Ronald Reagan speaks out on socialized medicine

[JacknCoke]

You're right, you don't understand. Government healthcare programs don't suck. What sucks (or is sucking the life out of our economy) is the method of offsetting costs by insurance coverage, private or public.

Well thanks for calling me out, I wasn't asking for you to be a total uber Dick about it but thanks anyway's. To be honest you really didn't answer my question either. You continue to state the same bull shit examples you fire out over and over again.

So now I will change my question to something slightly different. If these government programs work soooooo well WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED A BIGGER "BETTER" ONE?:thefinger:

 

[jasonk282]

shhhhhhh
That's a big dirty non secret conservatives don't want to be confronted with.

And it wasn't just Reagan.
As the Bush administration was busy compiling a huge debt Dick Cheney used Reaganomics as an argument for deficits not mattering.

During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988). Over those eight years, the unemployment rate declined from 7.1% to 5.5%. Reagan implemented policies based on supply-side economics and advocated a classical liberal and laissez-faire philosophy, seeking to stimulate the economy with large, across-the-board tax cuts.

During Reagan's presidency, federal income tax rates were lowered significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% percent in December 1982—higher than any time since the Great Depression—then dropped during the rest of Reagan's presidency. Sixteen million new jobs were created, while inflation significantly decreased.

Some economists agree that Reagan's tax policies invigorated America's economy, such as Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, who wrote that the Reagan tax cuts were "one of the most important factors in the boom of the 1990s." Similarly, fellow Nobel Prize winning economist Robert A. Mundell wrote that the tax cuts "made the U.S. economy the motor for the world economy in the 1990s, on which the great revolution in information technology was able to feed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domest...inistration#.22Reaganomics.22_and_the_economy

 

[Cpt.Obvious]

Health, housing, food, and clothing (textiles).
they are all things that have to do with survival.
to politicize these issues to make them a debate over the propriety of a political party or position is at best vile.
regardless of the political position it is a means of controlling the people and keep them passive for the crime of fearing death.
call your self liberal, conservative, democratic, communist, Republican, Democrat Sith or Jedi.
It is an age old struggle of the few over the many because they are to lazy to wipe there own asses, so they'll make you do it.
there is no "system" so perfect that when it achieves power that it wont become corrupted.
Health care is in its current state because we rolled over and took it up the ass.
Why get off your ass and exercise, when you can take a pill to loose weight.
if you can't find an answer to your medical problem, obviously it's in your head - take a pill.
Why seek an alternative treatment to cancer when you have the tried and untrue to fall back on.
The patient died but the procedure was a success.
the schools teacher isn't incompetent, your kid has A.D.D.
the current problems in health care are not from socialized medicine but a medical system driven by unchecked unaccountable capitalism.
why create a cure when you can have a thousand palliatives at twice the price.
We tried a free market medical system and came to the point ware letting someone die has become a viable option.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
meaning accountability and the willingness to demand it.
and that is what all politics abhors - accountability.
I think the big problem is that the people haven't been expressing the freedom of speech, and let the "elected officials" do it for us as if they did not have there own agenda.
it doesn't matter what system under which we have medical care, as long as we sit back shut up and let the inmates run the asylum we are going to get screwed.

 

[Hot Mega]

Well thanks for calling me out, I wasn't asking for you to be a total uber Dick about it but thanks anyway's. To be honest you really didn't answer my question either. You continue to state the same bull shit examples you fire out over and over again.

So now I will change my question to something slightly different. If these government programs work soooooo well WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED A BIGGER "BETTER" ONE?:thefinger:

Sorry you took offense. I didn't intend to come off that way. Issues don't get resolved or properly discussed when people come off offensive to others.

That said, here's a simpler explanation...

Since most people who are covered by some plan...private or public actually get the services they need and the costs are correspondingly offset by their carriers....we can conclude our programs work.

What doesn't work is a structure that makes the insurance affordable, contains costs and is accessible enough to where people will opt to be covered.

 

[Wainkerr99]

An instructor I know at a College had to finally succumb to her illness. She was almost dead on her feet at work. In the weeks that she is off, she is not paid. When I queried this, I was told this is normal in the U.S.

She also has to pay a great deal of money towards her cure, in addition to which she now loses all medical insurance. Apparently this is also normal in the U.S.

The deal is since she is not working, the company do not pay her.

Maybe she should move to South Africa where she would obtain both free medicine and hospitalisation.

 

[YMIHERE]

During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988). Over those eight years, the unemployment rate declined from 7.1% to 5.5%. Reagan implemented policies based on supply-side economics and advocated a classical liberal and laissez-faire philosophy, seeking to stimulate the economy with large, across-the-board tax cuts.

During Reagan's presidency, federal income tax rates were lowered significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% percent in December 1982—higher than any time since the Great Depression—then dropped during the rest of Reagan's presidency. Sixteen million new jobs were created, while inflation significantly decreased.

Some economists agree that Reagan's tax policies invigorated America's economy, such as Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, who wrote that the Reagan tax cuts were "one of the most important factors in the boom of the 1990s." Similarly, fellow Nobel Prize winning economist Robert A. Mundell wrote that the tax cuts "made the U.S. economy the motor for the world economy in the 1990s, on which the great revolution in information technology was able to feed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domest...inistration#.22Reaganomics.22_and_the_economy

I am going to try and put some prospective on your post about Reagan. Inflation is a function of monetary policy not fiscal policy. Nixon appointed Arthur Burns as head of the Federal Reserve and it’s widely accepted that his policy decisions set the stage for the ensuing high inflation in the late seventies and early eighties. Carter finally appointed Paul Volcker to the fed and he is responsible for the decrease in inflation rates.

Arthur Burns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Frank_Burns

Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett gives Burns poor marks for his tenure as Fed chairman because the inflationary forces that began in 1970 took more than a decade to resolve. "The only disagreement among economists is whether Burns fully understood the mistakes he was making, or was so wedded to incorrect Keynesian theories that he didn't realize what he was doing. The only alternative is that he was under irresistible political pressure from Nixon and had no choice. Neither explanation is very favorable to Burns. Economists now recognize the Nixon era as Exhibit A in how the adoption of bad economic policies in pursuit of short-term political gain eventually turns out to be bad politics as well."

Paul_Volcker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker

Paul Volcker, the previous Fed Chairman known for keeping inflation under control, was fired because the Reagan administration didn't believe he was an adequate de-regulator. Our country has thus suffered from the consequences of choosing as regulator-in-chief of the economy someone who didn't believe in regulation

Reagan’s economy was impressive , but Clinton’s economy was better. Clinton raised tax on the top incomes and we still had a great economy. Kind of puts in doubt the idea that raising taxes is bad for the economy. It could be that tax cuts and increases are just that and nothing more.

http://zzpat.tripod.com/index.htm


Add the fact that’s Reagan’s ideology of little regulation lead the the recent economic meltdown it’s no wonder his status is falling like a rock among historians. The deregulated derivatives market was the weak link that almost caused a systemic failure. The derivative market turned a trillion dollar mortgage market into to 70 trillion dollars worth of bets. When these bets could not be covered the meltdown was inevitable. A direct result of too much laissez faire economic.

 

[Mrs Jolly]

Ronnie loved Nancy, no doubt, but she wasn't his first choice. She wasn't even his first choice for second wife. Ronnie was, to put it mildly, a bit of a lad. Which I think is perfectly understandable being famous, handsome and rich and living in hollywood.

His relationships with his children were, again to put it mildly, all fucked up. Jerry Springer style fucked up. I'm not perfect as a father but if I thought for one minute I was on a par with him as a parent I would throw myself of the nearest bridge.

As for his war record..............what can I say about a warrior who fought in the San Francisco theatre, the Los Angeles campaign and the conflict in New York City? I know he was blind as a bat and may have liked to do more but the fact is he had a very cushy time of it in the "military."

I really don't care about his life. He was a mediocre man of average abilities. I just get tired when others keep trying to build him up into this statuesque icon.

 

[mrtrebus]

Ronnie loved Nancy, no doubt, but she wasn't his first choice. She wasn't even his first choice for second wife. Ronnie was, to put it mildly, a bit of a lad. Which I think is perfectly understandable being famous, handsome and rich and living in hollywood.

His first choice was Bonzo the dirty little bastard!

 

[Rey C.]

I was listening to a discussion a few weeks ago on some Sunday morning show, and it centered around whether or not Ronald Reagan (under a different name) would be welcome in the GOP of 2009. Just the fact that that question would even come up says something about where the GOP is now. From the Big Tent/"come one, come all" days of Reagan to the RINO/"you're either with us or against us" of today. Pretty sad state of affairs, IMO. No wonder the ranks of independents is swelling in this country. :thumbsup:

Anyway, even more recently, Reagan said: "If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez shot that all to hell, I'd say.

And as was said earlier, I want to be there when someone proposes legislation to dissolve Medicare, Medicaid and the VA health care system. If socialism is indeed evil in all cases, let's start with those programs, and then move on to the public education system in the U.S. I don't have kids. Why should I be forced to pay higher property taxes, so that other people's crumb snatchers and yard apes can be edumacated? Send them to private school or let them remain uneducated and ignorant. Not my problem. Right?

 

[maildude]

This coming from the guy who bolstered corporate rule.

 

[georges]

Socialism is the equal distribution of misery, plain and simple.

 

[JacknCoke]

Sorry you took offense. I didn't intend to come off that way. Issues don't get resolved or properly discussed when people come off offensive to others.

That said, here's a simpler explanation...

Since most people who are covered by some plan...private or public actually get the services they need and the costs are correspondingly offset by their carriers....we can conclude our programs work.

What doesn't work is a structure that makes the insurance affordable, contains costs and is accessible enough to where people will opt to be covered.

Sorry for my response it was very inappropriate. I was having a miserable day and took it out on you via my post. Unacceptable behavior on my part and I do apologize.

I see where you are coming from, and I thank you for dumbing down your explanation. I do not know much about this whole system which is why I question it and its reasoning and I believe I always will. I agree with you that Insurance is very expensive and unobtainable by many. I still think there are less drastic changes that could be made.

Read this: American Rule of Law

I think we need to start here by reversing this process. It causes to many problems and is a huge reason all of the outrageous lawsuits that are cramming up our health system. But this is also jut an opinion 2 cents and not a factual case:dunno:

Let me know what you think.

 

[jasonk282]

As for his war record..............what can I say about a warrior who fought in the San Francisco theatre, the Los Angeles campaign and the conflict in New York City? I know he was blind as a bat and may have liked to do more but the fact is he had a very cushy time of it in the "military."

Guess what there al LOTS of people serving in our current military that have not been to comabt for a number of reasons, but yet you tend to make light of a man who served his country in WW2, help produced training films for the AAF(Army Air Force). If you knew anything about the American military is that personal that train and make training video's are HIGHLY respected since they are teaching enlisted personal how to stay alive.

I could careless if you do not like him politicaly or fatherly, but that fact that he answered the call to his nation is undenialbe and served in the role that the Army needed.

I'm tanker my MOS is 19K, M1 Abrams crew member, while I was stationed at Camp Fallujah and FOB Sykes both in Iraq I did everything BUT command a tank. I was used in a way that the Army felt I could serve them.

 

[Facetious]

A gov't health plan would be enormously successful and popular because people will flee the "churn and burn" philosophy that the private insurers operate under.

Unfortunately, that is wishful thinking. Most doctors are very much self determined individuals who aren't particularly receptive of the idea of having to answer to a higher authority, particularly while in the process of making life or death decisions. Also, who want's to take a SIGNIFICANT pay cut ? Certainly not doctors !

It is the only way to *reduce costs* AND improve outcomes.Edit •Like it or not :1orglaugh, we're in a GLOBAL ECONOMY and we pay through the nose while our competitor countries don't.

No ! The way to reduce costs is simple : kick non green card holding non citizens the hell out of this country and draft a law that makes it mandatory that any business enterprise that hires a green carder must pay for their insourced "discount employee" health care insurance, PERIOD !

 

[marquis2]

Unfortunately, that is wishful thinking. Most doctors are very much self determined individuals who aren't particularly receptive of the idea of having to answer to a higher authority, particularly while in the process of making life or death decisions. Also, who want's to take a SIGNIFICANT pay cut ? Certainly not doctors !

No ! The way to reduce costs is simple : kick non green card holding non citizens the hell out of this country and draft a law that makes it mandatory that any business enterprise that hires a green carder must pay for their insourced "discount employee" health care insurance, PERIOD !

When the NHS was founded in the UK in 1948 the medical profession was implacably opposed to it. That is not the case today after over 60 years of actual experience of it.
The doctors aren't badly paid, the average family doctor gets around £110 000 a year , specialists and surgeons a lot more.And they don't have to chase the payments or carry malpractice insurance.

As for kicking the non green card non citizens out-how much do you thing this would really save overall? Most of them in any case are young adults who statistically make lowest use of medical facilities.The only figure I've seen quoted (which must in any case be a pure guess) is around 1.5%

 

[JacknCoke]

Most of them in any case are young adults who statistically make lowest use of medical facilities.The only figure I've seen quoted (which must in any case be a pure guess) is around 1.5%

So what happens in 20 years when this "most of them" turns into older adults with health problems? I am not sure on the age range of the highest % of health care users, but at some point in time this age group will become the highest % age group. But yes lets just sit back and give them a free ride, good point!

 

[Mrs Jolly]

Guess what there al LOTS of people serving in our current military that have not been to comabt for a number of reasons, but yet you tend to make light of a man who served his country in WW2, help produced training films for the AAF(Army Air Force). If you knew anything about the American military is that personal that train and make training video's are HIGHLY respected since they are teaching enlisted personal how to stay alive.

I could careless if you do not like him politicaly or fatherly, but that fact that he answered the call to his nation is undenialbe and served in the role that the Army needed.

I'm tanker my MOS is 19K, M1 Abrams crew member, while I was stationed at Camp Fallujah and FOB Sykes both in Iraq I did everything BUT command a tank. I was used in a way that the Army felt I could serve them.

Why can you not fully understand anything I write?

I never questioned or denied his ability to serve. His service was no doubt worthy, competent etc. However it does not justify the reverence that some apply to him, and more importantly wish for others to share. He is in all regards (and here I apologize to anybody who read my previous posts and fully comprehended them) a mediocre and average man. (Unless of course you know of some clandestine, dangerous operation that he took part in.) Nothing more and nothing less. He is not, I repeat, not a hero. And should not be regarded as such. If you are unable to distinguish these differences, I don't know what I can do to help you.

His performance as a parent was a fucking disgrace.

My beef with the hollywood thing (as I boringly explained earlier in plain english) is not that he lived that life. It is that the very people who lionize, "the Gipper" and "the great communicator" etc despise the "hollywood elite". It is this hypocracy that gets on my tits.

How many times have you seen pictures of Ronnie on horseback wearing a stetson? Now, how many times have you seen pictures of him yucking it up with movie star pals? Which scenario is more typical of the actual life he led?

Dressing up the mundane as the glorious serves nobody. It undermines true accomplishments. It devalues the currency of deserved fame. The move to portray Ronald Reagan as anything more than a man of middling qualities is dishonest and should be regarded with mild contempt.


Lastly, I would like to share the story of Ronnie on the campaign trail. John Glenn was making noises about higher office and before one of Reagan's aides could stop him getting to the microphone unscripted, (Something he barely did during his tenure in the whitehouse.) He described Glenn as a, "celluloid hero." This was due to the fact that the movie, "The Right Stuff," was showing at the time. I'm not sure if there is a word in the english language that can sufficiently describe that level of irony.

 

[Hot Mega]

Sorry for my response it was very inappropriate. I was having a miserable day and took it out on you via my post. Unacceptable behavior on my part and I do apologize.

I see where you are coming from, and I thank you for dumbing down your explanation. I do not know much about this whole system which is why I question it and its reasoning and I believe I always will. I agree with you that Insurance is very expensive and unobtainable by many. I still think there are less drastic changes that could be made.

Read this: American Rule of Law

I think we need to start here by reversing this process. It causes to many problems and is a huge reason all of the outrageous lawsuits that are cramming up our health system. But this is also jut an opinion 2 cents and not a factual case:dunno:

Let me know what you think.

Keep in mind, the American Rule.... is simply the default circumstance. In many cases people are allowed to recoup litigation fees.

I heard somewhere that malpractice (suits and/or insurance) only make up about 1% of overall costs in the system. If that's true, I think the litigation issue most cite is a red herring.

I would just say that everyone is concerned about government involvement in offsetting costs associated with health care (which is all they will be doing as they won't have a thing to do with your actual health care...that's between you and your doctor) or providing coverage for health care affecting the viability of private insurers. However, comparatively speaking public education hasn't decimated private education. In fact, private education institutions are thriving but imagine if it was the case a family became destitute and the only options available to educate their children were through private institutions. It could end up being the case that their children would have to take off a year or so just because dad lost his job.

To me, a government with the GDP the size of the US's should provide a basic education and basic health care for it's people. Neither should be contingent on whether you have a job all the time or not IMO.

Unfortunately, that is wishful thinking. Most doctors are very much self determined individuals who aren't particularly receptive of the idea of having to answer to a higher authority, particularly while in the process of making life or death decisions. Also, who want's to take a SIGNIFICANT pay cut ? Certainly not doctors !

I'm not sure what's meant by, "having to answer to a higher authority...while in the process of making life or death decisions..". If that is to mean they'll be subject to answering to some government bureaucrat before they can treat a patient, that simply doesn't make sense and I don't foresee them being anymore answerable (if you can call it that) than they already are to private carriers.

No ! The way to reduce costs is simple : kick non green card holding non citizens the hell out of this country and draft a law that makes it mandatory that any business enterprise that hires a green carder must pay for their insourced "discount employee" health care insurance, PERIOD !

How do we kick non citizens out anymore efficiently than we already do (beyond wrecking our economy so bad that they simply steal away on their own)?

 

[JacknCoke]

Keep in mind, the American Rule.... is simply the default circumstance. In many cases people are allowed to recoup litigation fees.

The only circumstances I know of where this is true is when there is a written contract between parties stating that losing party is responsible for court fee's. (I obtained this knowledge from a lawyer so I guess we can leave it up to the judge if this is true or not haha).

 

[marquis2]

The only circumstances I know of where this is true is when there is a written contract between parties stating that losing party is responsible for court fee's. (I obtained this knowledge from a lawyer so I guess we can leave it up to the judge if this is true or not haha).

I think it's the normal practice for the winner to be awarded costs , certainly in this country.That's one reason why "no win no fee" isn't the bargain it appears to be.There are cases though where the case goes one way but the judge considers it is in the interest of justice not to award costs.