Denise, you made earlier statements about the safety net. You didn't support them. Now you make more statements about the safety net. Again, no support. I am playing by your rules, here: You said, the person who makes the statement, supplies the support. So supply it.
Restatement of the same thing by you without facts or figure doesn't count. If you're going to use facts and figures, use neutral sources or sources on the right with excellent reputation for checking their facts, such as The Economist.
That's what I try to do.
If the private sector is enough, show it. If the amount of poverty and need is so small, demonstate it.
If the research shows that these private sources were enough to solve the great depression, I look forward to seeing the figures you come up with and the sources from which you gathered them. Did I tell you that Harry Hopkins was a social worker? Just thought you might like to know. Did I mention that social workers like to have their programs done in such a way as to be able to evaluate their effectiveness, and that there should be effectiveness ratings for most of the govbernment programs done with social work help? Head Start, for example, has such ratings. You see, I would consider head start as a part of the government safety net because oif the effects it may have on long term education rates for those who attend it. You may think Head start is not a part of the safety net, though.
Consider the effects that Head Start may have had of the populations that it served. Ask yourself if the investment was worth the price.
Also, you might consider why you believe that the government has taken over one sixth of the economy. That's the health care industry. The Government doesn't run the Health care industry, nor does it run the insurance industry, yet somehow you are using figures that would support the assumption that it runs the health care industry. Having made that assertion, you have yet to show proof for that, either. I am curious what objective facts and figures you will find to support such curious statements.
That is just a scheme to redistribute wealth from one sector to another. One sector pays and another sector gets reimbursed. That's what this is all about.
I think that you may not be using the word sector in a standard fashion here. Exactly what you mean is unclear. Are you speaking about the manufacturing sector and the labor sector, for example, or is there some other form of sector that you are speaking about here?
There is nothing in this new law that makes healthcare or insurance premiums more affordalbe. There is nothing in it that lowers costs. It's not reform, it's simply a government takeover. It takes more money from the ones who are paying already and uses that money to help cover the costs of the ones the government is currently paying for and for the ones the government will add into the mix. And everybody will lose because the government has a peculiar knack for screwing things up.
If you wanted to make the question one of affordability, then why would you wish to include profits for private companies in the mixture, for goodness sake? Then, why would you include separate opperating costs and bonuses for different companies in the picture when you could have a single structure and no bonuses to pay at all? Sorry, Denise, but you rejected that option yourself; don't try to blame other people for rejecting it when you were very clear about your opposition to it, and when you succeeded in having your way. You got what you wanted; don't moan about it.
The Democratic plan was far from the best plan that could have been suggested.
I wanted a single payer plan with controls on drug companies and on insurance costs. I didn't get what I wanted either.
Saying the government screwed it up doesn't quite get it right, though. The government tried to put a plan together that gave everybody something of what they wanted. The flaws in that have to do with the disagreements among "we the people."
You can lay out for me, Bob, how the government has ever made anything better for anybody.
You every go to school? Were your roads all constructed by private doinations. What about the sewers that haul the waste stuff away, and the water systems that bring fresh water in. Perhaps you're in the country and you have a well, but what about your electricity? Got your money in a bank? It's insured by the government. Feel confident that the food you eat is reasonably safe? Federal food inspectors or state food inspectors? What about the safety of the drugs you take? Feel reasonably safe in your local comings and goings? — police and fire are government services.
I think you were expecting that was a rhetorical question, though, weren't you, Denise? It would have been difficult to have given that question much thought and still raise it as an actual issue. We haven't mentioned the various defense forces yet, for example, or the legal system of which we occasionally feel so proud.