Goodbye, middle class

[chrisdfw]

Health care crisis is only gong to get worse. We need a public option -- everyone should have the option to buy the exact same health insurance as congress -- at the exact same price they pay. That would force them to find a real solution. However, a bigger problem that no one wants to talk about is given the huge growth of obesity in this country demand for health care services is going to outstrip supply. We should be taxing fast food, junk food, alcohol and tobacco to help offset some of these increased costs.

I agree obesity is a problem, but I disagree on the solution. We have too much health care in this country, not too little. We spend far too much torturing patients in the last few years of their lives. Surgery to remove cancers from a 90 year old is generally counterproductive. At some point we all die and we need to consider all the recent studies that show advances medical care for the elderly actually shortens their life spans. We try heroic measures and spend countless dollars and all we accomplish is to fill them sooner. People in this country take pills for everything and it does nothing to improve their lives in many many cases. We need more "health care" and less medical treatment. Everyone focuses on the wrong thing.

We were never supposed to have a democracy. In a democracy 51% of the people can vote to steal from the other 49% and that is what is largely happening in this country. Who the 51% and who the 49% changes from election to election, but whatever special interest wins rapes the american people. In the next election it reverses and the rapists become the victims. That is not what we are supposed to have, we are supposed to have a republic where the rights of the minority are protected from majority rule. Everyone wants to get their guy elected to have the congress pass a law and give them some special benefit that nobody else gets. Ethanol subsidies, food stamps, carbon taxes, wall street bailouts, section 8 housing, fha mortgages, GM bailouts, R&D credits, solar subsidies, postage hikes, union rules, pension bailouts, the list is endless. Our conntry is supposed to be a country of laws to protect our rights, not favor one american over another.

I don't care that welfare benefits are a small slice of the budget, I am against taking money from one american and giving it to another. That is a private benefit. Having a military that defends us is a public good that protects everyone, giving an ethanol subsidy to a farmer in Kansas at the expense of a consumer in Louisiana is another example of a private benefit. I just ask that congress stop providing private benefits and go back to being a constitutional republic where the rights of everyone is protected, not the outcome, just set a fair set of rules upfront and let everyone play by them. Never gonna happen, too many people vote to have the government steal money from me to feed them.

The government decides who to take money from and who to give it to, that is immoral in my opinion. Providing a public good is the only reason government should be taking my money, there is no public good in distributing my money to anyone else, whether that person be a wall street crook or a food stamp recipient or a farmer in kansas. None of it is a proper use of the force of government.

As you suggest I am worried about our deficits, but I see the answer as massive, huge, spending cuts. A complete gutting of the federal government in favor of limited government that sticks to its constitutional charter. And certainly a repeal of the income tax. There was a very good reason the constitution did not provide for an income tax, to avoid the very serious growth of government we have observed over the last 100 years.

[banca rotta]

Christmas Card From Bernanke, Geithner, Bush, Obama & Jim Cramer

I was going to start a new thread for this funny video but it's more appropriate under the "goodbye middle class" thread.


Anyway Merry Christmas and enjoy this from the leaders of the financial destruction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=443Dt5uJsp0

[shark66]

With all due respect to the ones holding the opposing opinion from my own, "nationalized healthcare" as seen in most of the Europe and Canada just plain sucks.

I've lived in more than one of these countries and I've witnessed it first hand. Let me elaborate just a bit.

Accessibility of high-cost treatments is all the rage with proponents of such systems. Here, an insurance company will simply drop you like a hot potato in certain cases and call it a day. Over there, you'll end up on a waiting list that is long enough for you never to receive a timely treatment.

Here in the U.S. you might be lucky enough to be able and put a second or third mortgage on your house to pay for such a treatment. Should you recover, you'll either repay the debt or file BK. If you have access to funds, the treatment becomes accessible.

No such option exists across the pond if you're to stay within the system. Namely, you may be able to replicate the above scenario, but you'll still end up spending that second mortgage on a treatment in private clinic, wherever it may be located...


Now, why on earth would you want to tax junk foods, tobacco and alcohol to pay for such a lame scheme? Unless you're Mike Bloomberg and use your wealth to impose your beliefs and personal views on ten million other people...

Secondhand smoke is a stunning example of junk science at its worst, as is global warming in Al Gore's rendition. The only difference is that smokers don't share as many grounds with rich special interests willing to fight an expensive battle required...

[WhatMoney]

With all due respect to the ones holding the opposing opinion from my own, "nationalized healthcare" as seen in most of the Europe and Canada just plain sucks.

Secondhand smoke is a stunning example of junk science at its worst, as is global warming in Al Gore's rendition. The only difference is that smokers don't share as many grounds with rich special interests willing to fight an expensive battle required...

I have many friends living in the UK, France, and Canada. None of them agree with your Opinion on their healthcare system. Most fear traveling to the US because of our expensive and discriminatory so-called system.

Your Opinions on second-hand smoke and global warming tell me that none of your Opinions are worth listening to. 99% of all scientists and doctors disagree with your opinions. You are just hitting on the usual extremist right-wing talking points in this thread - thank dog you minority wingers are not in charge of anything important in this country.

[msm859]

With all due respect to the ones holding the opposing opinion from my own, "nationalized healthcare" as seen in most of the Europe and Canada just plain sucks...... Over there, you'll end up on a waiting list that is long enough for you never to receive a timely treatment.

Now, why on earth would you want to tax junk foods, tobacco and alcohol to pay for such a lame scheme? Unless you're Mike Bloomberg and use your wealth to impose your beliefs and personal views on ten million other people...

2 reasons. 1. is to deter unhealthy lifestyles. 2. Is to help offset the extra costs those unhealthy lifestyles are going to cost all of us.
What do you think is going to happen to this country with the increasing obesity epidemic? Soon demand for medical services is going to outstrip supply. We already have universal health care here. It is called if you have no insurance go to the ER at the local hospital and get the most expensive health care possible. I want the least expensive most efficient system. If you live an unhealthy lifestyle that is your choice but I should not have to pay for it. No one doubts obesity is a serious health issue. Taxing stuff that leads to it is the only way I can think of to help offset the extra costs. If you have a better idea I am all ears.

As to second hand smoke, junk science, seriously? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking. I don't even have to read that to know. I have immediate physical reactions if a heavy smoker simply walks into my office. Again, I don't care what you do if it has zero effect on me. Once it does start effecting me I care.

[shark66]

Name-calling and attempts of political (dis)qualification without addressing the core issues discussed really serve no useful purpose, but that's just my opinion. One of those not worth listening to, that is.

I also have many friends in European countries who believe that their healthcare system is as good as it gets. Having experienced both, I choose to disagree.

One of the problem with today's science is that you can find a "scientist" with an impressive title and CV/resume willing to prove whatever you want them to as long as they get petty cash for their projects...not too many Flemings nowadays, I'm sorry to say.

If you're old enough to remember the times when everyone and their grandmother were smoking in their houses and around their kids, you should know that by "laws" of the secondhand-smoke-fear-mongers we should all be dead.

Consequently, if you remember the horrible predictions on AIDS in Africa from 1980s, you know that the continent in question should not be populated at all. Everyone should be dead by now.

None of the above is true. But wait, that's just more right-wing extremism on my part...

[Meatstick]

shark, on these forums your just going to have to get used to those who don't agree with you trying to politicize and paint with a wide brush. They must live one bitter life with the current buffoon in office.

[WhatMoney]

One of the problem with today's science is that you can find a "scientist" with an impressive title and CV/resume willing to prove whatever you want them to as long as they get petty cash for their projects...not too many Flemings nowadays, I'm sorry to say.

If you're old enough to remember the times when everyone and their grandmother were smoking in their houses and around their kids, you should know that by "laws" of the secondhand-smoke-fear-mongers we should all be dead.

Consequently, if you remember the horrible predictions on AIDS in Africa from 1980s, you know that the continent in question should not be populated at all. Everyone should be dead by now.

You continue to express opinions based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. Everything you wrote above IS right out of the right-wing/libertarian playbook. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck it probably is a duck. My opinion of you is based solely on what you write in this forum. And your opinions place you squarely in the right-wing denialist camp that includes denial of global warming causes, smoking health concerns, etc.

Why don't you read the Wiki article on second-hand smoke msm89 referenced? You might learn something useful.

As part of its attempt to prevent or delay tighter regulation of smoking, the tobacco industry funded a number of scientific studies and, where the results cast doubt on the risks associated with passive smoking, sought wide publicity for those results. The industry also funded libertarian and conservative think tanks, such as the Cato Institute in the United States and the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia which criticised both scientific research on passive smoking and policy proposals to restrict smoking. These industry-wide coordinated activities constitute one of the earliest expressions of corporate denialism. Today, not all criticism comes from the tobacco industry or its front groups: building up on the disinformation spread by the tobacco industry, a tobacco denialism movement has emerged, sharing many characteristics of other forms of denialism, such as HIV-AIDS denialism.

Your "everyone should be dead" conclusions shows you have no understanding of statistics or of actual medical studies. What percentage of Africans by country have died of AIDS since 1980? There have been massive efforts toward sex education and availability of cheap drugs to help contain the African AIDS problem. I don't care what you think you are, your views come straight from right-wing talk radio and TV, and the hundreds of far-right blogs on the Internet. They are ALL sources of disinformation, distortions, and outright lies.

[shark66]

Before I exit this thread for good, since it's getting way too personal for my liking...

@WhatMoney:

You obviously believe that anyone who chooses to disagree with you is a right-wing nut. If that makes you feel better, go for it.

The day I decide to learn something from a Wikipedia article will be the day I hang myself from the nearest utility pole.

There's plenty of opinions - scientific may I add - opposing your own on all the aforementioned topics if you choose to dig deep enough for them to surface.

I have no problem hearing out the other side.

I do, however, have a huge problem when the other side decides to tell me who I am, and what I stand for when they have absolutely no clue about any of that.

That being said, your mileage on this forum is much higher than mine and therefore I'll bow out of this discussion.

Enjoy the holiday season.

[WhatMoney]

The day I decide to learn something from a Wikipedia article will be the day I hang myself from the nearest utility pole.

And that attitude is exactly what I am talking about. In any case, we agree to disagree.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

[helpmeout]

Secondhand smoke is a stunning example of junk science at its worst, as is global warming in Al Gore's rendition. The only difference is that smokers don't share as many grounds with rich special interests willing to fight an expensive battle required...

The facts about secondhand smoke is not junk science. I lived it. With chronic (and constant) bronchitis. Common in households with secondhand smoke (my mom smokes). I still have breathing problems today thanks to her addiction as does my brother. The other three siblings, well, they followed my mother's poor example. And smoke. Which doesn't surprise me, children of smoke addicts (and that is what they are) have a greater chance of smoking.

Smokers don't stand a chance of getting smoking in public places allowed again for which I am very glad about. They simply do not have the right to force everyone else around them to smoke in a public place. Nothing we can do about the helpless kids of smoke addicts who are subjected to their parents addiction.

[chrisdfw]

I hate smoke for the record, but most of the so called public places are not public places at all. Like most restuarants, they are privately owned, and the decision of whether or not to allow smoking should be made by the property owner. If I don't like their choice (I hate smoke) I don't eat there. But people who dislike smoke should not get to tell a PRIVATE property owner what they can or can't allow ontheir property as long as it is legal (lets not have an illegal explosives manufacturing debate).

Smoking should probablynot be allowed in true public places like courthouses, public schools, etc. But for private property (that people consider public places) the property owner or lessee (subject to the terms of the lease) should get to decide, and we get to decide whether or not to go there. That is how the free market and private property is supposed to work. I have to tolerate things I don't like, that is the price of freedom. In exchange I get to decide what I do on my property.

That is the fundamental difference between those who believe in freedom and those who do not.
I believe that if I don't like smoke, I don't smoke or go to places that allow it, but the anti-freedom people want smoking banned.
I believe if you don't like guns, don't buy one, anti-freedom people want guns banned.
If I want to help the poor, I donate to the poor, anti-freedom people want the government to force me to give my money to the poor (and rich banker, large corporations, public radio, .......)
If I don't like Rush Limbaugh, I don't listen, the anti-freedom people want to have "equal time doctrines" to get him off the air.
If I don't like pornography, drinking, prostitution, etc, I don't buy it or watch it, anti-freedom people want it banned.
If I don't like fatty food, I don't eat it (mmmm bacon), anti-freedom people want it taxed, banned, and regulated.

This isn't partisan, obviosly there are anti-freedom people in both parties (almost all of them). But if you want the government to step in and support your cause, you need to consider what happens when power may shift, and the things you enjoy are the next things banned. Republicans that want to push morality need to be prepared when the double edged sword of government steps in and attacks their sacred items. Liberals that want to tax and ban fast food, need to consider when the head of censorship may attack those things they hold dear.

Everyone should think about whether they want freedom, Most of the talk I see suggests people here do not. (which makes this place much like the rest of the country)

[msm859]

......

Smoking should probablynot be allowed in true public places like courthouses, public schools, etc. But for private property (that people consider public places) the property owner or lessee (subject to the terms of the lease) should get to decide, and we get to decide whether or not to go there. That is how the free market and private property is supposed to work. I have to tolerate things I don't like, that is the price of freedom. In exchange I get to decide what I do on my property.

That is the fundamental difference between those who believe in freedom and those who do not.
I believe that if I don't like smoke, I don't smoke or go to places that allow it, but the anti-freedom people want smoking banned. Whose "freedom" is being limited. We now have many designated smoking sections -- I don't go there. Your way would limit my freedom to go any place were people could "light up" without warning.

I believe if you don't like guns, don't buy one, anti-freedom people want guns banned. If you are a law abiding citizen I don't have a problem with you buying guns. I do want regulations so not anyone can buy them and then go on a shooting spree.

If I want to help the poor, I donate to the poor, anti-freedom people want the government to force me to give my money to the poor (and rich banker, large corporations, public radio, .......) Look at the preamble to the Constitution for which this country was founded -- to promote the "general welfare". You are free to live someplace else. But the majority of people in this country (and elsewhere) believe that in a civilized society you have to consider the welfare of all of the people.
If I don't like Rush Limbaugh, I don't listen, the anti-freedom people want to have "equal time doctrines" to get him off the air. I don't listen to him either. Don't know of any efforts to get him off the air.
If I don't like pornography, drinking, prostitution, etc, I don't buy it or watch it, anti-freedom people want it banned. I agree with you. Actually I think CA should turn Alcatraz Island into sin city and tax it. Would probably take a big dent out of the budget deficit.
If I don't like fatty food, I don't eat it (mmmm bacon), anti-freedom people want it taxed, banned, and regulated. I just want it taxed. You may be free to eat it. But why should I have to pay for it (Not quite sure why you don't agree with me on this?). People with an unhealthy diet/obesity are going to use more health services -- costs the taxpayer more money, as many are uninsured. Why should everyone else have to pay for their lifestyle choices?

This isn't partisan, obviosly there are anti-freedom people in both parties (almost all of them). But if you want the government to step in and support your cause, you need to consider what happens when power may shift, and the things you enjoy are the next things banned. Republicans that want to push morality need to be prepared when the double edged sword of government steps in and attacks their sacred items. Liberals that want to tax and ban fast food, need to consider when the head of censorship may attack those things they hold dear.

Everyone should think about whether they want freedom, Most of the talk I see suggests people here do not. (which makes this place much like the rest of the country)

As I have said before, I don't care what you do as long as it has zero effect on me. However, once it starts negatively impacting my life, then I do have a say. Like riding motorcycles without a helmet. If you had insurance that would cover 100% of any injury, then I wouldn't care if you wore a helmet or not. However, I don't want to have to pay for stupid. No one has the "freedom/right" to harm others. A property owned does have the right to determine if someone can smoke at their house or not. A business owner though does not have a right to subject their employees to dangerous conditions that are not part of the job. A person desperate for a job is not going to tell the boss, "I can't work here if you allow smoking". The business owner is not free to hire children, pay any wage they want etc. There has to be rules otherwise we know throughout history that abusive practices will prevail. "Free market" does not mean NO rules. It means everyone should have to play under the SAME rules.
I agree with you on the destruction of freedom in this country. The Patriot Act is patently unconstitutional, yet most people don't give it a thought. The "war on terror" is being used as an excuse to try to take away a lot of our freedoms -- exactly what the terrorists want.

[helpmeout]

Privately owned but OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Therefore, it is a public place. And, thankfully, are under the jurisdiction of the non-smoking laws.

Actually, it's the anti-freedom people who want smoking allowed in public places. They think that they should have the right to force everyone else to smoke, as well. All of the chemicals that are in the cigarette are in the smoke. And in a public place, everyone who breathes it in, is smoking. Whether they wanted to or not.

[chrisdfw]

General welfare - at the time of the founders this was generally assumed to be constrained by the powers specifically granted to the federal government, meaning they are to create money, regulate trade amongst the states (interstate commerce), and raise an army in order to promote the general welfare clause. When the government is creating welfare programs they do so under their authority to regulate interstate commerce although most reasonable constitutional scholars see that as a big stretch, but it doesn't matter to those that promote that kind of thing, they jsut don't care. This was never meant to be a country of majority rule, it was meant to be a nation of laws, with the constitution being the supreme law, unfortunately it has been trampled on by majority rule. The constitution was meant to protect minority rights, and right now, we have a minority of the people paying for social benefits for the majority. Almost half the wage earners in this country pay ZERO federal income taxes. We continue to move towards more and more people taking the wages of fewer and fewer people to pay for their stuff.

As for the fatty food, I am mixed on this one, if I have to pay for the health care of obese people, then yes, perhaps it should be taxed, but not for everyone, just the overweight people. Maybe we can just tax people by bodyfat percentage, that would be far more effective. The truth is, if I had my way I would not be paying for anyone else's healthcare, so I would not need to get involved in how they choose to eat. I should not pay for anyone's healthcare, so I should not get involved in what they eat or whether they choose to wear a helmet, wear a condom, go skydiving, have homosexual relations, or any other high risk behavior, its would not be my business if we weren't so involved in their healthcare.
So MSM859, I don't object to taxing people to pay for their healthcare, as long as it doesn't favor some choices over others, I object to having a system where we pay for their care at all. I don't believe there is any moral authority for the government to force me to hand over tax money to pay for someone else's care. Why fatty foods, liquor, and cigarettes, why not extra-marital sex? Why not living in a high crime area? Driving or riding in a car without airbags? It never ends, but it could end if we just stopped getting involved in providing for the health care (really disease care, but that is a different issue) of others.

I think the anti-smoking debate if focusing on the freedom of the wrong people. I don't give a damn about people coming to eat in a restuarant or go into a store, ITS NOT THEIR STORE, smoker or non-smoker, it doesn't matter to me. I care about the owner. The owner should get to choose whether they have a smoking section, non-smoking section, all smoking, all non-smoking, etc. I would choose to go to place that are non-smoking only, I can't stand smoke. But the choice should be left in the hands of the property or business owner!, not you, not me, not smokers, not non-smokers. If people don't like smoking, then the businesses that don't allow it will prosper and more will choose to switch. That is free market, and that is freedom for the person that matters in all this, the business or property owner.