Associated Press Luncheon Speech

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Hamma

People who are employed pay full price for health care while those who are low income get it at a cut rate.

And people who by luck or accident of genetics who have some condition insurance wouldn't touch pay out the nose, while those who through luck or accident of genetics get it at a cut rate.

Best of all? If you don't get health care at all (which should be your choice) you pay a fine.

Because if you don't have insurance, we end up paying for it anyway. If you go to the emergency room after a car crash, they save your life. If that means spending $300k and 2 months in intensive care, thats what happens. If your baby is born with some serious birth defect that requires a lot of money, the baby is saved. They do their damnedest to take care of it. If anything happens, that you cannot afford, you end up not paying. Maybe you ruin your credit. Maybe you just file bankruptcy(medical bankruptcies are, btw, by far the most common). And then what happens? The hospital eats the loss, and raises its prices to cover.

And if you do have insurance? You're still participating in socialism. You're paying for their operations, their kids with cancer, their prescriptions, their frivolous use of the emergency room.

We are all already paying for everyones health care. Having an insurance mandate doesn't make things socialist.. it already is highly socialist. But it is implemented in the absolute worst, and most inefficient, possible way, because some people can't stand the thought of giving people something with no strings attached, they feel everything must be earned in some fashion. So we got the awesome mix where you still sometimes can get what you didn't earn(i.e. expensive emergency care), but you will be severely punished for it, and of course the massive inefficient bureaucracy intended to deny people.





As for the welfare state breeding entitlement whores? In the year 2000, national unemployment was less than 3%. People want to work when work is available. There may be a few people living happily off the public tit, but they are very few and far between, and have ridiculously low standards. Or possibly are disabled. Life on the dole(what little you can get these days) is a miserable existence.

And capital gains? Phooey. In the 90s, it was 28%, the economy was strong, unemployment low, and we even managed to balance the budget a few times. Maybe it helps a bit, but it certainly hasn't proven to have been all that helpful.

Originally Posted by Warborn

People talk about how social programs need to be annihilated and taxes on the wealthy and corporations needs to be reduced as much as possible as if that's the only way nations have ever achieved prosperity. And yet, the facts don't support that as far as I can tell.

It still amazes me that they can say UHC doesn't work when there are dozens of examples of it working absolutely fine. Or that socialism is pure evil and dooms you to failure, when places like norway/sweden/finland exist.

I mean.. those countries exist.. right now. You can open up wikipedia and read all about them. They are, right now, literally doing, and doing so quite successfully, what people here are saying is completely impossible and the worst idea ever. And then you point this out, and they say it wouldn't work, and you ask why. No real answer there, but pretty much the only reason it doesn't work is because a large portion of people do not want it to work.

A nice self fulfilling prophecy.