1) The govt decides to help the downtrodden who can’t help themselves.

2) An economic blip happens causing more people to have a hard time. Many of these people may have been unwise with their finances due to the safety net of government help and bankruptcy.

3) The people who are having a hard time want government help, after all it’s only fair. They get it and this dilutes the pool of people who are being responsible and paying their own way.

4) As the pool of people who are paying for their own health care, transportation, housing, food, etc. gets smaller, the price gets higher (basic economics–small production of anything including healthcare is less efficient and will cost more)-also as the govt has huge bargaining power, they will pay less and eventually get less for their people. This will do two things.

5) Insurance getting more expensive will cause more people and employers to bail, raising costs further and forcing more people into a liberal governments loving (and controlling) arms.

6) The government will be stretched thin by this new influx of people they are caring for which will….raise taxes. Which will…hurt economy. Which will…force more people onto social programs.

7) As the government pays less and less for services, the quality of those services will decrease, while the price of services outside the government system will become prohibitive. This will lower the middle class, not raise the lower classes.

The upper class, as well as Liberal party elites will be part of the upper class, and will enjoy even more power than they already do. Not only will they be rich, but the entire country will be dependant upon them for survival. This will allow gross abuses of power, tax evasion, exploitation, control over religion and family.

And that’s how America will eventually look like China, unless….. big shock…..Americans begin to value responsibility, thriftiness, hard work, initiative, self sufficiency once again

Local News Tease earlier today: “The President provides Health Care to all Children” …. what a joke!

1) Consider that America is the only country where Pharm companies or Medical supply companies make a good profit. For example Galaxo Klein, a German company, makes over 1/3 of its profit in the US market.

2) Consider how many American’s stock portfolios and retirements are invested in these Pharm and Biotech companies. What would happen if Americans suddenly lost 1/3 value in all their biotech stocks (probably more because a 1/3 reduction in sustainable profits would decrease stock by more than 1/3).

3) Consider how R&D would stall for less common diseases and improvements in care. Rather than pushing the limits of what is medically possible, any future research in a socialist system would be based on efficiency and AVERAGE outcomes improvement. Having seen the health of the AVERAGE patient, I am determined that I want cutting edge health care not what the average person can get in a socialist system. For example, will a 64yo diabetic be able to get a new kidney in the social system. At the cost of 800K-1million the first year and 50-100K for drugs, complications and maintenance yearly after that don’t count on it.

4) In Europe there is now a 48h physician and resident workweek. In the US it is currently 80h. European doctors make about half (less in some countries) of what US Doctors make. Sooo…if we go socialist, this will likely cut physician salary. As their European counterparts work far fewer hours, I don’t see US doctors working the same long days for half the cash. In other words 1/2 cash=1/2 hours. As we are already having a shortage of physicians, what will happen when we effectively cut our medical workforce in half by cutting their pay, which will result in reduced hours.

Thank you.

Too bad our children will be required to pai it back….

According to the CDC data, there has been a slight decline in the percentage of adult SMOKERS over the last decade from 25% in 1995 to 21% in 2006.

————

Unfortunately, this is not really true. According to the CDC data, there has been a slight decline in the percentage of adult non-smokers over the last decade from 25% in 1995 to 21% in 2006.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/adult/table_2.htm

However, this gain is almost entirely among those who never started smoking. The “never” smokers have increased from 52% to 58% over the same time frame.

The bad news is that the percentage of former smokers who have quit has stopped dead in the water after increasing steadily from 1965. The percentage of former smokers who are now ex-smokers has only increased from 49% in 1995 to 52% in 2006. Really a pathetic number when you consider the massive tax increases and restrictions on smoking in public places and the workplace that have taken place over that time frame.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/adult/table_6.htm

This suggests two things:

a) The current government and pharmceutical company methods for quitting smoking are not working. The rate of quitting nicotine addiction (smoking) stopping in its tracks when pharmaceutical nicotine (patch and gum) became available over the counter. Virtually all health care funding for quitting smoking now goes to the purchase of pharmaceutical nictoine products.

b) You could increase the tax on cigarettes ’til you are blue in the face and it probably won’t make people stop smoking. It might discourage teens from starting a lifetime of nicotine addiction (a very, very good thing), although that is debateable with all the candy flavored cigarillow, snuff, and hookah products the tobacco companies are now peddling.

This

This is the first step in destroying what is left of our once excellent health system. It will drag it to the pitiful basis of those of Canada, Great Britain and the Scandanavian countries. I remember only too well being in England almost twenty years ago and listening to ordinary English folk telling us that health care was being rationed for those over 55 even if you could afford to pay.

Let me use an example I heard on the radio. If one of you and I were walking down the street and saw a person in need, it would be perfectly ok if I, you or both of us removed a bill from our wallet and gave it to them. But if I took a gun from my pocket and made you give the man a twenty, it would be wrong just as if you did the same to me. In this case it is the government with the gun and their doing is no different from any individual doing it, especially as so few of those who want to rob us come anywhere to matching our charity in their private lives.

Obama made a plea for responsibility, but it is not responsible to spend money which the government does not have, nor to take funds from one person to enrich another for whatever purpose.