23 Responses to “What Makes Liberals Think That The Government Can Handle Our Health Care System?”

1. 

   sunshine said on Friday, August 21, 2009, 3:54

   This is obama ‘s plan economic policy. For all its faults, our
   health care system is the strongest in the world. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on”the rich.” How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
2. 

   Archer Christifori said on Friday, August 21, 2009, 8:42

   They believe they are innately entitled to power, they are the aristocracy the communists hated except they are they communists too. They believe they are better equipped to manage healthcare than we are. Thus, they want universal healthcare. The same mentality comes to the surface that when the economy is tight, they want to raise taxes because we, the taxed, can always do with less than they can.
   Its interesting to note that … by and large… those people running the organization that cares for our wounded soldiers are democrat placement with all the fear, anger and loathing of the military. Remember, the vast majority, almost 90%, of the military is republican. So when someone infers about military service, its by and large, republicans that are serving.
   Remember the Rush Limbaugh “phony soldier” letter?
   Rush matched the winning bid for the charity that helps pay for soldier’s childrens college eductation. Rush invited the liberals who signed the letter to him, Ried, Pelosci, CLINTON, OBAMA, Kennedy etc. to match the donation… they refused.
   You’ve put 2 words together that probably shouldn’t be associated with each other.
   “Liberals think” – its reasonable assumption that they do think… and they do but only in terms of how to get what they want.
   For everything else, liberals feel. They feel guilty over the alledged man made global warming, they feel guilty over the war we are winning, they feel guilty that the US has remained the top dog for decades. They feel guilty about gays, until the gay is found out to be a republican. They have an abject loathing of conservatives is evident the myriad examples of hate-speech the employ against those who think differently from them.
   Fact is, democrats cannot be trusted with our national security… scary thing is.. I’m not sure McCaine can be either.
3. 

   topink said on Friday, August 21, 2009, 9:49

   What happened at Walter Reed was just a lack of funding, since Repubs don’t really care about veterans.
   Some things government could do for health care is negotiate for bulk rates to bring costs down, not allow private companies to simply cut people off for getting sick, and limit lawsuits. But if medical care is only profit driven, you’ll continue to see private companies pay for a kidney transplant for a little girl, then not approve the drugs required to make it last, so she dies. Very pro-life.
   It’s all a matter of funding, and the cons love to cut the budget on things that could help people. It could work if there were some intelligence left, but that seems to be waning.
4. 

   Anonymous said on Friday, August 21, 2009, 12:34

   The federal government has proven time and time again, they can’t handle anything. Health care is not the governments job, or should it be. People want the government to do this, do that, pay for this, pay for that, but don’t raise our taxes. Hypocrites. Why are people so damn afraid to read Libertarian points of view ? PLEASE – check out some information at http://www.lp.org.
5. 

   ? said on Friday, August 21, 2009, 19:10

   Re-read your 1st answer! Liberal=mental disorder.
6. 

   jangirl3 said on Friday, August 21, 2009, 20:06

   i agree with you…doesn’t make sense does it?
7. 

   SPACE COWBOY said on Friday, August 21, 2009, 20:52

   it has nothing to do with your health and every thing to do with power and control
8. 

   tannedkn said on Saturday, August 22, 2009, 3:46

   Quite honestly I don’t think any government official should be handling health care. Let’s keep it privatized!
9. 

   azure tiger said on Saturday, August 22, 2009, 4:03

   Why do liberals think that you can always fix a problem by throwing money at it, and conservative think that government is always the problem and not a solution. A pox on both their houses…
10. 

    aftrisch said on Saturday, August 22, 2009, 4:13

    Because Liberalism is a mental disorder in itself. The logical thinking side of their brains have lost connection with the reality side of their brain.
11. 

    cracker said on Saturday, August 22, 2009, 6:41

    We used to have a marvellous universal healthcare in Britain, the NHS. Until our governments started control freaking and swamping it with ‘management consultants’ and other non-medical parasites, and ‘privatizing’ huge chunks of it.
    Surely the Americans can’t really be happy with beholding to insurance companies and letting them make life and death decisions? Insurance companies aren’t known for being altruistic are they.
12. 

    jay_d_sk said on Saturday, August 22, 2009, 8:37

    What Health System! The only people that have Health Insurance are those that have it through the company they work for “Group Rate”.
    Walter Reed is nothing, maybe should take a look at our VA Hospitals and see how the soldiers are taken care of.
    Many do not have Health Insurance because they cannot afford it.
    The free clinics on the streets can be compared to the European health system in equal comparison. European health system is a joke, you spend all day waiting on an appointment to see a doctor, that is no better then a bill pusher. You want serious health care you go to a private doctor and pay extra to get a good diagnosis to your problem.
13. 

    Packrat 666 said on Saturday, August 22, 2009, 12:18

    Because they do not think. We need to clone you. Very few women think like you do.
14. 

    roser said on Saturday, August 22, 2009, 16:28

    Walter Reed is run by the Military. By far the most corrupt arm of government. They can steal all the money they want and if someone protests, they scream “weak on terror, weak on terror”. 18 billion and counting has disappeared from the books in Iraq. Where is the conservative outrage?
    Anyone paying attention knows that the horror stories about socialized medicine are a bunch of nationalistic hooey. Any increase in taxes to pay for UHC would be more than offset by the savings of no longer shoveling money into the corporate health care system we currently have. Obama and Clinton’s plans don’t go far enough.
    BTW, Archer Christifori’s post below, is a bunch of lies.
15. 

    the3rdto said on Saturday, August 22, 2009, 23:27

    My local V.A. Hospital’s trying to get things back in order after 5 Doctors walked off the job (we believe the 19 wrongfull death’s may be part of the reason).
    Talked to a friend (who’s husband was one of the 19). She told me, “I have 4 lawyers working for me… funny how none of the staff wants to talk to me anymore”.
16. 

    Nemesis said on Sunday, August 23, 2009, 6:23

    You’re right–they can’t do it. Look at Medicare which the uninformed tout as what everyone should be on:
    In the US, Medicare is going bankrupt. In 1998, Medicare premiums were $43.80 and in 2008 will be $96.40–up 120%. “Medigap” insurance is common because of the 20% co-pay required for service. Medicare HMOs are common because they reduce that burden without an extra charge in many cases. HOWEVER, many procedures which used to have no or a low co-pay NOW cost the full 20% for the HMO Medicare patient. ALSO the prescription coverage they tended to offer has been REDUCED in many cases to conform to the insane “donut hole” coverage of the feds. Doctors are leaving Medicare because of the low and slow pay AND because the crazy government wants to “balance” their Ponzi scheme on the backs of doctors.
    “That dark cloud lurking over the shoulder of every Massachusetts physician is Medicare. If Congress does not act, doctors’ payments from Medicare will be cut by about 5 percent annually, beginning next year through 2012, creating a financial hailstorm that would wreak havoc with already strained practices.
    Cumulatively, the proposed cuts represent a 31 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement. If the cuts are adjusted for practice-cost inflation, the American Medical Association says Medicare payment rates to physicians in 2013 would be less than half of what they were in 1991.”http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?S…
    Hillarycare doesn’t work as we’ve already seen–look at Taxachusetts:
    “Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers.”http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200…
    Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM
    That article cited also shows how CA could not get UHC off the ground.
    Canadian doc shows how UHC doesn’t work anywhere:
    “…Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.”
    And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room.
    This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.
    Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It’s important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer.”http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_ca…
    Only sensible plan I’ve seen which goes beyond what you see in the PDF. It requires PRICE TRANSPARENCY so people know what things cost AND what is covered IN ADVANCE. Enforces contract law so legit claims MUST be paid. Enforces antitrust law to deal with the abuses where the large insurers totally control the market, etc. Oh and this plan is 100% VOLUNTARY, not dependent on employers, doesn’t raise individual taxes but gets funds from a current abuse of the system.
    QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE health care for all.
    That means preventative care (physical with follow up). Real medication (no Medicare “donut holes” the really ill are ripped off again.) No bogus ridiculously low “caps” on needed medical procedures. No abuse of the ER. No paying for the silly with the sniffles to go to the doc for free. No more bankruptcies over medical bills. I want THIS plan that ends abuse of the taxpayer, takes the burden off employers, provides price transparency, and ends the rip-off of the US taxpayer at the hands of greedy insurance CEOs (which has been repeatedly documented).http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm…
    Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com
    Cassandra Nathan’s Save America, Save the World
    Compare with ACTUAL problems now:
    When 75% of the people who declare bankruptcy over medical bills ARE INSURED, then insurance is CLEARLY not the answer.
    “Aldrich’s situation is “asinine” but increasingly common, said Dr. Deborah Thorne of Ohio University. Thorne, co-author of a widely quoted 2005 study that found medical bills contributed to nearly half of the 1.5 million personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. each year, said that ratio has likely worsened since the data was gathered.
    …
    Like Aldrich, Thorne said, three-quarters of the individuals in the study who declared bankruptcy because of health problems were insured. “http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20201807/
    Linda Peeno, MD testified that SHE had often denied treatment JUST to save the insurance company money http://www.thenationalcoalition.org/DrPe…
    Furthermore:
    “the vast majority of health insurance policies are through for-profit stock companies. They are in the process of “shedding lives” as some term it when “undesirable” customers are lost through various means, including raising premiums and co-pays and decreasing benefits (Britt, “Health insurers getting bigger cut of medical dollars,” 15 October 2004, investors.com). That same Investors Business Daily article from 2004 noted the example of Anthem, another insurance company. They said the top five executives (not just the CEO) received an average of an 817 percent increase in compensation between 2000 and 2003. The CEO, for example, had his compensation go from $2.5 million to $25 million during that time period. About $21 million of that was in stock payouts, the article noted.
    A 2006 article, “U.S. Health Insurance: More Market Domination, More CEO Compensation”
    (hcrenewal.blogspot.com) notes that in 56 percent of 294 metropolitan areas one insurer “controls more than half the business in health maintenance organization and preferred provider networks underwriting.” In addition to having the most enrollees, they also are the biggest purchasers of health care and set the price and coverage terms. “’The results is double-digit premium increases from 2001 and 2004—peaking with a 13.9 percent jump in 2003—soaring well above inflation and wages increases.’” Where is all that money going? The article quotes a Wall Street Journal article looking at the compensation of the CEO of UnitedHealth Group. His salary and bonus is $8 million annually. He has benefits such as the use of a private jet. He has stock-option fortunes worth $1.6 billion.”
    –Save America, Save the World by Cassandra Nathan pp. 127-128
    “Insurance Companies Robbing Patients
    Robbing patients to pay CEOs leads to unprecedented medical insurance corporation greed.
    Thursday, January 3, 2008 8:52 AM
    By: Michael Arnold Glueck & Robert J. Cihak, The Medicine Men”http://www.newsmax.com/medicine_men/medi…
17. 

    vote_usa said on Sunday, August 23, 2009, 7:40

    The neocons think we can handle healthcare also. Bush has increased spending in the waste Medicare more than any other president.
    $390 Billion per year I believe.
    Both parties want some sort of national health, be it medicare, or universal healthcare.
18. 

    estimato said on Sunday, August 23, 2009, 11:33

    It just sounds good. On first pass, without thinking. But after careful review (of which the liberals don’t do) and taking into consideration of reality, it is a bad idea.
    It will drive away good doctors and allow people with no medical issue to clog the system. Socialized medicine is doomed but they dont’ care. They just want to try for a “change”.. the empty slogan of the left. They don’t want to improve, just change. of course, what does change mean? they don’t know.
19. 

    Yam said on Sunday, August 23, 2009, 14:26

    Because overseas governments can run their health systems quite well (like Sweden)
    After all it is the US army that apparently protects the world…
20. 

    gorgeous said on Sunday, August 23, 2009, 19:35

    Jenny, first of all, this term “liberal” may I think be a misnomer. It is chucked around willynilly but it means different things to different people. Certainly its meaning in the US and in Britain is completely different. (In Brit “liberalism” is based on Methodism rather than Marxism!)
    As for health services, they were established in Brit during the 1947/48 programme of social welfare legislation which was landmark. Until very recently the system was the world’s very best and has only fallen into disrepair because the mediocre politicians started tinkering around with it.
21. 

    ________ said on Monday, August 24, 2009, 1:04

    while heroic yes, they are i cant deny such, however do you suppose the liberals let alone any other party is truly concerned with the welfare of our soldiers when they send them off to fight a battle that has really no grounds of going to the extent it does except to argue their own wants. now if you put a few of the people that worked at getting that many soldiers over there with them i assure you the health care would be better …. it is really no different than why you dont hear of diseased politicians … they ll take care of themselves and offer the remains to the servants after … on either side of the line lib or con they are still people with their best interest in mind then ours or in this case theirs, thus being the soldiers.
22. 

    Ed said on Monday, August 24, 2009, 5:51

    Because they do such a good job of controlling our borders just look what a wonderful job they do and Katrina and take such good care of social security and take care of our veterans by closing their hospitals and taking away their benefits .Surely they can take on a tiny little thing like heathcare you think? Affordable healthcare for everybody?
23. 

    Anthony O said on Monday, August 24, 2009, 11:29

    They are still in deep slumber. All the money has been airlifted to Iraq and there is no money for vital issues anymore.