yes, the former is jumping off the cliff, where the latter is climbing down a cliff, a cliff that people had successfully surmounted it. Do a search on wiki "universal healthcare" and see for yourself how many countries in the world had successfully implemented it. Surprising? Universal healthcare is possible if we figured out how these countries managed to do it. One thing for sure, the lobbyists must be expelled from our healthcare initiatives!
Fat chance we will get the lobbyists expelled from our healthcare initiatives if we adopt universal healthcare. If anything, the universal healthcare agenda will motivate the big Pharma, Insurance and allopathic medicine lobbies to influence the policies and the program in their favor. It will do for healthcare what the Federal Reserve bankers did for monetary policy. Since the Fed took over our money, the dollar has been devalued to 4% of its value. I've little doubt universal health care will follow a similar trend.
If you think UHC is rosy in Europe and Canada, think again. U.S. Corporations are now taking over the management of hospitals in the U.K. and France's system is going bankrupt. The better run systems seem to work in cities where the local tax base brings in more money, but people living outside the cities don't fare too well. And people with more urgent needs end up going out of pocket for private doctors or traveling outside their countries to get appropriate care.
What we need is to return to sound money and free the market on health care. That will effectively stabilize the cost of healthcare and improve its quality. Our corporate/government monopolized system is bad, but bringing more government into it isn't the answer. What Ron Paul advocates is stronger doctor/patient relationships and government tends to interfere with that.
If you are so gung ho on UHC, how would you feel if George W. Bush or John McCain were in charge of setting policy for it? This is how you have to think about instituting any new government program. Politics change and the only really good ideas are the ones that hold up in spite of who's in power.
Hillary's plan calls for forcing young adults to pay into the system. She believes the infusion of money from young adults who presumably don't need as much care will help bring down the costs for everyone. The way I see it, new people coming into the system will begin to demand more from it and there goes your lowered costs.
Obama's plan is to provide UHC for those below the poverty line, using money taxed from the rich. Sounds nice, but how about returning to sound money where the dollar can have some spending power? The kind of economic prosperity that would result from sound money would naturally help the poor get better health care. The idea of wealth distribution like Obama's plan ignores the fact that the very richest of people in the U.S. create new money out of thin air. So go ahead, tax the hell out of them. They'll only require some interest when you pay them back.
Until Obama or anyone else begins to talk about sound money, I have no reason to listen to their pitch.
I think Obama's a nice guy, but all I see him doing is putting a nicer, friendlier face on the same old corruption. And now he's got Zbiggy on his team. Good Lord!! Zbiggy makes the Neo-cons look like a bunch of wussies.
I do think Obama will beat McCain in the general election, but I'm not wasting my vote on him.
