The previous writings of his "Science Czar" clearly show why such "czars" should not be permitted – how many people know what he wrote about? This information is, of course, available on all conservative/liberatarian websites, but how many liberal or mainstream media outlets have shared this information. Do Americans know that this kind of man has the ear of the President?

Can somebody please find me somewhere in the Constitution where the President is allowed to appoint things like "czars" without the advice and consent of the Senate?

His views are beyond creepy.

This health care thing is beyond scary.

This world now feels like, as ThinkRight has put it, 1984 or the Twilight Zone, with a little Brave New World thrown in for "good luck".

John 3:16 is my health insurance policy.

"I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago,” said Dr. Hendricks."
- Atlas Shrugged

Change?!

Yep, but keep in mind, when the global warming alarmists had to account for global COOLING over the last decade, they began referring to it as "Climate Change". So, from now on, whenever you hear "Climate Change", simply remind them, "Hey, you said change was good."

What do Congress and diapers have in common? They are both full of sh!t and need "CHANGE" often.

While a good verse, I prefer "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

I would have others throw me out of office and either kick me to the curb or lock me up if I would ever try to pull socialized crap like this on my fellow Americans.

Isn't that insulting? The term "climate change" gives them an excuse to dead wrong about everything but still be right. HI! It's the climate, by definition- it CHANGES!

Leftists usually want "science" to overrule moral concerns folks might have on abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, cloning humans, population controls, or the Entire 'green movement', …including GlobalWarmingClimateChanges. In some way, paying allegiance to "science" over everything other consideration, may Naturally lead to draconian actions.

[...] James Hudnall, Big Hollywood: While running for President, Barack Obama used the word “change” as his mantra. A lot [...]

I was going to say that they each have the same amount of brainpower, but your answer works too.

[...] Health Care ‘Change’ You Shouldn’t Believe In This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]

As far as medical innovation is concerned, I think it will continue. The "Important" people will still get all the health care they want or need. The government will be happy to pay for innovation with tax dollars, they just won't let the taxpayers use it.

I think the notion of even rationing healthcare is a pipe dream. With all the lawyers in this country, any notion of rationing the health care of someone who is poor or a minority will simply never work. Once the private insurance of most of the country is eliminated in favor of the government plan, the cost will be transferred to the middle class. There will be a nominal cost for the government insurance with the actual payment determined by income and dependants. Much like income tax, about half the country will pay nothing. And as the rich will be the only people left with private insurance, the government is already raising their taxes to make certain they pay their 'part'.

"I meant Vladimir Lenin, not Vlad the Impaler…"

Isn't this an example of redundancy?

Great article and observations. None of this has come as any surprise to me. However, I work with some liberals and they are in complete and utter denial. Even when I point out to them that 3.5 million jobs have gone up in smoke in the last 5 months they just get a wild look in their eyes and can only come up with, "Well, at least the world likes us more now since that SOB Bush is out of office"…..this is the result of government education folks. They are also folks who work for some form of state or federal government so they don't give two s**ts what happens to the great unwashed. After all, the statist is out to redistribute "wealth" and the are happy they've got their man in the White House.

This is not a comment, but a question. Why are some of the writings on this site tagged to Intense Debate, yet others are on Word Press? I find this strangely disconcerting. Help!

I know many like this, too. It boggles the mind.

No one is getting any younger. Everyone is targeted eventually. (except the ruling class)
Sorry so negative, but … what else is to be surmised?)

Does anyone know even ONE Obama voter that regrets their vote? I have scoured forums and message boards and have found maybe three people that state they are starting to wonder if they voted wrong. Anyone as scared as I am?

When will someone call this plan what it is? EVIL.

The link to the LA Times article in this piece perfectly lays out what Obama and his healthcare czar have in store for all of us. Society gets to choose who is cured and who suffers, who lives and who dies. And of course, by "society" he means a paper-pushing bureaucrat who can barely open a bottle of asprin makes the decision about your health. You are no longer given a choice about your care, your doctor has no input. People are no longer seen as humans, but rather as dollar signs, and we're all subject to a cost/benefit analysis. And while they're at it, they decide that if an unborn child is diagnosed in the womb with a birth defect, that it would be more cost effective to terminate the pregnancy, because a child with a disability is too much of a financial burden on Society. The expectant parents won't have a choice, and their doctor will be bound by law to perform the abortion.

"Free" health care will cost us everything.

Get them hooked up with a good long-term care plan now, as the government is this side of completely worthless on the issue.

The Obama voters I know still display smugness.
I do not understand it.

Now you're sounding naive. Health care is rationed in every nation with government run programs. It's a reality.

And this system will fail in a very short amount of time because there isn't enough money for them to steal. They are destroying industries and are in the process of ruining the rest with things like Cap and Trade.

While I do agree with John Holdren that children are better raised by two-parent families, his solutions are those that many (most?) liberals could easily justify.

I haven't read his book, but from the linked article, it seems our dear Science Czar missed a "solution" that is quite effective (and should be just as offensive to Americans) today: in China, the government enforces a 1-child-per-family law by making additional children prohibitively expensive. They have no moral dilemma with selective communism, in that the additional children don't get any social benefits (health, schooling retirement, etc), and the parents have to pay an extremely high tax on the additional child (at the risk of offending my hosts, I refrained from asking more questions on this issue, so correct me if I am wrong).

I have seen socialized medicine work somewhat effectively in one particular Scandinavian country, but only because:
1. The country population is relatively small (6m)
2. The population is +90% homogeneous (est)
3. Cultural norms regarding work ethics keep it somewhat effective.
4. National pride keeps the quality high. However, the tendency is still towards private practice as a faster alternative.

However, in a country like the US, where a growing number of the population are lazy, have a victim mentality, are enslaved by liberal tax and social policies, and practice class warfare in a way that would make Vladimir proud, socialized medicine is doomed from the start. If you need an example, look at the abuses in the welfare/social security programs.

Note: I meant Vladimir Lenin, not Vlad the Impaler, although after a moment of thinking, it's probable that the left would eagerly follow either….

Don't you mean UNconstitutional? And with the 60 vote democratic senate (only if Byrd and Kennedy are there), they are nothing more than a Obama Rubber Stamp. I don't see either Prince Harry or Princess Pelosi speaking up for the Consititution.

We are stuck with these dictators (lets call them what they are) will be with us until the new congress starts in Jan. 2011!.

Thanks kadaka, I was wondering the same thing.

No fear folks, Barry and his Marxist minions can be put in the box in 2010, remember, they’re depending on the publics fear and apathy. What we are experiencing has been promised for forty years, it’s not Hope and Change but worn out ‘60s dogma. Be vigilant and stay in the faces of your representatives, especially the Blue Dog Democrats and as in 1980 and 94 we can set things “right.”

Interesting board. Lots of stuff here on different topics.

1. Regretting voting for Obama? Even if they do regret it, they won't say so. People don't like to admit they're wrong. Makes them look foolish.

2. The majority of the people who voted for Obama are a) Super rich so won't be affected by his policies or b) On some kind of dole (including government work) where they are the "to each according to need", ergo, they are perfectly happy with the redistribution of wealth since they're being redistributed TO and not FROM.

Teresa Heinz Kerry earned 5.5 million dollars in 2003, the year before her husband campaigned on bashing Bush's "tax cuts for the rich". She paid 12.6% to the IRS. How'd she get away with that when the rest of us are soaked? Well, when you have that many millions of dollars to invest, you can put the money in TAX FREE bonds, which, I believe, is what she did. Nothing illegal about that. Problem is, they pay only 1 – 2 percent interest, ergo you have to have MULTI millions to invest. Most of us don't have that huge a stack of million dollar bills, so this form of investing it out of our reach. These guys are not worried about any 5.4% surtax or increase in taxes — they don't pay anyway and thanks to the mainstream media, their not paying is neither reported nor an issue.
(The WSJ DID report this but only on it's EDITORIAL PAGE).

3. Socialized Medicine: America has been flirting with this concept for thirty years — Like a Zombie, it keeps crawling up out of the grave to terrorize those of us who know what it really means.

Socialized medicine IS rationing; there is NO WAY medical care can be dispensed to all citizens without rationing. Those with means to pay out of pocket like in Canada, England, Germany, Australia (I don't know about France) pull out billfold when the long line threatens THEIR life. Those who can't afford to pay out of packet take their chances. National systems have a budget; when the money runs out, so does the treatment until the next fiscal year and new influx of money. There are also cut offs for treatment. Over 65 – no ICU; over 55 – no transplants; over ? – no hip replacements. (Of course, the Queen Mother got a new hip at 95+ but she paid out of pocket.) This is a touchy subject to bring up, but would Natasha Richardson be dead had she hit her head in Aspen? No way to tell for sure, but her TWO HOUR wait in the hospital (did it even have a CT Scanner?) AND A TWO HOUR ambulance ride to Montreal sure didn't help her condition. Those in favor of socialized medicine are either keeping quiet about this OR they go onto a lamentation over her not seeking medical help at the outset of the injury but waited until she got a headache — but she WALKED IN to the hospital at the ski resort and arrived in Montreal comatose four hours later. An epidural hematoma is an emergency. Sure she would have been better off had she gone when the injury first happened, but how many of us have a light bump on the head, feel fine, so don't go to the hospital.

4. Social Security is going bankrupt, but it's the third rail of politics. Can't touch it. Old geezers living into their middle or late eighties are bankrupting the system. The only way to address SS without open rebellion from the gray hairs (who vote) is to tell them they're getting national health care, then let them die waiting in line for treatment.

Long post. Sorry. Will stop.

Don't stop. I am right with you all the way.

I'd be interested Vain, in knowing which Scandanavian country you're referring to? Cause I know there have been stories that have leaked about Sweden and Denmark (which would have been the one I think you were referring to). both having problems with their socialized medicine plans.

What appears below is little known outside certain medical circles and certainly not reported by the "mainstream" (propaganda) media:

In the early 1990's, when it appeared the USA would get "HillaryCare", a group of entrepreneurs started what I call "The Scottish Hospital". Scotland, as you know, is in the UK and so is under the National Health System. I found out about it when an acquaintance, a surgeon, up and left his American hospital and moved to Scotland to take a salary at what was rumored to be a million dollars/year. He bought a farm in Scotland and moved his family. Reports came back that the entrepreneurs were generous with providing this surgeon with any and all modern equipment he needed. Other top flight doctors were likewise hired and given anything they needed to ply their art/specialty/craft.

Being a political junkie and a natural cynic, I commented at the time that this was in preparation for the US going to a Canadian style system* and "The Scottish Hospital" was there to treat rich Americans and rich Canadians.**

I was assured "The Scottish Hospital" existed to take care of rich ME potentates and Europeans who wanted exceptional care and were willing to pay for it and not wait in line. That didn't make any sense to me since most of them come here for treatment of bad stuff. (Greek Communist, the late Melina Mecouri came to the USA for treatment for her cancer. The Duke of Windsor (former King of England had his aneurysm repaired by Dr. DeBakey in Houston) I suspect the propaganda media has stopped reporting on other Europeans who come here for treatment lest the "useful idiots" become suspicious that national health care aint' what it's cracked up to be.

Anyway, when the Repubs took over Congress and Senate in 1994 and HillaryCare bellied up in the great fishtank of American politics, within three years, the bankrupt "Scottish Hospital" closed and my American surgeon acquaintance came back to the USA. He's still here.

I wrote the WSJ about "The Scottish Hospital" and they reported it's existence and it's later closing, but did not do any indepth reporting. I'm not surprised. The WSJ "news" pages are just as left wing as the rest of propaganda media. Only the editorial page is conservative.

*In Canada, unlike England, there is no secondary private system. (In England called Harley Street Physicians) and EVERYONE rich or poor (unless politically connected, I suspect,) gets in line.

**Currently, rich Canadians come here to jump the queue if waiting en queue will jeopardize their health and/or life.

I know of a handful of voters that now regret their choice. They didn't care for McCain, but they believed Obama would bring hope and change. Now they are feeling foolish.

Obama talked a great game leading up to the election, but he sold people on lies and half truths. As his agenda is revealed, the unfortunate people that were misled are seeing the truth.

It just does not seem right to pass such an arbitrary Health Plan, that proves to be a huge tax burden to middleclass workers, Americans in this country. My husband and I both retired professionals, have paid into the health insurance and medicare for all those years we have worked. Eventhough we have paid into health plans for over 30 years, I have been in the hospital 3 times for pregnancy, my husband has never been in the hospital for any reason. Although, we have been taken care of for general shots, and yearly general checkups. We both have had, Thank God, good health during our working years. i believe that most Americans have been in the same situation. I am sure that young healthy people i.e. my children, have not been ill or have had any life threatening disease Thank God, alot of people who are healthy and do not use their health plan yet they have insurance. Why not leave the health area as is, except pay for those who become ill at the time they become ill under medicare, But, since we have to give medical care to those who are not citizens they should pay for their medical care.

Nice tinfoil hat you're wearing…

perhaps we should now politically go with "do onto others before they do onto you" and then throw them out of office and kick them to the curb before they make their socialized crap so hard bunker entrenched that we can't back out of it.

Only because during transisiton, Obama was playing the shell game by acting like a moderate, while we all knew he was a radical marxist. Now, those far left should be at ease, while the rest of us are scared to death of what will happen with ONEcare.

And I don't know one person who regrets their vote on either side. We on the right can say we were right, cause Obama has been a abysmal failure. The Obama voters will BELIEVE that all of Obama schemes will not only work, but nothing bad will happen. No rationing will happen. They are wrong.

<<Society gets to choose who is cured and who suffers, who lives and who dies. >>

So are you saying that a turbulent market making that decision is a better alternative, you idiot?

Lovely- you an't read for comprehension but can spew ad hominem attacks. Adjust your tinfoil hat, loser.

This is the end of freedom as we know it.
This IS NOT ABOUT HEALTHCARE. This may be the premise but is just an excuse to control all aspects of our behavior under the name of health. They will regulate the food you eat, activities you do, under the name of reducing the cost of healthcare.
If this were about healthcare there would be more personal responsibility such as health savings accounts and tort reform. No where are these mentioned.
Spread the word as this is truly the end of freedom.

Unless they dictate absolute single-payer, there will still be practitioners who accept private pay. With expected low reimbursements from the government, many will simply refuse to participate with the government, the other form of access rationing we now see with Medicaid and sometimes Medicare. That alone will save practitioners a ton of money on paperwork, likely lots will find themselves more profitable with less patients than otherwise. Many companies are actually self-insured, normally use Blue Cross / Blue Shield to process the paperwork. This will lead to naturally-forming networks of Preferred Providers, companies will join together in large plans, even individuals will be allowed to buy in. Since "economies of scale" tend to yield less savings when bureaucracies are involved, if any, and can even yield higher total costs, these private networks will eventually cost the same as the offered government plan with better service, since they will be actively trying to entice customers, although there will be a period where they cost a bit more for individuals and even companies but the service will nicely justify it.

We will end up with two clearly-demarcated systems, private-only and an "everyone else" that deals with the government. The private system will use restraint and commonsense to manage costs without rationing, to distinguish themselves, and provide decent care that people will prefer, as opposed to "those other guys." Eventually the case will be made, and acted upon, that the government will be saving money by contracting health care straight to the private-only system, just pay the bill and don't quibble. The American Spirit is strong, we will pay more for better service, especially for something as important as our health, which will get the system going. We go for the promise of better service even when we know we do not need it, especially for about the same money. Best Buy survives and prospers despite Wal-Mart. It will happen, but it will take an abysmally long time. The UK is waking up and private pay is growing, despite basically paying twice as they are still taxed for what they do not want. It will be several decades more of crawling out over there. Since they are (currently!) still allowing either government or private in the proposed US version, our return should not take as long.

Expected downside, the relative death of malpractice claims. Agreements for independent third-party arbitration, damages limited to lost wages and additional costs with some "pain and suffering," "expected loss of income" will figure in that you will no longer have to work for those rendered unable to work and only provide for a reasonable standard of living. A messed-up leg will no longer get tens of millions in judgment money as many cope and work with one, the same for many things. Two million in conservative investments will provide good living in much of the country from the generated monies (add in provided "free" health care just for what is related to the disability), expect annuities where the principal gets returned after death. Similar in cases resulting in death. Frankly I am surprised "malpractice insurance" apparently is not a mix of buying term life insurance and even disability concerning patient claims, with the limited invocation and spread throughout a practice the cost would be relatively small.

This last bit is change we wanted with tort reform, although by laws. Since (again!) the government has dropped the ball, looks like capitalism will have to lead the way once more.

Can you imagine how much money it would be to insure 45 mil people, not counting the red tape that would go with it. Especially making people pay fines for not having insurance, some people would probably never use it or would probably be healthy and use it for minor or general checkups. This is another tax that will be on the middleclass back on top of everything else. I remind the people that it seems we are having taxation with out representation, because the Republicans have not had the opportunity respond to this tax plan that is being passed without proper representation….

Ah good, reasonable post with personal insult tacked on the end. Lib standard trolling as always.

Right now, there are charities that can help with tough cases where the money is not there from lack of insurance or a particular coverage as with organ transplants, I often see community fundraisers as well. Under the proposed legislation and the expected "refinements," costs will be "controlled" by setting up a governmental body that will decide what will be the treatment of a disease, period. "For the public good" this might become dictated even for private-pay treatment. Kidneys, for example, may only last five years before rejection, even less, leading to re-occurring costs and a lifetime of expensive immune-suppressing drugs, which leads to further costs as patients are more prone to infections. Our "turbulent market" allows for such transplants. With "society" making the call, how "cost effective" do you think they will find such procedures? Patients will be lucky to get dialysis a few times a week, paying for their own transport to a center that will likely be a large "centralized" one to curb costs, relying on the "understanding" of any employers for any time off needed.

Is that a "health system" you want?

Not quite. As reported here, the military revoked a deployment order for a particular soldier, even before the court hearing. That they should so quickly do so, while still deploying thousands who are not questioning the Occupant in Chief's legitimacy, does however say a lot. Somebody seems desperate to keep a court from looking at the official records, and this particular case looked to have a solid chance of proceeding to discovery. (Disclaimer, IANAL.) (Oh look, the stupid filtering wants to block that acronym.)

Side note, this soldier's lawyer seems to have the same name as a particularly obnoxious liberal troll here. Can we get him forcibly evicted from the site for willful misappropriation of a real person's name, apparently for purposes of defamation as that name with his slimy comments will turn up on internet searches?

Actually, they are constitutionally allowed… (I forget, but it was brought up during the Reagan 2nd term in regards to the drug czar.)

But they're not supposed to have cabinet-level authority..

(and my numbers may be off.. but I saw that the last 5presidents all had czar's of some level.)

Reagan had 1
Bush, Sr. had 1
Clinton had 4
Bush, Jr. had 8
Obama has… 18(?)+

Oh yeah, we are used to that. "Message must be approved," I take it? The crappy automatic ID filtering at work, filtering out "possibly offensive words" and any words with those combinations as well. Guess I should whip this out again.

——-
The List of Blocked Words Found So Far

Examples posted are using a single letter in italics to bypass automatic filtering.

Any part of the word in another word causes rejection.

anal – blocks analogy, banal, IANAL etc
banned
bitch
boy – blocks boyish etc
breitbart (go figure)
cross – blocks across etc
dick
fag – blocks faggot etc
jew – blocks jewelry etc
math

And that misspelling of that African country where you use two "gees" instead of one.

PS: When you get "message must be approved," or "comment in moderation" on an edit, immediately hit Delete before it gets lost after a reload. Do test posting of chunks, immediately deleting, until you find what is likely a single word it objects to. Then just pick a different word or bypass it as I do.

They are his goons.

Mark, I was referring to Finland. Please realize I'm not advocating socialized medicine. Finland has an extremely high taxation rate, but most Finns like their medical coverage. I believe this is not because socialized medicine is, by itself, the answer; rather, because of cultural and demographic factors. Because these same factors are different for the US, I don't believe it will ever work efficiently here. If it is anything like SSI/welfare, that belief approaches 95% certainty, and at those odds, is too risky to experiment with.

Okay, this is the longer version of the post. Great points, agree with what you say, but can you please delete the two duplicate copies of the shorter version, before someone replies to them and that ceases to be a "clean" option? (Feel free to blame the ID system.)

Oh, so that's how you'd like to play Joe? Fine. The current system is far from perfect, but it still allows you to play some part in making decisions for yourself, you asshat. Gov't taking control over healthcare will eliminate your ability to have any choice about your care, you moron. When the President questions the benefits of his own grandmother receiving hip replacement surgery after she'd been diagnosed with cancer, he is saying that his grandmother should have just been left to suffer in pain because after all, she was old and sick and replacing that hip was just a waste. Remember, this is the same woman who raised him, you twit. So do you think Obama or any of his appointees are going to give a rat's ass about your mother if she's diagnosed with cancer and then needs surgery for a broken hip? Hell no, you imbecile. Instead, she'll be left to suffer, and you'll get to watch, you arrogant ass. She won't even be allowed to pay for her care out of her own pocket because that would be unfair and would upset the balance Society demands. But at least the decision to let your mother die an agonizing death will have been taken out of the hands of the Evil Turbulent Market, (where your mother actually got to play a role), and was placed squarely in the hands of the Savior Government (who sacrificed your mother for The Greater Good). Yeah, that'll really stick it to those advocates of a free market! You idiot.

Nothing to debate. He's a birther, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's be like debating the 9/11 truthers. He'll never let the facts distort his opinions.

" 'Free' health care will cost us everything."
Exactly, Redtex.
This ought to be on billboards throughout the land.

"Hey stupid, where does it say that private health care is going to disappear completely? "

I got the above beautifully composed, articulate response to my post in my e-mail box from "Joe", but for some reason this beautifully composed, articulate, intelligent response did not appear under "reply" under my post, so rather than answer in kind, I will assume the author really wants to know the answer. Austria likewise has a supplemental insurance system which is affordable only by some.

Joe,

To understand what will happen to private insurers, one only has to look at what DID happen to seniors once Medicare became the default insurance carrier for those 65 and older. Seniors may not opt out of Medicare. Seniors have no choice but to participate in Medicare. Seniors can (and the well-heeled do) buy supplemental insurance from private insurers to cover what Medicare does not cover. Currently many physicians refuse to take Medicare because the cost of seeing a Medicare patient without supplemental insurance does not cover the cost of seeing that patient.

Private Health care coverage will not disappear completely, but it will become unaffordable to most, thereby forcing the majority into the National Health System and the rationing that goes along with it (the only way to sustain a National Health Care plan). Congress, of course, will exempt themselves (and probably government workers), the Superrich will be able to pay out of pocket. Cost containment will at first be achieved by cutting physicians' reimbursement, later, when costs get out of hand, by rationing. Do not be naive. Rationing has occurred in every National Health system in existence. Most Europeans don't mind, in fact embrace their socialized medicine for the following reasons: 1) It was implemented following WWII when the deprivations of the war years made the deprivations of a national health service acceptable, 2) Europeans generally accept a class system whereupon they don't mind when their "betters" have "better" treatment.

I don't know about France, but in England those who can afford private health care insurance now have it. They justify it by saying by having better care than their fellows, they cut down the lines for treatment.

When has the government ever run anything efficiently or well? The mortgage mess was because certain government agencies failed in their over sight. Same with the wall street corruption and the S&L crash in the 80s, etc.

Medicare and Medicaid are set to go broke in a couple of years, and we're supposed to trust these lame crooks to run another huge entitlement well? Ha!

I don't trust anything Obama says because he has been wrong on just about everything. He lies constantly, blatantly. His handling of the car industry was beyond a joke, the bankruptcy was illegal, the shut down of dealerships was beyond idiotic. He's a joke. And the sooner he O-Zombies wake up, the better.

They are creating another monster bill that no one will have read. This is the most corrupt, inept congress in history. I don't want any part fo anything they do. Especially this and cap and trade.

Yeah, our current system is a mess, I share your disgust with the insurance companies. But there are worse things, like the government running it. If you think insurance companies are heartless wait till you have to deal with the government.

BTW: I am a veteran. I get VA medical benefits. I have also lived in England twice. So I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this subject. You do not want this to succeed, even if you are the most screamingly left wing person on earth. You will regret it.

The whole system was ruined when government created medicare and medicaid. I have an article on that coming later.

Well said except for the part about SS. It's not going broke JUST because of people living longer. It's going broke because Congress raided/raises the funds.

When SS was instituted, the elderly started collecting it at 65 which was far beyond the life span of most Americans. In my opinion, what turned out to be Roosevelt's Ponzi scheme didn't start out as a Ponzi scheme but rather a scam. People paid into SS thinking when they were too old to work, the SS would be there for them. Roosevelt and company were betting they'd kick off before they ever collected.

Now with "national health care", we're seeing the same bet. The only way to give everyone health care is to ration care. The sick old people will die before their turn in the queue.

But you're right about Congress spending the SS collections and replacing them with IOU's, so SS took a double whammy.

I haven't convinced you and you haven't convinced me. If this Health Care gets passed, I guess time will tell.

Of course, what we've both forgotten to mention is the fact that SS is also being given to people who never paid anything in to it. You have babies being born disabled who are put on SS disability, kids getting injured (accident) who are put on SS disability. The list goes on. I just don't think SS would be in as bad a shape as it is had the monies not been taken for unintended uses.

You must be logged in to post a comment.