if that, are denied care and most employed have access to above average care.

My challenge to you is to demonstrate to me how is it that it is my responsibility to pay for for care for those I do not know. Government at each level has proven itself time and again that it is incapable of running far less complex programs and should you care to examine but ten of the government run healthcare programs worldwide, I feel confident that you would conclude that what we have now is substantially above the others.

Like you I believe that all Americans have the right of the pursuit of happiness, but it is my contention that it not your right to have me fund your journey, nor you mine.

Just my two cents worth.

what criteria are you using when you state that we have the best health care in the world? Just wondering. Keep the faith.

Even a dead fish can go with the flow.

Another point rarely discussed that creates the constant bringing up of the fact that millions of Americans do not have health insurance, is that millions of others do have it--full coverage---at a very reasonable price or free! Seems un-American since the choices they have are charity or do without (or don't pay).
I venture to say that your coverage and cost is pretty reasonable even though you could pay more for yours, probably.
I know mine is good and it only costs my family about $5,000 a year. Why? Government pays part of it--in fact most of it. The coverage I have would cost approximately $14,000.00, and going up at about 10% per year.
We can all say we "earned" our insurance payments from the government or corporations, but they don't hire everyone, do they.
We won't even get into Medicaid (younger people with kids and no income or insurance). Oh, I know it is their own fault in all cases!

Taxes will end up paying for most of a universal system. Many people will pay some for premiums who now do not.
Also, we won't always be able to see a doctor in the first instance in the future---a medical technician will decide that at walk-ins.
There will be a decided salary decrease for many medical people, but more of them. It is in for a "change" as Obama says!
I doubt that your personal taxes will be any higher due to a health system. It would simply go for something else if not there! Wars for instance.
I fear, I think, the same thing you really do: the management will be screwed up! We need so many new jobs now that we have lost all manufacturing, that the job #1 nowadays is to create as many as possible.
However, we can not continue to have 15% not covered at all, much less poorly.
I just had two operations to fix one complaint to see if it would be better---two different ways to treat one ailment. If I had no insurance I would have only gotten one at most, and quite possibly a handful of OTC pills.
It is not fair Mike.

It is not your obligation to pay for the healthcare of those you don't know, however, it is in the best interest of all those who pay for health care that everyone else have healthcare. The benefits of universal healthcare, mainly more preventative care, less ER vists, etc, would help everyone involved. You pay for others healthcare in increased costs due to the lack of access to services that currently exist anyway. This can definitely be debated, but it makes sense and is the argument of many of universal healthcare's proponents...

What can't be debated is that the healthcare system, like the rest of our economic system, is also blatantly unfair. Many who never worked a day in their lives get great healthcare while others, who may have worked their whole lives, get none. There is no equal opportunity to access these services. This is a fundamental flaw of capitalism and the reason we have laws and programs that work towards equality (political and economic). I think equality of opportunity, not necessarily outcome, is a goal worth persuing with tax payer funds.

We have a right to LIFE, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, right? Inherent in LIFE is health. I think we can infer a right to adequate healthcare from that...

Regarding healthcare one of you comes across saying that the current system is unfair and the other believes that healthcare is indeed an inalienable right. First, allow me to remind you that life simply is not fair, so get over it.

Second, healthcare is not an inalienable right as you propose but is made available by the virtue of advanced understanding by mankind to preserve its existence. No one stands over you to insure you don't smoke or slaps your hand each time you reach for another cookie or even threatens you with bodily harm to take a walk or a workout at the gym. These are personal choices that do have consequences.

Is this fair? Certainly not, the same with life. Get over it!

Just my two cents worth.

Life is unfair, generally speaking. However, the way our ecomony and healthcare system runs is held in place by laws and customs that can be changed to be more fair. It not like these systems are product of nature. They can be changed to be made more fair, and they should. I'm sure your "life's unfair, get over it" attitude would change if you got sick and had no means to treat yourself or get help.

The second part of your comment fails to recognize that many health problems have nothing at all to do with how much or what you eat, but to things you can't help. Also, I think if you have the means to give everyone healthcare then it should be treated as an inherent right. I certainly don't think it should be given to only those who can afford it, and to hell with everyone else.

Life is unfair, generally speaking. However, the way our ecomony and healthcare system runs is held in place by laws and customs that can be changed to be more fair. It not like these systems are product of nature. They can be changed to be made more fair, and they should. I'm sure your "life's unfair, get over it" attitude would change if you got sick and had no means to treat yourself or get help.

The second part of your comment fails to recognize that many health problems have nothing at all to do with how much or what you eat, but to things you can't help. Also, I think if you have the means to give everyone healthcare then it should be treated as an inherent right. I certainly don't think it should be given to only those who can afford it, and to hell with everyone else.

Are you trying to tell me the choices folks make regarding their health or that of their offspring is of no personal fault? Overindulging in food, or "grazing" at the buffet lines while it has been some fifty years since taking a half mile walk, piercing ones veins for the purpose of getting "high", or purchasing that pack of cigarettes when one's offspring has yet to recieve a vaccination are examples of allowing the government to be the panecea for a huge portion of society.

The unfortunates in this culture are the children and it is they who should be the recipients of any governmental intervention as an escape plan to rise out of the culture of dependence.

I would opine that you are unaware of the magnitude of the benevelence of the American people. Yes, even old "hardcases" like myself give without compulsion time and again.

The major difference between you and I, as I see it, is that you concentrate upon the symptom while I perhaps seek out the cause.

Just my two cents worth.

Although I agree with some, not all, of your points on this particular topic,I have to disagree on the "purchasing that pack of cigarettes when one's offspring has yet to receive a vaccination" section. I have never smoked and am in excellent physical condition at 40++ years old. My "offspring" has NOT BEEN VACCINATED and will only do so if they so choose to in the future. Some, if you were not aware, do not get their children vaccinated.....this is done for their children's health and safety. Refer to Hannah Poling (of GA) case for further clarification on this.

"Picture a bright blue ball, just spinning, spinnin free,
Dizzy with eternity.
Paint it with a skin of sky,
Brush in some clouds and sea,
Call it home for you and me.
A peaceful place or so it looks from space,
A closer look reveals the human race.
Full of hope, full of grace
Is the human face,
But afraid we may lay our home to waste."

"once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"

"listen to the thunder shouting, "I AM, I AM, I AM"

;>} Have a grateful day ;>}

Thanks for pointing out that my analogy was lacking. Better stated would have been "the purchase of a pack of cigarettes over that of a new article of kids clothing" or something more of that line. My apology for not thinking that one through prior to posting.

Your decision regarding vaccinations is obviously well in consideration of facts and the risks involved.

Just my two cents worth.

I never said that they way people live there lives has no impact on their health. What I said is that many people suffer from diseases and sicknesses that have nothing to do with the life they lived or choices they make. Maybe they were raised in a toxic environment or were born with a genetic predisposition or a host of other possiblities. Obviously, people's choices affect their health, but not all sickness is related to lifestyle.

The main difference between you and I is that you refuse to recognize that our healthcare system can be made more fair. If it can be made more fair, with more people in better health, then it should be, period. The bottom line is that your ability to have access to quality healthcare shouldn't rest on the fact that you have money. You should have access if you are sick.

Socialized medicine will take America down a very slippery slope.

Let's say that I drive an 18 year old beater to work that breaks down just about every day, due to no fault of my own.

But ol' Mike over there drives a brand new Beemer. That's not fair!
Mike should be forced to sell his car since he could take the money and buy 2 Kia's and give one to me.

Now, everyone is happy and driving brand new cars, right?

Better yet, how about the house I live in? Let's say that I live in a two-bedroom shack with my wife and 3 kids, due to no fault of my own, but you live in a 4 bedroom house and only have 2 kids.

What's fair about that? You should sell your house, give some of the money to me, and then we could both go out and buy 3 bedroom houses. Now, we're getting somewhere!

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

Fallacy #1)Just because we socialize medicine doesn't mean we have to or will socialize any other part of our economy...Using the phrase "slippery slope" pretty much gives away that particular fallacy.

Fallacy #2)You are comparing apples and oranges. I think health and healthcare are on a very different level than OWNING YOUR OWN PERSONAL car and/or house. Your analogy is way off. No one NEEDS to own their own personal car or house, they need a way to get around and a place to stay, but they don't have to own their own for these needs to be met.

Also, the fact that one person may have a beemer and some one else a pinto isn't what most people think is unfair. What's unfair is an unlevel playing field. If one person has a beemer because they were born into money and the other a pinto because he was born poor, that's unfair. Of course people can come from nothing and have a nice life through hard work, but, if you look at the data, that usual dosn't happen. A level playing field makes all the difference (equality of opportunity, not outcome).

Oh, yeah, you never addressed the stuff from the other posts.

The cars aren't the issue...I used Mike's bad analogy because it's the one he used. Forget the car analogy, even though it does display unfairness ("life"), and instead use access to healthcare. Boo-hoo, I get to suffer from a disease or go into debt fighting while someone else, by no work of their own, has no worries about healthcare. That is unfair and the government can level this playing field, and if a Democrat is elected president, it most likely will.

This is a fundamental difference between many people's political philosophy. I think the government should work to make certain fields of competition as level as possible while balancing people's property rights. Equality, in many senses, is a big concern for lots of people (like me). For others, you're either born with it or you're not.

What's unfair is an unlevel playing field. If one person has a beemer because they were born into money and the other a pinto because he was born poor, that's unfair.

"Unfair?" That has nothing to do with "fairness" whatsoever. I guess if you're a diehard socialist it would be, but to the rest it's called LIFE. Ahhhhh...someone was born into riches and someone else wasn't, Boo-hoo. Big Brother give me the other guy's BMW or make him buy a Pinto! And, when you get a chance, his health insurance, bank accounts, wife, and anything else than can be seized.

There is no such a "level playing field" in life because you will always have people who will be successful and those who won't be anywhere close and will actually be a drain on everyone else. There are a lot of reasons why and no amount of social engineering or lame whining will change that. If you took away every millionaire's money and re-distributed it all to the poor, in about a year most of the newly-broke millionaires would become millionaires again and the newly-enriched would be flat busted again. Life, it happens.

I voted for him too:) Hope he runs again in the near future.

Mike, you need to spend some time at Grady emergency some time--at least a couple of hours for a week, to see just who there, in great numbers, has the ability to make all of those middle and upper class decisions you seem to think we all should make!
You apparently have lived a very sheltered life where so many things available to you all of your life are not available to a large segment of our population.
The sunset finally set on the great British empire when they also forgot that those they were managing were incapable of being British! Finally they ran the British off from their land. Just as has the middle eastern countries done for 7000 years!
If we leave such a large segment in hell, we will also pay someday. Maybe soon!

I have no need to visit Grady as the issues and dilemmas they face are born from the culture to which it has become since around 1965. You create a segment of society that is totally dependent upon what others or agencies can do for them, Grady is what you get. Can this be fixed overnight, certainly not, but it can be remedied by a "helping hand" mentality vice that of a continuous "handout".

I ignore your reference to my "sheltered" life and would challenge you to cite those things available to me that are unavailable to the population segment of which you refered. This "hell" as you describe is not beyond hope.

On a side note, if you think that the sun has set on the British Empire, I would suggest that you research a little conflict back in the eighties with Argentina.

Just my two cents worth.

Are you here for a reason, or do you just like to hear yourself talk?

---------------------------------------
If Barack wins, America loses.........

anger management classes, yoga, maybe even zoloft for what ails you.

I appreciate the recognition of my existance. I am here for a reason, thank you again. My recent posting to bpr was legitimate, in that I did not see one word from her on that post.

So, what happens if McCain wins? God opens up the heavens and thanks us all for not electing the communist, muslim, infanticide loving anti-christ? You guys are out of control with this stuff.

The truth is that you can argue about Obama and McCain all day long.
However, if you want to make changes, it has to start locally.

As Tip O'Neal said....All politics are local.

the only way to change the political culture, and get the candidates we, as people, want to have is to change how the voters view government and government officials. Before Diebold, I used to tell students that the one thing these "politicians" cannot do is put themselves into office...they require us to do that for them. When we finally understand THAT, then and only then will the system change into what it is supposed to be. Keep the faith.

Even a dead fish can go with the flow.