The Democrats on Health Care

Try actually reading the artcles I posted. And I do not need to go back and read anything. There is nothing inconsistent. I apparently do not need to provide any kind of a source according to your standard. You seem to think that you have "established" that Rush's statements end up on this board but feel no need to provide a source your self. So based on your standard I have done more to "establish" my point than you do. Seems I am pretty rock solid then.

 

I am afraid it will have to wait until after the 2008 election before Universal Health Care is given any serious chance, but once the Democrats have control of both the Congress and the White House, things may start to change. :thumbs:

 

Maybe if I thought I had to wear a tie to herd sheep, used a walking stick with my artificial hip joint [which this "ineffecient" health care system made it possible for me to walk again], and always wore a bowler when outside to protect against the sun's lousy deadly radiation around here, compared to a latitude like in UK, I might be healthier too.

 

Uh, I did read the article.

Oh, okay. How convenient for you that you don't have to go back and read anything. Perhaps that is why you seemingly have difficulty answering questions.

Where did I write this? Perhaps you could stop with this and actually answer my questions if you are going to bother replying to me.

I don't merely think so, I know it. Perhaps you have forgotten that I listen to Rush Limbaugh. This isn't a case of making a claim: it is a case of hearing Rush say it on the radio, then reading it in some of the discussions on this board. Do you listen to Rush? If you do, then you know it to be true.

Claiming something in perpetuity does not constitute truth, and you know it. You haven't established anything. When you don't agree with a source, you simply ignore it. When someone doesn't agree with your source, you simply tell that person to read what you posted.

How convenient for you.

BTW, did you notice my last statement before you offered this?

 

:laugh:
Regardless of where one stands on this issue, that was hilarious.

Hope all is well,
BiR

 

Some of us aren't looking for a free ride, either.:thumbs:

 

And then the government decides who gets treated for what based on their opinion of who's chances of survival is best.

We can all watch our parents die a little sooner when the government won't authorize treatment because they're so old and weak and...

useless.

Maybe we'll even be some of those lucky old folks. Thank God for the government.

 

We have more than a clue! We can effectively predict what universal health care through the federal government would be like based on all the existing government programs that cost so much, waste so much, have become entitlements, come with lots of strings, show favor to one group verses another, become political weapons, etc. Yes, we have a clue for sure!

 

I'll add that every such solution begets yet another problem leading to another solution hence the endless growth of meddling government.

 

Being intimately aquainted with the 1984 court-ordered divestiture of the Bell System, I say "pish tosh" to your argument because it isn't anywhere close to the truth. It was one of the most flagrant impositions of socialism in North America next to FDR's New Deal. It ripped large chunks of a network away from the organization that financed and built it and gave it away to Johnny-come-lately's. Long distance rates did go down, but so did the quality of service, and the cost of local service skyrocketed.

Other than this glaring innaccuracy, I quite agree with your post.

 

I worked at AT&T before, during, and after the divestiture, and don't totally agree with you at all. Long distance rates DID go down dramatically, to the point where it doesn't matter if you call across the street or across the country. The argument is not that AT&T financed and built a network by itself. It was with monopoly generated ratepayer funds. The Bell System had a regulated monopoly with a guaranteed rate of return. One could argue that without open access by competitors to that network, no competition would ever ensue, due to the large up front costs to replicate the network. If competition were to ever take hold, something had to happen. So first, AT&T built the network with monopoly dollars, and after unbundling of network elements, the Baby Bells made money on it again with wholesale agreements.

I see Verizon and the new AT&T rebuilding the old system, and to some degree there were bad outcomes. But I also don't think innovations like DSL would have occurred under the Bell System. I also remember when a T-1 was only for internal Bell System use. No customer would, or could, get one.

 

Notice how much of your local telephone bill is for taxes.

 

Yep, even if you haven't used the phone you still get charged the tax and access fees.

 

10-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 3:30 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle

 

I can, however, make long distance telephone calls to anywhere in the USA for 2.5 cents or less per minute and to Asia for 8.7 cents per minute all day long with no additional charges including taxes at with crystal clear service.

 

Well, I too was intimately related with divestiture having started with Bell Labs in 1976. I believe most of pre-AT&T's problems were caused by the extreme restrictions placed upon it by regulation. Cellular wireless was invented by Bell Labs but first introduced in Japan because of over-regulation.

 

Closed per previous notice. LE