Re: Mentally ill children wait 18 months for assessment

[Guest guest]

Well, that's socialized medicine, coming soon to America. Senator Kennedy is going to put forward a plan to socialize medicine in the US which will give workers a payroll tax of 1.7%, to be added to the already 15% combined payroll tax they pay (Combine Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Worker's Comp, Etc.). That doesn't sound like much, but the employers are going to get hit too. Employers will face a 7% tax per worker, that one top of a rate about double the payroll tax the workers pay. That is a tax per worker for these social programs and is separate from corporate and income taxes. The Dems are doing this to pay off the unions and certain other groups. I hope they enjoy it and the unemployment and increased demand for illegal aliens over citizen workers that will follow.

The main thing to remember is that socialized medicine isn't about good or even free health care. It is all about government control over the people. In this, socialized medicine is especially wicked. They take a vital service and turn it into a government bureaucracy more interested in employing more bureaucrats than in providing health care. The control aspect comes in because the masses have no option but to rely on the state for medical care. Therefore, the people have no choice but to keep backing the government so "Free medicine" isn't tampered with. If there is protest, the government just trots out stories about how painful any attempt at reform would be and how much the people would have to pay for their own care, etc. Suitably terrified, the masses calm down again.

In the mean time, the government bureaucrats and the rich all go to their first rate hospitals with no waiting and the best care money can buy. Pretty much every country with socialized medicine is like that. Germany is a fine example, allowing private insurance but at such high rates only the really rich can afford it.

Medical care may be about to take a major nose dive in the US, and taxes another big step up. We already pay nearly a quarter of GDP in taxes an two thirds of the budget is going to welfare programs. Hasn't anyone noticed that all of that hasn't helped one bit but that we have more poverty and crime that we did before those programs were set up?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/12/2006 8:32:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, megaknee@... writes:

As long as your civil right to go private, and perhaps to use that option to prove the state health service should be itnerested in a new treatment it isn't interested in yet - as long as this not taken away, then how can socialised health be government control of you?

By making the private option so expensive that very few can afford it. If the majority have to depend on the national system, then they are under its control.

In the US now, if you go to a hospital, they have to treat you. Many people do this, going to the Emergency room for all of their medical care. Medicare or Medicaid covers this, or the hospitals pass the cost along to those with insurance or that pay privately. The local hospital has been run down for that reason. So many people come in and don't pay for the services that they are very close to closing down. That could probably be the reason a new hospital is being built on the edge of town rather than downtown.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/12/2006 8:32:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, megaknee@... writes:

As long as your civil right to go private, and perhaps to use that option to prove the state health service should be itnerested in a new treatment it isn't interested in yet - as long as this not taken away, then how can socialised health be government control of you?

By making the private option so expensive that very few can afford it. If the majority have to depend on the national system, then they are under its control.

In the US now, if you go to a hospital, they have to treat you. Many people do this, going to the Emergency room for all of their medical care. Medicare or Medicaid covers this, or the hospitals pass the cost along to those with insurance or that pay privately. The local hospital has been run down for that reason. So many people come in and don't pay for the services that they are very close to closing down. That could probably be the reason a new hospital is being built on the edge of town rather than downtown.

[Guest guest]

If there is anything you can attain by seeking private access to get

your medical care, better than or that you can't attain by relying

on socialised medicine, then I support your civil liberty to go

private. It would be buraeucracy doing harm to you, to pigheadedly

say you shouldn't be allowed. In Britain, where as you rpobably know

we have " socialised medicine " and were a pioneering country for it,

the Thatcher govt in the 80s made sure nobody was bureaucratically

prevented from going private.

of course, the unfairness that lack of money could stop you going

private, Thatcher was less good on. But at least the National Health

Service continued, no government coudl get away with openly

proposing to scrap it.

As long as your civil right to go private, and perhaps to use that

option to prove the state health service should be itnerested in a

new treatment it isn't interested in yet - as long as this not taken

away, then how can socialised health be government control of you?

>

> Well, that's socialized medicine, coming soon to America. Senator

Kennedy is

> going to put forward a plan to socialize medicine in the US which

will give

> workers a payroll tax of 1.7%, to be added to the already 15%

combined

> payroll tax they pay (Combine Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,

Worker's Comp,

> Etc.).

> The main thing to remember is that socialized medicine isn't about

good or

> even free health care.

Of course it is, whatever else it may be about as well.

>It is all about government control over the people. In

> this, socialized medicine is especially wicked.

Providing a vital service free at the point of use is wicked?

They take a vital service and

> turn it into a government bureaucracy more interested in employing

more

> bureaucrats than in providing health care.

[Guest guest]

In reveiwing my investments, I was thinking of getting into my

brokerage firm's health care fund. It is closed to new investors,

however, and in light of the fact that the government is leaning

towards socialized health, I think it's good I didn't put my money

into it.

Let's say we develop a socialized health program. All the drug

manufacturing firms and medical device manufacturing firms will

probably wind up beng under some kind of government contract to

provide medication and services at a fixed cost. While this would be

good for consumers monetarily speaking, this will reduce the ability

of these firms to research and innovate because their funds and monies

will be cut. Thus new medicines and products will be slower to get to

market. This will HARM consumers.

I like the idea that the Republicans wanted to set up prescription

drug plans in such a way that health care companies can still have

lots of money coming in and still remain competitive although I admit

that it needs to be simplified so that people can understand it.

But if the Dems do away with such plans entirely, and socialize

medicine and medication entirely, then we are really in trouble.

I think the key to solving all social programs is a re-evaluation, re-

vamp, and simplification of all existing programs. Putting this into

effect is unlikely simply because it would take TIME and people are

too lazy to wait for " best " later on when they could have " good

enough " or " better than nothing " right now.

Tom

Administrator

" Medical care may be about to take a major nose dive in the US, and

taxes another big step up. We already pay nearly a quarter of GDP in

taxes an two thirds of the budget is going to welfare programs. Hasn't

anyone noticed that all of that hasn't helped one bit but that we have

more poverty and crime that we did before those programs were set up?

"

[Guest guest]

Maurice wrote:

" As long as your civil right to go private, and perhaps to use that

option to prove the state health service should be itnerested in a

new treatment it isn't interested in yet - as long as this not taken

away, then how can socialised health be government control of you? "

responded:

" By making the private option so expensive that very few can afford

it. If the majority have to depend on the national system, then they

are under its control. "

My dentist was saying that HMOs will lock physicians into contracts

so they cannot charge more than a certain amount for services if

they wish to be a doctor listed by that HMO. However, insurance and

the cost of medical supplies keep rising. Thus they heavily bill

uninsured patients to make up for the cost. I can see something

similar happening with a socialized program. The government locks

the physicians in and the physicians have to charged those not

within the system heavily to pay for insurance and other costs.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/2006 12:40:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

As long as the government continues to legalize various forms of gambling, prostitution, and drug use, and as long as they erode the measures used to censor swearing, sex and violence on TV, most people will be placated with these amusements and not notice what is happening until it is too late. By that time, I suspect there will be a revolution, rather than a revision of government.TomAdministrator

Bread and Circuses. It is at least as old as the Roman Empire and probably far older than that. The Romans made sure the poor had food, at least a little, and distracted them with gladiator games, races and war. Roman society at first was very artistic and hopeful. Men were willing to serve in the legions for terms of 20 years. There were periods of political decline but also reformations that were quite modern. The dark times would come back though. Toward the end, the Romans had lost interest in science, the arts were jaded and pitiful. The people were lost in ever wilder debauchery of sex and violence. At the end, the bulk of the Roman army was composed of German mercenaries. The Empire fragmented, beginning the European Dark Ages that lasted for centuries.

The question is; will there be a backlash or a collapse? I'm not really sure which will happen first. There might not be either as so many people are clients of the government through any number of welfare programs.

What I see most likely as happening is a dissolution of the union as the people get fed up with an unresponsive government. I could see the Old Confederacy, less perhaps Northern Virginia and South Florida, plus the Mountain States and some of the Midwestern States, or parts of them, separating from the Northeast and the West Coast. Basically a split between the Red and Blue states.

On the other hand, there could get to be so much domestic chaos, say from ever rising crime and something like a major cut in oil supplies, that the army would be called out against the people. Rioters and such they might be hard toward, but if ordered to attack legitimate protestors, they might well turn against the government. The result of such a coup would is anyone's guess.

Both of these cases have happened many times in the past in other countries and are going on right now. We aren't anything special and there could come a time when we are pushed that far that we will face similar choices. Of course, if the idiots in DC would care about something other than personal and party power and did what was right for the country, then these problems could be averted.

I believe the odds of that happening are about equal to a snowball's chance in a blast furnace.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/2006 1:14:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

But this is how society is and government is voted in by a majority who choose to vote in society. It's all too upsetting for words.Raven

I've spoken many times against universal suffrage. The more people that are allowed to vote, the lower the quality of the electorate and the lower the quality of the candidates. We are seeing this now. The franchise is so universal that criminals and even insane asylum inmates can vote.

If we had standards, like requiring a minimum of a high school diploma, no felonies, being a taxpayer, and being able to pass a test of 10 questions (7 of 10 passing) drawn from the same questions asked of legal immigrants before becoming citizens, before allowing someone to vote, the quality of our representative would go up. The reason is simple: those people would be harder to fool with government vote-buying gimmes like they do now.

A much simpler solution would be simply to set up individual retirement accounts for everyone. Social Security taxes would go straight into that person's privately held, broad market stock fund (that is it is spread across all stocks not just a few), to which employers could also deposit pensions funds. When this very thing was proposed in the 1970's, Senator Kennedy (yes, he has been in office that long) said that it could never be allowed to pass because, "it would turn everyone into Republicans." I don't know if it would go that far, but it certainly would make people pay much more attention to what went on in Wall Street and also what kind of taxes and regulations Congress was trying to pass.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/2006 1:14:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

But this is how society is and government is voted in by a majority who choose to vote in society. It's all too upsetting for words.Raven

I've spoken many times against universal suffrage. The more people that are allowed to vote, the lower the quality of the electorate and the lower the quality of the candidates. We are seeing this now. The franchise is so universal that criminals and even insane asylum inmates can vote.

If we had standards, like requiring a minimum of a high school diploma, no felonies, being a taxpayer, and being able to pass a test of 10 questions (7 of 10 passing) drawn from the same questions asked of legal immigrants before becoming citizens, before allowing someone to vote, the quality of our representative would go up. The reason is simple: those people would be harder to fool with government vote-buying gimmes like they do now.

A much simpler solution would be simply to set up individual retirement accounts for everyone. Social Security taxes would go straight into that person's privately held, broad market stock fund (that is it is spread across all stocks not just a few), to which employers could also deposit pensions funds. When this very thing was proposed in the 1970's, Senator Kennedy (yes, he has been in office that long) said that it could never be allowed to pass because, "it would turn everyone into Republicans." I don't know if it would go that far, but it certainly would make people pay much more attention to what went on in Wall Street and also what kind of taxes and regulations Congress was trying to pass.

[Guest guest]

As long as society agrees with government that gambling,

prostitution, drug use, violence and more should be allowed without

negative commentary, things will continue to tumble head first into

depravity.

Take a page from my life this summer when I had to argue at length

with hospital staff that my 11-year-old child was not to be

encouraged to play poker, bet when playing cards, count cards, shoot

craps, or indulge in other games of chance. The staff thought I was

a control freak and that I was unable to separate from my child.

Excuse me? Since when is instilling morals, ethics and my belief

system on my very young child incorrect? Sheesh!

But this is how society is and government is voted in by a majority

who choose to vote in society. It's all too upsetting for words.

Raven

>

> Back in the 1930's, the government consumed about 1 part in 12 of

the

> GDP. Today it is closer to 1 part in 3. We're pretty much tapped

out

> and the burden is only going to grow unless corrective measures

are

> taken. Given how politicians behave, I don't think they will do

> anything practical until everything starts to fall down in a

decade or

> two. They can have their welfare state IF they arrange taxes and

> regulations to encourage business to remain and thrive. The

increasing

> tax base this would create could fund the welfare state. However,

> raising taxes is the easiest way to raise money, in the short run,

and

> I expect that is what will happen with the historical result:

> increasing unemployment, reduced tax revenues and a stagnant

economy

> and birth rate.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

As long as society agrees with government that gambling,

prostitution, drug use, violence and more should be allowed without

negative commentary, things will continue to tumble head first into

depravity.

Take a page from my life this summer when I had to argue at length

with hospital staff that my 11-year-old child was not to be

encouraged to play poker, bet when playing cards, count cards, shoot

craps, or indulge in other games of chance. The staff thought I was

a control freak and that I was unable to separate from my child.

Excuse me? Since when is instilling morals, ethics and my belief

system on my very young child incorrect? Sheesh!

But this is how society is and government is voted in by a majority

who choose to vote in society. It's all too upsetting for words.

Raven

>

> Back in the 1930's, the government consumed about 1 part in 12 of

the

> GDP. Today it is closer to 1 part in 3. We're pretty much tapped

out

> and the burden is only going to grow unless corrective measures

are

> taken. Given how politicians behave, I don't think they will do

> anything practical until everything starts to fall down in a

decade or

> two. They can have their welfare state IF they arrange taxes and

> regulations to encourage business to remain and thrive. The

increasing

> tax base this would create could fund the welfare state. However,

> raising taxes is the easiest way to raise money, in the short run,

and

> I expect that is what will happen with the historical result:

> increasing unemployment, reduced tax revenues and a stagnant

economy

> and birth rate.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/2006 12:17:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, megaknee@... writes:

Then what is the big enough difference between that and socialised health, to make you oppose it so strongly?

Because it isn't mandatory for everyone. It is an emergency measure, or it is supposed to be one.

[Guest guest]

>

> In the US now, if you go to a hospital, they have to treat you. Many

people

> do this, going to the Emergency room for all of their medical care.

Medicare

> or Medicaid covers this ...

Then what is the big enough difference between that and socialised

health, to make you oppose it so strongly?

[Guest guest]

Ironic, isn't it, that in many countries in the world, and possibly

ours soon, the (ignorant " I want " ) people ask the government for what

they want, the government, knowing full well that what the people are

asking for is against their better intrests, gives it to them anyway,

the country goes to pieces (just as any intelligent person would have

predicted it would), the people blame the GOVERNMENT instead of

themselves for this collapse, and the government (rightfully) shoots

the people.

Then there is a revolution, and the people put in a new government who

they know will give them exactly what they ask for.

Tom

Administrator

On the other hand, there could get to be so much domestic chaos, say

from ever rising crime and something like a major cut in oil supplies,

that the army would be called out against the people.

[Guest guest]

I think the IRS ought to issue a (unforgable) receipt stating that

one's taxes have been paid, or a receipt stating that their returns

have been received if no monies are owed or if one is due a refund.

Only people over 18 who can produce one of these receipts would be

allowed to vote.

Those who refused to pay their taxes, or who did not file a return

even though they should have, should have no say in who is elected or

how their government is run. If they do not want to monetarily support

their government like other citizens do through taxes, then they ought

not to have a say in anything governmental, nor should they have a

right to complain about anything the government does. Also any public

welfare assistance or health care they receive should be terminated.

Tom

Administrator

" If we had standards, like requiring a minimum of a high school

diploma, no felonies, being a taxpayer, and being able to pass a test

of 10 questions (7 of 10 passing) drawn from the same questions asked

of legal immigrants before becoming citizens, before allowing someone

to vote, the quality of our representative would go up. The reason is

simple: those people would be harder to fool with government vote-

buying gimmes like they do now. "

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/2006 5:29:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Ironic, isn't it, that in many countries in the world, and possibly ours soon, the (ignorant "I want") people ask the government for what they want, the government, knowing full well that what the people are asking for is against their better intrests, gives it to them anyway, the country goes to pieces (just as any intelligent person would have predicted it would), the people blame the GOVERNMENT instead of themselves for this collapse, and the government (rightfully) shoots the people.

The reason they will get upset is when the government tries to either cut programs or raises taxes to pay for them. Either case will anger a different end of the political spectrum. The people who will get shot depends on which way the government is leaning a strongly pro-welfare state government would shoot those who protest confiscatory taxes, while a reformist government might shoot those protesting cuts.

Right now the politicians are too afraid of various voting blocks. They won't touch Social Security or Medicare in a meaningful way because they are afraid of the senior lobby who views these things are their God given right, even though it is a welfare program and not actually funded by FICA taxes. The are afraid of welfare reform because they fear the government bureaucrat unions and minority pressure groups, who have been told since the 1960's that welfare programs were their right. That was actually part of the sell in the 1960's: people were told that they had a right to other people's money and that the government had to support them. This was done because not enough people were signing up, so this lie was told to increase the numbers, which increased funding which increased the number of bureaucrats in the union.

The result is that the middle class get squeezed out of existence, increasing the gap between the rich and poor. Los Angeles has already seen the middle class all but vanish because of high taxes and crime. The city I live in is slowly losing the middle class too because taxes are high and the public schools so pitiful that only 3 of 11 passed the new accreditation standards, after having had 4 years to get ready. Crime is so bad that most middle and high schools have on duty police patrolling the school every day. Middle class people with kids see this and look elsewhere, or for a private school.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/2006 5:31:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Only people over 18 who can produce one of these receipts would be allowed to vote.

I think it should be 21 or even 25. When they turn 18, that is just saying that they are out of school. It has no bearing on their maturity. All it means is that probably for the first time in their lives, they are their own people. They should have to wait several years to prove themselves as worthwhile citizens in their own right, since they are only legally responsible for themselves at 18. 3 years or more to prove they can be good citizens isn't a lot to ask. But I would probably make it at least 5 years, slightly longer than the basic term of enlistment in the military.

If they prove they can't behave by developing a criminal record, flunking out of college due to drunkenness and partying, or a poor work history, then they don't get the vote. They still have to pay taxes during that probationary time and after it if they fail. They can earn the franchise by shaping up later.

I think it was the Chinese that didn't consider a man fit to handle leadership and such until he was 35. That's a bit much but I would not object to 25. 7 years should be plenty for a person to prove themselves.

[Guest guest]

" Only people over 18 who can produce one of these receipts would be

allowed to vote. "

said:

" I think it should be 21 or even 25. When they turn 18, that is just

saying that they are out of school. It has no bearing on their

maturity. All it means is that probably for the first time in their

lives, they are their own people. They should have to wait several

years to prove themselves as worthwhile citizens in their own right,

since they are only legally responsible for themselves at 18. 3

years or more to prove they can be good citizens isn't a lot to ask.

But I would probably make it at least 5 years, slightly longer than

the basic term of enlistment in the military. "

" If they prove they can't behave by developing a criminal record,

flunking out of college due to drunkenness and partying, or a poor

work history, then they don't get the vote. They still have to pay

taxes during that probationary time and after it if they fail. They

can earn the franchise by shaping up later. "

To which I say:

I agree with you on all counts.

However, I believe that anyone who has successfully passed basic

training in the military should be given the right to vote, even if

they are only eighteen. The same would hold true for people getting

an honorable discharge or a general discharge.

Those getting a dishonorable discharge, or those going AWOL would

still have to earn the right to vote just like any other citizen.

Section 8 people would be judged on a case by case basis. If they

had PTSD they could vote. But if they were somehow homocidal or in

some other way severely impaired, it would seem that letting them

vote would be a dangerous idea provided they were evaluated

properly.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/2006 2:13:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

However, I believe that anyone who has successfully passed basic training in the military should be given the right to vote, even if they are only eighteen. The same would hold true for people getting an honorable discharge or a general discharge.

Just passing basic shouldn't earn the vote. They should have to wait just like everyone else.

On the other hand, a system as suggested by Heinlein in Starship Troopers (the novel, not those pitiful movies) might work. His system started with a mandatory civics class that was taught every year one was in school. It taught about the system and how it worked not just on the mechanical level but also delved into the philosophy behind the system.

To earn the franchise, you had to serve 2 years in federal service. That could be military service, as was the case in the novel, but could also be scientific work and other things. You put in your 2 years and you get the vote. No other privileges or anything, just the right to vote. You didn't have to do it right out of high school either. You could serve your 2 years whenever you wanted to.

That is an interesting idea, but that would also be a very small bloc of voters. Perhaps that system could be used for the upper houses and offices. That is, all taxpayers could vote in House elections, but only those who did service could vote for the Senate or President, or hold those offices.

There are plenty of options out there, but universal suffrage only benefits the welfare staters and divide and rule politicians.

[Guest guest]

>

> " If they prove they can't behave by developing a criminal record,

> flunking out of college due to drunkenness and partying, or a poor

> work history, then they don't get the vote.

What about

(i) getting a poor work history because employers arrange for political

reasons not to employ them, e.g. in order to ensure that anyone with

strong trade unionist views can't vote ?

(ii) flunking out of college due to ill-treatment but having arrogant

psychiatrists insist on believing it's due to druinkenness and

partying ?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/2006 2:13:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

no_reply writes:

" However, I believe that anyone who has successfully passed basic

training in the military should be given the right to vote, even if

they are only eighteen. The same would hold true for people getting

an honorable discharge or a general discharge. "

answered:

" Just passing basic shouldn't earn the vote. They should have to

wait just like everyone else. "

I think if someone volunteers to possibly die for their country,

they ought to have the right to vote upon passing training. On the

other hand, one could argue that if they join the military, they

know there is a chance they will die for their country, and so

perhaps they should wait for the right to vote like everyone else

given that it was their CHOICE to serve.

Perhaps draftees (if and when there is ever another draft) ought to

be the only ones who get the right to vote upon passing basic.

Hard to say.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/2006 2:13:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

no_reply writes:

" However, I believe that anyone who has successfully passed basic

training in the military should be given the right to vote, even if

they are only eighteen. The same would hold true for people getting

an honorable discharge or a general discharge. "

answered:

" Just passing basic shouldn't earn the vote. They should have to

wait just like everyone else. "

I think if someone volunteers to possibly die for their country,

they ought to have the right to vote upon passing training. On the

other hand, one could argue that if they join the military, they

know there is a chance they will die for their country, and so

perhaps they should wait for the right to vote like everyone else

given that it was their CHOICE to serve.

Perhaps draftees (if and when there is ever another draft) ought to

be the only ones who get the right to vote upon passing basic.

Hard to say.

Tom

Administrator