Nationalised?

We really don't have the same definition of "nationalisation", ya know. The way I see it, the state put them under tutelage because of their mismanagement, with all the intention of putting them back into business on the mid-term, when it will be sure that thousands of americans won't loose their job because of the greed of the higher-ups.

And as far as I know, hospitals will still be runned by their private administration. Insurance business will be more competitive, but will still try to rival the government's alternative. This is a freaking long shot from socialised medicine, my good friend. You will still even be less socialised than the U.K...

Few people manage to pack so many wrong statements in so few words.

Taken over by government, the government now owns them; the government dictates what they do. Up to and include the president of the USA firing the CEO of GM.

The government doesn't know how to run anything, what exactly are they going to teach them?

The banks failed because the government forced them, by law, to make bad loans. The auto industry was being laden with union contracts that force its labor to be nearly twice as expensive as its competition; this is combined with laws protecting the environment and workers which also raise costs. It is not a bad thing to have such laws, but it requires protective tariffs, for years we had such tariffs. They were lifted (too quickly), without lifting the costly restrictions and regulations... this made companies uncompetitive. There was also an element of "mismanagement" there, because they did not invest enough in development of technology to keep up with the Asians manufacturers. That was many years (15+) ago with completely different management, in fact, the current management has been catching up to the Asians very rapidly and doing a great job in this regard; every year the gap got smaller.

Even if it is their intention to eventually privatize those companies, it doesn’t change the fact that they did nationalize them.

Then they find new jobs. Oh wait, they can’t! nationalizing companies and spending like crazy has devastated the market so everyone is losing jobs.

Besides which, chapter 11 would have meant the end of the unions and sustainable employment with those companies, not the loss of jobs. They would have still needed many employees. Once costs would be under control, they might have even more jobs offered.

See the retort to “because of their mismanagement”

Sigh… ok let’s do this.

If the government tells them exactly how to run it in a 2000 page law and via a variety of future legislation AND most importantly, “best practices” dictated by the government, then no, it isn’t run by their private administrators. It is run by the government with private puppet management.

Everyone going bankrupt is not “more competitive”… if you use taxpayer money to fund insurance, there will be only 1 insurance company, the USA. Which will cost more and provide less… the rich might (and current bills do ban it) be able to still buy their private quality insurance for much more money. But that wouldn’t really help much since the healthcare industry would be ravaged (not just the health insurance), meaning there isn’t care even if you can pay for it. Doctors will not be able to get away with only treating people with private insurance and rejecting all government patients.

This WILL become socialized medicine really quickly. In fact, that is their whole points, various democrats publically stated that this is the plan.

Only difference between this and the UK, is that this is a stepwise process that will take a few years to transition to full socialism… also unlike the UK, this still doesn’t have tort reform, because democrats are getting too many bribes from trial lawyers.

As you notice in the original post, it just collapsed in Israel. It is in the same sorry state in Canada and Europe, and it has failed in the USA when tried by individual states (such as Hawaii and Massachusetts; and I hear a third one too, but I haven’t had time to look that one up).

What he said!  Very good!

I will add for Cikomyr that much of the rhetoric he has been hearing is just a bunch of lies.  The largest health insurer in the US is the Federal Government.  The highest rate of care rejection from insurance companies is - the federal government (almost twice as high as the largest private insurer).  The highest incident of fraud and waste in any insurance plan is - the federal government!

I cannot comment on the nuances of the Canadian health system other than to quote the anecdotal stories we hear about.  But accepting what you have said about it at face value, I can tell you unequivocally that the USA federal government is not the Canadian central government.  The malfeasance of the feds down here is apparently unparalleled in the western world. (that does not mean I buy the previous statement, but just accepting that other governments are more altruistic).  And it all has to do with power.  They got it, they use (abuse) it.

You do not feed a cancer to make it go away.  And that is what this latest abortion of a law is all about. Concentrating more power in the hands of the feds, and making sure there is more waste, fraud, denial of services (up to and including the death panels - see oregon Cancer victim) and exhorbitant costs.

It will not make things better here, it will make them worse, and that is the plan, so they can get their real law - socialized medicine - through and finally destroy the health system of the US completely.

I think the root of the health care problem lies in the Medicare/Medicaid BIg Government entitlement programs.

Which is why I am dismayed by some of the contradictorian nature of your average conservatives in the U.S.. By your account, there isn't a larger hive of scum and villany than the Federal Government's administration. You are effectively saying that the average U.S. public servant is less moral than the average Canadian civil servant. I find it hard to swallow, as I don't believe americans are a more morally broke people than the Canadians, but let's step from that point from one second.

If they are so morally bankrupted, yet you still trust them to have tools to spy into homes based on what THEY claim is justifiable. You believe them when they give reasons why your country should go to war, and why the Israeli governemnt isn't that bad of a people. You trust the government on so many levels. Why the difference in trust between what the government is allowed to do when it comes to national security (& others) and everything else?

Seriously. We don't trust our own government (who, as we established, is runned by more moral people than in Washington) by a long shot when it comes to spying on its citizen. You aren't close of seeing a Patriot Act on our ground, yet we trust them to runs other elements.

This.. is contradictory, to say the least.

I am actually saying no such thing.  The system is corrupt because the creation of the system was by corrupt people.  But that does not mean the average schmuck is corrupt, only that they are hampered by the rules and bosses they work for.  There are many whistler blowers, and more that are squashed that you never hear about.  No matter how good the civil servants are, they cannot fix bad laws and intentional corruption (ACORN) that is condoned by the politicians.

It is if you only know what the media talks about.  Have you ever read the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act?  You should (well, at least try - it is as dry as the Sahara).  Then you would see several things.

1.  As far as legislation goes, it is not intrusive as was hyped by the hysteria.  And it circumvents no rights as a citizen you already have.

2.  It is as bad as any other piece of legislation written by a bunch of egotists.  Which means it is no worse than we already have, it only consolidates rules in one place to facilitate the prosecution of non-citizens for terrorist acts.

So let me put it to you this way.  Any law written can be abused because the writers are not altruistic.  But the Patriot Act is not intrusive in that if you have not done anything wrong, it cannot get you (and even if you have and are an american citizen, the information gleaned from the act for the most part is not admissible against you).  However, one has to avail themselves of medicine from time to time, so there is no way of avoiding the latest abomination (or Obamination) and be penalized for one simple thing - living.

One more thing... if the government wants a single payer system, they better prove themselves more capable then current insurance providers.

The government currently runs 4 healthcare programs. Medicare, Medicaid, veterans health insurance (forgot the proper name), and some other one that for the life of me I can't remember the name of.

Currently medicare and medicaid and the vets care have the HIGHEST denied care rate by far, the highest cost by patient, the longest wait times, the highest fraud, the least choice, etc... I say to congress, show us you are capable by making those 4 systems you already run BETTER then private care, and I will gladly let you run my healthcare too.

you mean, the average conservative strawman according to liberal news outlets. Talk to some conservatives and ask them what they think.

Absolutely not. I don't trust them to do so at all.

huh? we should ADMIT that we ARE in a war that the other side declared and attacks us. We admitted it after 9-11, we are refusing to admit it now with some of our enemies. (ex: iran actively funds terrorist organizations that attack the us, and supplies insurgents in iraq). It has nothing to do with believing our elected officials.

What is it with liberals being so anti semtic? its so Ironic that they claim that everyone on the right is an antisemetic KKK member, but all the antisemitism I see comes from the left.

The largest feminist organization refused to run an ad in their magazine showing how powerful women are in israel (and they are... israels second prime minister in 1952 was a woman, and today women are very powerful positions in the military and government).

Green organizations call israel an apartheid state (it isn't) which has nothing to do with the fact that israel is the only industrialized nation in the world with net growth of trees.

the LGBTetc organization keeps on slamming israel for their supposed war crimes (non existent) while in israel gays can marry, adopt children, openly serve in the army, etc. (and homosexuality is of course punishable by death is all muslim states)

Israel is a socialist nation, healthcare is free for all (and collapsing naturally). Education is a total liberal indoctrination fest... Air strikes and attacks are NOT performed whenever there are civilians around, casualties in the last war in lebanon were under 300 lebanese civilians of out 32.66 million, which is 0.0009% of the population. (contrast that with any other war where civilian casualties are typically around 10%... for example, vietnam).

israel is basically a liberal "utopia" (which is why it has such problems... and a tax rate over 70%). but the left hates it with a passion and will believe any lie no matter outlandish about it. For example, the biggest swedish newspaper just published a blood liabel saying that israel kidnaps palestinians to steal their eyes for transplanting in blind jews. They admit that they have no evidence for it but the testimony of one guy... who read it in al jazera... never mind that transplanting an eye (and making it function) is impossible with current medical science...

Strawman argument... no different from a creationist telling me "so you believe life just comes from a rock".

Yes, yes we are. The current administration has done nothing against it or other repressive laws... only added to them.

I keep waiting to see the democrats repeal the patriot act and DMCA (which they passed originally btw) instead of nationalizing healthcare, the banks, the car industry, etc.

First of all, you call me an antisemitic for not being biaised in favor of Israel government. This is an insult to all the jews to have been the real victims of antisemitism. You virtually spit in their face by using that world so carelessly. That is the opinion of most of my jewish friends who have been victim of antisemitism, and they don't care a fig what you think about Israel.

Calling me an antisemitism for criticising Israel is like calling me an Arabophobia for criticising Dubai's government, or an Islamophobe because I criticize Iran's behavior. It's simplistic, and it's needlessly insulting to me and to the Jews.

Second you call me an antisemitic for not being biaised in favor of the Israel government. I am not against Israel. I know it's a country with a lot of good people, but also it's share of extremists. I know it's probably one of the freest democracy in the world.

But just because I do not accept this axiom, which you seems to be your life credo:

Israel is always acting with perfect right, restraint and behavior while dealing with the Palestinians.

You think I am a Anti-Zionist? (learn that word). That is, again, simplistic and downright insulting. The American media seems to have a strong Pro-Israeli bias while reporting, and so does the American political climate. It's not a good or bad thing in itself, but it can also be a sign of lack of perspective in your popular culture.

Joe Biden has seriously been insulted last week by the Israeli's government, yet outside of a few phone call made by the Excutive, no one actually took offense at the uncalled diplomatic slap in the face your government received? Hell, people actually criticised Obama's administration for taking offense at the Israeli Government's behavior and attitude?

It reeks of bias. Maybe it isn't, but that is the kind of event that transpire outside of the USA as a sign that you are not totally neutral in the opinion.

It doesn't make the Hamas right. It doesn't make the terrorists right. It doesn't mean that Jews are untrusthful snivelling liars.

I also do not think that no country has a bias AGAINST Israel, obviously. And these people are just as wrong to have their bias as any country with an overly pro-Israeli bias in their general culture.

How so?  When he showed up 90 minutes late to the meeting?

He comes in to try to oversee negociations between Israel and the PLO. That was a somewhat good step forward.

But then, while he is arriving, Israel declares something that everybody knew would completely infuriates the Palestinians and prevent any kind of productive negociations. They torpedoed Biden's entire purpose in his visit to Israel.

That was quite a slap to the face.

You're a fool to think the PLO has any interest in a lasting peace, at least one that involves Israel's continued existence.

Tell me one thing the Palestinian's have done to avoid 'completely infuriating' the Israelis.  Although I suppose dead Israelis can't be too infuriated, can they?

You are a fool to think the PLO is a monolithic entity with only extremists in it, or that every single Palestinians just want Israel's destruction at all cost and will never accept peace.

You don't avoid something by doing something. You avoid something by not doing something.

Right now, Palestinians, Iranians and Hizbullah are in talk to start a 3rd intifada in retaliation. This is what they will do to infuriate Israel. Not doing it was a good step.

Ok, 2 more questions:

1. What was the declaration that Israel made?

2. Where was the formal request for Biden to intercede?

I will add that the last person anyone wants aiding them is the foul mouthed idiot Biden.  I would not want him to negotiate a sewer contract, as he does not have the brains god gave a slug.  But that is just an editorial aside.  Still, given how stupid Biden is, do you not think it was a slap in the face of the Israelis AND PLO for him to even assume he was competant to breath?  He is not SOS, and indeed barely a cognizant being (and the only reason I do not support impeaching Obama).