My advice on debt and deficit, Mr. Obama

Some things can be treated today (at astronomic cost) which could not be treated then. Other things can be treated now at a fraction of the cost of back then, when that treatment was new and in its infancy.

But then, some services of fifty years ago are now not even for sale... like a doctor who knows your background and cares about your entire health situation.
Nowadays we only ever seem to get "per consult" treatment, treating the here and now. Unless we luck out and happen to get a doc who can't help him/herself.

Yes, type 2 diabetes is easily fixed, although I'd use the word controlled.

Yes, we can agree that a worker is more productive if their diabetes is treated.

Yes, we can agree that a person with two jobs and a family might not have the time to go wait five hours for ER treatment. Of course, this could be partially resolved by removing all of the illegals currently using the system.

But there are other options for health care as well. I haven't had insurance in 10 months and have some medical conditions that require me to see a doctor occasionally. I've never had a problem finding a doctor who would give me a discounted rate for cash. There are also clinics and urgent care facilities that will help control costs if you ask.

People should have the ability to have health care. I just don't believe that a Government that has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare should be in charge of it.

and is a large part of what's made society more expensive.

People who know you know better what you need. Socially as well as medically.

If there's a bright spot about the economic situation, it is encouraging groups of people who care about one another to huddle together and help each other out more. Yes, it misses some people, but if your in a group, it makes it more bearable. For example, Meat, bread, and milk are about all I buy at the store... A lot of us grow out own vegetables, and some of those who don't help by canning (preserving). We trade amongst ourselves and save at least a third of our grocery bill.

We have one guy (me) who keeps everyone's computers going and we have another who mows neighbors' grass. We get three or four families together for pay-per-view night once a week instead of everybody driving to town to rent movies...

As the economy worsens (as I expect it will), I think we'll see more of this type of cooperation.

You want to tell people how to spend their money and force people to fund failed programs, and yet you claim I have an agenda because I disagree with your "solution"?

Your agenda is far more destructive than anything I can come up with.

Maybe I reacted the wrong way to your initial entries.
I felt they were too streamlined, it reminded me of tools I've spoken with at other times. I am beginning to think that you're not a tool, and that I did not have a frame of reference for your initial entries.
Sorry about that.

Maybe your system does really suck, and maybe your officials are the kind of people unable to hammer a nail into a turd without breaking both.
I'll let you be the judge of that, you and your fellows.

If your experience is, that the government can't do anything right, then the solution would be either stopping government from doing anything, or fixing it.
It seems like a lot of people feel the latter is too unlikely.
Again, I won't be the judge of that.

It CANNOT go bankrupt. Here's a simple and rational discussion of how Social Security actually works: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/04/08/why-social-security-cannot-go-bankrupt/

One person's "tell people how to spend their money and force people to fund failed programs" is another person's social conscience, and may be a third person's survival.

I'm not saying that the existing programs are succeeding, or even the right thing to do, but I am asking if you think our society (read: government) should do nothing for those unable to do for themselves?

Yes, there should be some government involvement, but only at the local level. Having it addressed closer to the actual problem means less waste and a better chance to actually help those in need.

[i]One person's "tell people how to spend their money and force people to fund failed programs" is another person's social conscience, and may be a third person's survival.[/i]

Isn't it funny though, how some people's sense of social conscience becomes keener when they're spending "other people's money" on it?

is why I agree with JP that such programs should be funded and managed locally. If the people providing the money not only know where you work, but can visit you on a whim, you tend to be much more conservative about your spending.