Comments about ‘Letters: More than the name’

Allowing private industry to make a profit by rationing health services and forcing people to make decisions with either catastrophic health or financial outcomes hasn't worked well, either. It's also immoral, I believe. Call it what you will, Obama care did not go nearly far enough. Single payer systems work, and that's what we need.

Last I checked repubs were in love with guys military aren't they socialized of are they privately managed?

Also if tea party people hate socialized medicine so much why do they love Medicare and social security? Why not try their odds at the private sector?

Could it be that privatized health care isn't what it is made out to be? Perhaps we should look at what all other industrialized countries are doing?

As the original letter proved, folks actually support Obamacare. However, it's only those who merely play partisan political games who don't.

@The Real Maverick:
"Last I checked repubs were in love with guys military aren't they socialized of are they privately managed?"

Huh?? Would you like to restate that question using normally accepted lexicon and grammar structure?

"Also if tea party people hate socialized medicine so much why do they love Medicare and social security? "

People pay for medicare and social security all their working lives... plus medicare premiums after retirement at 65. So there should be plenty'a funds to carry them through to the end of life without sucking up government money (which we don't have).

"Why not try their odds at the private sector?"

Private sector is fine... But it's for intelligent folk with enough brains to plan ahead, get in early, and stay the course.

"Perhaps we should look at what all other industrialized countries are doing?"

You mean where old folks have to wait in line for months and sometimes years for some serious but expected medical attention? And sometimes die waiting?

"As the original letter proved, folks actually support Obamacare."

What? Most folks don't support Obamacare. But I'll grant that many folks like free stuff from the government.

Whaaat?

Allan, could you try again and put your thoughts in some kind of plain English? Your post reminds me of some calligraphical etchings one mite find on a cave wall.

Letters should not contain nonsense if the goal is to influence readers positively.

“...allowing an organization (federal government) that has never efficiently handled any business...”

Efficient has the qualities of being competent: capable: effective.

Ronald Reagan made it the business of his government to emasculate the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is no more. Yes, it included much debt. Also help from the UK, Germany and others. Also thank you to Mr. Gorbachev who allowed the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact to go down gracefully.

Interstate highways are the business of government. They are anything but a failure.

Taming the Colorado River was the business of government.

Government is less than perfect. But it does have a vital roll to play in many areas of human endeavor.

"People always want the good stuff; they just don't always want to pay for it. ...litthere was no mention of the tidal wave of economic ...consequences of allowing an organization (federal government) that has never efficiently handled any business to essentially take over an industry ..."

I'd like to say this is an original thought but it is the same mantra we have heard for the past 5 years. Just who are the people who want the good stuff but don't want to pay for it? How about asking why my college student son, who is a juvenile diabetic, paid insurance premiums up front for an entire school year only to be told by the insurance company that his "pre-existing condition" disqualifies him from any reimbursement - at all. Who is it that is getting the free stuff in that situation? And yes, there are avenues to fight the insurance companies who do this sort of thing but tell be who has been successful in doing that. The federal government runs Medicare at 1/4 the overhead cost of private insurance and there is no concrete evidence that the ACA will create any "tidal wave" of economic ruin.

People who think government should be run like a business probably don’t understand either.

Beyond the altruistic purpose of business of serving the needs of people, the major effort of a business organization is to increase the wealth of the owners. All other consideration are subordinate to this rule. This rule for business is true no matter what kind business is operated.

Government serves the people in the same way as business, doing things for people that they can’t or don’t want to do for themselves, but the main effort is doing it in the manner people want it done, not necessarily to increase the wealth of it’s owners, the people themselves.

We, the people, do not want the government to make a profit, having done the job ask is the important thing. Efficiency is good and desirable, but the job itself is to be the main effort. There are no universal rules for what the people may ask of their government.

Business like government is the prerogative of the people, they can and should exercise the right to make both do what is ask.

Hmmmmm.

Well, I guess this letter makes about as much sense as most of the other blather about Obamacare that is common here.

That means that it makes no sense at all.

Allan,

Thank you for articulating the am radio/fox talking points.

It saves readers a lot of time getting your Cliff's Notes version and your version makes as much sense as the original talkers.

@Ultra Bob:
"People who think government should be run like a business probably don't understand either."

Governments should run efficiently, as should businesses. But, alas, the government can be as inefficient as it wants. In the first place the government is run by elected officials. So they while away their days including playing as much golf as they please (especially if they are in the second of two allowed terms). Secondly, it's very tough to get rid of inefficient government employees.

"There are no universal rules for what the people may ask of their government."

The people may ask from the federal government a myriad of things. But the federal government is limited by what it can provide by (wait for it)... the US Constitution. But, alas, our politicians have found ways around almost all the limitations that can reasonably be derived from reading that document. Even requiring citizens to purchase health insurance, which everyone thought was outside government authority, is now mandatory. And we can thank other government employees (John Roberts and his Supreme court) for that.

Allan is trying to make conservatives appear smart with his use of big words. Unfortunately, his argument still fails as it is based on am radio/foxnews lies. Sorry! But when your foundation is built on bad ground it will always fail, no matter how pretty you try and make the house.

The truth is, we pay more than any country in the world by a long shot to receive far less. Privatized health care system fails. There will always be winners and losers. Do we really want that as the basic principle for our health care system. Do we really want to treat our people as investments? Only providing health care to the healthy and rich while neglecting the poor and sick?

Furthermore, repubs seem to forget this lil fact, but we somehow have trillions to throw away in the Middle East but can't afford health care for our own citizens? George Washington must be rolling in his grave!

Lastly, if repubs hate Obamacare then they must have really hated the GOPs health care reform of the 90s and Romney's solution in Massachusetts. They're the same thing.

Alfred.

If you pay by the hour, you have a right to demand a certain amount of time from the employee. If you are pay by the quantity and quality of his action, you don’t have any claim to his time. We pay elected government employees by what they do, not be how much time it takes.

In the Constitution are several little words that someone snuck in, almost as an after thought, that removes the limitations put on the federal government. Those word “or to the people” give the people equal status with state governments and the ability to modify the Constitution if they wish.

Presently the state governments have put so many restrictions and roadblocks to people’s voting that it is a very difficult task. However, the advent of the internet and all the things it enables may be, someday, a way for the people to go around the state governments.