Has anyone seen these polls?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Hehe, I never called the American's who voted for Obama smart - I'm just happy they voted to my preference this time.

And I read the article...not sure it really says anything meaningful. I still think a lot of American's are buying into the idea that Obama is a communist or wants to burn all of their money. They think he has nationalized half the American economy.

You do realize that if single payer Healthcare Insurance is passed, as Pres. Obama has stated he preferred prior to his election, we would actually be kind of close to 50% (not really, but closer than we've ever been, probably about 25-20% at most).

- We've already nationalized/socialized America's largest employer - GM
- One of their competitors - Chrysler
- The legal contracts to their stakeholders were broken with no legal basis so that unions/labor could be paid first
- This government gives marching orders to every company that took bailout money
- And we're working towards nationalizing much if not all of our healthcare insurance, 1/6 of our economy.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with any of these decisions, they are at least socialist inspired in practice (GM), if not fascist (bailout money leading to company control/veto power). These policies meet the exact definitions of these ideologies.

So my questions is, is this whole socialism/fascism accusation getting old just because it's repeated ad nauseum, or is it repeated ad nauseum because it's getting more accurate over time?

Like a said during the election, I'm not saying that Pres. Obama is a socialist, but he believes in and has now instated many socialist and fascist policies. Maybe he believes these are necessary evils for these hard times and will work to unload this power he has assumed when the economy improves, but that does not redefine the nature of the policy. We can only judge someone based on what they do.

I tend to agree that critics need to get away from the word socialism, but not because it's not accurate. Because people dismiss you when you use the term.

[Vampyr]

I think that the health care debate is actually pretty hilarious. I saw an article recently that had a few picture of protesters. One had liberals protesting the war, and the other had conservatives protesting universal health care.

The idea that people are okay with spending money on killing other people (because America's tough and has to show them who's boss!) but would not be okay with their tax money being spent to help other people is just mind boggling.

I mean, I read all of these articles and opinions from people who are against health care. The reasoning is just so hard to understand. People don't want to support it because they don't want their hard earned money "wasted" on some poor person's health.

Other people say that they don't like it because they never go to the doctor, so they wouldn't benefit.

I just don't understand this line of thinking. I have never had to go to the doctor for anything serious - I've never even broken a limb or had a bad infection. But I support universal health care - I don't mind paying for other people, because I know if something bad ever did happen to me, those same people could be paying for me.

The level of selfishness involved with the argument against universal health care is just insane.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Well, lets that that chart in all seriousness if you like and pretend it is a true measurement of government control. If single payer universal healthcare is passed, that .21% figure would increase by about 8,000% (thats based on calculations, not hyperbole). Does that sound like capitalism to you, or something else that dare not speak it's name?

I mean, I read all of these articles and opinions from people who are against health care. The reasoning is just so hard to understand. People don't want to support it because they don't want their hard earned money "wasted" on some poor person's health.

If this is all you've taken from the debate, you aren't paying attention to what people are saying, here on this forum or elsewhere. This sort of "they hate poor people" or "they;re just greedy bastards" argument is so tiring and false, it becomes pointless to argue against because it's based more on faith than fact.

If you wish to create your own fiction to free yourself from thinking critically on such a complicated and impactful subject, feel free, but making such outlandish, pejorative statements about the opposition enlightens nothing.

[Vampyr]

You're failing to realize that the majority of average Americans really are against it for those reasons.

But enlightened me, why is universal health care a bad idea?

Just about every other nation that isn't a third world country has it, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

You're failing to realize that the majority of average Americans really are against it for those reasons.

But enlightened me, why is universal health care a bad idea?

Just about every other nation that isn't a third world country has it, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

1) I'm glad you and Bill Maher can speak for the average American who is against this.

2) As I stated, I and I know Bond have gone over it to the point of exhaustion. I'd ask you to do a forum search. Wouldn't be hard to find.

3) Well is a statement of relativity that we examine in point number two. Healthcare is a huge and complicated issue. The solution to every problem doesn't have to be "socialize it!" I'm more for re-regulation.

[Vampyr]

I'm just judging from my personal interactions with people I know and see from day to day. Maybe it has something to do with where I live, eastern Kentucky is not exactly a hub of social progression.

But since you guys have highlighted the evils of universal health care somewhere else and I don't want to track them all down and read them, I'll just pour through the reasons I think universal health care is good:

1. It would encourage people with long term chronic health conditions to seek care for something they may have been neglecting too because of cost.

2. France spends about $569 LESS per person for health care than the United States. France has universal health care, the US doesn't.

3. It would help get rid of evil insurance companies. I guess this is arguable, but I don't understand why health insurance companies have the right to invade your privacy on matters of your health.

4. Surveys have shown that the majority of Americans, both democrat and republican, would prefer universal health care to what we have now.

5. Administrative costs of the current US health system (overhead, paperwork) constitutes about 25% of health care spending in the united states. This is much, much higher than it is in other countries with universal health care.

6. In most cases it won't even raise your taxes!!! As it stands now, about 59% of the US health care system is funded by public money. About 20% is paid for by individuals, through deductibles, co-pays, the uninsured paying directly, etc. 21% is funded by private employers. In a new universal system all of that tax money being funneled into medicare/caid would be retained. Employers would pay about a 7% payroll tax, and people would pay a 2% income tax. The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For most people, that 2% is less than what they pay now for out of pocket expenses, especially if someone in your family is seriously ill.

Obviously, employers who don't offer any coverage will be paying more with this system, but most employers who do offer coverage will be paying -less-. People without insurance will be paying more, but people with insurance will be paying less.

As it stands now, about 47 million people are uninsured. Hundreds of thousands of people who actually are insured are still bankrupted when something serious happens.

7. Labeling it 'socialized medicine' is false, it's actually 'socialized healthcare'. The government doesn't own the hospitals or manage them, contrary to a popular belief.

8. It would increase competition among doctors for patients. Doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients just because they belong to a provider group. This would probably increase the quality of care since they would be competition for patients. Man, competition. That's almost a free market word!

9. America spends a much higher GDP on health care than any other country, but we have worse ratings on quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times.

10. Last but not least, regardless of what anyone says, health care is a basic human right.