John McCain on Health Care
February 21st, 2008 at 09:24am Mark Noonan
We’ve had our little lefties coming in here to tell us that Obama has detailed plans for everything, while McCain has no real plans at all. I’ve been over to Obama’s website plenty of times looking for these details and have never found them. But, then again, even if he had them, they’d just be a bunch of leftist Tom-foolery - so, who cares? Meanwhile, our John McCain has been hit often enough with the bogus charge of “no plans” - and so, we’re going to start highlighting parts of John McCain’s plan for America.
While McCain’s health care plan is rather filled with great ideas, one has really struck me was worthwhile on both its economic and social aspects:
Allow individuals to get insurance through any organization or association that they choose: employers, individual purchases, churches, professional association, and so forth. These policies will be available to small businesses and the self-employed, will be portable across all jobs, and will automatically bridge the time between retirement and Medicare eligibility. These plans would have to meet rigorous standards and certification.
I like that - we can organize our parish to buy health insurance for members…helping out the poorer members, providing the sort of care we need (rather than some DC-run, top-down Hillbama monstrosity) and, most importantly, taking our health care out of the hands of either employers or bureaucrats and putting it in our own hands. You know - acting like adults who take care of all the difficult things on their own. One of the odder things of modern life is the way people want 200 channels to choose from on TV, but seem willing to sign over the really important stuff - health care, education of their children, etc - to bureaucrats of one sort or another. What would really be cool is to do a survey of the parish and find out if we’ve got enough health care providers to take care of us - and we then work out a health care cooperative using our own people to take care of our own.
You see, the fundamental problem with modern life - the basis of all the other problems we have - is the atomization of the family and the local community. In our world, we move around constantly, never get to know our neighbors and ever more neglect the really important things in life (family and locality, eg) until, now, we find ourselves in a disintegrating society where, in a foolhardy (yet understandable) act of self-defense we demand that the government step in to provide the order and support which used to spontaneously grow out of family and community. Anything which tends to strengthen the family as against society and the locality as against the national is something to be encouraged - we must have a national government to protect us from foreign attack and internal subversion, but beyond that the scope of national government should be very limited…and certainly shouldn’t involve itself in such things as health care for the citizens. It is a very long road to get from here to a properly governed society - but any step in the right direction is a step we should take, and McCain has hit upon one such step in his health care plan.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
106 Comments
1. Some Assembly Required | February 21st, 2008 at 10:01 am
“I’ve been over to Obama’s website plenty of times looking for these details and have never found them.”
Mark,
This truly proves you are an idiot if you cannot find them. He has a tab on the front page of his website called ‘Issues’ which gives all his policies. If you could not find this I truly feel sorry for you sir.
“Allow individuals to get insurance through any organization or association that they choose: employers, individual purchases, churches, professional association, and so forth. These policies will be available to small businesses and the self-employed, will be portable across all jobs, and will automatically bridge the time between retirement and Medicare eligibility. These plans would have to meet rigorous standards and certification.”
This is vague to say the least. Whose “rigorous” standards? Surely not governments because that would be socialist. Also, I fail to see how this is any different then the system that is already in place.
Instead of the evil government we should entrust our healthcare and well being with the congregation. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t trust sending my kids alone to church on sundays, let alone the well being of my family if they get sick.
2. Sunny | February 21st, 2008 at 10:01 am
But, then again, even if he had them, they’d just be a bunch of leftist Tom-foolery - so, who cares?
Mark
That is being very open minded Mark. If Obama’s plan just happened to be the most perfect plan for the United States, you would critize it. I never cease to be amazed a your bias and inability to be fair.
3. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 10:30 am
Sunny,
You don’t understand - Obama can only possibly get it right by accident; he’s a liberal, and liberalism is based upon a false premise, and thus gets it wrong almost all the time. If there is something wise and useful in Obama’s plan, then its not intentional on Obama’s part at all but simply for lack of something intrinsic to liberalism to put in its place.
4. navydad | February 21st, 2008 at 10:37 am
Mark
Ignorance is curable…stupidity isn’t. As witnessed in SAR’s (funny how it is a desease..that SARs) #1 comment.
Barry’s cures as posted on his site:
Improve Mental Health Care. Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses are provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases.
Protect Our Children from Lead Poisoning. More than 430,000 American children have dangerously high levels of lead in their blood. Lead can cause irreversible brain damage, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma and death. As president, Obama will protect children from lead poisoning by requiring that child care facilities be lead-safe within five years.
So SAR’s how will he accomplish these feats? No where on his “issues” page does he lay out detailed remedies, only issues symptomatic of the Pied Piper syndrome that are convining to…his herd of lemmings.
5. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 10:38 am
SAR,
I know you think there are details over at Obama’s website, but there aren’t. Here is Obama’s plan (which I have in my “favorites”, ’cause I’m actually interested in what Obama wants to do, because its important for the nation that all voters inform themselves of such things):
It promises a lot - but there isn’t a single detail in there about just how Obama will do it.
Just how does Obama propose to make a system where no one will be turned away because of a pre-existing condition?
Just what is “affordable” in regards to premiums, and how does Obama propose to ensure that they are such?
How much of a subsidy? How determined?
What is a “reined in health care cost”?
What is “simple” in regards to enrollment?
Portability is fine and dandy, but what if a person is moving from being a college student to being a pilot - no difference in risk? No difference in needed coverage?
Just what are Obama’s standards?
John McCain’s plan doesn’t promise the world like Obama’s plan - my guess is that you consider the promises to be “details”, but this is because you don’t understand what “details” are; but, let me advise you, the Devil really is in them, and Obama hasn’t provided a single detail.
6. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 10:42 am
navydad,
They really don’t get it, our lefty friends…they don’t understand, for instance, what actually killed HillaryCare in 1993…as the details came out, people became horrified at what Hillary was proposing. Obama is making in more grandiose promises for his healthcare plan than Hillarydid in 1993, and I guarantee that if Obama ever starts to put out details of how he’ll do it, his plan will crash faster than Hillary’s did in 1993.
7. navydad | February 21st, 2008 at 10:43 am
Hear..hear Mark!
Remember the Twilight Zone episode…”To Serve man”? It was a cookbook.
8. Magnum Serpentine | February 21st, 2008 at 10:43 am
Mark…
1. Health care should be absolutely free.
2. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a liberal, your statement that it is a false premise proves you feel there is something wrong with it.
3. A one party state also goes by the title of Police state, fascist state or Communist State. Just a reminder for those wanting to completely end the Democratic Party.
“The world wonders.” Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, World War Two, Pacific Theater, 1945
9. Joe | February 21st, 2008 at 10:45 am
Obama can only possibly get it right by accident; he’s a liberal, and liberalism is based upon a false premise, and thus gets it wrong almost all the time.
Then I guess there really is no point in you posting all the threads about Obama having empty rhetoric and all the calls for people to explain his “experience”, “accomplishments” and “detailed plans”.
It doesn’t matter then what the answers are, you will just say…. “He is a liberal, so he is automatically wrong”.
Mark, it is people like you why politics are so friggin partisan and there is such strong hatred between the two parties. You are getting worse and worse every day. Saying stupid things like that just makes it worse.
If you don’t agree with his policies, then fine. That is your opinion. This blog used to be about discussions and debates of the issues.
10. navydad | February 21st, 2008 at 10:48 am
Ennnt..wrong Joe! This blog has always been about defending our conservative belief system. However, the goofy libs have contaminated the site with their BDS and their inability to offer rational thoughts…period.
11. js | February 21st, 2008 at 10:54 am
8. Magnum Serpentine
Health care SHOULD be free? Nothing is actually free. Socialism is not free. FREEDOM is not even free, because it comes with responsibility.
Then again, when the Russians overthrew the Czar, they were justifying it based on a socialist representation of freedom for the working class. Thats before tens of millions of people were slaughtered for having the potential to oppose communism. Every little step in that direction betrays our American way of life.
So even if it sounds good, even “free” medical care comes at a very high price.
By the way, are you really Hugo Chavez? Truthfully?
12. Some Assembly Required | February 21st, 2008 at 10:57 am
Mark,
” - Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems:
Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients’ privacy is protected.
- Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets:
The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent.
1. Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.
2. Lower prescription drug costs. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion. Finally, Obama will work to increase the use of generic drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHBP and prohibit big name drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.”
Also, there is a pdf of his plan at the bottom of that page which gives a little more detail as to how the average family can recieve up to $2,500 in savings per year.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
13. navydad | February 21st, 2008 at 11:00 am
SAR’s#12 post=higher taxes…no doubt about it.
14. Magnum Serpentine | February 21st, 2008 at 11:03 am
No I am not. I live in Tennessee. A Theocratic Church ran State.
And there is absolutely Nothing wrong with Free Health Care.
JS would you, tell a heart patient that they cannot have their Heart Medicine just because it cost 500 dollars a pill??? And do not state that the company will wave the fee, because while they do for some they do not wave it for all people who are poor and in need.
Reduced prices… What about those who fall through the cracks and cannot afford even one penny because they have to make the choice between feeding their kids or getting their Medicine?
If we left it up to the Private Sector, we would have a similar situation like Cable Which went from being affordable under Regulation to charging up to 150 or more bucks a month after regulation.
The Private Sector has proven they are greedy and should not be trusted.
15. Joe | February 21st, 2008 at 11:07 am
Wow… so much for a post about the great details of McCain’s plan. This quickly turned to a thread on Obama’s plan.
So either you don’t care for McCain’s plan or you feel the only way to win is to shoot down Obama’s. Probably both.
16. eric | February 21st, 2008 at 11:18 am
Mag,
Actually, there is a huge problem with free health care. It is not free. Someone has to pay and it will result in an increase in taxes. The increase may start at the top wage earners, but it will quickly trickle down to even the poorest of tax payers.
17. js | February 21st, 2008 at 11:25 am
14. Magnum Serpentine
Actually, MS its illegal for them to withhold treatment in life threatening instances.
As for the poor and destitute, unable to pay, we already have a system in place to care for them, its called medicaid. There are also dozens, if not hundreds, of programs to aid people who are destitute, that are not government run enterprises. Your lack of candor is atypical of a socialist representation.
Are you sure you are not Hugo? It obvious that you are not in the USA, because none of the 50 states are theocratic like Iran. Piss poor attempt at pulling our leg, for sure.
18. navydad | February 21st, 2008 at 11:28 am
“The Private Sector has proven they are greedy and should not be trusted”
Mark, you should ban this guy for being a moron!!
19. Joe | February 21st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Back to the point of the post… McCain’s Health Care plan “details” and how it compares to Obama’s lack of plans.
From McCain’s website that is linked in the original thread:
How is that detailed?
How is the system going to be reformed and who is going to pay for this reformation?
Great. We are going to provide access to healthcare for all our citizens. How? Who is going to pay for it?
See?? You can turn all this around and say gee… McCain is all talk and no details on healthcare.
You people are trying to make something up here. Obama has just as much “details” as McCain does. It is all in what party-shaded glasses you are looking thru to determine who has more details. Just because you don’t like Obama’s details doesn’t mean he doesn’t have them.
20. Sunny | February 21st, 2008 at 11:43 am
Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 10:30 am
Sunny,
You don’t understand -
Mark, sadly I do understand. Your Christian values are showing.
21. SteaM | February 21st, 2008 at 11:50 am
Seriously, Mark, a few people have already made the comment but it’s worth repeating.
If you think that because you have decided that “liberalism” is “wrong” and therefore any “liberal” couldn’t possibly have good plans for running this country unless by accident then you are by definition close-minded.
I’m not sure why i still come to this site since I knew you probably had this attitude towards “the left” but didn’t think you’d just come out and say it.
What is the point of any of us having any discussion unless we were all to just spend all day bashing democrats by simply calling them names and saying they are “wrong” in their entire way of thinking therefore they are “bad” or are “emboldening terrorists”.
Mark, do you no like “liberals” on a personal level or do you think their policies are actually bad and that the republicans’ policies are better?
22. SteaM | February 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
When I was a teenager and attended the neighborhood Southern Baptist church, the same one I attended from a young child in the early 80s to around 1995 when I turned 18 and became independent of my parents, I remembered the preacher telling us what our opinions were regarding various aspects of our lives.
Some of these were political in nature. It took me a while to identifiy that I was being brainwashed. Now, I don’t disagree with the morals and values that were attributed to Jesus Christ’s teachings, it was the carefully worded political stuff that I could not agree with.
I never thought it was appropriate for people to be told how to think. See, in this case, if one’s faith is so strong and one’s church and God is one’s life, then disagreeing with the church would to disagree with God and Christ’s teachings.
Or so I thought. Turns out I didn’t have to borrow my pastor’s brain to think. I could use my own.
I just went to my church’s website and they have a “blog” and the most recent posts is telling everyone that abortion is bad and that the city’s proposal to put in a riverboat casino is a bad plan and will be bad for the city.
Now, of course there are people who agree with those things even without their church telling them they should. But doesn’t it cross a line when the church is trying to sway political opinion so blatently?
And in attempting to sway the political opinions to their ideological view in the name of Christ, and exploiting one’s solid faith in Christ as a shield for any free-thinking or discussion or disagreement, does this or does this not work towards removing open-mindedness and tolerance? Does this remove comprimise? Does this create a “we are right because it’s God’s will”? Does this lead to people thinking that anyone who disagrees with them and the church is an enemy?
23. Arctic Fox | February 21st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
There are two root issues here.
McCain:
Well, guess what - people can already do that IF the insurance companies that underwrite the entire health insurance industry are prepared to underwrite such policies. At the back of any insurance policy will be a big insurance company. If they’re prepared to back what McCain is talking about here, it will happen. If they’re not, it won’t.
Which brings me to Obama:
THIS is what is at the heart of the failure in the health insurance industry. Companies like Blue Cross refusing to insure anybody who might actually make a claim. You only have to look at sites like Sick of Blue Cross to see many examples of that.
So while Mr McCain would allow freedom of choice, he also appears to be unwilling to do anything about that freedom of choice being subject to the whim of the insurance companies, and it is there that the failing of the system lies.
24. french student | February 21st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
That would be cool, Mark, as long as your parish is whealthy enough to afford an OR, a CAT-scan machine, and so on and so forth.
Once again with republicains, if you are poor, you can die in the streets (this is an exageration, they are not so open with their agenda)
As for the health coverage issue (note tht I did not talk about health care, which is fine in your country, but about health coverage, which is the real problem and not the same thing) the problem is that you treat is as a business.
Health insurance is by nature a “socialist” business. It is about those who do not need money for mediacal expanses paying for the few that do, knowing that if they need help one day, the others will pay for their care.
If, as in the US, you treat that as a business, in a capitalist way, you end up with people being kicked out as soon as they are not financially interesting : as soon as they have a preexisting condition, or as soon as they are so ill there is no chance they are going to sue; which would scare
sheepnew customers away.In the health coverage industry, profits is another name for coverage denied.
Face it Mark, for a health insurance compagny, it is more profitable to pay a lawyer to deny coverage than to pay for the coverage.
Bureaucracy, in this case, is born, not killed, from the race for profits. All you arguments about big government breeding money loss are moot, because the health coverage industry litterally lives on these money losses. and since they are accountable only to their shareholders, they will always try to maximize profits.
As a frenchman, I am very well aware that “free health care” (as in, you can get treated without paying to get access to the treatment) is very much possible : I enjoy it.
Is it really free? No. I pay for it with a part of each paycheck. But this money does not leave my monthly budget, because it never enters it.
And believe me, I pay waaaaay less than you do, for the same amount of care. Wikipedia it if you do not believe me.
And I know I will never be kicked out of the system because of a preexisting condition, should I ever get one. And my social security premiums will never increase because I have been ill. Ever.
I am 25 and healthy. I have not seen a doctor in the last six months. Yet I have been paying for health coverage. Do I resent it? No. I have been paying for those needing it, as they will be paying for me the day a martial arts opponent screws up and I end up in a coma, or the day I get a cancer fom secondhand smoke, or a heart problem from caffeine overdose (I work in IT)
This is solidarity. This is efficiency. This is NOT FOR PROFIT.
This works.
Our system is rated as the best in the world.
And if most of us were not happy with the way our social security is run, we could hold our government accountable. Can you hold medicare’s board accountable? Do you have any power over their policies?
You could have that, too. It is not beyond your country to provide free health care for everyone as I have described. All it would take is to stand up to those who believe illness should be a profit center. Not the actual health care providers. These get paid the same amount regardless. I have a few doctors in my family, and believe me they are not starving.
Those who make money by insuring you. Those who make more money when they do not pay. These are those you should stand up against.
25. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
SARs,
If you call those details - then I would have to wonder, you claim that you studied and received a degree in Architectural Engineering. I find that hard to believe if you can honestly call what is on Obama’s site as DETAILS. Would your engineering project have that vague level of detail in it? HARDLY!
MS - you are a fool. There is no other way to state it. - One party state? Hardly. You just keep regurgitating the propaganda police state, theocracy, denied healthcare, denied prescriptions etc.etc., which are completely void of reality. Free medical care is not free - someone has to pay for. But, I can tell you one absolute truth - IT WON’T BE YOU!
26. Joe | February 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
No. I have been paying for those needing it, as they will be paying for me
That is what the Repubs don’t want. They hate the thought of the few paying for the many. They don’t care if a healthier nation would lower EVERYONE’S premiums. That is the compassion in them.
27. Some Assembly Required | February 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
navydad,
“The Obama plan will realize tremendous savings within the health care system to help
finance the plan. The additional revenue needed to fund the up-front investments in
technology and to help people who cannot afford health insurance is more than covered
by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year,
as they are scheduled to do.”
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf
28. Retired Spook | February 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Mag, Actually, there is a huge problem with free health care. It is not free. Someone has to pay and it will result in an increase in taxes.
Eric, I don’t think people like Magnum have the foggiest clue about how much a government-run health-care plan would add to their tax bill. “60 Minutes” did a segment last week on the subject of “happiness” and highlighted Denmark as being the happiest country. They interviewed several young people (I’m guessing late 20’s to early 30’s) who went on and on about what a great place Denmark is, and one of the reasons they’re so happy is that they don’t have high expectations, so when things work out better than expected, they’re happy about it. To me that’s sad, not happy, but that’s another topic. One young man described how he was on paid leave because his wife had just had a baby. I got the impression that basically the leave was as long as he needed. Another fellow was touting their national health care program, and how it just paid for everything. Finally the reporter asked how much all this cradle to grave government care cost them. 50% of their income was the answer.
I just finished doing my taxes. On taxable income (after all deductions) of approximately $54,000, my wife and I will pay about $7,100 in federal taxes, or about 13%. So if we were to copy Denmark’s economic plan, “FREE” healthcare and other “FREE” gov’mint cheese would cost me $19,900/year. Nothin’ “FREE” about that.
29. Some Assembly Required | February 21st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
BS,
Obviously not, since you bring my profession into it, when proposing a project for a client, you don’t present 800 pages of specifications in front of them. No, you give them a general idea of costs, materials, and what the overall result will look like. The details are left for the people who are to construct the project.
Those ‘details’ are more than what I have seen from any of the other candidates.
30. SteaM | February 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Right on, I didn’t know that France had such a good healthcase system. This is a good article on it…
http://boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/
31. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Then SAR, don’t call them “details”. If they are not details don’t call them as such.
As for my example to you, I did not say a proposal, I said ENGINEERING PROJECT. Would you submit “details” like that in Obamas site as details IN YOUR ENGINEERING PROJECT? Again, not proposal, finished PROJECT. Sheesh.
32. kjstrouble | February 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I hate to say this, but most liberals have no idea of the costs. To them, if the government provides it, then it must be free. With no concept that our taxes are paying for it, unless they are talking about the military spending. Then we are being gouged because they do not believe we need a strong active military.
God help us all. By the way, I am not rich, not even upper middle class, but I am very much a Republican, because I know that nothing is free.
33. kjstrouble | February 21st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Steam - what is the tax rate in France? How much economic growth do the French have? If I remember correctly, the economy is stagnant and there have been protests.
The rule of thumb is simple - “There is no such thing as a free lunch” - some one always pays. If it is government paid, then it comes from taxes.
34. Some Assembly Required | February 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
BS,
Platforms candidates run on are proposals. ‘no new taxes’ is a proposal. I’m at a loss as to what details will be enough for you short of a percentage of money taken from your individual pay check. But then I guess it doesn’t really matter because you’ve got your mind made up, theres no room for compromise on this.
35. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Magnum,
If liberalism were correct, I’d be a liberal - but, its not, so I’m not a liberal.
The false premise is that liberalism refuses to believe that mankind is Fallen - from this failure stems all of liberalisms other failures. You have to understand people; that is the first requirement, and liberalism fails at the first step.
Once you’ve make a mistake in a mathematical calculation, it doesn’t matter how right you get the rest of it - you’re going to end up wrong starting with that initial error.
36. SteaM | February 21st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
kjstrouble,
I don’t know how accurate this is but:
France:
United States:
http://www.heritage.org
37. navydad | February 21st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
My Dad always tought me whenever something is free…take two. However, after researching le french Student’s claim of Fance’s superior health care system…I found this tid bit of info.
“France’s state-subsidized medical system is considered liberal because doctors and dentists establish private practices, and patients, who are free to choose their own providers, are reimbursed by the state for up to 85% of medical costs. Hospital facilities, although greatly expanded since World War II, are still considered inadequate. Doctors tend to be concentrated in the cities and are in short supply in some rural areas. The death rate, life expectancy, and infant mortality rate are similar to those of other industrialized nations. As is true of most developed countries, the principal causes of death are cancer and cardiovascular diseases.”
So, libtards, where would you suppose that 85% comes from…eh? And, why should those that work their arses off be obligated to support those that chose not to?
Oh..I know, the state pays for it, therefore, it must be free….snicker..snicker.
As far as taxes go, I chose NOT to pay taxes and continually invest my dollars in programs that maintain my “exempt” status….figure this one out libs.
38. SteaM | February 21st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“believe that mankind is Fallen”
What?! Mark, I think you are a bit scattered with your thoughts here. Have you been huffin paint thinner?
Are you suggesting that “liberals” do not believe in christianity… not even a percentage of them? Not a single one?
Wow, your perspective is what… liberals are all tools of satan or something?
yeah.
39. InDaVa | February 21st, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I will use the Righty defense on this one…
“Just because it’s on his website we’re supposed to believe it?”
40. southerner | February 21st, 2008 at 1:25 pm
kjstrouble,
France has had better GDP growth than America in recent years, and as has been pointed out on these forums before the French have a far higher quality of life than Americans by most metrics - shorter work week, much longer vacations (minimum 6 weeks per year), free universal health care and university education, superb world-class transport system, oh and they also have rather beautiful women (check out their President’s wife to start with). Every nation in Europe enjoys free universal healthcare and Europe is booming economically. The US healtcare system is incredibly ineffeicient and the crazy healthcare costs in this country acts as a heinous inderect tax on the average american citizen, a tax whose only function to enrich the shareholders in HMOs, pharmaceutical companies, etc.
41. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
french,
Rated best in the world by whom? I’ll bet its some leftwing organization which has a desire for socialised medicine which is rating your health care system as the best in the world.
Aside from that, the Mrs and I pay about $250 per month for health insurance, which is about half the cost, as her employer picks up the rest of the tab. Its pretty good - out of pocket for a normal Dr visit is $10, emergency room $20; our prescription drug coverage is extra great - dental leaves a lot to be desired. Its a mixed bag - but I’d rather not have this health insurance at all…much rather get together with my family and friends and form a group to buy an insurance policy directly tailored to our needs. I don’t like it being wrapped up in employment, but I don’t want to switch from an employer-sponsored health care system to a Hillbama-sponsored heath care system, which would be worse - I want to improve things, not make them worse.
You are inattentive - as usual for a liberal - in that you accuse me of not caring for the poor…when right in my commentary, I note that getting together with the members of my parish to set up a health care plan would allow us to help the poorer members of our parish…in other words, the richer members of the parish would subsidise the poorer members. Why would we do that? Because they are our brothers and sisters in Christ and real charity - per the command of Our Lord - is when WE go out and do for THEM, not when we ask for a government program to take care of the less fortunate…and my parish is not the only Catholic parish in the greater Las Vegas area…and in such a system of community health care plans, richer parishes would also help out poorer parishes.
You’re miserably failing to understand the primary reason why I like this aspect of McCain’s plan - because it allows regular folks (that is you and me, frenchstudent) to take charge of our own lives and work out what is best for us in cooperation with our friends, families and neighbors. In order to repair the damage you liberals have done to Judeo-Christian civilization, we Judeo-Christian types are going to have to start really taking charge of things and start rebuilding family and community - McCain’s plan allows us to take a step in that direction.
42. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
SteaM,
Not at all - but some of my Christian brothers and sister are misinformed about the basis of liberal thinking.
43. Bob Waters | February 21st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Since I use webmail, I can’t contact you via the link.
But could you please send me the blogroll code?
I’ve had a problem and have to reinstall it.
44. southerner | February 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
navydad - care to give an actual source for that comment about the French health system? It might interest you to know that the World Health Organization has rated France as number 1 in the world for quality of health care provided to its citizenry.
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
45. southerner | February 21st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Mark,
“rated best in the world by whom?”. Uhm, a little group called the World Health Organization (of which the USA is a member), has rated France as as having the best healt care in the world. See my post above and good luck in your ongoing fact-free life.
46. felix the cat | February 21st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Mark:
Billions of people on this planet are not Catholic and therefore not subject to this religious idea that mankind is “fallen”. The bible is not literally true, regardless of your faith in it. Your assumptions are self limiting. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the Bible; particularly the old testement, is an analogy? Probably not, based upon your wild eyed claims. It must be pitiful to go through life with such low self esteem. In the sense that all existence is an imperfection (animate and inanimate) and no “thing” is perfect (nothings perfect) that is a statement of fact. (The only perfection that exists is non-existence) But you base your entire world view upon a belief system that is substaintiated by faith. An unprovable group of assumptions provided by a book written 5000+ years ago and has been continually re-written throughout history.
You might be fallen but alot of us stand upright.
47. Tractatus | February 21st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
If liberalism were correct, I’d be a liberal - but, its not, so I’m not a liberal.
Boy, you can’t argue with “logic” like that. Seriously, you can’t–it’s like trying to teach a chair to rumba.
liberalism is based upon a false premise, and thus gets it wrong almost all the time.
The above is, really, Noonan’s rank ignorance perfectly encapsulated. Everything must fit that narrative. All the stuff that doesn’t fit? It will be forced to fit. So when you see Noonan making astonishingly wrong comments, wallowing in ignorance, or generally staking out the exact opposite position of the facts, understand that he’s doing so in service to the narrative. Sure, it takes a lot of mental gymnastics and outright foolishness to make everything fit, but such is the cost of Noonan’s slavery to his beloved narrative. He’s willing to pay it…he just can’t quite understand why everybody else isn’t so willing.
But it’s also handy to remember that narrative the next time Noonan complains about partisanship, people not wanting an open dialog, people placing ideology over fact, people being willfully blind, people starting with a conclusion and working backward to come up with supporting evidence, and all the other rather blatant forms of projection he regularly engages in. He assumes that other people share his defect.
48. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
SteaM,
Just saw your earlier comment - I’ll explain:
I have plenty of liberal friends - in fact, the best man at my wedding is a fanatical Bush-hater…loved “Farenheit 9/11″, thinks that Chimpy is fighting for oil…the whole 9 yards of Bush-hatred. We argue about it from time to time, but as politics is not central to our friendship, it really doesn’t matter all that much. Doing a quick bit of thinking in my head, in family and reasonably close friends, the ideological breakdown is approximately thus:
Conservative Republicans: 11
Moderate Republicans: 8
Libertarians: 1
Moderate Democrats: 7
Liberal Democrats: 5
Communists: 1
Then there’s the score or so people who just don’t care. As in all things in a reasonable life, its a wide variety of people - who are joined far more by love than they are divided by mere questions of politics.
But liberalism is, indeed, wrong - mankind is Fallen, and there’s no escaping the fact that people are bad…that we are sinners in need of redemption. Liberalism explains the ills of society as growing out of the evils within social-political-economic structures and if we could just modify such things, people will become better - this is wrong; the correct thing is that our social-political-economic ills are the result of people freely making bad choices - people deciding, that is, to do what they know is wrong.
As regards our particular issue in this thread, I know for certain that whatever Obama - or any other liberal - proposes will get it wrong because they have this fundamentally flawed worldview. To a liberal, the problem with our health care system is that its not organized correctly when what is really wrong with it is that it is run by people - and any successor system will also be run by people, and thus will be filled with all manner of error. Given this, the best thing to do is allow individuals and small groups to manage their own affairs - firstly because this limits the scope of disaster if they get it wrong (the difference between the 2,000 or so members of my parish mucking it up for ourselves and Obama mucking it up for 300 million people), secondly because we here on our level are much more likely to correctly identify our needs than Obama back in DC.
It is in conservativism’s recognition of the reality of the human condition and liberalism’s failure to understand this that we find our fundamental conflict - all else is secondary to this issue.
49. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
felix,
Like I should modify my views to be in accordance with positions I disagree with? I don’t care at all if you disagree with me, or why you choose to do so - I’m telling you what I believe and why. We shall now argue it out in the public square and the victory will eventually go to the side which has it most right.
One small thing - has it ever occured to you that the Bible just might be true? You on the left like to think that you’re always questioning, when you really don’t…you don’t dare question your worldview, because spindly and weak as it is, it falls apart at the first glance.
50. Ricorun | February 21st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
McCain’s web site has more on health care than essentially any other issue. And it sounds to me like McCain’s and Obama’s health care plans share much in common. For example:
1. Both would allow private, portable coverage, but make health care available to everyone. Obama proposes some sort of national plan with coverage like that enjoyed by federal employees. I don’t know how that plan is administered though. McCain doesn’t specify how he proposes to cover everyone.
2. Both want to promote prevention.
3. Both want to publicize, by promoting “21st century information systems” information on treatment options and require transparency by providers regarding medical outcomes, quality of care, costs, and prices.
4. Both want to allow re-importation of drugs and foster the development of routes for safe, cheaper generic versions of drugs and biologic pharmaceuticals.
5. Both want to emphasize flexibility for state plans, provided they conform to federal requirements.
I’d say those are the main issues. And though they use different words, the emphasis appears to me to be very similar. And considering that the main issues are very similar it seems one would have to assume the options for paying for them are also the same. Am I missing something?
Parenthetically… I haven’t researched that many countries’ plans, but of the ones I’m reasonably familiar with, both Obama’s and McCain’s sound most similar to the situation in Japan.
51. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 2:02 pm
southerner,
And WHO advocates for socialised medicine - they’ll never say a private system is best because they state in their mission that all health care requires a collective response.
You find me an independent auditor who is given full access to French and American health care stats, and then we’ll find out who has the better system.
52. SteaM | February 21st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Mark - “One small thing - has it ever occured to you that the Bible just might be true?”
Yes, when I was very young. Around the time I also believed in santa and the easter bunny.
53. Joe | February 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Mark,
2 observations.
1) You know a Communist???? What? If you KNOW a Communist, that means you must be influenced by him/her, right? Isn’t that the point of that “Obama’s Communist Mentor” post the other day?
2) OK. You don’t like the WHO. So their study must not be true or valid, right? Sorry… is the WHO a partisan entity? I don’t think so. Is it paid for by Soros? Nope. If a Conservative think-tank ranked the US as the best in healthcare, I’m sure you would QUICKLY post as true and utter fact right here on Blogs for Victory.
54. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Joe,
No, I would not - and the commie is my half-sister.
55. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
SteaM,
And if you think the story in the Bible is no more credible than stories of the Easter Bunny, then you are walking around in very large world of ignorance…which would explain your support for Obama.
56. BARRASSO | February 21st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
‘If liberalism were correct, I’d be a liberal - but, its not, so I’m not a liberal.’
And you have never been wrong about anything have you? The main problem with conservatism in its current form is blind faith, you have blind faith that the free market is always the best method for any problem solving. Of course this isn’t the case, especially in health care government can and does provide a better rate with overall better results.
It could be that the free market is working and that the american people have looked at all the options and will choose socialized medicine because it is the cheapest.
57. SteaM | February 21st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Story, Mark, story…
It’s a story with good morals, valuable lessons to learn, and a some honorable ideals in terms of living in peace and loving one another.
But if you are suggesting that it is entirely literally true then I laugh at you.
58. felix the cat | February 21st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Mark:
You have a very very VERY negative, dour and cynical opinion of people. “We’re all bad, we’re all sinners, blah blah blah.” Speak for yourself. Have you ever studied the history of religionS? And thats plural. You cling to your beliefs like they are some sort of raft. The bible is a book written by man (or more correctly, men.) It is not by any sense of rational or reasonableness literally true.
If you choose to think so, that’s fine but don’t spread these assumptions that you have and impune anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the simplistic” either or” world view that you have. Much to your consternation, you live in a liberal democracy, not some fundemental theocracy.
It must goad you no end that reality doesn’t fit neatly into what you so desperately need to believe and insist; in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that you have some sort of magical insight into the nature of reality.
There are more religions than just Catholisism. What makes yours the only vessel of universal truth? Because YOU say so?!?
59. southerner | February 21st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Mark,
Where do you get the idea that the WHO advocates for socialist medicine? On a concrete level, what do you base that idea upon? Don’t you think that it’s a little strange that the United States is an active member of an organization that apprently advocates something called “socialist medicine”?
More importantly, where in the mission statement you mention does it say that national healthcare must require a “collective response”? Source please? I’m really looking forward to a source on that Mark, cause that isn’t their mission. The closest you could possibly come to something like that would be the idea that the WHO co-ordinates interntional responses on a ‘collective’ scale (ie between the nations of the world) to global health concerns such as SARS or AIDS, do you have a problem with that?
Seriously, can you give me a source for your statements? Below is the WHO’s 6 point agenda from their website:
http://www.who.int/about/agenda/en/index.html
60. EricT | February 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Mark-
”
“I’ve been over to Obama’s website plenty of times looking for these details and have never found them. But, then again, even if he had them, they’d just be a bunch of leftist Tom-foolery - so, who cares?”
Beatifully articulated point, that is classic, That should be the GOP creed, if they don’t have one.
61. Joe | February 21st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Eric, that already is their creed. What do you think they’ve been doing for the last 7 years? When the GOP was in the majority, they did what they wanted and didn’t listen to the big mean Democrats.
Why do you think there is so much disgusting partisanship? It is because of this line of thinking.
62. js | February 21st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I really havent seen anyone address the real problem in this country. Our medical system does not need to be redefined. We have the best medical facilities in the world in the USA.
The problem is the Insurance agencies that dictate our access to that system. They take in 3 trillion dollars per year, use 31% of that for overhead, and tripled the costs of medical insurance while restricting payments to medical providers. Thier over head does not represent lawsuits, it represents costs to provide a service. And a huge profit margin.
63. french student | February 21st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Mark
As for my sources on the quality of french healthcare : the WHO, which is the entity whose JOB IT IS to assess those things.
And who rates the US around the 50th country in the world.
As for the cost of my health coverage, let me check my last paycheck :
gross income (the one used to compute my revenue taxes) : 2074 €
net income : 1604 €
So let us see what the difference is made of.
health insurance : 15€
retirement fund : 140€
CSG (generalised social contribution, the only real tax of the lot ) : 105€
Assedics (this is an insurance against unemploymment, the Assedic is the organisation that pays you so you do not starve if you are laid-off. I had to use their help for a while, ans as I had worked for a year in the previous 22 months, I had the right to a year of a 1000€ monthly allocation. I have now found my dream job because I did not have to rush) : 50 €
private retirement fund : 85 €
private health insurance (this is the one that paid my lazik surgery. It also tops off the social security system on the items that are only 85% paid back) : 42€
And the rest isobscure jargon, but does not relate to health coverage.
So my whole health coverage cost me 42+15 = 57 €
And it paid for Lazik. 480 € per eye out of the 560 it cost me (comfort procedure, not a 100% refunded)
And remember, it is only dependent on your salary, and maybe wether you are management or grunt (cheper for grunts). Were I 80 and had I had three cancer metastases, it would cost me the same thing, and still cover all medical expenses.
Oh and the private health insurance would extend to my dependants (wife and kids) had I any.
Still think your system is more efficient?
As for my “let the poor die” comment, I was of course referring to the poor that you do not see everyday, or at least every week at the mass. Those who go to other churches, in less affluent areas, and who as a group have less money.
In other words, MY parish, as you would like to see it, is my country. I do not reject those who do not share my faith.
64. french student | February 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Oh and if you stack local, municipal and national taxes, I paid less than 1000€ that year.
65. sam | February 21st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Guys,
stop responding to Mark, he is a simpleton and just a plain IDIOT! it’s not his fault he was brought up like is 1299 AD. Let him have his beliefs, when A democrat wins the elections in november, I will gladly come back here and post everyday just so i can rub it in his face and laugh at his predictions and beliefs.
66. SteaM | February 21st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
B4Vers… now you know the feeling people get worked up about something you feel is a non-issue.
Remeber the screaming from the right about Michelle Obama’s line about being really proud of her country? You guys were all in an uproar over a statement, however poorly spoken, that was taken out of context.
Frustrating, eh?
67. plainjane | February 21st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
We are attempting to discuss issues such as health care when there is a juicy sex story out there. That Karl Rove, this is classic. Put out a story in a non-bias newspaper so as to deflect where the story origninated. God, these neocon lovers like Limbaugh and Hannity are good when it comes to destroying ones character. This is right out of their 2000 South Carolina primary and 2004 swiftboating guide.2/20/09
68. Some Assembly Required | February 21st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
French Student,
Not having to mortgage your house for heart surgery… PRICELESS. (Couldn’t resist)
Mark questioned credibility of WHO, what makes you think he knows what a Euro is? Or that the Euro is roughly $1.70 American, give or take? Maybe European economic systems (’socialists’) are worth taking a deeper look at.
69. SteaM | February 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
oops… and I was refering to the new york times article… sheesh, can’t multi-task today and keep my threads straight.
70. EricT | February 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
#16
The other eric posts a hard truth. Nothing is free, It sounds nice, but look at Europe gas prices Norway $8.50
UK $8.00
We are going to pay for it, somewhere else. My guess would be gasoline, Now when we turn everything upside down and redo something, just like when your painting the house or working on a project, you tend to underestimate the cost, well when they need more funds, taxes will appear somewhere else. Lets say they tax up the fuel real high, folks stop driving as much, move closer to work ect.. to deal with the high prices. Now your estimates which may have been low to begin with, and the projected tax income you hoped was going to be there is short, more taxes.
It is not going to be free no matter what Obama tells you.
71. EricT | February 21st, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Hey Joe,
Which candidate do you like now. I remember you liked Bill. R. then Edwards when Bill left.
72. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Felix,
Well, I guess you’re perfect, then - please tell us how you manage to be perfect, all the time and in every situation…it’d be helpful if we all knew how to do that…
Oh, you didn’t mean to say you were perfect? Well, then that means…(Ed. Note: liberal runs away screaming at this point, afraid to face the truth).
73. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
SAR,
Yep, what we need is 10% unemployment, a vast system of government benefits which cannot be sustained by a shrinking population and a massive, growing and entirely unassimilated, hostile minority which rejects everything we believe in…that EU model: perfection to the very core.
74. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 6:15 pm
frenchstudent,
And what do France’s unemployed pay into the system? How about the vastly growing number of retired people in France, how much do they pay?
The worst thing about it - no one in France is paying the full premium, while the pool of people to soak for the benefits gets smaller every year. Come visit me after we evacuate you from a devastated France around 2020.
75. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 6:19 pm
barrasso,
Heck, I’m wrong all the time - unlike Felix, I’m not perfect.
All I’m saying is that liberalism, by getting it wrong at the first step, is inherently wrong in all else it tries…now, if you don’t subscribe to Judeo-Christian morality, then you’ll have a different view, but for me, with my beliefs, there’s no question about it - liberalism has got it wrong. That I might, from time to time, make a tactical concession to liberalism doesn’t change the fact that it is always wrong - sometimes just less wrong than something else.
76. Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 6:20 pm
…and, meanwhile, liberals, you are still desperately trying to keep a mile away from the issue at hand…which isn’t France’s health care system, or the Judeo-Christian worldview, but whether or not, in practical terms, people should be able to choose their health care on their own…
77. Tractatus | February 21st, 2008 at 6:24 pm
the fact that it is always wrong
It’s not a “fact,” Noonan. It’s an opinion. And a horribly informed one that most people couldn’t take seriously.
Look up the word “fact,” OK? You seem to have a very serious problem comprehending what it means because you always seem to invoke it as some sort of talisman instead of using it correctly.
78. Some Assembly Required | February 21st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Mark,
The model isn’t perfect, as you say nothing is. What I mean that maybe certain elements of their system can be adapted into the US. Whatever the case, the systems in place now are not working. So, why not take a look and have an open mind about policies of other countries. It works for them. Also, Europe has been around a lot longer than the US, shouldn’t one learn from experience?
“but whether or not, in practical terms, people should be able to choose their health care on their own…”
Obama’s health plan specifically states this.
79. southerner | February 21st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
In every European country there are private health care options in addition to universal public health care. However the cost of this private care is MUCH lower than in the US (on average, about $1,500 per year for VERY comprehensive insurance for a middle aged adult, think complimentary MRI scans every two years if you choose to have them). The reason private care in Europe is so much cheaper is that if you opt in to it your private care is subsidised by the government to the dollar amount that that your public care would have entitled you to (thus you never lose out on the taxes you paid into public health). Also, the private health insurance companies in Euorpe have to compete with the extremely efficient public health services so they are forced to offer a high quality product for a very competitive price. How does that fit with your world view Mark? Guess, what Europeans actually have MORE choice than Americans! It just can’t be true, can it?
PS - You never answered my challenge to post a source for the BS you posted above about the WHO promoting collective health care solutions as part of its mission statement. I guess it’s fair to say that just wasn’t true, right?
80. Retired Spook | February 21st, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Oh and if you stack local, municipal and national taxes, I paid less than 1000€ that year.
french student, is the 20% French nationals sales tax on top of that?
81. felix the cat | February 21st, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Mark:
Your faith based assumptions, lack of reading comprehension skills and ignorance of the history of philosophy and religion is truly stupifying. Particularly for someone who portends to be so enlightened and comes across as an authority on the “human condition”.
I never claimed I was perfect. In fact, if you can read I claimed the opposite. What I said was existence is an imperfection and therefore the only way to truly be….is to not be at all. An idea that you probably find horrifying since your ego dissapears into the vacume of space and is no longer an entity to be reflected upon.
Are you familiar with Descartes? Neitzche? Kant? Hegel? P.D. Ouspensky? Bertrand Russell? Joseph Campbell? Emanual Durkheim? Timothy Ferris?
Probably not. What you are so totally convinced of is the itenerancy of the New Testiment because it is simple and easy. It doesn’t require critical thinking, it only requires absolute adherence to the fantasy that says people are bad, man is fallen and he is born of a sin from which he can never overcome.
But you live in Las Vegas. The land of gambling, whores and wanton hedonisim.
You, my friend are a phony. A wanna be Jim Jones, Jim Baker and Tedd Haggard. People who sin, who are fallen and claim that they have every right to be because the bible tells them so.
Study up and if you are then able to be objective about your religion, then more power to you. But don’t be so smug as to infer that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to your simplistic views are intrinsically flawed. And that you have all the answers and are somehow better….
82. dickdee | February 21st, 2008 at 11:56 pm
”To not be at all”…oh were it so that the libs could accomplish that feat! I love the French claiming a dynamic economy all the while lazy for 6 weeks of vacation. Beautiful women?….at least tell them to hold their arms down ok? When is the last time Europe has produced any advanced drugs…and I don’t mean any international company that has its research and development in the U.S.A. Wanting others to take care of you is a pretty demeaning way of life. The day should come where socialists and communists can all move to a continent, and the rest of us will live in a democratic capitalistic society. Guess who would kick ass in modernity…and guess who would be running around looking for handouts from the rich that do not exist.
83. dickdee | February 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Felix the cat has got a hard on for his philosophy books…I can tell after reading his condescending post. I know a guy like that, and he doesn’t have any friends; cept for Felix his cat.
84. Mark Noonan | February 22nd, 2008 at 1:11 am
SAR,
But Obama’s plan is top-down - and as for learning from Europe? Fascism, Nazism, communism…which of these bits of enlightenment would work best?
85. Mark Noonan | February 22nd, 2008 at 1:23 am
Felix,
You claimed to not be Fallen - if you are not fallen, then you are perfect.
Of course, you know you’re not - but you fail to comprehend that if you aren’t perfect, then no one else is perfect either, and thus this collection of imperfect beings cannot, even under the best of circumstances, consistently get it right - and that means that any universal plan (such as socialised medicine) will fall flat on the fact that the imperfect beings running it will muck it up. As a matter of fact, the only way you can even get partial success in any really large organization is if its is highly disciplined, heirarchical and has a strong esprit d’corps (thus the success of the military and the Catholic Church over the ages).
You make broad presumptions about my knowledge - as it turns out, I’ve never heard of Timothy Ferris, but I wonder how much time you’ve spent with Aquinas, or Chesterton, or Lewis? It is hoped that one day, with a bit of maturity on your part, you’ll leave aside your sophomoric views - and perhaps understand how stupid and wicked Neitzche was, while at the same time learning to actually figure out what Descartes and Kant were all about.
86. Mark Noonan | February 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 am
dickdee,
It is true that our friend Felix has apparantly had a smattering of philosophy - enough to jar loose the thought processes, but not enough to bring him even remotely close to understanding. We have hope for him, though.
87. brett michaels | February 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 am
Spook,
I saw the same 60 minutes episode. It’s amazing how two people can watch the same show and come away with different opinions.
One of the core things the men said: family is the most important thing to them. Not materialistic things. They live in houses that are less than 1500 sq ft and in many cases <1000 sq ft.
Americans are extremely materialistic. Everything revolves around owning a McMansion and having granite counter tops.
Another issue..did you notice the people in Denmark? They were thin. Part of the reason we have such high health costs is because of fat people and all the health issues related to being fat. Fat people have higher blood pressure, higher rate of heart disease, high cholesterol.
Maybe instead of a co-op health plan, we need a get fat people on a treadmill health plan.
The obesity rate in the country is 30% its disgusting.
Having visited Denmark and the Netherlands..I can say the Danes do not smile all that much. But they are extremely family oriented and they are thin.
Maybe thats why they are happy?
88. Diana Powe | February 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 am
Mark,
The fact is, most Americans don’t choose their health care coverage. Their health care coverage, if they even have it, is also “top-down” because it is chosen by their employer. The considerations used by their employer may or may not coincide to any significant degree with those that would have been used by the employee.
Now, theoretically, an employee might choose an employer or choose to change an employer based on the health insurance offered. However, not all, probably not even a majority, of employees can afford to try to switch jobs only to pursue a better health insurance plan especially when a company can drop or change a plan on a moment’s notice without any input from those who are most effected by such a change. So, the “free market” health care that we have in the United States is hardly a free market at all. It is people mostly accepting what they can get based on choices made by others.
Now, of course, if you put any stock in public opinion polls, which we know you don’t, then you would know that a large number of Americans are dissatisfied with health care in the United States and trust Democrats to do a better job on this issue. Even when questions are posed which include the idea of higher taxes to pay for a government-managed system, there are often majorities who agree that they would rather pay more taxes. Of course, the concept of paying more in taxes for health care is seldom ever put into the perspective of that amount of money (whatever it might theoretically be) replacing the money that the same Americans would not be paying in premiums. So, the “higher taxes” meme only has limited applicability depending on the exact nature of some hypothetical plan.
At the end of the day, though, the Republican position is a vote of no-confidence in America. People in industrialized nations around the globe have a variety of government-administered plans with lower per-capita costs, better health outcomes and higher rates of consumer satisfaction. The idea that Americans couldn’t design a system with the best of other systems and including features of our own is simply a vote for America as a failure.
89. brett michaels | February 22nd, 2008 at 1:48 am
Retired Spook | February 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I just finished doing my taxes. On taxable income (after all deductions) of approximately $54,000, my wife and I will pay about $7,100 in federal taxes, or about 13%.
Not to be nit picking, but your effective tax rate is calculated by your Adjusted Gross Income, not Taxable Income so you are inflating your tax rate.
My wife and I had an AGI of of $102,310, but had a TI of $52,405 and paid $7,081 making our effective tax rate of 6.9%
90. french student | February 22nd, 2008 at 1:57 am
Dickdee
hi keefer, still mindlessly insulting people? At least this time your monicker is only one letter off, you really are a wee dick.
Mark
First, I do not think you will have to bail us out. Last I checked, we had less debt than you did, and buying dollars (which is the only reason you can have the kind of debt you hve and not go bankrupt) is rapidly going out of style.
At this point I am hoping you will not take our economy down in your fall.
Second, there surely is a few modifications to make to our retirement system, to cope with our “papy boom”. The fact remains, however, that we pay less, per capita, than you do for our health care, and that our general level and quality of care is equivalent to yours or better (we beat you, for example, in two main indicators : infant mortality and life expectancy).
I am shocked at you, that you would resort to a tactic that you deleted Diana’s posts for.
Spook
No, this did not include the TVA (value added tax) which is 19.6% on all luxury and cultural items, and 5% on all essential items (like food).
the TVA rate for services is something in between. But you do pay around the same rates, I believe.
And I did not think to mention this one because contrary to my memories of my trip to the states, this tax is already included in the prie of the items - no “this costs 20 dollars plus taxes”, the price on the label is the price you pay (except for really big purchases, and online shopping).
91. brett michaels | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:04 am
Mark Noonan | February 21st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
… but I’d rather not have this health insurance at all…much rather get together with my family and friends and form a group to buy an insurance policy directly tailored to our needs….
Mark,
Who exactly is going to underwrite that policy that you and your friends want?
Is McCain going to force insurance companies to make certain business decisions about who they will underwrite?
Insurance companies are out to make a profit, not to help you. So why would they suddenly start writing policies (thats tailored to just to you and your friends) to a group of family and friends? They can already do that…but they dont, because its not profitable.
Part of the reason health insurance is so expensive is because our society is fat. I look in my junior high yearbook and my dad’s yearbooks and you see only a few fat kids.
Look at a yearbook today and you only see a few fit kids.
Fat kids get diabetes..costs money to treat that. and then they go on to be fat adults costing the system even more money..all because they cant put that cheeseburger down.
Maybe if McCain wins, he will make Arnold the Health Czar. He can head up the President’s Fitness Program for Adults.
You want affordable health insurance, then they should make weight loss a mandatory requirement.
Its like one of my uncles…never had high blood pressure until he got fat. Now he is on two medications that cost the insurance company alot of money…one to control heart palpitations (brought on by high blood pressure) and another to control the high blood pressure (brought on by being fat). Those pill cost $900, he gets them for a $10 co-pay.
So he is costing the insurance company over $10k all because he is fat. Imagine all those other fat people out there…
Fix the obesity issue in this country and you will fix the health care and health insurance issue in this country.
92. Mark Noonan | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 am
French student,
France per capita GDP: $33,800
US per capita GDP: $46,000
France public debt: 66.6% of GDP
US public debt: 36.8% of GDP
And I wasn’t talking about bailing you out of your inevitible bankruptcy but of rescuing you from the Islamist who are bent on taking over your country…and who will take it over, if you French don’t start having children pretty damn quick.
93. Mark Noonan | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:09 am
Brett,
Because we are customers - do you understand how a market works at all?
94. french student | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 am
funny, wikipedia says yours was of 61.5 percent of gdp in 2006 - and of course that’s a much bigger gdp, and the Iraq war is still off the books. Care to cite your sources?
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dette_publique#En_France
95. french student | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 am
Ooooh I get it !
You are comparing our gross debt to your public debt!
Apples and oranges, as it were….
Gosh I love how not only you are biased, but you are stupidly biased at that : it took me all of five minutes to spot your fallacy
96. french student | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 am
Going to work now, have fun!
97. brett michaels | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 am
Mark Noonan | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:09 am
Brett,
Because we are customers - do you understand how a market works at all?
Ok…then why havent you and your family and friends done it already?
Since you are customers…there must be an insurance company willing to do it right now correct?
Please post the results of you getting new health insurance.
98. Mark Noonan | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:54 am
Frenchstudent,
No, public debt as a percentage of GDP - in other words, how much money the government owes as a percentage of GDP. For the US, according to OMB, the figure for the US is 36.8%, the figure for France I obtained via the CIA World Factbook. Far as I can tell, they are the same sort of figures…you really don’t know just how bankrupt France is, do you?
Amazing!
99. brett michaels | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:56 am
Mark,
I’ve thought about what you said…”Because we are customers”
Im a customer at Best Buy..I want a plasma tv for $50….hmmm cant seem to get Best Buy to sell me one.
Just because you are a customer…doesnt mean there is a seller.
See..I understand how a market works.
;)
100. Mark Noonan | February 22nd, 2008 at 2:56 am
brett,
Various tax and regulatory factors generally prevent private citizens from taking matters into their own hands on such things - McCain’s plan is to change that so that pretty much any group of people can get together and buy and insurance plan for themselves.
Trust me, Brett, if a group of us have $10,000 to spend on insurance, there will be an insurance company which will want our business…and as there is more than one such company, they’ll have to compete for it by offering us the best medical bang for the buck…
101. brett michaels | February 22nd, 2008 at 3:02 am
There are absolutely no tax or regulatory factors preventing a group of people banding together to buy group health insurance.
None.
Any group of people can band together and approach an insurance company and negotiate a rate.
There are absolute not tax/regulatory factors preventing in any single state in this country.
None.
If you think I am wrong…then please post a link to the tax code or regulatory agency that prevents it.
Thanks
102. brett michaels | February 22nd, 2008 at 3:07 am
Trust me, Brett, if a group of us have $10,000 to spend on insurance, there will be an insurance company which will want our business…
Not true…it depends on who your group is composed of.
If your group is primarily over 40yrs old, overweight and smokers…there is not a single insurance company that will want your money.
The expenditures on your health care will quickly eat up the premiums.
Now..if your group is composed of 20seomthing yo in good physical condition..yes they will happily take your money.
Once again I use the example of my uncle he is 52yo and fat and has high blood pressure…he alone costs his insurance company over $10k/yr
Just by himself.
If he is in your group of friends…that $10k you all have is not going to mean a whole lot to an insurance company.
103. french student | February 22nd, 2008 at 7:22 am
Mark
Even if France is more indebted than the US (and I still say you are comparing apples and oranges here) it does not change the fact that we pay less, per capita, for healthcare, than you do, for an equivalent quality of care.
You are trying to change the subject, and you deleted diane’s posts for that reason a few times.
You, Mark, are deliberately refusing to consider systems that are more efficient, more just, and less costly, and all of it on ideological grounds.
And it is at best stupid, at worst evil.
104. Retired Spook | February 22nd, 2008 at 9:29 am
Not to be nit picking, but your effective tax rate is calculated by your Adjusted Gross Income, not Taxable Income so you are inflating your tax rate.
Brett, I only figured it that way because it appeared that was the way french student was figuring his. In his post at 4:30PM he said the following:
gross income (the one used to compute my revenue taxes) : 2074 ?
It sounds to me like their term for “gross income” is the same as our term for “taxable income”, since it’s the amount upon which they “compute revenue taxes”. I may be wrong.
My wife and I had an AGI of of $102,310, but had a TI of $52,405 and paid $7,081 making our effective tax rate of 6.9%
If you look at it that way, it makes the European tax rates look even worse.
No, this did not include the TVA (value added tax) which is 19.6% on all luxury and cultural items, and 5% on all essential items (like food).
the TVA rate for services is something in between. But you do pay around the same rates, I believe.
French Student, I can only speak for Indiana, the state where I live. Our sales tax is 6%, and we don’t pay it at all on food or services, only on consumer goods. We have NO national TVA, although many in this country would like to see us head in that direction. I would only support that if we would abolish the IRS and do away with the income tax.
this tax is already included in the price of the items - no ?this costs 20 dollars plus taxes?, the price on the label is the price you pay (except for really big purchases, and online shopping).
I’m not sure I see a difference in whether or not it’s included in the price as opposed to not being included in the price but added at the cash register, unless goods in France are 20% cheaper than comparable goods in the U.S.
I would say, bottom line, you French are grossly over-taxed, but then the money for all that “free stuff” has to come from somewhere, doesn’t it?
105. Retired Spook | February 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 am
I should clarify my previous comment WRT state sales tax. It is charged on food eaten in a restaurant, but not on food purchased at a grocery.
106. brett michaels | February 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Mark,
Various tax and regulatory factors generally prevent private citizens from taking matters into their own hands on such things - McCain’s plan is to change that
Im still waiting on the links to the tax and regulatory laws that McCain is going to change.
Could you please provide them? I tried a Google search and I even emailed the McCain campaign and they haven’t replied.
Perhaps you can help us out?
Or is McCain’s health plan full of rhetoric and empty of details?