Howard Dean's "God, guns, and gays" comment contributed to his eventual downfall (he was falling before the howl). This comment is in the same vein, and it also reveals Obama as a true Marxist.

You see, America, ALL your problems are economic, and the silly "feelings" you have about God, the transcendence of the Constitution, and your desire to have borders for your nation are just displaced economic fear. Obama, the Marxist, has the answer. Money can make it all better. Economic redistribution, where the "haves" and the "have nots" suddenly become "equal" will fix everything. Then you won't need that "opiate," religion, or that silly Constitution. You'll hand over your weapons, open your borders, and live in harmony with the natural order of things, without the chains of wage-slavery or the fear of loss that capitalism always breeds.

Just leave it all to the more-than-equal pigs. They'll fix everything.

Steve,

It might be bigoted if it weren't true. In the richest country on Earth, with more opportunities than anywhere else, its pretty sad when you have to blame free trade, and illegal immigrants as the reason you don't have a job. Now there are some people who have been screwed over, but far less than some would like us to believe.

I look at my own extended family. There are some who would be doing far better for themselves if in their younger years they had chosen to step out of their small town mid-west comfort zone, gone to college, and set their sights on working in an international market place. But they grew up in a local culture that didn't emphasize education beyond high-school, or look beyond their local town, country or state. And they at least from an economic perspective are paying the price.

Everybody assumes there's something special about Tiger Woods, Warren Buffet, Lance Armstrong, and on some level they are right, but I would argue much of their success came from a work ethic, and a mental fortitude that 99% of us don't exercise, but barring a mental handicap are all capable of.

I have seen kids from India, Pakistan, and the Middle East, started off with higher mountains to climb than anyone here in the US, succeed beyond their wildest dreams. Not because of some liberal affirmative action law, but because they had a stronger desire to succeed than many I see in the US. You don't here to many kids from India these days who's desire is to be a farmer, a mechanic, or a steel worker. They want to be doctors, engineers, lawyers and scientists.

So on some level Obama is right. And if there is a backlash, its because people don't like hearing the truth.

Ahmanrah,

Even if you are right in all you say (which I doubt), explain to me how it ties into RELIGION, which Obama depicts here as a substitute for economic awareness.

I TOLD you he was a Marxist.

Kerry,

If you listen to his explanation, he says those are the things these people cling to in bad times, I presume for security. And is he wrong about that...particularly the religion part.

And as far as me being wrong? Do you know of a Doctor, Broker, Engineer, Scientist or Doctor unable to find a job because of immigrants or free trade? If there they are qualified...not hardly.

But a car mechanic, an assembly line worker, garbage man, textile worker...and a 1000 other jobs that require relatively no education compared to the above...is it at all surprising that 3 billion other people on this planet can do it, and are doing it for a cheaper price? What's happening to blue collar America isn't rocket science. If your in you 30's or younger...best thing you can do is face reality and go back to school. I have no doubt that if they applied themselves they could get a better job, and one that is more stable. But with rash of anti-science and anti-education going on in this country I have my doubts that many will rise to the occasion.

"And as far as me being wrong? Do you know of a Doctor, Broker, Engineer, Scientist or Doctor unable to find a job because of immigrants or free trade? If there they are qualified...not hardly."

Obviously, you haven't talked to anyone in high tech lately.

But that's not the point. Obama isn't making a case that foreigners are taking American jobs (that's more of a conservative position.) HE'S saying that our REAL problems are economic, and we only turn to religion, guns, and xenophobic prejudice (which he puts on an equal footing) because we don't understand the realities of economic life. The cure for this, by the way, isn't, say, closing the borders or teaching American kids to spell--it's electing the Orwellian fascist Democrats to take over our lives.

By the way, I've lived in the red state heartland all my life, and I've never known anyone to "cling" to a gun.

And Hillary is also wrong when she says religious people aren't "materially poor," but "spiritually rich." Rather, the expectation of Christianity is that you approach the throne of God "poor in spirit," not "rich." It's a small theological point, but she's trying to be religious, and she's just being sloppy.

BTW, anyone want to touch Wright calling Thomas Jefferson a "pedophile" this weekend?

By the way, I've lived in the red state heartland all my life, and I've never known anyone to "cling" to a gun.

Kerry, look at yourself in the mirror. If you don't physically cling to one, you sure as hell cling to the idea like a security blanket.

But that's not the point. Obama isn't making a case that foreigners are taking American jobs (that's more of a conservative position.) HE'S saying that our REAL problems are economic, and we only turn to religion, guns, and xenophobic prejudice (which he puts on an equal footing) because we don't understand the realities of economic life. The cure for this, by the way, isn't, say, closing the borders or teaching American kids to spell--it's electing the Orwellian fascist Democrats to take over our lives.

Obama an Orwellian fascist? Please. As far as many American's not understanding the economic realties of the world, I'd say he's right. Most don't even know how to save for retirement...and that is backed up by facts, not my opinion.

"Kerry, look at yourself in the mirror. If you don't physically cling to one, you sure as hell cling to the idea like a security blanket."

Snort. That's pretty funny. FYI, I don't even have a gun. Not one. Never have. I'm just rather fond of the Constitution. Which seems to drive you liberals absolutely crazy.

"Obama an Orwellian fascist?"

An absolutely pitch-perfect more-equal pig.

"As far as many American's not understanding the economic realties of the world, I'd say he's right. Most don't even know how to save for retirement...and that is backed up by facts, not my opinion."

That's not what he's talking about. He's not planning to offer seminars on investing your 401K. He's planning to have the government cover you in a cradle-to-grave dependency blanket so you won't have to worry your little head about your retirement.

What he means is that the vast majority of non-elite Americans aren't smart enough to understand that they are alienated from the fruits of their own labor and can't figure out how to rise up against the bosses and take their power. So they need Democrats to empower them. In the meantime, they foolishly "cling" to economic displacement symbols like religion and security tropes like guns and borders as a means of sublimating their inchoate rage at the capitalist system that their opiate religion functions to protect.

As his buddy, Bill Ayres. He knows which way the wind is blowing.

That's not what he's talking about. He's not planning to offer seminars on investing your 401K. He's planning to have the government cover you in a cradle-to-grave dependency blanket so you won't have to worry your little head about your retirement.

Well if most American's aren't properly saving for retirement, as our negative savings rate suggests, that would seem to be a national security concern. What would you suggest we do about it, since you're all about spending trillions when it comes to national security.

Well, now I'm confused. I thought we need not fear marxists anymore, what with President Reagan's glorious Cold War victory.

Who should I fear more - immigrants, marxists or gays? Please rank them in the proper order I should fear them. I don't want to be careless with my precious, precious fear.

Art,

Don't forget the terrorists...never forget the terrorists...

Sorry, Art: We've pissed away Reagan's Cold War victory courtesy of an eight-year Clinton attack on our military -- slashing troops by 40 percent during that period. He whined that he loathed the military in the late 60s and was able to put that into practice in the 90s. But this isn't about Reagan of Clinton it's about the Marxist Obama.

I don't fear Marxists -- I loathe them. They will ruin this country as we know it if they are allowed to assume the presidency.

As far as clinging to the idea of the Second Amendment goes, I know all of you lefties hate our Constitution, but the right to keep and bear arms is in there and oddly enough, the places where that right have been abridged are the ones with the highest crime rates.

ahmanrah,

You are letting your conservatism show through: That first post is 90% conservative sentiment. This IS the greatest country on the face of the earth with more opportunity for everyone that anywhere else and if someone is bitter because they haven't used the opportunities they have to their advantage, they have no one to blame for it but themselves. The problem with the Democrat Party is that they have staked their future on feeding this bitterness by trying to convince EVERYONE who doesn't have about 1/100 as much wealth as the Clintons that the future of this country is bleak unless we turn it into a Marxist state. In reality, 100% of the people in this country live better than 90% of the rest of the world. So Marxists like Obama have to lie about the state of the nation in order to get people to believe that the only thing that can make their lives better is his form of Marxism. He just happened to go a tad bit too far in expressing this sentiment and allowed his dirty little elitist bigot slip to show.

As far as clinging to the idea of the Second Amendment goes, I know all of you lefties hate our Constitution, but the right to keep and bear arms is in there and oddly enough, the places where that right have been abridged are the ones with the highest crime rates.

Steve,

Nice, but totally unsupportable statement. Japan has no guns, and one of the lowest crime rates on Earth. Britian has higher crime rates, but nothing that approaches the United States. Can't get away from the fact that 50 people die a year from guns in Japan, whereas homicides in the US are over 10,000. Britan goes without saying. Much of western Europe enjoys lower crime rates, and less gun freedom than the US. This is fact. Where I suspect you are trying to get away with your argument is places like Burma, Nigeria, Somalia...etc. But these are like comparing apples to oranges. There are so many things screwing up these societies, that guns or the lack of them in the hands of citizens is only a small part of the equation.

Kerry,

Since we are all about talking about favorite subject...the socialism of Hillary and Obama, I thought I would pass on some numbers for you to digest...since you think government supported health care systems are unsupportable and grossly expensive. Germany pays approximately 10 percent of its GDP to cover healthcare costs...and it covers 100% of its people for ALL CONDITIONS they suffer. Their system is part private part government. Our system costs us 16 percent of GDP, and yet 40+ million American's aren't covered, and insurance companies can squirrel their way out of treating certain people for certain conditions, and after certain lifetime amounts have been reached.

Another figure for you. Administrative costs represent 25% of America's health care costs, in France, administrative costs are 4% of the total. I would take a guess that this increased bureocracy comes from insurance companies, and others trying to avoid paying bills rather than government inefficiencies. Just look at America's tax code....its as complex as it is, because its a smörgåsbord of special interest meddling to create tax shelters, tax breaks, subsidies, etc. It would be alot simpler if we could tell individuals and corporations alike to sit down shut and pay your taxes like everyone else, instead of weaseling out of them with the help of some member of congress.

ahmanrah,

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the history of medical care in the US. The same people who are champing at the bit to BECOME the single-payer in a single-payer universal coverage scheme are the people who INVENTED Health Maintenance Organizations (which, Helen Hunt proved conclusively, massively suck.)

Ironically, even the HMO system would work if the government would get the heck out of it. The concept of the HMO is simply that doctors are paid to treat sick people--but paid more to have retained patients who are NOT sick. It makes sense, but as soon as the government steps in and allows the Medicare system to run the table (i.e., the rules of Medicare rule supreme), things fall apart. Once Congress got its hands on it and MANDATED accessibility AND started mucking around with the hands-on of it (thanks, Uncle Teddy Kennedy), prevention quickly became more expensive and excessive than treatment.

By the way, ahmanrah, when are you going to learn that economic arguments do not convince me to back things that are already conceptually bad--i.e., government-provided health care?

Many Americans, believe it or not, CHOOSE not to have health care. Some don't think they need it (mostly younger people, who are mostly right), some prioritize other big-ticket items (like big-screen tvs), and some cannot get private insurance because they would bankrupt the insurance company with claims (because so many Americans are unhealthy and lazy).

"insurance companies can squirrel their way out of treating certain people for certain conditions, and after certain lifetime amounts have been reached."

Squirrel their way out of? Isn't that their right as a private company, to choose not to go bankrupt treating everyone for everything? And let's be clear: people aren't denied CARE. They are denied the option of having others PAY for it. (By the way, I wouldn't be too eager to bring down the insurance companies, were I you--they have a lot to do with the solvency of the US economy, in ways most people don't even know about.)

How 'bout this? Would it make all you liberals happy if we just disallowed people making more than half a million dollars from having insurance at all? They could pay their own medical bills. Would that warm your little hearts?

In the richest country on Earth, with more opportunities than anywhere else, its pretty sad when you have to blame free trade, and illegal immigrants as the reason you don't have a job. - ahmanrah

and

This IS the greatest country on the face of the earth with more opportunity for everyone that anywhere else and if someone is bitter because they haven't used the opportunities they have to their advantage, they have no one to blame for it but themselves. - Steve

This really does seem to be a axiomatic truth for you lot that nobody seems to bother checking.

Try this - I found it in less than 5 minutes

Kerry,

For your edification, here is a taped conversation between Whitehouse staff and Richard Nixon the day before the first HMO was approved. Now I am sure after you see it you are going to say that Michael Moore edited it, but I am sure that it can be backed up with transcripts from somewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QkgUkM0o6Q

I just love how they are joking they will provide less healthcare and make a profit in the end.

WB,

Unlike Steve however I truly believe that some groups in America have and continue to be discriminated against and I have said this in the past. But there are others, and those are the folks I refer to above that have no excuse, other than they didn't try hard enough growing up.

There is this segment of American society that wants to hold onto old jobs in the past that are no longer feasible for American's to do, and with the abundant educational opportunities available they shouldn't need to keep them. Some people hold their blue collar status as a badge, and I'd rather see themselves strive to become white collar workers, rather than think that they are just going to do what their father, uncle and grandfather did before them....

Gary

ahmanrah,

Since you are predisposed to think of both Nixon and HMOs as evil, you missed the point. Nixon was right, as was the Vice-President (which one were they talking about, by the way?).

LESS care, MORE profit. INCENTIVIZE health. It's a simple concept. Your HMO doctor gets paid when you sign up, continues to be paid while you are his patient, and EARNS MORE MONEY if you stay healthy, because he doesn't have to lay out money for expensive procedures when you are SICK. This does not mean (as Moore implies in the deceptive voiceover) that people get less care AND get sick; it means they require less care because they are HEALTHY. And they are not "joking." They are discussing the mechanism of the Kaiser Permanente system--and they are PLEASED with it, because it WORKED.

I don't expect a dolt like Michael Moore to get the point. I guess I shouldn't expect you to, either.

WB,

Your propaganda from in-progress research funded by the Chilean government and the Ford foundation is an interesting note. However, it does not report finished research and is clear in its assumption that there is something wrong with the American belief that "as long as the playing field is level, outcomes—as unequal as they might be—are seen as legitimate."

This does not prove that America is somehow NOT the greatest nation on earth; all it proves is that sociologists at Columbia University STILL don't understand American exceptionalism or basic capitalism.

Kerry,

Oh really. So you are totally blind to the fact that insurance companies are in the business of covering as little as possible, and wiggling out from under what they are legally bound to cover after the fact. Its not healthcare but look at what happen during Katrina. Insurance have and continue to try their damnedest not to pay what they are morally and legally obligated to cover.

I'm sorry but people who are diagnosed with a disease, should be able to get insurance coverage for costs related to that disease, and in America that is next to impossible these days. Why? Because insurance companies know these patients represent a hit to their bottom line, and so they have lobbied congress up the wazoo to prevent them from having to cover people.

This shit doesn't happen in Europe. In fact they interviewed a guy looking at the Swiss medical system and asked the guy if he knew of anyone over there would went bankrupt because of a medical condition. He said no, because its would be huge "moral" scandal that the population would not tolerate.

"Oh really. So you are totally blind to the fact that insurance companies are in the business of covering as little as possible, and wiggling out from under what they are legally bound to cover after the fact."

No, they are in the business of providing insurance while minimizing risk to their shareholders. By the way, technically speaking, an HMO is not an "insurance company." It is a Health Maintenance Organization.

"Its not healthcare but look at what happen during Katrina. Insurance have and continue to try their damnedest not to pay what they are morally and legally obligated to cover."

They are NOT "morally and legally" obligated to cover things that the policies they issued did not cover.

"I'm sorry but people who are diagnosed with a disease, should be able to get insurance coverage for costs related to that disease..."

Why? After the fact, that would not be insurance. That would be free medical care. At the very least, the insurance companies have to have some reason to believe they will not have to make an immediate payout. People who have coverage are not denied it when they are diagnosed with a covered ailment. You can't get insurance AFTER you get something you want coverage FOR.

"and in America that is next to impossible these days. Why? Because insurance companies know these patients represent a hit to their bottom line, and so they have lobbied congress up the wazoo to prevent them from having to cover people."

They can't be forced to cover people AFTER the event that they would have been covered FOR. Do you even know what insurance IS?

"This shit doesn't happen in Europe. In fact they interviewed a guy looking at the Swiss medical system and asked the guy if he knew of anyone over there would went bankrupt because of a medical condition. He said no, because its would be huge "moral" scandal that the population would not tolerate."

First of all, "Switzerland" isn't the same thing as "Europe." The Swiss system is a PRIVATE system, but the government mandates that ALL persons have health care or face stiff penalties. The government negotiates price controls, there is no such thing as family coverage, it does not include dental insurance, you have to choose and purchase it ON YOUR OWN (most employers don't provide it), and premiums vary based on personal health risks (not income).

So, in short, the Swiss system is just government- mandated crappy insurance (without dental). "A guy" that they interviewed apparently didn't know how it worked. "It" wouldn't happen because the government requires people to have insurance, and I'm sure they would blame the bankruptcy on something else.

So, in short, the Swiss system is just government- mandated crappy insurance (without dental). "A guy" that they interviewed apparently didn't know how it worked. "It" wouldn't happen because the government requires people to have insurance, and I'm sure they would blame the bankruptcy on something else.

Well I can tell you from personal experience that the Swiss system saved a family member of mine a boat load of money when she got breast cancer, something that can't be said for in the US. Here co-pay was maybe $1000.

Oh and by the way its been mandated that insurance companies have to cover one pre-existing condition...pregnancy. And considering how many women have to go through it, I doubt prenancy is a winning lotto ticket for insurance companies. So I don't get much heartburn when a insurance company doesn't want to pay for a pre-existing condition, particularly if its a manageable condition and the patient is actively trying to manage the problem from taking to pills to periodic diagnostics (MRI's CT's, colonoscopy's, and endoscopy's, stress tests, etc). Because the risk to the insurance company that someone might get pregnant is alot higher than most diseases.

Oh and medicine is as much about curing disease as it is preventing it, and insurance should cover both.

Kerry,

And here is another statistic that further reinforces the fact that people who want to blame all of their ills and America's ills on illegal immigrants, don't have a clue.

...calculates that illegal immigrants contributed $428 billion dollars to the nation's $13.6 trillion gross domestic product in 2006. That number assumes illegal immigrants are 30 percent less productive than other workers.

They basically paid for Bush's war all by themselves.

And its estimated they pay $9 billion a year in income taxes to the IRS. And they never collect a dime on social security, so they are helping to keep the fund solvent.

Now of course they remain legal, and I won't deny that point. But complete blood suckers stealing jobs, welfare, and other benefits with no costs...not hardly.

There's plenty of crop picking jobs in Arizona and California for those who want them.....

"Well I can tell you from personal experience that the Swiss system saved a family member of mine a boat load of money when she got breast cancer, something that can't be said for in the US. Here co-pay was maybe $1000."

A cancer policy would have covered that. It's not impossible to find very good insurance; your example is bad insurance--or bad choices on the part of the insured. It is impossible for you to say what the co-pay would have been, unless your relative was covered by American insurance. There are policies that would have handled that. And, of course, Medicaid would have covered it if your relative were poor.

"Oh and by the way its been mandated that insurance companies have to cover one pre-existing condition...pregnancy."

Mandated? By whom? The only insurance I know of that HAS to cover pre-existing pregnancy is Medicaid. Most private insurances do NOT cover it, and group plans do, because they don't restrict pre-existing conditions.

"And considering how many women have to go through it, I doubt prenancy is a winning lotto ticket for insurance companies."

"Have to go through it?" Who are you, Barack Obama? Sounds like you've been reading from his "hymn book" that he so loves to refer to. You don't HAVE TO go through pregnancy. As PP tells us every day, you may CHOOSE to go through pregnancy." And don't kid yourself. Everything an insurance company does is a "winning lotto ticket" for them. It's all about the math.

"So I don't get much heartburn when a insurance company doesn't want to pay for a pre-existing condition, particularly if its a manageable condition and the patient is actively trying to manage the problem from taking to pills to periodic diagnostics (MRI's CT's, colonoscopy's, and endoscopy's, stress tests, etc). Because the risk to the insurance company that someone might get pregnant is alot higher than most diseases."

I'm confused by this. Are you for or against pre-existing condition coverage?

"Oh and medicine is as much about curing disease as it is preventing it, and insurance should cover both."

That's a fairly new approach in both medicine and insurance, and it's the whole core of the HMO concept. And it's why your insurance company wants you to quit smoking and why your group insurance-paying employer wants to reward you to lose weight.

"And here is another statistic that further reinforces the fact that people who want to blame all of their ills and America's ills on illegal immigrants, don't have a clue."

No, it doesn't. It just provides a number for one side of the equation.

"And its estimated they pay $9 billion a year in income taxes to the IRS. And they never collect a dime on social security, so they are helping to keep the fund solvent."

Unless you are in your fifties or sixties now, you will also never collect a dime on social security.

"Now of course they remain legal, and I won't deny that point. But complete blood suckers stealing jobs, welfare, and other benefits with no costs...not hardly."

No one argues they don't work. The argument is that they are receiving benefits that are tax-funded and intended for American citizens, which they are not.

"There's plenty of crop picking jobs in Arizona and California for those who want them....."

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Are you starting a new tangent?

After re-reading some of this, I think I may know what you are getting at here:

"So I don't get much heartburn when a insurance company doesn't want to pay for a pre-existing condition, particularly if its a manageable condition and the patient is actively trying to manage the problem from taking to pills to periodic diagnostics (MRI's CT's, colonoscopy's, and endoscopy's, stress tests, etc). Because the risk to the insurance company that someone might get pregnant is alot higher than most diseases."

If I am reading you right, you are making no distinction between "insurance" and "health care" (which may be the crux of the Democratic problem.)

Insurance companies don't insure for pre-existing conditions, because that's not what insurance IS. Insurance is IN CASE something happens, not AFTER something HAS HAPPENED. It is a management of potential risk, not a charity operation for people in crisis.

For example, if your car is already wrecked, you will not find anyone willing to pay for the wreckage that occurred to it PRIOR to your insuring it. No one is going to write a million dollar life policy on someone who is ALREADY DEAD.

Health insurance is a means by which, by paying out small sums, you avoid having to pay out larger sums later. The insurance company ASSUMES THE RISK of your health, for a fee. It is not going to assume that risk, if the payout is a sure thing.

Government-paid health COVERAGE is not really insurance, because it simply agrees to pay for whatever needs you might have. Except in certain special programs, there are no premiums, and very few conditions that aren't covered. It's just government-funded charity for sick people.

Medicaid and Medicare don't operate the way insurance companies do. Insurance companies work very very hard to guarantee that the long-run statistica are on their side. That's why so many companies have stopped doing any form of property insurance. It's why they often double your rates if you are a smoker, and why you pay a LOT more the older you get. And it's why they increase your premiums if you engage in risky behavior like hang-gliding, motorcycle riding, scuba diving, and the like. They account for the number of people they will insure that may need the payout, and the number of people who are likely to stay healthy, and they make a judgment as to which characteristics carry which risks.

The government (and the private charities that perform similar functions) doesn't do the same intense cost-benefit analysis. They just pay.

Kerry,

I think the concept in most American's mind is that insurance is there to prevent them from going bankrupt either from an unexpected illness, or from treatment required for an existing illness. Insurance companies like to play the game that if you have high blood pressure you might just get a heart attack to, therefore they don't want to cover you for things that high blood pressure might cause, even if you are actively managing your blood pressure. I think this isn't right, because not everyone who has high blood pressure ends up having a heart attack, a stroke, etc, especially those who are trying to take care of themselves after a diagnoses.

"I think the concept in most American's mind is that insurance is there to prevent them from going bankrupt either from an unexpected illness, or from treatment required for an existing illness."

Gosh, I hope not. If so, then "most American (whoever he is)" does not understand how insurance works. The insurance industry is about minimizing risk and loss. You can't minimize the risk of something that's already happened.

"Insurance companies like to play the game that if you have high blood pressure you might just get a heart attack to, therefore they don't want to cover you for things that high blood pressure might cause, even if you are actively managing your blood pressure."

It's not a game. It's an actuarial reality. Insurance companies will, in fact, cover you for high blood pressure, but your premiums will be higher because they know you are going to use more of their available resources than someone who doesn't have it.

"I think this isn't right, because not everyone who has high blood pressure ends up having a heart attack, a stroke, etc, especially those who are trying to take care of themselves after a diagnoses."

Perhaps so. But you aren't an actuary, so what you "think" is "right" is meaningless to the insurance industry. The insurance industry wants to know whether the LIKELIHOOD of a person with high blood pressure having a stroke is more or less than the LIKELIHOOD of it happening to someone who doesn't. And what time-frame that likelihood plays itself out in. If you have a condition that makes it more likely that the insurance company will have to pay out, you will pay more to account for that.

I fail to see what's so heinous about that.

Gosh, I hope not. If so, then "most American (whoever he is)" does not understand how insurance works. The insurance industry is about minimizing risk and loss. You can't minimize the risk of something that's already happened.

Kerry,

You obviously don't get it. High blood pressure doesn't equal a heart attack already happening. Yet insurance companies will try and weasel out of paying for heart attack costs if you had a pre-existing condition that can cause one.

And its totally BS that insurance companies will just raise your rates and still cover you. This is not always true. I was in a situation where I was diagnosed with acid reflux, a condition where you produce to much acid and it goes into esophagus. When I was being treated for this condition, which is fairly benign compared to other conditions of the digestive system and I went in and had an endoscopy, to check for potentially nasty situations like ulcers and stomach cancer...essentially I was doing a bit of preventive maintenance. They didn't want to cover any aspect of the procedure, even though the examine is designed to find and stop potentially more serious conditions. This is a real case situation, and not my imagination, its something the insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to side step.

And as one guy put it, the insurance companies shouldn't have a right to cherry pick the young, and discard the elderly and those with genetic disorders, like autism, etc that are likely to develop problems down the road.

And while you have one concept of health insurance, most of the developed world has a different concept...and its a concept I happen to share.

Kerry,

And despite all of our hair split here, the fact remains that in other developed countries they are doing a better job of covering everyone, competition increases among insurance companies, administratively it costs less, and as a percentage of GDP it costs less. Even in Switzerland the second highest cost health care system in the world, their cost of health care is smaller percentage of GDP, its like 8-10% or so.

"You obviously don't get it. High blood pressure doesn't equal a heart attack already happening. Yet insurance companies will try and weasel out of paying for heart attack costs if you had a pre-existing condition that can cause one."

You are supposed to notify the insurance company of a pre-existing condition so that they can make an informed decision as to whether to charge you a higher rate or cover you at all. If you don't, they aren't required to pay for expenses caused by a pre-existing condition. That's just common sense.

"And its totally BS that insurance companies will just raise your rates and still cover you. This is not always true."

No, but it's sometimes true.

"I was in a situation where I was diagnosed with acid reflux, a condition where you produce to much acid and it goes into esophagus."

Yes.

"When I was being treated for this condition, which is fairly benign compared to other conditions of the digestive system and I went in and had an endoscopy, to check for potentially nasty situations like ulcers and stomach cancer...essentially I was doing a bit of preventive maintenance. They didn't want to cover any aspect of the procedure, even though the examine is designed to find and stop potentially more serious conditions. This is a real case situation, and not my imagination, its something the insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to side step."

I can't speak to that particular insurance company, but there are a lot of procedures that insurance companies won't cover because they don't consider them necessary. I don't know what kind of insurance you have, or why they don't cover that procedure. If I knew more about the policy type and network characteristics I could address this specific case. As is, I can't say whether or not your company has acted unethically.

"And as one guy put it, the insurance companies shouldn't have a right to cherry pick the young, and discard the elderly and those with genetic disorders, like autism, etc that are likely to develop problems down the road."

Why not? They're not in business to go out of business. And if they didn't refuse coverage to the highest risk people, they couldn't afford to offer discounted procedures to the lower risk people, either.

"And while you have one concept of health insurance, most of the developed world has a different concept...and its a concept I happen to share."

Your concept is not INSURANCE. It's CARE.

Hi ahmanrah,

I agree with you that not everyone strives their hardest or makes the correct decisions in life. However the idea that Americans have more opportunities than anywhere else simply isn't based in fact and this is an idea that is bought wholesale by people as disparate as Steve and yourself.

Hi Kerry,

Actually I've never attempted to prove America is NOT the greatest nation on earth. I've asked why people on this site believe that it is and never had had a vaild reason given. Personally I find it a rather silly playground claim. Steve seemed to be linking greatness to opportunity and this is something that just doesn't seem to be questioned.

So you didn't like the provenance of a University of Columbia study? How about the London School of Economics? Try this one.

The order in this report for social mobility went

Norway Denmark Sweden Finland Germany Canada Britain US

Pretty similar to the last report linking Britain and the US at about the same standard. Coincidence? Although lets face it given the current Potus is the son of a former president who got there when a dubious electoral decision was made in the state where his brother was Governor and the next Potus may well be the wife of another former president you don't have to be a genius to realise this isn't exactly a level playing field. The US isn't the country with the greatest opportunity in the world, it doesn't even have the greatest opportunity in north America.

Why not? They're not in business to go out of business.

Bingo. They are in the business to make a profit, not look after their client's health care needs, especially when the patient needs them most. That is what is wrong with our system. And I don't believe companies that say they are going to go bankrupt in a society where most people are healthy most of the time. And when most people are healthy most of the time, the insurance companies make a killing, because every cent is pure profit for the insurance companies. And being able to exclude the old, and in firm, meanings eliminating any possibility of a downside for them.

Put another way if I pay an insurance company for 50 years and I am never sick, but then have a heart attack at age 50, why the hell should my premiums go up? I gave them 50 years of pure profit, and they can't help me for a year or two, to get back on my feet....without asking for more money? Sorry that's bullshit.

"Bingo. They are in the business to make a profit, not look after their client's health care needs, especially when the patient needs them most. That is what is wrong with our system. And I don't believe companies that say they are going to go bankrupt in a society where most people are healthy most of the time. And when most people are healthy most of the time, the insurance companies make a killing, because every cent is pure profit for the insurance companies."

Except that "most people" are not cost-free "most of the time." The "healthy," as well as the sick have accidents, get the flu, need immunizations, and have children that see the doctor anywhere from one to dozens of times a year. Group health covers people that would otherwise not be able to get coverage, as well as their non-working spouses and children.

By the way, do you realize that much (if not most) of that "pure profit" goes into the stock market, helping to deepen and stabilize it, particularly in times where other market sectors are screwing everything up? If we destroyed the insurance companies (which is what your universal coverage, flat premium, no exceptions coverage notion here would do), the rest of the economy would completely collapse.

"And being able to exclude the old, and in firm, meanings eliminating any possibility of a downside for them."

It's "infirm." I only mention it because you might have to use it in writing to someone who would know better and you would look like an idiot. If it's just a typo, forgive me; it looked like you might think it was right.

Again, I stress, insurance companies are not in business to lose money. And thank God for that. They do not "exclude" the "old" nearly so much as you may think. There are lots of insurance vehicles available to the elderly (ever watch television?), but in some cases, the insurance is limited, and in others the premiums are high. You have to be careful.

As to the "infirm" (whatever it may be that you mean by that), they, too, have options beyond private insurance. Group insurance is generally an option for those whose employers or spouse's employers offer it, and Medicaid is designed especially for the elderly. The reason its going under is because it is run by the government. It should be privatized to a company that will keep down costs by watching waste (and I'm not talking about coverage--I'm talking about employee extravagances, fraud, and just plain stupidity.)

"Put another way if I pay an insurance company for 50 years and I am never sick, but then have a heart attack at age 50, why the hell should my premiums go up?"

Most critical care riders on life policies don't have increasing premiums, and most health insurance premiums go up yearly, as a class, not necessarily pegged to your individual claims.

"I gave them 50 years of pure profit, and they can't help me for a year or two, to get back on my feet....without asking for more money? Sorry that's bullshit."

No, that's INSURANCE. As opposed to PAID HEALTH CARE or CHARITY.

You pay into the system, with a contract. The contract tells you what happens when you make a claim. If you don't like paying for 50 years, pay for your own problems. Save what would have been your premiums for that fifty years, and see whether that savings pays for your heart attack and the recovery therefrom.

Again, the LSE study is interesting, but it's primarily concerned with the UK, and it's about "intergenerational mobility," which is really irrelevant to the American model. Who your parents are in the US is not as important as who YOU are. In America, you can go through every economic condition, in the course of one lifetime. You can make and lose a fortune, because there are no "class" barriers to achievement or attainment.

I'm not surprised you don't understand American exceptionalism. It's sort of a transcendent concept, requires a belief in both an intentional, interested God and national destiny, and isn't transferable to others. Ya just gotta be here, ya know?