Report Comment

That’s good to know. But then what happened to Michel’s posts???

Report Comment

“if you really think George Bush’s policys have been succesfull and Obama is flip flopping over Iraq then you truly are ignorant.”

I never said that Obama was flip flopping on Iraq, I said he was and did on Iran. Do not change my words around and call me ignorant for something I did not say.

And maybe we should give a liberal a chance but no way in hell will we ever give the most liberal person in the senate a chance ever.

Also read up about Iraq lately even though articles are hard to find because the liberal media doesn’t talk about it anymore as an issue because what McCain has said is right, so try to find a recent article and you will see how good things are there.

Report Comment

“Frank.. The economic and the foreign policys of Bush have not failed at all. The economy is coming back and Bush has always kept us plus for every 2 quarter cycle while he has been in office. We are doing great things in Iraq, that is why the liberal media has now stopped talking about it, why do you think Barack Obama doesnt bring up his stupid “100 year” misquote of John McCain anymore. Why is it that noone says how in Sadr City people walk the streets freely now with no signs of extremists and why is it that Sadr has moved into Iran. Which proves my point that McCain and Bush are right when they talk about Iran unlike the flip flopper Obama on that subject.”

With all due respect, if you really think George Bush’s policys have been succesfull and Obama is flip flopping over Iraq then you truly are ignorant.

You deserve another Bush term, maybe when the country is more unsafe and more in dept maybe you give will a liberal the chance to actually fix problems.

Report Comment

Report Comment

Report Comment

What is this? Why can’t differing but respecting viewpoints both be on this site? If that’s the way it is here, then you have just lost a supporter.

Report Comment

I do see your point, and though disagree, respect it completely. If a nationalized health care could work the way it should, I supposed I wouldn’t be as opposed to it (excepting the fact that big government in control makes me very nervous). It is just judging from our government’s performance with past programs, I don’t think the government would be a good choice to entrust such an important program to. I can see why people would support it though.

P.S. Canadian socialistic pig indeed, eh?

Report Comment

Again another example of an impetuous conservative. The reason that Michel doesn’t move to Canada, even though he admires their system and way of doing things, is mostly likely because he loves this country and is trying to change it for the better by modeling after something he approves of. Why is it when you disagree with someone they suddenly become anti-American?

Frank,

There are some conservatives I don’t understand either. However, I firmly believe in and champion the traditional conservative view. Why has it become the popular thing to say that Bush has failed when so many things are, in fact, going right? Obama_sucks was right when he said that the policies of Bush have not necessarily failed. The war in Iraq, while it can’t continue indefinitely and will eventually end, have produced amazing results. Unfortunately, many liberals in Washington declared the war lost even before these positive results were known. And now they need America to loose the war so that they can be “right.” It is sad ironic when America winning the war would hurt them politically; they need America to loose a war and still declare themselves as patriotic.

Obama does scare me, because I truly think he is sincere in what he says he’ll do. Namely, meet unconditionally with leaders of terrorist countries (which he has now flip-flopped on), create a national health care system, give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants (making it easier for more to come in and for terrorists get legal documentation), legalize the many illegal immigrants here in the states, create 57 states out of the current 50 (*joke*), etc. His naivety in national policy, his poor understanding of economics, and his policies on immigration, among many other things, are what scare me about Obama.

Report Comment

I feel the same say as you in that I do not want the government

to have too much control, and I am of the opinion that they would

not do a very good job if they were to be put in charge of health

care. I have already listed several government programs that,

although founded with the best of intentions for the good of the

people, have created an even greater economic burden for our

nation and that future generations will have to pay for.

As Michel said, we have some fundamental differences in our

points of view. However, I respect his opinion greatly, and he

brings out some very good and interesting points. I am very

conservative in my views, but I am glad that there are differing

opinions that make me think through and defend my views. The

problem with many conservatives, such as yourself, is that you

don’t take the time to truly contemplate different arguments,

however well presented and thought out, and immediatly jump to a

conclusion that sounds judgemental, rash, and ignorant. Michel’s

opinion, however much I may disagree with it, is one that he has

respectfully and articulately presented, and he deserves to be

respected for that. When will conservatives learn that the way

to present their views and perhaps convince others of them is not

through impeteuous criticism and benighted arguments?

Michel is perfectly correct to say that there all men are endowed

with certain unalienable rights, among them being life. There

are fundamental rights that we have and are righfully entitled to

precisely because we are part of a civilization and support a

central government through taxes and service. A police force is

one of those, and because I pay taxes and help to support them, I

certainly feel entitled to their services and help if and when I

might need it. You missed the point of the argument by taking it

too far and comparing Michels opinion to socialized mp3 downloads

and the like. Definitely not what he is promoting.

However, Michel, I have to agree with Nate that just because we

are entititled to life, that doesn’t mean that the government has

the responsibility of providing all life sustaining services.

Financial interests “interfere” with many life sustaining

services, food probably being the biggest. I would hate for the

government to take over the food industry and tell me what’s good

for me and what I can and cannot eat. The housing industry is

another example. What a disaster it would be if the housing

industry turned into a program similar to the Social Security

program.

In short, While I respectfully disagree with you, Michel, I appreciate your point of view and value your arguments along with the class with which you have presented them, Michel. Hope to talk to you again.

Report Comment

Frank.. The economic and the foreign policys of Bush have not failed at all. The economy is coming back and Bush has always kept us plus for every 2 quarter cycle while he has been in office. We are doing great things in Iraq, that is why the liberal media has now stopped talking about it, why do you think Barack Obama doesnt bring up his stupid “100 year” misquote of John McCain anymore. Why is it that noone says how in Sadr City people walk the streets freely now with no signs of extremists and why is it that Sadr has moved into Iran. Which proves my point that McCain and Bush are right when they talk about Iran unlike the flip flopper Obama on that subject.

Report Comment

Report Comment

Saying that health care is a “fundamental right” is insane. Who’s going to pay for it? Why do you or I have to pay for someone else’s health care? Why does someone have to pay for mine? When did everything in life become a “fundamental right,” it’s like we’re born into entitlement. Do we need socialized car insurance, socialized cell phones, socialized electricity, socialized life insurance, socialized housing, socialized vehicles, socialized computers, socialized landscaping, socialized mp3 downloads, socialized roof repair, socialized internet connections, what else do we need the government to do for us?

Beside that, anyone who advocates for socialized medicine misses the point that not everyone wants the government in control of health care. Michel, and other hardcore socialists, are fine with it, and good for them! What I find so hilarious is that they believe the federal government is some kind of murderous pirate yet they want George Bush in charge of their health care.

It’s insanity to argue both points. Then what about people who are mad at the Patriot Act because they feel they’re being spied on? Why do they feel it’s OK for the government to spy on their health care? Can someone answer that? Can someone rationally explain to me why they are distraught at the government listening to a phone call but are just fine with the government in charge of their health care?

You can’t have it both ways, you either think the government should be in charge or you don’t. People like Michel argue out of both sides of their mouths. They claim the Bush administration has overstepped it’s authority yet they are calling for more government authority in the area of socialized programs! Does that make sense? Is that not the dictionary definition of insanity?

The United States does not subscribe to the notion of socialized health care but several socialist countries do, try one of them out instead of trying to shove it down everyone’s throat.

Report Comment

We actually have lots of programs that are tax-payed and free. Thake the police force as an example. Why it is that we don’t have a private taskforce that could enforce the law?
It wouldn’t be right.
Many other interests would interfere with the actual work of that private police.
And one could argue that the Police takes care of the safety of the citizenship, of our safety, and we need that to be free. It is the government’s duty to take care of our safety.

That’s the same thing I think about the health care. Like security, it is a right. Health is the very supporter of life. And to make it completely privatized is to allow external interests (financial interests) to interfere with actual medical care.

Don’t take the Canada system as the counter proposal, if you don’t want. Take the French system. Our economy has been traditionally much better than France’s, and yet France has the #1 health care system in the world. And many many other social benefits that we americans couldn’t even dream of.

The question is, how can that be? Aren’t social programs doomed to failure? How come France has the best health care system in the world their’s is run by the government and ours is completely privatized?

That’s a question that needs answering.

Report Comment

This girl had to go to Canada, married by convenience, for health care, after an american insurance company denied her the insurance because they said she was “too young to have that kind of cancer”.

http://www.youtube.com/wa.....WXfTTATfYc

And this is a Canadian waiting room.

http://www.youtube.com/wa.....Q1lPPTPSR4

And this is a guy that lost almost all the fingers from his left hand and the Cnanadian surgeon DID NOT WAIT AT ALL to put them back.

http://www.youtube.com/wa.....re=related

Are these videos the whole truth? I’m sure they’re not. That’s exactly my point. It’s dumb to extrapolate a country’s whole medical system by just looking at a handful of examples.

And, if you want to marry a canadian to get their health care for life, you can go here:

http://www.hook-a-canuck.com

Take care.

Report Comment

Here is the link to the company that saved that guys life. Some interesting stats on there about how long it takes to get treatment in Canada.

Report Comment

Report Comment

Doctors treat you right away in Canada?

http://www.youtube.com/wa....._Rf42zNl9U

This guy had to come to the US to save his life.

Report Comment

Thanks for your posting, you bring up some interesting points. And I respect your point of view. We’re actually in a agreement on a lot of things: the need for an economy boost because of rising unemployment, the forecolosure crisis, etc. I just respectfully disagree on how to solve those problems. I believe that the best way to boost the economy is to encourage capitialism, not big government. Economic problems, whether from health care or rising oil prices, create a need for a solution. This need gives rise for opportunities for great entrepreneurs and innovators to create a solution and a niche in the economy. In this capitalistic way, most all of the great inventions we use today were created. The growing need for a solution gives rise to more entrepreneurs, who provide better ways to solve the problem, thus creating competition and a healthy economy.

I do not believe that you can compare the government to Wal-Mart. We are in no way obligated to shop at Wal-Mart, nor have to pay taxes to them. To me, that is what is so scary about the situtation you are promoting: when people expect the government (instead of a capitalistic economy) to solve every economic crisis that arises. Free Health Care would indeed create a sort of competition for private health insurance, but not a healthy competition. Many people would opt for the free health insurance, which we have no reason to expect would turn out any differently than any other government controlled program (Social Security, etc.). It is very possible that it will eventually be like the Canadian system, where some people are treated very well but many others wait weeks and months for approval and opportunity for medical procedures they need immediatly. The private health insurance industry cannot compete against a “free services” competition. They, in turn, will either go out of business, leaving only the government health care system (the exact opposite of a competitive economy – only one way to get a service is equivalent to a monopoly, and I hesitate to give anyone, especially the government, a monopolistic power over my health care), or they will have to guarantee immediate health care service to attract those consumers who do not want to wait. They will have to raise prices to cover their normal expenses, make a profit, and because their clientel will have diminished as most people opt for the free health care system. This will create the exact problem you want to avoid: only rich people get immediate and specialized health care service. And again you’ll want the government to intervene, leading to even bigger government with more control.

And then, what is next? The prices of surgeries and medical proceedures is not going down anytime soon. And with the trillions required to offer “free” health care to everyone (along with a growing national debt) we, as a nation, will not be able to pay for it all. So again, the government will have to step in to force lower prices for health care, saving everyone money, right? Doctors will make much less then, making the profession much less attractive for the intelligent, highly adept student. The quality, in turn, will decrease.

The “free” health care offered by the government is not free. As you say, “not only that you are paying for other people’s medical needs… is that someone else is paying for yours too.” That’s the whole point. And it’s not just health care that I’m talking about. That’s the whole rational behind a socialistic society. A forced equality that eliminates capitalism and competition, and is government controlled. See how well that served the USSR. See how well it is serving China. I most definitly do not want that here. A government run health care would eventually be a totality, not just an option, at least for anyone BUT the rich and powerful. In a competetive capitalistic economy, the need for profits pushes companies to provide results. That’s why it works.

Taking money away from the military to fund health care, I believe, is not the smartest idea. Especially with the growing threat of terrorrism. However, I agree wholeheartedly that all the pork must go. There is so much waste in the way things are now. That’s precisely why I don’t trust the government to take control of anything else (especially my health care!). All the excess and pork you listed must go. But we should use that to pay of the national debt and give back to the people to promote spending and stimulate the economy. Of course the war and the occupation must end, but not at the expense of our national security, and especially not at the expense of weakening our military and making us even more vulnerable to the terrorrist threat.

There is a very real need for a strong central government. But it is for governing. Not for controlling. There are huge cracks in our system. But socializing everything most definitely will not help. Returning to the roots and founding principles of our society is what will create a strong America for the future.

Thanks for the links, I’ll sure check them out. And thanks for the discussion. It is nice to hear and contemplate different points of view. It helps to analyze and think through problems and situations without ariving at a rash conclusion. I’ve been a long time reader but never commenter on this site. I’ll be sure to try and be more active.

Take care as well, Michel.

Report Comment

Report Comment