The intersection of ignorance and indifference

Does the intersection of ignorance and confusion have any correlation with the percentage of Americans who don't complete high school studies? Is the percentage of people who support publicly-funded health-care that includes an economically efficient central administration related in any way to the percentage of people who have completed high school? Since more than 50 percent of Americans support a public health insurance option, and roughly 25-30 percent of Americans have a B.A. degree, it seems logical that there might be some relation between education and the ability to comprehend details related to our civil government and the difference between public and private institutions.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
--Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816.

Just yesterday, I used health insurance for the first time in years. I couldn't help but think of all the people who do not have insurance, but I also thought of the businesses that struggle to cover their employees. I wonder how much longer this country can compete in a world economy and have employers pick up the bill on medical insurance.

A lot of the opposition I hear against government involvement falls back on the false premise the uninsured can get any treatment they want at an emergency room. This is a lie and most people know this. It does not stop talk radio idiots from making this claim in an effort to make the right feel Christany, but it is a lie.

I can't pretend to know what the answer is in this debate, but I wonder if having some sort government sponsored health care might bring some jobs back or at least stop hemorrhage of wealth.

Expanding Medicare to cover all citizens is the best solution.

"Does the intersection of ignorance and confusion have any correlation with the percentage of Americans who don't complete high school studies?"

No, the correlation is with the percentage of people that form their perceptions based on what they hear on Fox "news".

Frank wrote:

Expanding Medicare to cover all citizens is the best solution.
"Does the intersection of ignorance and confusion have any correlation with the percentage of Americans who don't complete high school studies?"
No, the correlation is with the percentage of people that form their perceptions based on what they hear on Fox "news".

You guys are way off base! From what you say on all these forums,
I think you are writing from the Democratic play book. You all say the very same thing. You can't fight the facts so you demonize Fox News, and Talk Radio in general. Geobels said just
what you guys are doing. "If you tell a lie and tell it often enough people will believe it". If the general public is as dumb as you dems say, why are you guys having such a tough time trying to get agreement on this"non-existant" health care plan? Remember, the democrats have the numbers to pass anything they want, but you can't get agreement within your own party.
If the dems arn't going to REQUIRE everyone to pay into the new system, we still would not have "universal health care". Why don't we start with some reforms first.

l. Can't be turned down due to pre-existant conditions.
2. Allow all insurance companies to compete over all states.
3. Expand Medi-caid to cover those who REALLY can't afford to pay.
4. Withhold monies from paychecks, re. income tax, so those who
choose not to be covered will be forced to.
5. Vote in some Tort Reform, so the doctors don't go broke paying their insurance payments.

The ONLY thing the above reforms won't do, is turn over COMPLETE CONTROL of our health care system to the government. If congress would vote in the above changes, they would have the backing of
almost everyone. Why won't they; can you spell C O N T R O L!!!

Charles Kasey Kitterman wrote:

Just yesterday, I used health insurance for the first time in years. I couldn't help but think of all the people who do not have insurance, but I also thought of the businesses that struggle to cover their employees. I wonder how much longer this country can compete in a world economy and have employers pick up the bill on medical insurance.
A lot of the opposition I hear against government involvement falls back on the false premise the uninsured can get any treatment they want at an emergency room. This is a lie and most people know this. It does not stop talk radio idiots from making this claim in an effort to make the right feel Christany, but it is a lie.
I can't pretend to know what the answer is in this debate, but I wonder if having some sort government sponsored health care might bring some jobs back or at least stop hemorrhage of wealth.

I'd be a little careful throwing around the "LIE" word if I were you guys. Just where do you think the government will get the money to pay for everyone's health care if not from employers and tax payers in general?

Do you know that most retirees pay income tax, and all of them pay into the Medicare system.

Just where do you think we are going to get all the doctors to treat all these newly covered people?

By law, Emergency rooms are required to treat people who show up at their facility. If you have proof that this is a "LIE", I'd like to see that proof.

Medicare was set up to cover those who have spent a lifetime working, and paying in to the system. As soon as a person is eligible for Medicare, most insurance companies will cancel the existing insurance. The same thing will happen to the presently covered people if government health care is inacted.
If you like the "LIE" word so much, try it on this one,"if you
like the coverage you have now, you can keep it." How many employers will keep paying for insurance when they can tell employees to go get the government plan?

When you dems can answer these questins instead of posting the same ole demonization of those who disagree with you, you may convince some of us to change our minds.

As long as health care is a "for profit" system, and as long as those "for profit" companies are paying off members of Congress (and yes, in both parties), and as long as people function under the "I've got mine, so screw you" mentality, there is not going to be a significant, meaningful overhaul of the health care system in this country.
Requiring everyone to buy insurance without giving them true choice, and without *serious* curtailment of what a company can charge for that insurance is a ridiculous idea which will punish working people who are struggling to get by.
When my health insurance was covered by my employer, I had no choice in the provider; it was chosen by my employer.
As a part-time worker, I now have no health insurance because I can't afford it. I can barely afford to pay my monthly expenses.
Health care should be a right, not a privilege.

Renee G wrote:

Health care should be a right, not a privilege.

Buford aint reel smart butt he likes ah play along. Let's play. If'n "Health care should be a right" let's jus say it is. Im givin it to yah as a right. Yew got it now, just like yew got the right to bear arms (actually in the constitution).

I want tha govarnment tah buy me a gun. It my right an I want yew tah pay fir it cuz I cant ufford it. Ware do I git my gun? Wil yew pay fir it? It MY RIGHT!!!

Renee G wrote:

As long as health care is a "for profit" system, and as long as those "for profit" companies are paying off members of Congress (and yes, in both parties), and as long as people function under the "I've got mine, so screw you" mentality, there is not going to be a significant, meaningful overhaul of the health care system in this country.
Requiring everyone to buy insurance without giving them true choice, and without *serious* curtailment of what a company can charge for that insurance is a ridiculous idea which will punish working people who are struggling to get by.
When my health insurance was covered by my employer, I had no choice in the provider; it was chosen by my employer.
As a part-time worker, I now have no health insurance because I can't afford it. I can barely afford to pay my monthly expenses.
Health care should be a right, not a privilege.

I'm really sorry you can't afford insurance; the problem is, I can't afford to pay for your insurance. If you truly can't afford to pay for your insurance, why don't you apply for Medi-cal or medi-caid? Those programs were set up to help people who truly do not have the money to pay for their care.
If you truly believe health care should be a right, how, and who, do you believe should pay for it? I just heard this morning, Medicare has 80 billion a year in fraud. Do you think the government would do better if they had control of all health care?
How many more low income people could they cover if they eliminated all the fraud?

Instead of just saying health care should be a right, or that you
can't afford it, I would really like to hear how the proponents
would answer the concerns of people who oppose government health
care.

Buford wrote:

<quoted text>
Buford aint reel smart butt he likes ah play along. Let's play. If'n "Health care should be a right" let's jus say it is. Im givin it to yah as a right. Yew got it now, just like yew got the right to bear arms (actually in the constitution).
I want tha govarnment tah buy me a gun. It my right an I want yew tah pay fir it cuz I cant ufford it. Ware do I git my gun? Wil yew pay fir it? It MY RIGHT!!!

Adding to the above point. What about food and water? The majority of people can live for a long time without health care but we all need food and water on a daily basis. I think food and water should be a right above health care. I want the government to buy me my food and water. Oh yeah, I forgot about shelter. I think shelter should be a right.
Don’t we also have a right to happiness? I want my rights to happiness as well.

Yeah, Brad II, and while we're at it, let's re-evaluate the right to national defense. And who said that we should have gov't provided mail delivery. And where is it written that people have a right to roads, let alone sidewalks. And, as you so rightly note, Brad II, let's get off this gov't provided drinking water kick. Let people buy bottled water, and if they can't afford it, then let natural selection take over.
I don't think we should have laws, either. Why are we paying for all that apparatus just to try to make the bad people act right? No one guarantees should be guaranteeing our safety. Real men take care of themselves, and if they can't, that's just too damn bad.
Don't even get me started on libraries or schools. Where is it written people have a right to free books on loan, or schools?
Wake up, America. When you start thinking about things gov't shouldn't provide and the Constitution didn't promise, there's no end of things we can cut.

Brad II wrote:

<quoted text>
Adding to the above point. What about food and water? The majority of people can live for a long time without health care but we all need food and water on a daily basis. I think food and water should be a right above health care. I want the government to buy me my food and water. Oh yeah, I forgot about shelter. I think shelter should be a right.
Don’t we also have a right to happiness? I want my rights to happiness as well.

Yew neede tah git ah littal moore ed's shoe Kate Ted if'n yir goin tah right on theas pages Brad II. Yew wrote, "shelter" insthead ah "shaltar".. lern tah spel.

Jaime, please answer my post #9. I can't get any of
you liberals to tell us just how we are supposed to
do this. Quit telling us why we need to enact another government program; tell us how we can do this without printing money, giving up something else, or sadleing our great-great grandchildren with the cost of what "we desire". And please don't tell me about Bush, that time is over. We are here, right now, how do you propose to pay for this new government health care for all?

P.S. Glen Beck hit it right on the head today. Did
you listen to him, Jaime? If you didn't, you don't want to hear the other side, if you did, just tell us where he is wrong. I don't want to hear that Beck is a liar; I want you to tell me where he is wrong. Can you do that? If not, I will not believe another thing that comes from your BIAS PEN! jAIME, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

jaime wrote:

Wake up, America. When you start thinking about things gov't shouldn't provide and the Constitution didn't promise, there's no end of things we can cut.

Exactly. We have much to much government in our lives as it is, we don’t need the government controlling our lives even more. Health care, Cap n Tax. Where will it end. The road to serfdom is well underway.
The only way to truly control costs is for a free and open marketplace where people actually are paying for their health care. None of the bills in congress will lower costs or improve health care.

If government run health care is the only thing that will work then please tell me what is in any of these proposals that will control costs and improve health care.

Below is an excerpt from a very informative article.
“Socialism started out meaning government ownership of the means of production, but it came to mean egalitarianism promoted by "progressive" taxation and the institutions of the welfare state, as F.A. Hayek stated in the preface to the 1976 edition of The Road to Serfdom. The problems of the American healthcare system are caused entirely by the fact that the government subjects the system to massive interventions, some of which are fascist in nature, while others are socialist.
In 1992, the Hoover Institution published an essay by Milton Friedman titled "Input and Output in Medical Care," in which Friedman documented how, at the beginning of the 20th century, about 90% of all American hospitals were private, for-profit enterprises. State and local governments then began taking over the hospital industry. So, by the early 1990s only about 10% of all American hospitals were private, for-profit enterprises. Socialism characterizes at least 90% of all hospitals. Many other hospitals have received government subsidies, and with the subsidies come reams of regulation, making them fascist by definition.
The effect of this vast government takeover of the hospital industry, Friedman documented, is what any student of the economics of bureaucracy should expect: the more that is spent on hospital care, the worse the quality and quantity of care become, thanks to the effects of governmental bureaucratization. According to Friedman, as governments took over an ever-larger share of the hospital industry (being exempt from antitrust laws), hospital personnel per occupied hospital bed quintupled, as cost per bed rose tenfold.”
http://mises.org/story/3793

Buford wrote:

<quoted text>
Yew neede tah git ah littal moore ed's shoe Kate Ted if'n yir goin tah right on theas pages Brad II. Yew wrote, "shelter" insthead ah "shaltar".. lern tah spel.

soarie. Eyes gunna tri hardr, k.

Brad II wrote:

<quoted text>
soarie. Eyes gunna tri hardr, k.

tanks

Seriously, how can anyone even for a minute think that the government can effectively run Health Care.

Medicare = broke
Medicaid = broke
Social Security = broke
U.S. Post Office = broke
Cash For Clunkers = broke
National Economy = broke
Federal Health Care = now what do you think?

Yep. Anyone who raises doubts about health reform is just plain ignorant. They're selfish. They don't care.

It's clear you haven't listened to the dozens of legitimate concerns about the pending legislation. Every opposition point is a "lie" to you.

It's clear you can do nothing more than write inflammatory hate pieces that call people names.

Note to Jaime: ignorance is often the result of putting your fingers in your ears. If you weren't so ignorant of the opposition, you'd lay out for us their better arguments and show us why they're wrong.

Instead, you display for us your ignorance week after week. NO MATTER WHAT the issue is, the real problem is Glenn Beck, Christian preachers, Fox News, or corporations. Just have a look at your back columns if you doubt this.

Do you have a special column template that pops up with these names so that you can just fill in the blanks?

YOU may think the American public is ignorant enough to swallow your propaganda. But alas, there are people who inform themselves on the issues.

Good piece Jaime. Of course, it is truth, so there will be a lot of people who have trouble with that. Keep up the good work, thank you.

Scholar wrote:

Yep. Anyone who raises doubts about health reform is just plain ignorant. They're selfish. They don't care.
It's clear you haven't listened to the dozens of legitimate concerns about the pending legislation. Every opposition point is a "lie" to you.
It's clear you can do nothing more than write inflammatory hate pieces that call people names.
Note to Jaime: ignorance is often the result of putting your fingers in your ears. If you weren't so ignorant of the opposition, you'd lay out for us their better arguments and show us why they're wrong.
Instead, you display for us your ignorance week after week. NO MATTER WHAT the issue is, the real problem is Glenn Beck, Christian preachers, Fox News, or corporations. Just have a look at your back columns if you doubt this.
Do you have a special column template that pops up with these names so that you can just fill in the blanks?
YOU may think the American public is ignorant enough to swallow your propaganda. But alas, there are people who inform themselves on the issues.

The entire piece Jaime wrote lays it out for you, you claim to be a scholar so read it. I fail to see any tuth or even logic in your post, only wildly exagerated allegations and inane comment. You inform yourself? By watching Glen Beck? Thats what you call information -and then you accuse Jaime of spewing propaganda?

Ben Gibbs wrote:

<quoted text>
The entire piece Jaime wrote lays it out for you, you claim to be a scholar so read it. I fail to see any tuth or even logic in your post, only wildly exagerated allegations and inane comment. You inform yourself? By watching Glen Beck? Thats what you call information -and then you accuse Jaime of spewing propaganda?

You evidentally don't watch Glen Beck; he backs up his comments with facts, Jaime just spews his same ole liberal mantra, week after week. Maybe your the one who should inform yourself of both sides of the arguement. The entire piece Jaime wrote lays out his
bias, and I guess, yours also. I, for one, would like one of you
liberals to tell us how this government take=over of health care
will be paid for. Do you have any ideas, other than the "tooth fairy"?