Re: OT Atlas Shrugged.

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 29, 11:13=A0pm, Jim <alarmi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 5:08 pm, tourman <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 27, 9:04 am, "Robert L Bass" <Sa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "Jim" wrote:
>
> > > >> Hmm. Obama has been President of the United States for less than o=
ne school
> > > >> year. When did this course take place?
>
> > > > Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.
>
> > > Apparently, Snopes has debunked the story though it was a good way to
> > > illustrate your point, even if we disagree on the matter.
>
> > > > Also, if he's so much for the achiever being rewarded and the slack=
ers not,
> > > > how come he never failed anyone? Sounds socialistic to me.
>
> > > I was not aware that he never failed anyone. Is that something he sai=
d or
> > > something someone else said about him?
>
> > > > But anyway, even if it's hypothetical ..... I thought it was a good=
 example
> > > > of how socialism affects the populace.
>
> > > Maybe so, but we disagree about Obama being a socialist. Our society =
is a mix
> > > of capitalist and socialist systems. We have Social Security, Medicar=
e and
> > > Medicaid, all of which are designed to keep people in need afloat at =
the
> > > expense of the rest of the taxpayers. We also have unemployment insur=
ance,
> > > which is borderline socialist but which no one denies is an important
> > > government run system. None of these systems are perfect but all are =
helpful
> > > and IMO necessary.
>
> > > The idea of universal health care does not mean single payer / single
> > > provider. It means that those who are currently to obtain health care=
 in the
> > > private sector will have a public option. I know you feel that it is =
unfair
> > > for taxpayers to foot the bill for those who can't or (worse) won't p=
ay for
> > > their own coverage. But there are two sides to every argument. Due to
> > > declining health very soon I will have to stop working. My insurer is
> > > anxiously waiting for the first day that I miss a payment so they can=
 drop me.
> > > I've worked all my life, paid taxes every year and dutifully paid for=
 health
> > > insurance. Now, as the end of life draws near, I may be unable to get=
 medical
> > > treatment. I don't think that is fair either.
>
> > > Somehow we have to come up with a compromise. Obama is at least willi=
ng to
> > > dialogue with Republicans and try to find common ground. Rather than =
make him
> > > out to be a socialist, terrorist or whatever other "ist," why not enc=
ourage
> > > both sides to sit down and do some honest work to find a solution?
>
> > > --
>
> > > Regards,
> > > Robert L Bass
>
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>
> > > Bass Home Electronics
> > > DIY Alarm and Home Automation Storehttp://www.bassburglaralarms.com
> > > Sales & Service 941-870-2310
> > > Fax 941-870-3252
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D>
>
> > RHC: Bob, I don't normally jump in to any threads that are not about
> > security in some manner; however, given what is going on in the media
> > about health care, I have to say something. That something is that I
> > am totally amazed at how the US coverage of Canadian health care has
> > been almost totally incorrect. Clearly those with a bias either for or
> > against have slanted their arguments in favour of what they believe
> > with little or no regard for the truth.
>
> > Living in Canada, we are a country which has good health care for
> > anyone who needs it. No one is turned away for lack of coverage, and
> > you can be absolutely sure you will be looked after well in any real
> > emergency. But like any system, priorities have to be made and
> > surgeries which are not vital can take longer (in some cases much
> > longer) than in a private health care system. But my wife got her new
> > knee; my father got his quadruple bypass operation, and we have no
> > huge bills to contend with. Both my brother in law and mother in law
> > spent their last days in a hospital bed which we received no bill for.
> > Sure the system has it's problems (like doctor shortages in some rural
> > communities). But no one gets turned away from public clinics because
> > of costs. It's far from perfect, but it works well.
>
> > As much as I love the US, it has always amazed me how many people
> > there are adamantly unwilling to contribute to any public system which
> > in their eyes provides something for people who are generally seen as
> > the "have nots" of society. If a society can't look after it's
> > citizens to at least a certain degree, you have to wonder if there
> > isn't something terribly wrong about that.
>
> > Again, I'm going to get shot to hell here for saying this, but if the
> > US would actually cut down on the gargantuan costs of their military,
> > and stopped trying to be the "world's policeman", maybe there would be
> > enough money left over to provide basic health care for all it's
> > citizens....-
>
> So you're saying that the same politicians that have bungled the gun
> control issue in Canada are capable of managing your health issues.
>
> I think it was Ragan who said something like......
>
> When someone knocks at your door and says, "Hi, I'm from the
> government and I'm here to help" =A0Run, as fast as you can.

RHC: Although I agree with you overall, it's not an "all or nothing"
situation. Government regulation and control of lots of things work
pretty well here, although we pay for it in tax rates much higher than
yours. Basic health care for all is considered a basic human right.
Yes, it costs a bundle, and yes, it can be abused my many, but when
the chips are down and you are in trouble, you can count on it. At
that point, the question becomes academic to those affected. However,
there is no question that we do live in a "nanny state" compared to
the US. That is how we have chosen to make our society work...(or not,
as the case may be...)

Gun control Canadian style is nowhere near the same thing. It's a
contrived situation. Canadians look south and see the carnage in the
major cities due to the illegal, criminal use of handguns and have
decided that we will not tolerate that kind of situation as a society.
At the same time, politicians have deliberately distorted the real
truth that ownership by honest citizens is not and never will be a
problem, and have used this as a way of manipulating uninformed public
opinion in order to pass ridiculously rigid and dangerous anti-gun
laws. These are laws that are not needed, but they do make the public
more comfortable, and more important to some, they do conform to the
views of "high minded" politicians who see total disarmament of the
public as in the "greater good" for society. These are the demagogues
who are the truly dangerous people in society, rather than the
occasional gun wielding thief. As the Justice Minister of Canada told
me some years ago, politics is the "art of the possible". By
inference, I take that to mean, not necessarily what is right versus
wrong....

Speaking only for myself, I'll tolerate some measure of needless
governmental regulation and bureaucracy as long as it works without
undue effort and doesn't intrude on basic human rights. However, given
that type of society, we have to be even more vigilant than you do.
And I'm not sure we have the politicians with the wisdom or
inclination to do so....