said by supergirl :

Congress needs to start working on things people need NOT what some people want.

said by Tzale :

creating a "universal health care" system in this country, then that isn't FIXING the problem, that is making it WORSE.

said by viperlmw :

I would point out that Japan, a country often held out here as an example of how broadband *should* be, also is on the universal health care bandwagon.

I would also point out that, as a 20 yr vetran of the US Navy (retired) that, for those 20 years, I was only allowed to use the universal health care provided by the military. Why was it good enough for me and my family, and not everyone else?

said by jester121 :

Thank you for your service to our country sir.

I think the numerous cases of waste, abuse, fraud, and bureaucracy in the VA system that we've all heard about is a much better example of what we have to look forward to from universal socialist health care.

said by knightmb :

often throwing in the word socialist or likening it to Russia or China?

said by amigo_boy :

IMO, this is just a ploy to stop all discussion. There are certain things we've been raised to reflexively oppose. Invoking those words is just a way to get people back into (unthinking) conformity.

"Socialist? I don't want to be that!"

And then we proceed with the status quo.... as our medical choices are limited by social regulation (creating non-free market standards). Or, the Federal Reserve bails out Wall St. banks (just 2-3 years after employees of those banks were receiving bonuses equal to their annual salaries). Or, home builders are allowed to write off current losses using taxes paid up to 5 years ago.

We have socialized capitalism. Those who invoke the reflex words the most ("socialist," "communist") don't want to delve into that topic.

Mark

said by amigo_boy :

IMO, this is just a ploy to stop all discussion. There are certain things we've been raised to reflexively oppose. Invoking those words is just a way to get people back into (unthinking) conformity.

"Socialist? I don't want to be that!"

And then we proceed with the status quo.... as our medical choices are limited by social regulation (creating non-free market standards). Or, the Federal Reserve bails out Wall St. banks (just 2-3 years after employees of those banks were receiving bonuses equal to their annual salaries). Or, home builders are allowed to write off current losses using taxes paid up to 5 years ago.

We have socialized capitalism. Those who invoke the reflex words the most ("socialist," "communist") don't want to delve into that topic.

Mark

said by viperlmw :

I would point out that Japan, a country often held out here as an example of how broadband *should* be, also is on the universal health care bandwagon.

I would also point out that, as a 20 yr vetran of the US Navy (retired) that, for those 20 years, I was only allowed to use the universal health care provided by the military. Why was it good enough for me and my family, and not everyone else?

said by Tzale :

Japan also has a much higher concentrated population and a much smaller population. They also don't have a U.S. Constitution...

said by KrK :

And those comments, while completely accurate and factual, when dealing with the topic at hand, which is quality of health care, have absolutely nothing to do with it.

said by KrK :

I can at least understand the broadband argument, However when it comes to quality health care, I can't see how population density figures into it.

I guess you could say they might be CLOSER to a quality facility, thus enabling better emergency care, but I can't figure out how a population density argument could be used as justification for the quality of health care available.

said by Tzale :

I'd rather it be at the state level so that people have the choice whether or not to be taxed for such a program. Plus,I think it would be run better...

said by amigo_boy :

Universal health care is like taxation. It only works if everyone participates. If one state offers it, and another doesn't, folks living in neighboring states (who'd benefit the most) will move there, adding to the burden opponents of universal health care want to avoid.

I saw this happen in the 70s when I lived in a state with more-generous disability benefits. Disabled folks in neighboring states (especially those living near the border) moved in.

I'm not saying universal health care is the best thing to do. Just saying, by definition, it's "universal."

It would be nice if we had more healthcare choices. Like seeing an LPN for basic needs. But, without tort reform I don't see that happening. Lower-quality services would obviously lead to lower-quality results. Under our current system this would lead to malpractice suits.

Mark

said by Tzale :

Our country is "free"

said by Tzale :

There is supposed to be a weak Federal government that provides the basic security for all states.

said by amigo_boy :

Clearly it's not "free" for those people who can't afford the products and services of a *highly* socialized health care system that denies them lessor choices.

That's the thing I don't see opponents of greater socialization addressing.

IMO that's the problem with people who selectively use "small government" arguments. They *like* most of the things that violate the very same principles they complain "one more thing will violate."

They like how society sets higher standards on health care than a "free market" would produce. (It alleviates them of their responsibility and the "caveat emptor" that goes with it.). We don't hear them calling for a truly free market system. (Even you argued against it on grounds of "public safety," a collective argument based upon the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.).

They like the SEC and banking regulations, and food quality laws. Each a social moderation which impacted someone negatively by eliminating willing buyers and sellers.

So, what's really being said is: Those who feel socialized health care (make no doubt, it already is socialized) should be distributed more equitably (to the entire society that has moderated that market) should instead strive for a minimal government that doesn't exist, and would be hugely disliked if it did.

Mark

said by Tzale :

I believe that society NEEDS some government to maintain a standard of living. The hard thing is finding the line where the needs of society are not outweighed by an oppressive government.

said by Tzale :

I believe in state's rights!

said by amigo_boy :

I agree. But, I'm not the one tossing chilling buzzwords (like "socialism") at those who think "government can maintain a standard of living" different than my notion of it. If I were someone excluded from health care in the interest of what you deem to be "a necessary standard of living" I would feel oppressed by government.

IMO, using social legislation to deny the existence of lower-quality (and -priced) products and services to millions of Americans is no different than using social legislation to limit availability of higher-quality products and services (causing some Americans who can afford it to go without).

It seems you believe the latter would be "oppressive government." Not the former. Can you explain why?

BTW: I'm not advocating anarchy or "no licensing." I'm just pointing out that the unjustified use of absolutist rhetoric isn't helpful at understanding the issues. It's a convenient way of defining a world that simply doesn't exist.

Again, you're using absolutist rhetoric to (selectively) impose a standard that doesn't exist. States' rights haven't existed since the Civil War. States don't have the right to maintain slavery. They even don't have the fundamental right to withdraw from the union. You (like billions of others) probably believe *those* shouldn't be states' rights. So, we're talking about a matter of degrees. Not an absolute principle.

Mark

said by Tzale :

your argument about states not having the right to enslave their populations is completely bogus... Slavery is AGAINST the Constitution,

said by Tzale :

States should have the right to make pretty much 95% of the laws that govern their people. There should only be a handful of Federal laws.

said by amigo_boy :

IMO, using social legislation to deny the existence of lower-quality (and -priced) products and services to millions of Americans is no different than using social legislation to limit availability of higher-quality products and services (causing some Americans who can afford it to go without).

It seems you believe the latter would be "oppressive government." Not the former. Can you explain why?

said by amigo_boy :

Only due to the 14th Amendment, which occurred after slave states were denied the right to withdraw from the union. My point being: so-called "states's rights" aren't absolute. I'm sure you derive tremendous benefit from federalism. Food and drug quality laws, the SEC, banking regulation. You'll probably work for a corporation which wouldn't exist without society's creation of corporate entities (not to mention maintaining stock markets by federal oversight). I'm sure you buy things from those same corporations.

It's simply self-serving to toss around terms like "states' rights" (or "socialism") as if they are absolute, or define absolute principles against others. There are so many qualifications to those terms as to make them entirely redefined by those who use them the most.

If that's your belief system, that's fine. But, you should frame your positions against [increased socialized healthcare, or whatever] within that context. It's beneficial for people (who might get all tingly by your use of absolutist terms) to know what your belief system entails: getting rid of a huge number of things a vast majority of people like. I.e., your argument against healthcare may be as irrelevant as the larger belief system driving it. The use of emotionally appealing, absolute terms may just be a way to avoid that reality.

BTW: I missed your response to this:

Did you have a response? Or, is it just ok as long as a State does it?

Mark

said by Tzale :

No, not due to the 14th amendment.. That just "clarified" it for some knuckleheads who didn't think the rest of the Constitution applied to blacks..

said by Tzale :

It isn't exactly "oppressive" Government in the traditional sense, but it is BURDENING ME and other taxpayers who don't want to pay for a welfare state.

said by Tzale :

I personally don't care if socialized medicine occurs at the state level...

said by Tzale :

I believe the Federal Government should stick to providing the very basics and follow the Constitution to the best of its ability..

said by Sarugaku :

The 10th amendment did give States the right to withdraw from the Union because the Constitution did not prohibit it.

said by Sarugaku :

The real problem is the "interpretation" of the Federal Constitution. It was meant to be taken literally, not twisted to fit a governmental agenda.

said by Sarugaku :

Mark! You are twisting. Most of the Signers wouldn't have signed if the Federal Constitution had it prohibited withdrawal from the Federation.

said by Sarugaku :

The Federal Government was supposed to have limited power over the "State's Powers" of self governance. It's basic power over the states was to mediate between states when they disagreed.

said by Sarugaku :

The Federal Constitution may seem incomplete and vague but it was written with a short time table. The ten original amendments were added and Federalist Papers were written in an attempt to clarify the vagueness of the quickly written document.

said by Sarugaku :

To say a Republican form of government is vague is silly. The model ran the Roman Empire quite well for the first 500 years.

said by Sarugaku :

To see a modern example of how our Constitutionally Limited Republic is supposed to work,

said by Sarugaku :

The 10th amendment made it very clear that the Fed Constitution and, thus, the Fed Government had no power to force a State to stay in the "Union" because the Constitution didn't prohibit the secesion of any State.

said by Sarugaku :

The Civil war was ruled by the Superem Court to be unconstitutional twice. Must have been a reason.

said by Sarugaku :

Just as the Superem Court has ruled 92 times that the Second Amendment is an individual right

said by Sarugaku :

There are exceptions. Such as .. common bank regulation.

said by Sarugaku :

the USSR would bury us, but that socialism would.

said by hottboiinnc :

Canada's universal healthcare isnt bad either. You still have the option to have your private health care from your employer or not. Its better to pay for your own health care though in Canada that way you can get into see a doctor.

said by samwise2206 :

Canada's health care system is anything BUT free. they pay 30-40% taxes on everything. and if its so great why do so many canadians come to the usa to receive their health care?

said by lew_jean :

That's why people from Canada come to the US for medical treatment they require because of the waiting list.
Now if we goto Universal health care how do we pay for it?
last time I look it was around 80 Billion.
Just look at our tax rate and then look at the tax rate of countries that offer Universal health care .

said by lg75 :

Would you care to explain your statement? Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care that works. Why couldn't we do that here?

said by amigo_boy :

Most people use phrases designed to invoke kneejerk reactions among Americans. Like, "it's *socialism*" or "I support free markets."

What they ignore is that there's virtually nothing truly "free" about the health-care market. The number of doctors who can enter the profession is severely limited *by the profession" through it's limitation of licensing of medical schools, a requirement to being licensed as a doctor.

Some will say it's the states' medical boards that license medical schools and doctors. But, those are almost entirely made up of health care professionals. That's not necessarily bad. I wouldn't want an auto mechanic regulating health care standards. But, those standards exist for *collective* goals (public health and safety, a more predictable market which reduces the need for "caveat emptor.").

There seems to be something really perverse about society limiting a "free market" in the interest of higher standards (for those who can afford the resulting higher prices), and then telling those who can't afford it: "It's just a free market. What are you, some kind of socialist?"

Opponents to universal (socialized) health care need to focus on deregulating health care and allowing lessor professionals to practice medicine. Doing nothing while insisting they're promoting "free market choices" is absurd. It's a recipe for greater socialization.

Mark

said by sides14 :

It works so well that people come to the United States for service.

said by lg75 :

Would you care to explain your statement? Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care that works. Why couldn't we do that here?

said by lg75 :

Would you care to explain your statement? Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care that works. Why couldn't we do that here?

said by Sarugaku :

Universal health care sure would give more people direct Fed. Gov. administrative jobs wouldn't it? That would increase the cost of medical care even more wouldn't it? But it would be "free" to all wouldn't it? No...
...It would increase government control over your life. It would raise your taxes, again. But the tax increases would be on the rich! No...
...it's called "Trickle Down Economics" Liberal style. Starts out on the rich but soon applies to everybody. The rebirth of the income tax in 1913 (it was declared unconstitutional in 1865) started out on the wealthy but in a few years began taxing more and more people with less and less income. Read some of the current tax increase proposals and think about what you've read. You'll see what I mean.

Health care wouldn't improve. The government would be able to stick more needles into your kids though. Maybe even you. More AD HD, Autism, ect. could be diagnosed by more school nurses (not doctors) and your kids could be "juiced up" with even more drugs they probably don't need.

People can go into the emergency rooms at hospitals and by law cannot be turned away as long as the hospital is not a private one. This raises your costs because many don't pay their bill but why would you want all the people to have to do the same thing? That's what Universal Health care is. We all get to go to the emergency room.

You have to do some research and real thinking. You may learn by hearing but you KNOW by finding out for yourself.

said by dnoyeB :

Haha, that sounds like a sweet deal. We give them 20MHz of spectrum for free, and in turn they give us 5% of the revenue of the free service they provide.

Or have I missed what it means to be free?

A Silicon Valley Democrat in the U.S. Congress is proposing a new auction of unused radio spectrum, but with some ambitious strings attached: The winner would have to offer a free, wireless broadband network that reaches 95 percent of the American population within a decade.

Under the proposed measure, aside from offering the free broadband network, the network operator would have to:
• begin offering "always-on" broadband service within two years of receiving the license
• offer a service free of subscription fees, airtime, usage or other charges to consumers and "authorized public safety users"
• ensure the service offers at least 200 kilobits per second transmission speeds in at least one direction (a far cry from the 768 kilobits per second speeds associated with most entry-level DSL lines)
• outfit the free service with "a technology protection measure or measures that protect underage users from accessing obscene or indecent material through such service"

The requirements, however, sound strikingly similar to a plan that a Silicon Valley start-up called M2Z Networks offered to the FCC in recent years.

Specifically, M2Z sought permission to obtain a 15-year exclusive, nationwide license to essentially the same band of spectrum described in the Eshoo bill. It wanted to offer a "free," advertising-supported tier of service that would offer speeds of at least 384Kbps down and 128Kbps up, and a "premium" tier with 3Mbps speeds. And, like the Eshoo bill, M2Z pledged to reach 95 percent of the American population within 10 years and outfit the free tier with filters designed to block obscene content.

An Eshoo aide said her boss had conversations with M2Z while drafting the bill, but her motivation was "primarily to provide alternative means of broadband access for more Americans, and this fallow spectrum seemed to be a real opportunity."

M2Z CEO John Muleta said the bill's introduction is a hopeful sign for would-be new entrants like his firm.