Starving_Artist:
The question you put to me in #66 is not deserving of an answer because it demands proof of a claim I did not make. I merely asked who made the comment, I didn’t contend to have thought of it myself.
Besides, you know how it goes when liberal policies ultimately fail or otherwise prove unworkable – everything but the actual cause gets blamed.
Wow! How completely disingenuous can you get?
You said:
Starving_Artist:
…Plus, I feel that socialistic European economies are in transition now and that they won’t always be able to provide what their populations demand of them. (Who was it who said that all democracies are doomed to fail because sooner or later their citizens learn they can vote themselves goodies from the public coffers? ) Socialism is a drag on productivity and on produce. Socialistic economies are not and cannot be permanently self-sustaining. Thus they are doomed eventually to fail, and when that happens communism is the likely replacement, and who in their right mind wants that?
You stuck the comment (which I bolded) right in the middle of your assertion and NOW you say you didn’t make the claim? Oh, I know you often don’t say what you mean, or don’t mean what you say, but get real! YOU put it in your post; so justify it, if you can.
And please tell us the liberal policies that ultimately failed or were otherwise proved unworkable but everything but the actual cause got blamed. Hmmm?
Starving_Artist:
I never “run” away. I got busy and have pretty much stayed that way. A check of my postings since that time will show that I’ve been away from the board quite a bit.
Brave Sir Robin ran away.(“No!”) (“I didn’t!”) (“no!”) (“I didn’t!”)
Bravely (“I never did!”) to his feet,(“all lies!”) (“I never!”)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Back in the real world, the “many alternatives that could be debated about how to handle the needs of people who have no coverage” are failing to appear. The alternative is really more of the same (including price gouging ) for the future if nothing is done.
http://www.nase.org/knowledgecenter/healthresourcecenter/healthnews/09-06-19/Report_Projects_Economic_Benefits_From_Health_Care_Reform.aspx
The report offered some staggering projections about the future without reform. Currently, 18 percent of GDP in the U.S. is devoted to health care costs and there are 46 million uninsured Americans. Without reform, the report projects that the portion of GDP spent on health care would increase to 34 percent and the number of uninsured Americans would rise to above 72 million respectively by 2040. The report also states that if properly measured, GDP could be more than 2 percent higher in 2020 than it would have been without reform, and almost 8 percent higher in 2030.
The CEA report points out that “workers in small firms are especially vulnerable” to high health care costs, nothing that “almost 96 percent of firms with 50 or more employees offer health insurance as compared with 43 percent of firms that have fewer than 50 workers.” Additionally, the report projects that if the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance premiums continues to grow at current rates, less than 20 percent of small employers will offer coverage by 2040.
The report noted that in many states, small employers and the self-employed are disadvantaged in purchasing health insurance coverage relative to larger firms. Higher premiums can discourage small employers from offering health insurance to employees, potentially reducing the ability of small employers to attract and retain qualified workers. Small employers are also disadvantaged for not offering health insurance because of the preferential tax treatment associated with employer contributions toward health insurance.
So, we have 46 million not insured, 25 or more under insured and the numbers will grow and businesses and government instead of investing in future development will have to spend the money on health care.
