So Let's See What Happens

[blaknoize]

No one has patience for anything nowadays, the idea that everyone rolls with is Instant Gratification. I will speak specifically on the fact that the Democrats are actually working to change things for the better and we know of this, BUT since people think that 8yrs of breaking things can be fixed in half the time, it will never work. Break your foot and then rush to the doctors office and make him/her fix it, then 1week later start running on it. Yea... no, its not suppose to work like that. But this is only a mid-term and I'm complaining.

Since Demo lost the House, lets all wait and see what ideas are let go and blocked or shuffled under the wants of corporations. Lets go ahead and watch my job, or your job get pushed over seas and watch as money that could be spent on America, be allocated to help other countries for pure profit and to continue to run this war and the other wars that are justa brewing for those same folks that are still making billions off of us. Because Americans arent important anymore, their money is. So lets wait and watch as our liberties and protections are stripped from us, month after month and watch, we will be even deeper indebted however; this time it will be Obama's fault for not stopping it in the beginning and not "fixing" what he promised to fix.

But I DO have great and affordable healthcare ($42 a month for full dental coverage 100-80% of most everything 50% for major work at a $50 deductable and $8.42 a month for vision $130 allowance for frames, $10 co-pay for lenses of any type single,bi,tri and free eye exams.)

We'll see.

[Total_Blender]

Bohener says the Republicans have been given a "mandate by the American people"... but I don't think so as the GOOP only got the house and the Dems kept the Senate. Honestly I'm surprised the Dems kept the senate as the media narrative for the past 8 months has been "GOP sweeps both houses".

It didn't help that the DNC dropped Howard Dean for Tim Kaine. They threw Dean's brilliant "50 state" strategy that won big in '06 and '08 out the window and just dumped money into supporting Blue Dogs and the candidates most favored to win. Supporting the Blue Dogs was a waste of money... when people are presented with a fake republican and a real one they usually vote for the real thing. A lot of the liberal Dems decided to sit out the election rather than vote for the likes of Blanche Lincoln.

Most of the radical teabaggers like Angle, O'Donnell, etc lost their races. The few that did get in (Paulbot 2.0, etc) will be co-opted into the mainstream. The GOP doesn't like it when you buck them. And these freshman congressmen will want those committee seats and lobbyist dollars.

Some predictions for the next 2 years:

Bohener may not win for speaker. As we have already seen, he's a morose drunk who's motto is "GTL: Golf/Tan/Lobbyists". His work ethic has been questioned by many in the party, most notably current Minority Whip Eric Cantor. Bachmann is also in the running, but she just won't have the support of the "log cabin" set.

Lots of money and time wasted in investigations, subpeonas, and impeachment attempts. I really expect them to go that route as Agent Orange and McChinless have both said that their priority #1 is getting rid of Obama. Since he isn't involved in corruption or sex, they will try to cast him as a subversive/radical. It'll be a new age of McCarthyism.

I don't think they will get a repeal of HCR past the senate and Obama's veto. Also, they don't have a HCR plan of their own and HCR was such a gimme to their corporate overlords anyway that I don't think the will for repeal will be there. The same with doing away with the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Agriculture. That would never pass the Senate or the Veto.

Social security and medicare will be safe... the "O" in GOP does stand for "old" after all and since the GOP base is mostly old people, they won't stand for having their gov't checks and their gov't healthcare taken away.

We will see proposals for escalation of the war, and we will also see them pushing for war with Iran. There will be many resolutions against Iran proposed, and we will hear about more "gulf of tonkin" style incidents on the Gulf. I don't think it will develop into war though. But it will still cost us billions.

The Bush tax cuts will stay. Neither party wants to be seen as the party that "raised taxes," although the Bush tax cuts are actually "spending" on the part of the government. They're damned if they do here because the GOP base wants tax cuts AND spending cuts. But the corporations and millionaire financiers who pay for the attack ads will win out.

De-regulation of banking, telecom, agribusiness, and big oil. We will basically be removing the safeguards that kept the economic mess we are in now from getting worse.

I don't see anything happening with the deficit. The Republicans might make some cuts to keep it from going higher, but these will be offset by their spending on defense and investigations.

DADT, DOMA, and the Patriot Act aren't going anywhere. They might repeal DADT in the lame duck session, but I doubt it.

Obama will have a couple of Dem. primary challengers in 2012 but he will win the nomination. His liberal base is pissed off that he's capitulated so much to the GOOP and they are also pissed that his pledge of "transparency" was bull as most of his administrations business happens in backroom negotiations.

In other words, its pretty much gonna be business as usual.

[BanginJimmy]

I will speak specifically on the fact that the Democrats are actually working to change things for the better and we know of this,

What exactly were they fixing? All I saw them do was run up HUGE deficits with programs that flopped.


BUT since people think that 8yrs of breaking things can be fixed in half the time, it will never work.

I think you meant 4 years of breaking things. The breaking started in 2006 when Dems took over the Senate. Now we can see if anything can get fixed.



Since Demo lost the House, lets all wait and see what ideas are let go and blocked or shuffled under the wants of corporations. Lets go ahead and watch my job, or your job get pushed over seas and watch as money that could be spent on America, be allocated to help other countries for pure profit and to continue to run this war and the other wars that are justa brewing for those same folks that are still making billions off of us. Because Americans arent important anymore, their money is. So lets wait and watch as our liberties and protections are stripped from us, month after month and watch, we will be even deeper indebted however; this time it will be Obama's fault for not stopping it in the beginning and not "fixing" what he promised to fix.

Whose campaign website did you read that off of?


Ignoring the truth doesnt make you right. Dems are just as guilty of forcing jobs over seas, if not more so. The health care bill will ship jobs over seas as employers find ways to eliminate tax burdens and fines. Cap and Trade will force jobs, especially manufacturing, over seas to avoid paying additional fines and fees.

[Total_Blender]

I don't think cap and trade is gonna pass, unless they do it in the lame duck. But what we will see regarding climate change, is a bunch of hearings now that the GOOP has subpeona power. The GOOP will subpoena their array of climate change denier kooks to testify before congress, and the kooky deniers will owned by the real scientists subpoenaed by the Dems.

You can thank your buddy Agent Orange for the jobs going overseas, as his financiers, the "US Chamber of Commerce" have been hosting seminars showing corporate America how to outsource.

[BanginJimmy]

Bohener says the Republicans have been given a "mandate by the American people"... but I don't think so as the GOOP only got the house

They took 65 seats in the house, that is not a minor thing.



and the Dems kept the Senate.

Dems kept the Senate in 4 very blue states and in WV a VERY centric, and leaning right in many areas, Gov. who is also very popular in state won. GOP took Senate seats in every swing state that had one running.



Honestly I'm surprised the Dems kept the senate as the media narrative for the past 8 months has been "GOP sweeps both houses".

I heard it too and I called that BS even then. I did think it was possible several months ago, but that was short lived and since the primaries I knew it wasnt going to happen. Still, 6 Senate seats with 1 more possibility, in a single mid term is significant. Also, keep in mind that GOP lost no Senate seats.


It didn't help that the DNC dropped Howard Dean for Tim Kaine. They threw Dean's brilliant "50 state" strategy that won big in '06 and '08 out the window and just dumped money into supporting Blue Dogs and the candidates most favored to win. Supporting the Blue Dogs was a waste of money... when people are presented with a fake republican and a real one they usually vote for the real thing. A lot of the liberal Dems decided to sit out the election rather than vote for the likes of Blanche Lincoln.

Most of the Blue Dogs, especially the first and second termers, were in right leaning districts and only got in because of Bush paranoia. Most of them were going to lose no matter what happened. Its much the same as the Dems like Blumenthall, Boxer, and Murray. They all represent VERY blue states and will typically win no matter what. In NH (I think) Mike Castle had a very good chance to win becuse he was well known and liked in state, but he was a VERY liberal republican.


Most of the radical teabaggers like Angle, O'Donnell, etc lost their races. The few that did get in (Paulbot 2.0, etc) will be co-opted into the mainstream. The GOP doesn't like it when you buck them. And these freshman congressmen will want those committee seats and lobbyist dollars.

We will see about that. I think Paul and especially Rubio will avoid the mainstream GOP for at least 1 term. If the tea party support dies off, then they may drift into the mainstream, but if it tea party continues to grow you will see them stay away from the main stream.




Bohener may not win for speaker. As we have already seen, he's a morose drunk who's motto is "GTL: Golf/Tan/Lobbyists". His work ethic has been questioned by many in the party, most notably current Minority Whip Eric Cantor. Bachmann is also in the running, but she just won't have the support of the "log cabin" set.

I would love to see Cantor get it because of his work ethic. I dont think he or Paul Ryan are senior enough though. Bohener makes a great speech, but I havent actually seen him rally anyone together or pull anyone from the left over in his time as minority leader. I also think GOP is going to get younger over the next 2 years and start pushing off some of the very senior members.


Lots of money and time wasted in investigations, subpeonas, and impeachment attempts. I really expect them to go that route as Agent Orange and McChinless have both said that their priority #1 is getting rid of Obama. Since he isn't involved in corruption or sex, they will try to cast him as a subversive/radical. It'll be a new age of McCarthyism.

I realize you are an idiot, but you are getting more ignorant by the second. I realize the country has just neutered your savior, but it really will be all right. You will survive.

There are investigation that need to be conducted though. The most obvious being Obama's decision to drop an obvious case of voter intimidation.

BTW, no one has ever said anything about impeachment. GOP does plan to start working on a repeal of the health care takeover though.


I don't think they will get a repeal of HCR past the senate and Obama's veto. Also, they don't have a HCR plan of their own and HCR was such a gimme to their corporate overlords anyway that I don't think the will for repeal will be there. The same with doing away with the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Agriculture. That would never pass the Senate or the Veto.

None of them will get past the Veto, your right, but it can be defunded. Dept of Education needs to go away or be HEAVILY reformed. GOP should have done it in '94, but blew it off. They need to do it now if we ever want to see education improve in this country.


Social security and medicare will be safe... the "O" in GOP does stand for "old" after all and since the GOP base is mostly old people, they won't stand for having their gov't checks and their gov't healthcare taken away.

I dont remember anyone saying they wanted to get rid of SS or Medicare. Why dont you link us to the quote.

Now, if you want to talk about Paul Ryan's plan I am all for it.


We will see proposals for escalation of the war, and we will also see them pushing for war with Iran. There will be many resolutions against Iran proposed, and we will hear about more "gulf of tonkin" style incidents on the Gulf. I don't think it will develop into war though. But it will still cost us billions.

Got anything to back this up or is just something else you pulled out of your ass? Im sure it is the latter.


The Bush tax cuts will stay. Neither party wants to be seen as the party that "raised taxes," although the Bush tax cuts are actually "spending" on the part of the government. They're damned if they do here because the GOP base wants tax cuts AND spending cuts. But the corporations and millionaire financiers who pay for the attack ads will win out.

Tax cuts have actually shown to produce more tax revenue, not reduce it. We dont expect you to admit this though as Obama didnt say it.


De-regulation of banking, telecom, agribusiness, and big oil. We will basically be removing the safeguards that kept the economic mess we are in now from getting worse.

Exactly what safeguards are you talking about? 2 of the MAIN contributors of the financial meltdown were freddie and fannie and the Dems specificly excluded them from the financial reforms.


I don't see anything happening with the deficit. The Republicans might make some cuts to keep it from going higher, but these will be offset by their spending on defense and investigations.

DADT, DOMA, and the Patriot Act aren't going anywhere. They might repeal DADT in the lame duck session, but I doubt it.

Remember, the dems are the ones that could have simply let the Patriot Act go away last year and decided they wanted to keep it.

Things like DOMA are among the reasons I will never call myself a republican. Gay marriage has absolutely no impact on anyone but the 2 getting married so who fucking cares.


Obama will have a couple of Dem. primary challengers in 2012 but he will win the nomination. His liberal base is pissed off that he's capitulated so much to the GOOP[quote]

When did he do this?


[QUOTE=Total_Blender;39144911] and they are also pissed that his pledge of "transparency" was bull as most of his administrations business happens in backroom negotiations.

We agree here. He is forced to do this though because he knows how unpopular this agenda is and cannot let the details get out before bills get passed. Much like the fact that he ahs ignored pretty much every promise he made on the campaign trail.


In other words, its pretty much gonna be business as usual.

I highly doubt anything of substance gets done in the next 2 years unless Obama moves to the center and brings the liberals in the Senate with him. Outside of that it will be politics as usual in Washington. Hell, we heard on the talk shows this week that GOP and Dems were already positioning resources and vetting candidates for 2012. DNC has been to the Pentagon and FBI looking for info (dirt) on about a dozen possible GOP presidential candidates.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't think cap and trade is gonna pass, unless they do it in the lame duck. But what we will see regarding climate change, is a bunch of hearings now that the GOOP has subpeona power. The GOOP will subpoena their array of climate change denier kooks to testify before congress, and the kooky deniers will owned by the real scientists subpoenaed by the Dems.

I'm not going to look for the link right now but there was an article I heard about that basicly said the programming on the satellite that was measuring ice loss at the polar ice cap and the glaciers on greenland were over estimating by more than 100%.


You can thank your buddy Agent Orange for the jobs going overseas, as his financiers, the "US Chamber of Commerce" have been hosting seminars showing corporate America how to outsource.

You can think Dem financiers, the unions, for more jobs going overseas than anyone else. Dont worry, I wont bore you with details as you will simply ignore them anyways.

[blaknoize]

As I said Jimmy, we'll see. The wars and the debt will increase, it has to increase for Cheney and Bush and even the company I work for to ball in billions a month. The statements I make aren't pulled from TV most of the time. I do lots of internet research when I can, seeing as I do not have the internet at home or TV. I also just look at things, things that aren't any better than what they were less that 10yrs ago and I talk to people, grown, young, middle-aged for my source people that arent up top and are working every damn day like me and you but watching their actual "worth" become less and less.

I dont concern myself all that much with TV, everyone else lets me know of whats going on through their point of view. Ask enough people and you can develop YOUR point of view, which is must better than the 4 main sources we gain our info for news from. Not sure why u expect proof and truth of everything when you know you cant believe everything that is told to you on TV. I am not as politically driven as you Jimmy, its a game to keep us entertained with whatever team we're rooting for, but at least some members do try for things.

I can only speak on one thing I suppose, whether or not it becomes "outsourced" is the healthcare. Your worried bout the cost of it, I'm not and I make less than you (more than likely) why tha fuk does it matter how much it actually costs you, it would cost you MORE without it. Its not like its 50% of ur wages. Now we are all covered and it makes me feel great. I pay a bit more yea, but shoot at least I know that people I dont even know have my back if I really get messed up, just like if they end up disabled, we as a country have each others back. Fuk a dollar, fuk $100 dollars, if we'd work and stand together as a country and not let the media make us seem as though we have to hate and work against each other, we'd be a very strong, tight knit, healthy country, not a sell-out.

[BanginJimmy]

As I said Jimmy, we'll see.

We already know 99% of the script.




The wars and the debt will increase,

If debt and wars HAVE to increase then whats the point in whining about it? It will happen no matter who is in charge.




it has to increase for Cheney and Bush and even the company I work for to ball in billions a month.

In case you havet figured it out yet, Bush is retired. The community organizer is screwing up the show now.



The statements I make aren't pulled from TV most of the time.

Not surprising as it seems they are coming from thin air.



I do lots of internet research when I can, seeing as I do not have the internet at home or TV.

That is definitely easy to understand considering most of your predictions.



I also just look at things, things that aren't any better than what they were less that 10yrs ago

This is kind of what misleading because for 7 of the last years the country was rolling along. Booming economy, relatively low unemployment, stock market was rising quickly. Then we went into a deep recession caused by the housing bubble collapsing.



and I talk to people, grown, young, middle-aged for my source people that arent up top and are working every damn day like me and you but watching their actual "worth" become less and less.

Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean wealth, then unless they cashed out their 401k and other IRAs and put it into a bank they should be gaining wealth at a decent clip right now. It may be down a bit from where it was in early '07, but it is rising. Housing prices only matter if you are selling. If you arent selling your house right now, who cares what its currently worth?


I dont concern myself all that much with TV, everyone else lets me know of whats going on through their point of view. Ask enough people and you can develop YOUR point of view, which is must better than the 4 main sources we gain our info for news from.

I agree with you here.



Not sure why u expect proof and truth of everything when you know you cant believe everything that is told to you on TV. I am not as politically driven as you Jimmy, its a game to keep us entertained with whatever team we're rooting for, but at least some members do try for things.

I learned back in '98 how important politics can be when Congress threatened a shutdown if Clinton didnt sign the budget congress passed. I was looking at not getting paid until they did get it passed. If I remember correctly, it was only a couple of days before payday that the budget was signed. Clinton was against the rank targeted higher pay raises for military. Clinton wanted everyone to get that 2% or whatever it was. If these last 21 months havent shown you how politics directly influences your life then nothing will.


Your worried bout the cost of it, I'm not and I make less than you (more than likely)

Damn right I'm worried about the cost. I am also worried about the precedent it sets with the mandate.



why tha fuk does it matter how much it actually costs you,

Because I actually want to keep as much of the money I earn as possible. Not give it to the govt for them to hand over to someone else who decided not to learn a trade or go to school or not have kids they couldnt afford.

If you arent worried about money at all, I could really use a few grand to get myself out of debt.



it would cost you MORE without it.

Actually, no it wouldnt. My health insurance would likely cost less.



Its not like its 50% of ur wages.

Its getting up close to that. Is that what the magic number is? I should be allowed to have 50% of what I earn so the rest can be spread around to others?



Now we are all covered and it makes me feel great.

Wrong. The largest freeloader population (illegals) will still not be covered under this bill unless Obama lied. I'm not ruling out Obama lied, but I cannot confirm that because I dont understand most of the bill.


I pay a bit more yea, but shoot at least I know that people I dont even know have my back if I really get messed up,

I have that too with my current health insurance plan. I didnt even need daddy govt to tell me what kind of coverage I was required to buy.


just like if they end up disabled, we as a country have each others back. Fuk a dollar, fuk $100 dollars, if we'd work and stand together as a country and not let the media make us seem as though we have to hate and work against each other, we'd be a very strong, tight knit, healthy country, not a sell-out.

No, we would be socialists and everyone would all be living in poverty.

Why has it never occurred to you liberals that every time a new entitlement program is passed, the number of people sponging off productive people grows? Within 5 years of full inception this will cost 500B a year or more, or we will be stuck with a single payer system and the only people that will have access to quality health care will be the rich. Liberals always want to bring to top down to the bottom, but never find the time to try to bring the bottom up to the top. Maybe because they decided that it is easier to convince someone they can be lazy and still profit than it is to show them that hard work leads to success.

[Total_Blender]

Accidentally posted twice. Mods, please delete.

[Total_Blender]

Where are these "Dem financiers"? I am unaware that we have any engines for collecting corporate cash like the ironically governmental sounding "US Chamber of (outsourcing) Commerce" or "(corporate) Citizens United". My local rep outspent his Dem challenger by a ratio of 17 to 1. God only knows how much corporate cash they spent on attack ads against Feingold, Boxer, Reid, and Grayson, but I'm sure if I got the sum cashed out in $20 bills it would literally fill every square inch of space in my house.

Concerning the "New Black Panthers" (and all 5 of their members, lol)

There was nothing in that "new Black Panthers" meme at all. It was just something drummed up by Faux News over a 10 second clip of video showing 2 people with clubs supposedly somewhere near a polling place in a heavily democratic district. There's nothing to show voters were intimidated at all. Its not like any women got their heads stomped on by by a group of 3-4 men, or anything like that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM)...

Concerning the upcoming impeachment circus

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101026/NEWS01/310260081/Mitch-McConnell-under-fire-for-saying-top-priority-is-making-Obama-one-term-president


McConnell spokesman Robert Steurer defended his boss’ comments.“Ending the Obama administration’s liberal agenda as soon as possible is Sen. McConnell’s top political priority,” Steurer said. “The American people are clamoring for a focus on jobs and righting our economy … and that's McConnell’s focus for the next two years.”
The Republican National Committee did not respond to a request for comment.

Note the language - as soon as possible - as in before 2012. Another impeachment circus, in other words. Seems like a bad idea to me though, "no drama Obama" is probably the best friend the GOP ever had on the left of the aisle. Biden... not so much.

About the US Chamber of Commerce's activities concerning outsourcing...

http://www.smart-sourcing.com/news.html



(http://www.smart-sourcing.com/events.html)
(http://www.smart-sourcing.com/articles.html)

Company Announcements
AMCHAM Grassroots Program


Smart Sourcing has partnered with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://www.uschamber.com/default) to sponsor the China Grassroots Program for 2008-2009. The program consists of a series of forums throughout North America promoting bilateral trade and business opportunities for small and medium size firms in the China market. Upcoming forums will be announced and for more information visit: http://www.uschamber.com/international/asia/china/china_grassroots


The "Chamber" operates as "AmCham" in foreign countries...

http://www.amchamchina.org/workingGroup/forum/50

[website]
Manufacturing & Sourcing Forum

Manufacturing & Sourcing Forum
The mission of the AmCham Manufacturing & Sourcing Forum is to increase knowledge of world-class best practices in manufacturing and sourcing industries in China through bi-monthly meetings in Beijing; to have, on average, at least 15 managers attending each of our meetings; to support AmCham in its PRC & USA government relations efforts which impact manufacturing and sourcing; to advocate for member companies on a variety of manufacturing/sourcing related policies and regulations in China. Our forum values Integrity & No Negative Politics among its members.


The links between Boehner and the US Chamber:



http://mo.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/butlercountynews/entries/2010/04/28/boehner_honored_by_us_chamber.html



Republican Representative John A. Boehner (OH-08) was honored today on Capitol Hill by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and presented with the Spirit of Enterprise Award for his pro-business record during the first session of the 111th Congress.
“The Chamber applauds Representative Boehner for supporting the private sector and job growth through these difficult times,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber. “He has demonstrated great courage and we commend him.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22chamber.html



The chamber’s increasingly aggressive role — including record spending in the midterm elections that supports Republicans more than 90 percent of the time — has made it a target of critics, including a few local chamber affiliates who fear it has become too partisan and hard-nosed in its fund-raising.
The chamber is spending big in political races from California to New Hampshire, including nearly $1.5 million on television advertisements in New Hampshire attacking Representative Paul W. Hodes (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/paul_w_hodes/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a Democrat running for the United States Senate (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/senate/index.html?inline=nyt-org), accusing him of riding Nancy Pelosi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelosi/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s “liberal express” down the road to financial ruin.




So yeah, Boehner and the other republicans (probably a few DINOS too) are getting campaign money from a lobbying organization that is also actively helping corporations outsource. And people think Boehner and the GOOP will bring the jobs?


Laughable. :lmfao:

[blaknoize]

Ill respond to this one message since I'm leaving for the day:
Its getting up close to that. Is that what the magic number is? I should be allowed to have 50% of what I earn so the rest can be spread around to others?

With this single message u actually explained this top-down "lets spread the wealth" of what Bush and them wanted to instill in the middle-class. We're expecting the richest of the rich's money to be spread around, they obviously aren't so... now we have to. Instead of diversifying the cost of everything with everyone, rich and poor, we avoid the rich altogether and it falls on us. Bush may be retired or "whatever" but his businesses haven't. I may have to revise this message tomorrow, tired. But the idea should be realized in your message.

[David88vert]

We're expecting the richest of the rich's money to be spread around, they obviously aren't so... now we have to.

That is a socialist agenda - wealth redistribution. If you had any clue of how that works long term, you would likely be against it.

Take the wealth from those not in political power (those in Congress would exempt themselves), and spread it to all - to be "fair". You then have a ruling class of aristocrats, and everyone else. That is what the USSR was trying to accomplish, as was China, and Korea. How did that work for them? The regular people all descended into poverty, as government officials became more corrupt with their absolute power.

How much of my money should I "allowed to keep"? I worked and earned it, why should I be forced to give it to someone who did not work to earn it?

Let me ask you this. If the rich are taxed out of their money, where is there incentive to create jobs? If you think that the rich do not create jobs, then show me a poor man who employs a rich man. Is your boss richer or poorer than you? Why do people run businesses and hire others? Last I checked it was to gain money, which is just a physical symbol of power - which is to get others to do what you desire.

The federal government's duties should not include social engineering, nor welfare programs. That should be done on local and state levels. The federal government should conform to the spirit of the law, and follow the original ideas set forth by the founding fathers. I suggest that everyone go back and actually read the documents that they provided as a blueprint.

[Total_Blender]

Giving the rich tax breaks to "create jobs" is just as much "social engineering" as giving tax cuts to the poor. Just because you're giving the money to corporations and the rich doesn't mean it isn't welfare.

[trini_gsr]

Giving the rich tax breaks to "create jobs" is just as much "social engineering" as giving tax cuts to the poor. Just because you're giving the money to corporations and the rich doesn't mean it isn't welfare.

"tax cuts" to the poor, when it exceeds whatever their tax burden is to start with, is a handout. this is definitely wealth redistribution. the "rich" already pay the lion's share of the tax income to the gov't as it stands now. i don't have a problem with this, i believe the tax rate should be progressive, because $50 to someone making $200 a week feels a lot different than to someone making $2000 a week. but at the same time you can't demonize the successful in this country and take it too far - that's class warfare.

like someone else said...you never got a job from a poor person. the "rich corporations" aren't going to sit back and let their profit margins fall...they are going to pass the costs onto consumers, cut back (meaning less jobs), or take their business elsewhere. we need to give them incentive to keep their business right here, and profit is one of the best motivators there is. that's why ppl sacrifice and go to medical school, law school, learn trades, etc - to earn more $$$ which is the primary indicator of success. i don't understand why ppl don't get this.

[BanginJimmy]

Where are these "Dem financiers"? I am unaware that we have any engines for collecting corporate cash like the ironically governmental sounding "US Chamber of (outsourcing) Commerce" or "(corporate) Citizens United". My local rep outspent his Dem challenger by a ratio of 17 to 1. God only knows how much corporate cash they spent on attack ads against Feingold, Boxer, Reid, and Grayson, but I'm sure if I got the sum cashed out in $20 bills it would literally fill every square inch of space in my house.

Concerning the "New Black Panthers" (and all 5 of their members, lol)

There was nothing in that "new Black Panthers" meme at all. It was just something drummed up by Faux News over a 10 second clip of video showing 2 people with clubs supposedly somewhere near a polling place in a heavily democratic district. There's nothing to show voters were intimidated at all. Its not like any women got their heads stomped on by by a group of 3-4 men, or anything like that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM)...

Concerning the upcoming impeachment circus

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101026/NEWS01/310260081/Mitch-McConnell-under-fire-for-saying-top-priority-is-making-Obama-one-term-president


McConnell spokesman Robert Steurer defended his boss’ comments.“Ending the Obama administration’s liberal agenda as soon as possible is Sen. McConnell’s top political priority,” Steurer said. “The American people are clamoring for a focus on jobs and righting our economy … and that's McConnell’s focus for the next two years.”
The Republican National Committee did not respond to a request for comment.

Note the language - as soon as possible - as in before 2012. Another impeachment circus, in other words. Seems like a bad idea to me though, "no drama Obama" is probably the best friend the GOP ever had on the left of the aisle. Biden... not so much.

About the US Chamber of Commerce's activities concerning outsourcing...

http://www.smart-sourcing.com/news.html



(http://www.smart-sourcing.com/events.html)
(http://www.smart-sourcing.com/articles.html)

Company Announcements
AMCHAM Grassroots Program


Smart Sourcing has partnered with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://www.uschamber.com/default) to sponsor the China Grassroots Program for 2008-2009. The program consists of a series of forums throughout North America promoting bilateral trade and business opportunities for small and medium size firms in the China market. Upcoming forums will be announced and for more information visit: http://www.uschamber.com/international/asia/china/china_grassroots


The "Chamber" operates as "AmCham" in foreign countries...

http://www.amchamchina.org/workingGroup/forum/50

[website]
Manufacturing & Sourcing Forum

Manufacturing & Sourcing Forum
The mission of the AmCham Manufacturing & Sourcing Forum is to increase knowledge of world-class best practices in manufacturing and sourcing industries in China through bi-monthly meetings in Beijing; to have, on average, at least 15 managers attending each of our meetings; to support AmCham in its PRC & USA government relations efforts which impact manufacturing and sourcing; to advocate for member companies on a variety of manufacturing/sourcing related policies and regulations in China. Our forum values Integrity & No Negative Politics among its members.


The links between Boehner and the US Chamber:



http://mo.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/butlercountynews/entries/2010/04/28/boehner_honored_by_us_chamber.html



Republican Representative John A. Boehner (OH-08) was honored today on Capitol Hill by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and presented with the Spirit of Enterprise Award for his pro-business record during the first session of the 111th Congress.
“The Chamber applauds Representative Boehner for supporting the private sector and job growth through these difficult times,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber. “He has demonstrated great courage and we commend him.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22chamber.html



The chamber’s increasingly aggressive role — including record spending in the midterm elections that supports Republicans more than 90 percent of the time — has made it a target of critics, including a few local chamber affiliates who fear it has become too partisan and hard-nosed in its fund-raising.
The chamber is spending big in political races from California to New Hampshire, including nearly $1.5 million on television advertisements in New Hampshire attacking Representative Paul W. Hodes (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/paul_w_hodes/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a Democrat running for the United States Senate (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/senate/index.html?inline=nyt-org), accusing him of riding Nancy Pelosi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelosi/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s “liberal express” down the road to financial ruin.




So yeah, Boehner and the other republicans (probably a few DINOS too) are getting campaign money from a lobbying organization that is also actively helping corporations outsource. And people think Boehner and the GOOP will bring the jobs?


Laughable. :lmfao:



I had a whole thing typed out for this and I accidently hit the back button ans lost it. Put simply, the only thing thats laughable is your responses.

You are trying to claim that GOP wanting Obama to be a 1 term president means they are going to impeach him? Are you really this stupid or are you just that dense?

[BanginJimmy]

the "rich corporations" aren't going to sit back and let their profit margins fall...they are going to pass the costs onto consumers,


Exactly. Companies, especially larger corporations, dont pay a single cent in taxes no matter how high you raise them. You, the consumer, pay their taxes as part of the product or service you buy from them. If taxes make up 10% of the cost of a product you buy then the manufacturer's taxes go up 10%, the price of the product rises by 1%, at least.

[David88vert]

Giving the rich tax breaks to "create jobs" is just as much "social engineering" as giving tax cuts to the poor. Just because you're giving the money to corporations and the rich doesn't mean it isn't welfare.


You aren't giving the rich anything at all - they are just keeping more of their own money. The government just takes less from them - the money that the rich already earned and own. The government is not giving them anything. It isn't welfare if they are not being given anything - instead they are keeping the money that they earned. This is how capitalism works.

Now, taking the money from those that earned it, and then giving it to those who did not earn it is called wealth redistribution, and is a cornerstone of socialism. That is how you create a true welfare state, complete with those that live on the meager subsitance that the government gives them.

While I have no problem with giving someone a foothold to build their life from, do you really think that the government should be giving people so much that they become comfortable with not working? I suggest that you research Seebohm Rowntree's 1910 study on poverty in York, England. If you want the short story from it, watch "A Life Without Work" on BBC.

[BanginJimmy]

You aren't giving the rich anything at all - they are just keeping more of their own money. The government just takes less from them - the money that the rich already earned and own. The government is not giving them anything. It isn't welfare if they are not being given anything - instead they are keeping the money that they earned. This is how capitalism works.

Now, taking the money from those that earned it, and then giving it to those who did not earn it is called wealth redistribution, and is a cornerstone of socialism. That is how you create a true welfare state, complete with those that live on the meager subsitance that the government gives them.

While I have no problem with giving someone a foothold to build their life from, do you really think that the government should be giving people so much that they become comfortable with not working? I suggest that you research Seebohm Rowntree's 1910 study on poverty in York, England. If you want the short story from it, watch "A Life Without Work" on BBC.


You are talking to a not very smart hardcore liberal. Anything that doesnt align perfectly with his beliefs he will simply ignore as lies.

[blaknoize]

You aren't giving the rich anything at all - they are just keeping more of their own money. The government just takes less from them - the money that the rich already earned and own. The government is not giving them anything. It isn't welfare if they are not being given anything - instead they are keeping the money that they earned. This is how capitalism works.

Now, taking the money from those that earned it, and then giving it to those who did not earn it is called wealth redistribution, and is a cornerstone of socialism. That is how you create a true welfare state, complete with those that live on the meager subsitance that the government gives them.


Well the income tax takes money from those who "earned" it. Even though its Unconstitutional. Also, how is it that a big "earner" can be more resistant to paying their affordable dues to the country than a person who makes less which creates more of a burden for them? The person at the bottom is forced to request some assistance from government services, while the person at the top can just pay for it and even waste it.

Then when the person at the top makes a mistake or does it wrong, they are "forgiven" (bailed-out) or protected because they're already up there at the top. Unlike the person trying to get up to the top who makes a mistake and it can ruin their entire existence and REALLY create a situation where they will need "hand-outs" or "free money." Then they are all critized for where they are in life for whatever mistake (bad financial decision, risk, helping out others in their same "class," got SICK, car broke or business closed because it got purchased by another business that then outsourced its workers.)

Also, the "now" business billionaire got his money from someone or just inherited it from their parents which got that money from somewhere. They or their parents have asked for donations and help in hard times during their growth, assistance from government and tax cuts just as much, so they can be insured of their future. Their communities of "poor" wealthy and alike all contributed to the growth of that said business. From purchasing their goods in hard times (because u know, back then America was America and American's cared for each other and their lifes work) and even solitating their city or towns product.

[nelson9995]

What exactly were they fixing? All I saw them do was run up HUGE deficits with programs that flopped.



I think you meant 4 years of breaking things. The breaking started in 2006 when Dems took over the Senate. Now we can see if anything can get fixed.




Whose campaign website did you read that off of?


Ignoring the truth doesnt make you right. Dems are just as guilty of forcing jobs over seas, if not more so. The health care bill will ship jobs over seas as employers find ways to eliminate tax burdens and fines. Cap and Trade will force jobs, especially manufacturing, over seas to avoid paying additional fines and fees.


Like I said in another thread; your a republican deep down inside; you are COMPLETELY against Democrats ( the party that works for the PEOPLE and not the already wealthy).

[David88vert]

Well the income tax takes money from those who "earned" it. Even though its Unconstitutional. Also, how is it that a big "earner" can be more resistant to paying their affordable dues to the country than a person who makes less which creates more of a burden for them? The person at the bottom is forced to request some assistance from government services, while the person at the top can just pay for it and even waste it.

Then when the person at the top makes a mistake or does it wrong, they are "forgiven" (bailed-out) or protected because they're already up there at the top. Unlike the person trying to get up to the top who makes a mistake and it can ruin their entire existence and REALLY create a situation where they will need "hand-outs" or "free money." Then they are all critized for where they are in life for whatever mistake (bad financial decision, risk, helping out others in their same "class," got SICK, car broke or business closed because it got purchased by another business that then outsourced its workers.)

Also, the "now" business billionaire got his money from someone or just inherited it from their parents which got that money from somewhere. They or their parents have asked for donations and help in hard times during their growth, assistance from government and tax cuts just as much, so they can be insured of their future. Their communities of "poor" wealthy and alike all contributed to the growth of that said business. From purchasing their goods in hard times (because u know, back then America was America and American's cared for each other and their lifes work) and even solitating their city or towns product.

You are confusing individual taxes with corporate taxes. They are not the same.

Our income tax system is progressive - which means those that earn more, pay more. You seem to think that even though the rich pay more, they should get less of a tax cut than someone who paid less.

I don't know why you are putting quotes arounder the word "earner". If you sell a product, or provide a service, you earned your money.

As for income tax being unconstitutional, the last I checked, the 16th Amendment was still in effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion

[David88vert]

Like I said in another thread; your a republican deep down inside; you are COMPLETELY against Democrats ( the party that works for the PEOPLE and not the already wealthy).

The Democratic party works for their party platform, which happens to be whatever will get the most of its members elected into power. They are not for the people or business.
The Republican party works for their party platform, which happens to be whatever will get the most of its members elected into power. They are not for the people or business.

[Browning151]

Well the income tax takes money from those who "earned" it. Even though its Unconstitutional. Also, how is it that a big "earner" can be more resistant to paying their affordable dues to the country than a person who makes less which creates more of a burden for them? The person at the bottom is forced to request some assistance from government services, while the person at the top can just pay for it and even waste it.


Why do you quote earned like it's some mythical term and people who are rich just woke up that way one day? As far as paying their affordable dues, the top income earners already pay the majority of the tax burden, but I suppose we should just tax them til they're poor like everyone else, then who will provide you with a job? Also, who cares if the person at the top wants to waste money, that's their right, they earned it and they don't OWE anyone a damn thing.


Read this (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-15/opinion/hodge.non.taxpayers_1_income-tax-tax-policy-center-credits-and-deductions?_s=PM:OPINION)
and this (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1)
The tax burden for those who make less is just too high, so high in fact that 36% of them pay no federal income tax after all credits and deductions and some actually get more back on a refund than they paid in. When you factor in people who don't make enough to file a tax return that number goes up to 47% who pay no federal income tax. All that is just from a quick google search and based upon 2009 tax figures, I haven't done serious in depth research on the matter.


Here's a very simple redistribution analogy: You are a student who works their ass off and earns the top grades in the class and maintain a perfect A and there is another student who just can't quite cut it and only has a C. The end of the semester the professor comes to you and says, well since you have such a good grade and he has such a poor grade, you can afford to give him some of your points even though you earned them and he didn't. I'm going to redistribute your grades so both of you have a B average. Are you completely ok with giving up something you worked your ass off for so that someone else can have the same thing as you even though they didn't earn it?

[BanginJimmy]

Like I said in another thread; your a republican deep down inside;

And as I told you before. I am a fiscal conservative. There is a difference, you might want to look up the big words so as not to confuse them again.





you are COMPLETELY against Democrats ( the party that works for the PEOPLE and not the already wealthy).

Yea, the dems really are working for "the people" They passed the health care overhaul which will cost "the people" more money more money to purchase insurance. That same bill also put added taxes on those evil people that employ "the people". And for an encore, the bill has caused the largest writers of child only health care plans to discontinue the product.

The dems helped "the people" in other ways too. In the house they passed the cap and trade bill which will cause energy prices to rise sharply. It will also cause the price of good manufactured in the US to rise. We will ignore the fact that these added costs will send employers overseas to find a less restrictive environment to do business and just ship their products here.

BTW, since when did working hard and becoming successful exclude you from being counted as one of the American "people"?

[nelson9995]

And as I told you before. I am a fiscal conservative. There is a difference, you might want to look up the big words so as not to confuse them again.






Yea, the dems really are working for "the people" They passed the health care overhaul which will cost "the people" more money more money to purchase insurance. That same bill also put added taxes on those evil people that employ "the people". And for an encore, the bill has caused the largest writers of child only health care plans to discontinue the product.

The dems helped "the people" in other ways too. In the house they passed the cap and trade bill which will cause energy prices to rise sharply. It will also cause the price of good manufactured in the US to rise. We will ignore the fact that these added costs will send employers overseas to find a less restrictive environment to do business and just ship their products here.

BTW, since when did working hard and becoming successful exclude you from being counted as one of the American "people"?


I rather pay more and know i have healthcare and I can go to the hospital and not have to worry about paying thousands of dollars later on (which is over priced anyways) than see myself in situations like i have where I am dying in pain and I'm afraid to go to the hospital. Health is more important than a couple extra dollars.

Also, this will end up helping because people won't be afraid to go to get check ups which in return help with preventive care and save millions of dollars.

No, they are making sure that the people you defend which are the businesses don't exploit people and treat them like humans.

[David88vert]

I rather pay more and know i have healthcare and I can go to the hospital and not have to worry about paying thousands of dollars later on (which is over priced anyways) than see myself in situations like i have where I am dying in pain and I'm afraid to go to the hospital. Health is more important than a couple extra dollars.

Also, this will end up helping because people won't be afraid to go to get check ups which in return help with preventive care and save millions of dollars.

No, they are making sure that the people you defend which are the businesses don't exploit people and treat them like humans.

QUALITY of care is important. We already have a shoartage of doctors. With Obamacare, we see more doctors already planning to leave their profession before 2014, and a reduction in those looking to go to medical school. Prior to Obamacare's passage, we were already looking at shortages in the amount of doctor's available, now it appears that it will get worse. What good is it if the doctor who see's you, has been rushed through medical school, and has little experience?

Obmamcare benefited only one group - businesses. It is cheaper to pay the fine, and let the government pay for healthcare. Every other country that has government run healthcare has longer lines and poorer quality care than America.

[BanginJimmy]

I rather pay more and know i have healthcare

Before Obamacare I was paying less and still knew I had health care. In my world, the only thing I got out of Obamacare was added taxes and higher premiums.



and I can go to the hospital and not have to worry about paying thousands of dollars later on (which is over priced anyways)

if you have health insurance you dont have to worry about that now. If you dont have health insurance, why are you complaining about about having to pay for products and services you are receiving? Show me proof that it is over priced. She me where the same quality care is cheaper anywhere else in the world.


than see myself in situations like i have where I am dying in pain and I'm afraid to go to the hospital. Health is more important than a couple extra dollars.

So health is more important than a couple of dollars, but you are afraid to goto the doc because of money? Would it be reasonable to say then, that you believe that your health care is worth the money, just so long as it isnt your money?


Also, this will end up helping because people won't be afraid to go to get check ups which in return help with preventive care and save millions of dollars.

Wrong, I found a study a while back that says there is no real cost benefits to preventive care when looked at on a macro scale. Individual cases such as people found with early stage cancer will be cheaper, but the 100k other people that got check-ups and found nothing wrong used those same dollars that were saved on the cancer patient. If you care to look there is a link in one of the Obamacare threads here.

This bill also failed to account for some of the largest drains on our healthcare system.

1. Illegals are not going to be covered under this plan according to Obama. They are already the largest population of sponges on the system and hospitals typically have to write off everything they consume because they dont pay for services.

2. No tort reform or malpractice reforms were made. Because of the rising costs of malpractice insurance docs have to raise their rates. Malpractice insurance rates are going up because of the huge number of claims that are filed, a very vast majority of which turn out to be bogus. To protect themselves against malpractice suits, a doc will routinely engage in protective medicine. They will order tests and procedures that they know are useless or unneeded to protect themselves from these bogus claims.

Here is a pretty good article about defensive medicine.
http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp

3.No reforms to medicaid and medicare to eliminate the hundreds of billions a year in fraud. Eliminate the fraud and you can cut 20% of their budget with absolutely no change in payouts for legitimate patients and treatments. Also, docs raise their costs to private individuals and insurers to make up for the money they lose on every medicare patient they see. The doc I go to has a sign up saying they are not accepting any new medicaid or medicare patients. This will get more and more common and the level of care medicare and medicaid patients receive will continue to fall unless reforms are made to actually pay docs what it costs to see these patients.


No, they are making sure that the people you defend which are the businesses don't exploit people and treat them like humans.

How are they doing that? It was a pretty simple question and you follow it up with yet another vague answer that really doesnt answer anything. HOW are businesses exploiting people and WHAT laws did the dems pass to prevent it.

And you didnt answer my last question.

How did it come to pass that working hard and becoming successful was a stigma? How does hard work and the benefits of it make you evil?

[nelson9995]

nm

[nelson9995]

Before Obamacare I was paying less and still knew I had health care. In my world, the only thing I got out of Obamacare was added taxes and higher premiums.




if you have health insurance you dont have to worry about that now. If you dont have health insurance, why are you complaining about about having to pay for products and services you are receiving? Show me proof that it is over priced. She me where the same quality care is cheaper anywhere else in the world.

It has affected you, you say; has it made your life harder or has your lifestyle changed? Now think of all the people it has benefited, and now can have peace of mind. It's time to soften up more and think of EVERYONE. Also, that's because you have a FULLTIME job that offers benefits. Not all of us are that fortunate. Please don't think I'm a lazy ass. I'm 20, in school for Multimedia and Design on my third year, graduating in winter of 2011 trying to find a full time/ part time job meanwhile to help me cover my expenses.

I know people with medicaid and they can't just walk into clinics or dentist. Matter of fact, no dentist takes them because they don't pay them enough which is bullshit because if you call and see how much it is to pay with money is one amount but when you have insurance the amount is always greater.




So health is more important than a couple of dollars, but you are afraid to goto the doc because of money? Would it be reasonable to say then, that you believe that your health care is worth the money, just so long as it isnt your money? When you don't have a job and can't pay back you think about it. When you have a job, I can care less about paying a little extra for insurance.


How are they doing that? It was a pretty simple question and you follow it up with yet another vague answer that really doesnt answer anything. HOW are businesses exploiting people and WHAT laws did the dems pass to prevent it.
Many businesses here pay minimum wage in jobs where workers are being exploited. What I mean by that is the working conditions. Also, making a worker work 40+ hours and not hiring them fulltime is enough exploitation to me.


And you didnt answer my last question.

How did it come to pass that working hard and becoming successful was a stigma? How does hard work and the benefits of it make you evil?

It doesn't. I am for working hard, but while working hard, it would be nice to receive back what you work for.

If you are referring about the other thread where I was talking about help please let me know and I'll get back to it.

[nelson9995]

QUALITY of care is important. We already have a shoartage of doctors. With Obamacare, we see more doctors already planning to leave their profession before 2014, and a reduction in those looking to go to medical school. Prior to Obamacare's passage, we were already looking at shortages in the amount of doctor's available, now it appears that it will get worse. What good is it if the doctor who see's you, has been rushed through medical school, and has little experience?

Obmamcare benefited only one group - businesses. It is cheaper to pay the fine, and let the government pay for healthcare. Every other country that has government run healthcare has longer lines and poorer quality care than America.

This all depends on the individuals. I'm sure a standard must still be met. Doctors are not going to be given positions that they can't handle since the hospital knows all this will lead to is law suits.

[Browning151]

This all depends on the individuals. I'm sure a standard must still be met. Doctors are not going to be given positions that they can't handle since the hospital knows all this will lead to is law suits.

Quality of care will be diminished because there will be more people to cover and fewer doctors to treat them.
Even if the number of doctors stays the same that only works out in one of 2 ways:
(1) Doctors see more people per day, which means they are rushed and therefore provide lower quality of care. You can't expect someone to double or more the amount of work they need to do in a given time and expect quality to not suffer.
(2) Doctors continue to see the same number of people per day, but with more people to see the line stacks up much longer and you have to wait much longer to be treated yourself therefore quality of care is lower because it takes you longer to be able to receive treatment. Whatever illness you have will be more advanced due to the longer wait times.

So which do you prefer, sloppy healthcare or a more advanced illness when you finally receive treatment?

[BanginJimmy]

It has affected you, you say; has it made your life harder or has your lifestyle changed? Now think of all the people it has benefited, and now can have peace of mind. It's time to soften up more and think of EVERYONE.

We are back to that whole Karl Marx thing again.



Also, that's because you have a FULLTIME job that offers benefits. Not all of us are that fortunate. Please don't think I'm a lazy ass. I'm 20, in school for Multimedia and Design on my third year, graduating in winter of 2011 trying to find a full time/ part time job meanwhile to help me cover my expenses.

If you are younger than 26 you can get on your parent's plan. Its one of several parts of Obamacare I am a fan of.


I know people with medicaid and they can't just walk into clinics or dentist. Matter of fact, no dentist takes them because they don't pay them enough which is bullshit because if you call and see how much it is to pay with money is one amount but when you have insurance the amount is always greater.

Thanks for proving my point. Without serious changes to medicare and medicaid, you will find it harder and harder to find docs that will take on new patients. Docs LOSE MONEY, by seeing them. It is ALWAYS cheaper to pay for a procedure with cash than it is for an insurance company. That is a correction to amke up for the added expenses caused by denied coverage and administrative costs. This is one of the reasons me and my wife are seriously considering changing our coverage to a health savings plan for routine stuff and a major medical plan for high dollar accidents or illnesses.




When you don't have a job and can't pay back you think about it. When you have a job, I can care less about paying a little extra for insurance.

When you have a job you think you should be able to keep as much of the money you earn as possible. I have a whole lot of problems with paying more for something just so someone else can get it cheaper or free.



Many businesses here pay minimum wage in jobs where workers are being exploited. What I mean by that is the working conditions. Also, making a worker work 40+ hours and not hiring them fulltime is enough exploitation to me.

minimum wage is FAR from exploitation. These days minimum wage is actually a decent wage for a high schooler. Anyone outside of HS that is still making minimum wage is likely a loser that is constantly changing jobs in very low end industries. Working 40 hour weeks without a tag on your file that says "full time" is far from exploitation. Not offering someone benefits is FAR from exploitation.



It doesn't. I am for working hard, but while working hard, it would be nice to receive back what you work for.

I agree. That is why I am fully against the wealth redistribution agenda of this administration.

Think of it this way. If the Bush tax cuts arent extended and I become a supervisor at my work, and my wife does the same at hers (which is possible for both of us in the next year) it is likely that we will cross that 250k/yr threshold. If that happens, we would have HALF of our earnings taken away in the form of taxes. That would be 125k a year paid directly to the federal govt, state govt, and county govt. Why should I pay 50% of my income when you have a full half of this country that pays in no federal income taxes and little to no state taxes?

[BanginJimmy]

This all depends on the individuals. I'm sure a standard must still be met. Doctors are not going to be given positions that they can't handle since the hospital knows all this will lead to is law suits.


So where are the docs going to come from? As David said, there is already a massive shortage, and as pointed out in the article I posted that you didnt read, those shortages are affecting poorer regions FAR more than more affluent regions.

[nelson9995]

We are back to that whole Karl Marx thing again.




If you are younger than 26 you can get on your parent's plan. Its one of several parts of Obamacare I am a fan of.



Thanks for proving my point. Without serious changes to medicare and medicaid, you will find it harder and harder to find docs that will take on new patients. Docs LOSE MONEY, by seeing them. It is ALWAYS cheaper to pay for a procedure with cash than it is for an insurance company. That is a correction to amke up for the added expenses caused by denied coverage and administrative costs. This is one of the reasons me and my wife are seriously considering changing our coverage to a health savings plan for routine stuff and a major medical plan for high dollar accidents or illnesses.





When you have a job you think you should be able to keep as much of the money you earn as possible. I have a whole lot of problems with paying more for something just so someone else can get it cheaper or free.




minimum wage is FAR from exploitation. These days minimum wage is actually a decent wage for a high schooler. Anyone outside of HS that is still making minimum wage is likely a loser that is constantly changing jobs in very low end industries. Working 40 hour weeks without a tag on your file that says "full time" is far from exploitation. Not offering someone benefits is FAR from exploitation.




I agree. That is why I am fully against the wealth redistribution agenda of this administration.

Think of it this way. If the Bush tax cuts arent extended and I become a supervisor at my work, and my wife does the same at hers (which is possible for both of us in the next year) it is likely that we will cross that 250k/yr threshold. If that happens, we would have HALF of our earnings taken away in the form of taxes. That would be 125k a year paid directly to the federal govt, state govt, and county govt. Why should I pay 50% of my income when you have a full half of this country that pays in no federal income taxes and little to no state taxes?


We are finally agreeing on some things lol. The ones that we are not are about exploitation, and distribution of wealth. There is NO distribution of wealth. The Government is not taking money from the rich and evenly spreading it to the poor. All this is is about healthcare not currency.

[BanginJimmy]

The ones that we are not are about exploitation, and distribution of wealth. There is NO distribution of wealth. The Government is not taking money from the rich and evenly spreading it to the poor. All this is is about healthcare not currency.

Are you sure about that? I know for a fact that there are people getting tax returns for more money than they paid in to start with. People get welfare checks still dont they? Medicaid is still heavily subsidized by the govt isnt it? In the healthcare plan, people will get subsidies wont they? If this isnt redistributing someone else's weath then I dont know what is.

[David88vert]

We are finally agreeing on some things lol. The ones that we are not are about exploitation, and distribution of wealth. There is NO distribution of wealth. The Government is not taking money from the rich and evenly spreading it to the poor. All this is is about healthcare not currency.

Please study our current tax system and welfare benefits. We already tax money at a progressive rate, and the last I checked, the rich do not qualify for welfare. That is redistribution of wealth.

As for healthcare, it appears that you think that Obamacare is universal coverage. It is not. I suggest you read this article. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/universal_coverage_ok_obamacar.html
It sounds like you are looking more for universal coverage.

[Total_Blender]

:blah::blah::blah::blah: ignorant social Darwinist crap :blah::blah::blah:

"letting people keep more of what they earn" how would that be any different from shifting the tax cut to the middle and working classes? Are they somehow less entitled to the money they earn just because they sweat more in earning it?

:crazy:

[Browning151]

"letting people keep more of what they earn" how would that be any different from shifting the tax cut to the middle and working classes? Are they somehow less entitled to the money they earn just because they sweat more in earning it?

:crazy:

If EVERYONE is entitled to keep the money they earn then why don't we institute the Fair Tax and tax everyone equally on what they spend instead of progressively on what they earn.

[David88vert]

"letting people keep more of what they earn" how would that be any different from shifting the tax cut to the middle and working classes? Are they somehow less entitled to the money they earn just because they sweat more in earning it?

:crazy:

Do you understand that not everyone pays in the same rate? It seems that you do not understand that simple concept. Since they do not, why do you think that everyone would get the same tax cut, or those that paid in less should get the same cut? See the table below and see that not everyone pays in the same. Why should someone who is in the 25% bracket get the same tax break as someone that is in the 35% bracket? How is that providing equality for all? Just because you work smarter, you should be penalized?

If in 2010, your taxable income was $100K:
( $ 8,025 minus 0 ) x .10 : $ 802.50
( 32,550 minus 8,025 ) x .15 : 3,678.75
( 65,725 minus 32,550 ) x .25 : 8,293.75
( 100,000 minus 65,725 ) x .28 : 9,597.00
Total: $ 22,372.00 in taxes.


Do you happen to realize that if the tax cuts are not passed, that those who are at the very bottom, and only pay 10% now, will revert to 2000 rates, which are 15%? Do you realize that affects all US taxpayers?




Single Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]

10% on income between $0 and $8,375
15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
25% on the income between $34,000 and $82,400; plus $4,681.25
28% on the income between $82,400 and $171,850; plus $16,781.25
33% on the income between $171,850 and $373,650; plus $41,827.25
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $108,421.25
Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)]

10% on the income between $0 and $16,750
15% on the income between $16,750 and $68,000; plus $1,675
25% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300; plus $9,362.50
28% on the income between $137,300 and $209,250; plus $26,687.50
33% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650; plus $46,833.50
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $101,085.50
Married Filing Separately Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule Y-2, Internal Revenue Code section 1(d)]

10% on the income between $0 and $8,375
15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
25% on the income between $34,000 and $68,650; plus $4,681.25
28% on the income between $68,650 and $104,625; plus $13,343.75
33% on the income between $104,625 and $186,825; plus $23,416.75
35% on the income over $186,825; plus $50,542.75
Head of Household Filing Status

[Tax Rate Schedule Z, Internal Revenue Code section 1(b)]

10% on the income between $0 and $11,950
15% on the income between $11,950 and $45,550; plus $1,195
25% on the income between $45,550 and $117,650; plus $6,235
28% on the income between $117,650 and $190,550; plus $24,260
33% on the income between $190,550 and $373,650; plus $44,672
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $105,095

[Total_Blender]

If EVERYONE is entitled to keep the money they earn then why don't we institute the Fair Tax and tax everyone equally on what they spend instead of progressively on what they earn.

The "Fair Tax" is not based on what you EARN, its based on what you CONSUME. As such it would be balanced against those who consume more of their income than they save.

[BanginJimmy]

"letting people keep more of what they earn" how would that be any different from shifting the tax cut to the middle and working classes? Are they somehow less entitled to the money they earn just because they sweat more in earning it?


Why dont you point out where middle and low income earners would get less money by extending the Bush cuts. Higher income earners PAY A HIGHER RATE and the rate reduction was smaller for the highest bracket than it was for the lowest.

As it stands now, if the cuts expire, high income earners would go from 35% to 39.6% while the lowest income earners would go from 10% to 15%. Allowing the Bush cuts to expire also eliminates an entire tax bracket for the lowest earners.

[BanginJimmy]

The "Fair Tax" is not based on what you EARN, its based on what you CONSUME. As such it would be balanced against those who consume more of their income than they save.


You might want to read a bit more about the fairtax if you believe this. Because of the prebate, essential items such as food would not be taxed.

[blaknoize]

All this... but no one thinks of Norway. The Kingdom of Norway, which is doing EVERYTHING right for EVERYONE and EVERYONE is enjoying their life and their country is doing it right. The wealthy, the poor, whoever. Everyone is taken care of. How is it that u can get MAD for a little more of ur cash going to help other humans? If your able to help them why not?? Oh I know why, u think they wont help u, so to prevent that, u wont help. Also, they're higher education as with most "SOCIALISTIC COUNTRIES OMFG" is either totally or virtually free to students far and near.

Well fuk that! If i have the money and am making the money to support myself all well and good, you damn sure bet I'ma help my neighbor, my neighborhood and even those I dont know. Because I know when my times comes, someone would have my back. But since this is America and since our health care is based on not helping people to the point they actually die, no one wants to lend a hand. Unlike countries who are all paying into a pot with the backing of their respective Governments, regardless of the "higher" overall tax, the people are all safe and have piece of mind because they know, if they come down with something, they will be seen and cared for by their respective countries and not have to refinance their homes or sell their cars or DECIDE which is more important, life or debt.

U can talk as much as u want about those other countries doctors and the fact that when specialty parts are needed (heart, bone marrow, lung, kidney) they would be placed on a waiting list like u dont already know those are specialty items that you yourself in America would also have to wait on, but u wouldnt have to PAY for it, because u and your country are all PAYING for each other. The doctors are also paid well and do a great job because they are paid for HELPING you, they get bonuses for HELPING YOU. The country benefits because its workforce is strong, healthy and able to perform when asked to. While our dumbass bitch about what the "richest" should keep. We as a country should be more worried about all of us and not just one of us. Because.. when you come down with something and are let go because u just so happen to get sick and ur insurance company drops u because u didnt know u were going to get sick and ur job lets u go because u "cost" to much to care for. You will understand.

[nelson9995]

All this... but no one thinks of Norway. The Kingdom of Norway, which is doing EVERYTHING right for EVERYONE and EVERYONE is enjoying their life and their country is doing it right. The wealthy, the poor, whoever. Everyone is taken care of. How is it that u can get MAD for a little more of ur cash going to help other humans? If your able to help them why not?? Oh I know why, u think they wont help u, so to prevent that, u wont help. Also, they're higher education as with most "SOCIALISTIC COUNTRIES OMFG" is either totally or virtually free to students far and near.

Well fuk that! If i have the money and am making the money to support myself all well and good, you damn sure bet I'ma help my neighbor, my neighborhood and even those I dont know. Because I know when my times comes, someone would have my back. But since this is America and since our health care is based on not helping people to the point they actually die, no one wants to lend a hand. Unlike countries who are all paying into a pot with the backing of their respective Governments, regardless of the "higher" overall tax, the people are all safe and have piece of mind because they know, if they come down with something, they will be seen and cared for by their respective countries and not have to refinance their homes or sell their cars or DECIDE which is more important, life or debt.

U can talk as much as u want about those other countries doctors and the fact that when specialty parts are needed (heart, bone marrow, lung, kidney) they would be placed on a waiting list like u dont already know those are specialty items that you yourself in America would also have to wait on, but u wouldnt have to PAY for it, because u and your country are all PAYING for each other. The doctors are also paid well and do a great job because they are paid for HELPING you, they get bonuses for HELPING YOU. The country benefits because its workforce is strong, healthy and able to perform when asked to. While our dumbass bitch about what the "richest" should keep. We as a country should be more worried about all of us and not just one of us. Because.. when you come down with something and are let go because u just so happen to get sick and ur insurance company drops u because u didnt know u were going to get sick and ur job lets u go because u "cost" to much to care for. You will understand.

AMEN

FINALLY, SOMEONE WITH MY IDEALS! GOD BLESS YOU BRO!

[David88vert]

All this... but no one thinks of Norway. The Kingdom of Norway, which is doing EVERYTHING right for EVERYONE and EVERYONE is enjoying their life and their country is doing it right. The wealthy, the poor, whoever. Everyone is taken care of. How is it that u can get MAD for a little more of ur cash going to help other humans? If your able to help them why not?? Oh I know why, u think they wont help u, so to prevent that, u wont help. Also, they're higher education as with most "SOCIALISTIC COUNTRIES OMFG" is either totally or virtually free to students far and near.
....

Norway's tax burden is 45% of GDP. Only Sweden is higher, with the highest tax burden out of all industrialized countries. Are you ready to tax home less than half your pay?

Norwegians can opt out of the the government system and pay out-of-pocket. Many pay out-of-pocket and travel to a foreign country for medical care when waiting lists are long.

On any given day 280,000 Norwegians (out of a country of 4.6 million) are waiting for health care. Norway’s government has been trying to legislate these waits out of existence since 1990…unsuccessfully.

Patients choose general practitioners (GPs) from a government list. These GPs then act as gatekeepers for specialist services. Patients can only switch GPs twice per year and only if there is no waiting list for the requested GP.

It’s estimated that 23% of all patients needing hospitalization must wait at least 3 months for admission.

There are significant waiting times for many procedures. Many Norwegians go abroad for medical treatments. The average weight for a hip replacement is more than 4 months. “Approximately 23 percent of all patients referred for hospital admission have to wait longer than three months for admission.” Also, care can be denied if it is not deemed to be cost-effective.

Norway hires a government ethicist to determine who they should spend their money on, because they want to do it in an ethical way. He decides if you live or die. The US just treats you regardless of cost, if it is life or death.

Norway has 85 hospitals for a population of 4.8 million people in 148,746 square miles. The US has over 310 million people in 3,537,441 square miles. The US has 5,815 registered hospitals, of which 5,010 are community hospitals.
Norway does not have the extreme amount of illegals that the US has utilizing the healthcare system.

As for hospital rankings, perhaps you should review the list of the top 1000 hospitals in the world:
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp
As you can see, the top 15 are all US hospitals. By county, the US ranks #1, and Norway ranks down at #32. Their highest ranked hospitals come in at #239 and #240. Even in Europe, they are only #63 and #64.
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/Distribution_by_Country.asp

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I am not against universal coverage for emergency procedures. Life-threatening conditions could be covered under a government plan, but cost would need to be contained. Private insurance should be carried for all preventative and elective medical procedures.

[Total_Blender]

You might want to read a bit more about the fairtax if you believe this. Because of the prebate, essential items such as food would not be taxed.

The "prebate" is a monthly check from the gov't. If you think the "Fairtax" will shrink the size of the gov't or do away with the IRS you're shitting yourself. The IRS only sends out checks once a year as is. If you have them sending out checks monthly, thats a whole other level of bureaucracy you're adding.

Also, I get it that there are different rates for different brackets. That was never a point of contention. Money has a declining utility. A $3 gallon of milk costs a member of the lowest bracket much more in sacrifice than it costs a member of the highest bracket, I don't see why the taxation rates shouldn't reflect that.

Those in the higher brackets use more government services than people in lower brackets. Think of all the breaks and subsidies the gov't pours into commerce... like the costs of regulation and inspection (OSHA and whatnot), research grants, farm subsidies, no-bid contracts, airports (poor people can't afford to fly, after all), the internet, interstate highway system, hell even GPS uses government satellites. Those who have more wealth and more property also need more protection from the military and police as they have more to lose if civil order breaks down or we are invaded by a foreign country.

Where people in the working class have to fight to get to get unemployment, welfare, social security, and medicare/medicaid (all of which are programs they pay into), the "elites" get all sorts of stuff handed to them from the public treasury and you never hear a peep from the "fiscal conservatives" about that...

[Total_Blender]

As a case in point to what I said above:

The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan says "We're from the government, and we're here to help" :

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story/USS-Ronald-Reagan-Aiding-Cruise-Ship-Stranded-Off/do_4N9sj-Uyf3-DGBjIXNA.cspx

SAN DIEGO - The USS Ronald Reagan is being diverted from its training exercises in the Pacific to help deliver supplies to a marooned cruise ship about 150 miles south of San Diego Tuesday.

The Carnival Splendor became marooned when a blaze erupted in its engine room about 6 a.m. Monday as the 952-foot luxury liner was roughly 55 miles west of Punta San Jacinto on the first leg of a seven-day Mexican Riviera cruise, according to a statement from Carnival Cruise Lines.

This morning, about 35 pallets of supplies will be transferred from Naval Air Station North Island to the USS Ronald Reagan by aircraft. Once aboard the Reagan, the supplies will be taken by helicopter to the cruise ship, according to Third Fleet public affairs office.

None of the thousands of passengers and crew members aboard was injured in Monday's blaze, though several people reportedly suffered panic attacks during the emergency.

The fire and all hot spots were fully extinguished within about three hours, officials said.

[David88vert]

As a case in point to what I said above:


Carnival Cruise Line is not for the rich. They are a mass marketer.

[Total_Blender]

But only people with disposable income go on cruises.

Do you think Carnival cruise line will be billed by the gov't for mobilizing an aircraft carrier to help put out the fire? Do you think the government would act on that sort of scale to put out a fire at a private residence? In other words, Carnival uses gov't resources on a greater scale than the average citizen, and should be taxed accordingly.

[David88vert]

How many private citizens are in a residence? How many are on a cruise ship?
What do you think that the political fallout would be for Obama if he ordered the aircraft carrier NOT to respond?

Why are you confusing business taxes with personal taxes? They are not the same.

[Total_Blender]

Carnival cannot operate safely for all of the patrons in their charge without the government is what I am saying. The gov't stepped in to cover them when they couldn't handle their responsibility on their own. If the gov't were to "let the free market handle it" those people would have died.

[David88vert]

Carnival cannot operate safely for all of the patrons in their charge without the government is what I am saying. The gov't stepped in to cover them when they couldn't handle their responsibility on their own. If the gov't were to "let the free market handle it" those people would have died.

What crack rock did you get hold of?
Carnival put out the fire. The people have food, and are not going to die without the US government. Everyone is safe - without the government's help. The ship is only 200 miles from San Diego, and tugboats are headed to it now.
The US Coast Guard responded - because that is their job.
The US Coast Guard asked for the USS Ronald Reagan to divert from training maneuvers to go to the ship - not Carnival.

You need to get your facts straight before you make baseless accusations.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/09/cruise.ship/index.html?hpt=T2

Sure sounds like capitalism handled it just fine.

I wonder how socialism (your favorite) would have handled it? Oh yeah, no one would have the ability to take a cruise, as their money would have been taken from them by the government in the form of higher taxes.

[BanginJimmy]

All this... but no one thinks of Norway. The Kingdom of Norway, which is doing EVERYTHING right for EVERYONE and EVERYONE is enjoying their life and their country is doing it right. The wealthy, the poor, whoever. Everyone is taken care of. How is it that u can get MAD for a little more of ur cash going to help other humans? If your able to help them why not?? Oh I know why, u think they wont help u, so to prevent that, u wont help. Also, they're higher education as with most "SOCIALISTIC COUNTRIES OMFG" is either totally or virtually free to students far and near.

Well fuk that! If i have the money and am making the money to support myself all well and good, you damn sure bet I'ma help my neighbor, my neighborhood and even those I dont know. Because I know when my times comes, someone would have my back. But since this is America and since our health care is based on not helping people to the point they actually die, no one wants to lend a hand. Unlike countries who are all paying into a pot with the backing of their respective Governments, regardless of the "higher" overall tax, the people are all safe and have piece of mind because they know, if they come down with something, they will be seen and cared for by their respective countries and not have to refinance their homes or sell their cars or DECIDE which is more important, life or debt.

U can talk as much as u want about those other countries doctors and the fact that when specialty parts are needed (heart, bone marrow, lung, kidney) they would be placed on a waiting list like u dont already know those are specialty items that you yourself in America would also have to wait on, but u wouldnt have to PAY for it, because u and your country are all PAYING for each other. The doctors are also paid well and do a great job because they are paid for HELPING you, they get bonuses for HELPING YOU. The country benefits because its workforce is strong, healthy and able to perform when asked to. While our dumbass bitch about what the "richest" should keep. We as a country should be more worried about all of us and not just one of us. Because.. when you come down with something and are let go because u just so happen to get sick and ur insurance company drops u because u didnt know u were going to get sick and ur job lets u go because u "cost" to much to care for. You will understand.

I had a whole nice reply typed out last night but didnt post it. I tried posting it right now and I got an error and lost it.

Here is the tax rates from Norway and as you can see, all that great Socialism there comes at a VERY hefty price.
http://www.nordisketax.net/main.asp?url=files/nor/eng/i07.asp&c=nor&l=eng&s=1&m=02

Exchange rate as of last night is $1 = 5.75 NOK.

http://www.exchangerate.com/

[BanginJimmy]

What crack rock did you get hold of?
Carnival put out the fire. The people have food, and are not going to die without the US government. Everyone is safe - without the government's help. The ship is only 200 miles from San Diego, and tugboats are headed to it now.
The US Coast Guard responded - because that is their job.
The US Coast Guard asked for the USS Ronald Reagan to divert from training maneuvers to go to the ship - not Carnival.

You need to get your facts straight before you make baseless accusations.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/09/cruise.ship/index.html?hpt=T2

Sure sounds like capitalism handled it just fine.

I wonder how socialism (your favorite) would have handled it? Oh yeah, no one would have the ability to take a cruise, as their money would have been taken from them by the government in the form of higher taxes.

This made me laugh. As I was reading his responses I was thinking the same things. His stories are not even close to the reality of it.

[blaknoize]

So you add the actual tax burden into my whole message? Obviously the country isn't a poor country nor are its citizens. Norway isn't concerned with everyone elses views on "taxes" and assuming the GDP and PPP are correct ($88,600 and $53,000 respectively) the citizens "burdened" by this high "taxation" nor are they poor, none of them are. Because they get the idea of helping each other and helping oneself. As I stated once before a strong workforce creates a strong economy and not worrying about getting sick helps that even further. I mean, in Norway, your wife can have a baby and devote a full year to that baby, with PAY and then return to her employer, relaxed, organized and prepared to put her all back into her role in the countries health because the country looked after her.

Also, Norway isn't a purely Socialist country, its more of a mixed market; with lots of free market activity and government presence to keep it all together and on the right track. Considering they're standard and cost of living is nearly 30% higher than the US and they have a balanced budget AND are leaning more toward energy independence there are no negatives you can put to make this argument stand. From the lowest or nearly lowest crime rates, lowest death rates, very high infant mortality rates, high income, high productivity and it is even a creditor to other countries, it doesn't NEED you to give it oil or lend it money. You know why? Because they are responsible and are healthy and are preparing themselves for the future not for the right now.

[Total_Blender]

The coast guard asked the Reagan to come, but again, the CG is also a government operation. Coast guard tugs are pulling the Carnival ship back to shore. Government personnel, wherther they are from the CG or the Reagan, are sending supplies to the ship. The CG is working with the engineers to keep the ships life support systems working. Again, if the gov't had not helped out Carnival, both the Carnival business and the Carnival passengers would have had a hard time.


Sure sounds like capitalism handled it just fine.

If you consider the mobilization of gov't resources to be "capitalism," then... yeah.

As far as the rest of your rant, the cruise ship industry didn't go under when the wealthiest brackets were taxed at an extra 5% under Bill Clinton. So your point is moot.

[bafbrian]

The Democratic party works for their party platform, which happens to be whatever will get the most of its members elected into power. They are not for the people or business.
The Republican party works for their party platform, which happens to be whatever will get the most of its members elected into power. They are not for the people or business.

I read all the posts in this thread and this is the only one that really made sense. For anyone to really think that either party is holding true to their founding ideals in modern politics is laughable. Politicians don't give a damn about you, me, or the next guy, the only think they seem to care about getting re-elected.

Let's be real, the government system which we operate in is not a democracy, it is a republic, therefore it will be flawed. Our economy system is not capitalism, it is combination of capitalism and socialism. If we were true capitalist economy, many of the businesses which exist today would not exist. As far as taxes go, I will admit the Bush Tax Cuts did reduce the burden on low income individuals/families, but does that mean we have to continue them without any revision to compensate for the current economic climate?

[David88vert]

The coast guard asked the Reagan to come, but again, the CG is also a government operation. Coast guard tugs are pulling the Carnival ship back to shore. Government personnel, wherther they are from the CG or the Reagan, are sending supplies to the ship. The CG is working with the engineers to keep the ships life support systems working. Again, if the gov't had not helped out Carnival, both the Carnival business and the Carnival passengers would have had a hard time.


Sure sounds like capitalism handled it just fine.

If you consider the mobilization of gov't resources to be "capitalism," then... yeah.

As far as the rest of your rant, the cruise ship industry didn't go under when the wealthiest brackets were taxed at an extra 5% under Bill Clinton. So your point is moot.

The US Coast Guards job is to respond to incidents like this. They chose to call in the USS Ronald Reagan for it's airlift abilities.
The provisions were made available by Carnival Cruise Lines, and the tugboats were contracted by Carnival - and are not US Coast Guard boats.
Carnival engineers are utilizing their backup generators. Coast Guard engineers are not working to keep life support systems working. There are two Coast Guard officers onboard the ship to help ensure the passengers' health and safety.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/10/cruise.ship/index.html?hpt=T1

You have no idea what you are talking about. You hav stated blatant lies.

[Total_Blender]

Thats not the story you linked to yesterday, so it seems there is new information. The story yesterday made it seem like CG tugs were hauling the boat because they attributed the info about it to a CG source:
[yesterday's article]
One tugboat "is in process of tow," Coast Guard Petty Officer Rachel Polish told CNN. Another tug is en route and will speed the slow process, she said.[/article]


But anyway, the ship did require some assistance from the CG. The CG provides necessary services to the maritime industry, you CANNOT dispute that.

[David88vert]

Thats not the story you linked to yesterday, so it seems there is new information. The story yesterday made it seem like CG tugs were hauling the boat because they attributed the info about it to a CG source:
[yesterday's article]
One tugboat "is in process of tow," Coast Guard Petty Officer Rachel Polish told CNN. Another tug is en route and will speed the slow process, she said.[/article]


But anyway, the ship did require some assistance from the CG. The CG provides necessary services to the maritime industry, you CANNOT dispute that.


At no point did any article say that it was a Coast Guard tugboat, nor did the Coast Guard itself.

Of course, the Coast Guard responded to the distress call. that is part of their job. Any boat or ship that is without power and coasting offshore should issue a distress call, and no matter if it is a small private boat or a cruise ship, the Coast Guard will respond. http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/

Here's food for thought: If it had been a small boat that was in trouble, the Coast Guard would still have responded, and would have tugged them to shore themselves. Do you have a problem with government resources mobilizing in that scenario?
Heres' a case where that just happened on 10/27: http://www.uscgnews.com/go/doc/586/930163/

[BanginJimmy]

So you add the actual tax burden into my whole message?

David took care of the rest in his post. I just pointed out the huge tax burden that pays for mediocre health care.




Obviously the country isn't a poor country nor are its citizens. Norway isn't concerned with everyone elses views on "taxes" and assuming the GDP and PPP are correct ($88,600 and $53,000 respectively) the citizens "burdened" by this high "taxation" nor are they poor, none of them are. Because they get the idea of helping each other and helping oneself. As I stated once before a strong workforce creates a strong economy and not worrying about getting sick helps that even further. I mean, in Norway, your wife can have a baby and devote a full year to that baby, with PAY and then return to her employer, relaxed, organized and prepared to put her all back into her role in the countries health because the country looked after her.

Whats with the quotes around the word taxes?

The rest of the quote is jibberish. Why should a company pay for someone to do nothing that benefits the company?


Also, Norway isn't a purely Socialist country, its more of a mixed market; with lots of free market activity and government presence to keep it all together and on the right track. Considering they're standard and cost of living is nearly 30% higher than the US and they have a balanced budget AND are leaning more toward energy independence there are no negatives you can put to make this argument stand. From the lowest or nearly lowest crime rates, lowest death rates, very high infant mortality rates, high income, high productivity and it is even a creditor to other countries, it doesn't NEED you to give it oil or lend it money. You know why? Because they are responsible and are healthy and are preparing themselves for the future not for the right now.

That is all fine and dandy but really offers nothing new to this thread. It isnt hard to look at statistics and draw a conclusion from it. That doesnt make the conclusion correct though.

Most of the highest crime rates and lowest incomes in the country are controlled by democrat politicians, therefore you can a assume that any area with a heavy democrat voting base will be a low income, crime infested area.

How much does that really tell us about the problems? Absolutely nothing and there is nothing you can say that will make the statement untrue. It is absolutely true, but using stats without context and real knowledge of the situation is misleading at best.

[blaknoize]

The rest of the quote is jibberish. Why should a company pay for someone to do nothing that benefits the company?

What do you mean why should a company pay? Why should a company pay for you if your injured on the job if your not benefiting the company? Why should a company pay u overtime for doing nothing more than what u were doing in the first place? That woman is an employee, hired by the employer, she is an asset. Norway understands that relaxation and family time is just as important as working. It's more than just money its the principal, you have a child.



That is all fine and dandy but really offers nothing new to this thread. It isnt hard to look at statistics and draw a conclusion from it. That doesnt make the conclusion correct though.

Um, clearly statistics have to give a conclusion. You all will use hospital statistics to prove my information wrong, this is solid statistics and prove my point especially with the fact that the country is a creditor. My jibberish isnt clogged with what other people tell me on TV, it's only jibberish to you because the idea of working with each other is beyond your scope because it isn't just for your benefit. Your idea is all about the amount of $$ involved and how u can make more of it. No one worries about just how much more $ they can con out of one another (as it seems) over there.



Most of the highest crime rates and lowest incomes in the country are controlled by democrat politicians, therefore you can a assume that any area with a heavy democrat voting base will be a low income, crime infested area.

Wrong, because Norway itself has a lower crime rate than even the highest concentration of crime in that said area.



How much does that really tell us about the problems? Absolutely nothing and there is nothing you can say that will make the statement untrue. It is absolutely true, but using stats without context and real knowledge of the situation is misleading at best.
Of what problems, our countries or theirs? That they have virtually no real problems or that we have many problems because our country is owned by companies? Because the US puts its faith in a healthcare institution? Do you not understand that a corporation must maximize profits so... in turn if the health institute is insuring you, you must be deemed "healthy" because u cost less than if u are actually someone that needs help. Which is backwards as the ones who need the healthcare are the ones that arent healthy.

Money makes us treat each other as items or customers not as humans. When you walk into an American hospital your asked first "are you insured" or "how are you paying" then... "how can we help you." vs anywhere that isn't using privatized healthcare you may generally hear "how can we help" or "what amatter."

Also, I quoted taxes because if we weren't raised with the idea that taxes are bad then taxes wouldnt matter. Our taxes go to nothing, their high "tax" is circulated in most ever aspect of their country and used for benefits not to pay off the banking system or finance a campaign.

[blaknoize]

And to further this Universal Healthcare argument and to justify it. Why is it that our police and fire departments are owned and operated by government? It works just fine, if ur house catches fire, the fire department is sent out and take care of it. Just like if your in a domestic dispute that's boiling over into more than just talking trash our police force is sent out to resolve it or stop it. Would you expect the fire fighter to ask u if u had fire insurance on your home and if you didn't he'd follow up with a question on how you would pay for his service? If you didn't have a means to pay he'd just leave on to the next home that had it and put it out or would actually put your fire out then send you bill for his service. You know why he doesnt ask you? Because he is paid by all of us for the benefit of all of us when he is needed, just as our police officers.

How is it that we can accept the governmental control of those types of services but cannot accept that as a way to provide heath services to all of us? Hell, I may as well just start my own fire department and make money off people because I would solely insure places that are less likely to catch fire and insure everyone else at staggering premiums because they're in an area more prone to fires, like all of CA and TX and the heart of the country like KS, then once you catch fire I drop you or increase your premium beyond reasonable limits.

Doesn't make sense at all does it?

[David88vert]

And to further this Universal Healthcare argument and to justify it. Why is it that our police and fire departments are owned and operated by government? It works just fine, if ur house catches fire, the fire department is sent out and take care of it. Just like if your in a domestic dispute that's boiling over into more than just talking trash our police force is sent out to resolve it or stop it. Would you expect the fire fighter to ask u if u had fire insurance on your home and if you didn't he'd follow up with a question on how you would pay for his service? If you didn't have a means to pay he'd just leave on to the next home that had it and put it out or would actually put your fire out then send you bill for his service. You know why he doesnt ask you? Because he is paid by all of us for the benefit of all of us when he is needed, just as our police officers.

How is it that we can accept the governmental control of those types of services but cannot accept that as a way to provide heath services to all of us? Hell, I may as well just start my own fire department and make money off people because I would solely insure places that are less likely to catch fire and insure everyone else at staggering premiums because they're in an area more prone to fires, like all of CA and TX and the heart of the country like KS, then once you catch fire I drop you or increase your premium beyond reasonable limits.

Doesn't make sense at all does it?


Actually, fire and police departments are local services, paid for through property taxes - after the citizens vote and chose to fun them. You obviously can move to ares in this state that do not offer either.

Recently, there was a story specifically about a fire department that chose not to put out a house fire because the owner did not pay a $75 fire service fee. They had it on the computer, so they did not need to ask him. He watched his house burn to the ground.
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

You should watch the news more.

[BanginJimmy]

Why should a company pay for you if your injured on the job if your not benefiting the company? Why should a company pay u overtime for doing nothing more than what u were doing in the first place? That woman is an employee, hired by the employer, she is an asset. Norway understands that relaxation and family time is just as important as working. It's more than just money its the principal, you have a child.

Workers comp cases are covered under separate laws. OT pay is a benefit, not a requirement, just ask exempted salaried workers.

Do you also think a company should pay you for a 40 hour work week even if you miss a day and dont have any vacation time? Cause, you know, sometimes you just dont feel like going to work that day.

[VIP Style]

So you want to fix america mr. president? One word, FAIRTAX. Thank you

[blaknoize]

Yall go out of your way to find some type of evidence against a common sense argument. I may have been incorrect in stating that the "Government" owns the FD and PD, but a local government owns it. And here and there I suppose a county or city will deny them. But I'm not about to backpedal as those were used as examples. Its common sense to care for somebody in need. Why does it even matter? You cant place a cost on your life nor can you on someone elses. Talking all this negativity towards the idea of helping people live is beyond me.

Like the Military who train you to kill for instance, when u get injured, your cared for (most likely to get you back into the fight) and thats that. There are no questions about what company is providing your insurance, your injured, they fix you free of charge.

Jimmy stop being a smartass. Workers Comp may have separate laws but its just the same with child birth. She cant just give birth and bam be back at work. As I said Norway allows a whole year off with pay no questions just your having a baby so... your having a baby, take care of him/her. Your injured in Norway, see a doctor free of charge, get cared for free of charge, then take a week or two off to recover or longer if need be, so you can be productive for the country.

David, of course that may happen, its part of the counties ordinance system of whatever. I mentioned it for understanding because again, it doesnt make sense. I cant speak against it nor do I care to, this isnt about the fire protection in places that have the option to pay or not pay, this is about a constant tax to keep the service your government, local, state, city, county is providing you with. If your paying for it out of taxation, then its available to you when you need it. You dont need news to tell you that.

So again, you'd rather watch a child die because the family is uninsured when whatever the problem with their child is curable, fixable, stoppable simply by doing it? Or... yourself, knowing you have been diagnosed with cancer and you know you can either get it under control or even prevent it (as some forms of cancer are preventable) its ok with you to just die because u didnt have some damn insurance or you couldnt afford the co-pay when needed to cover the expense? Because it will cost the insurance company to MUCH too save your life. God forbid you get played when your time comes and u need assistance then, say you get it and you have to refinance your home or downgrade and are stuck paying 30-50k in medical bills because your insurance company only covered the initial 4 days of treatment, but not the hospital stay, the drugs, the reoccurring visits and check-ups.

My Grandmother is now 40k or so, in debt from her stroke just because she had a stroke and didn't prepare for it, he daughter (my aunt) sold her home to cover the upfront costs and the physical therapy required so her mother could keep her home she's been in for 74years. U know why this cost her so much? Because he health insurance dropped her due to age. Do you want me to verify the "average" cost of a stroke http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/stroke/stats.htm:
Economic Cost of Stroke
* The total cost of stroke to the United States is estimated at $43 billion per year.
* The direct costs of medical care and therapy are estimated at $28 billion per year.
* Indirect costs from lost productivity and other factors are estimated at $15 million per year.
* The average cost of care for a patient up to 90 days after stroke is $15,000.
* For 10 percent of patients, the cost of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is $35,000.
* The percentage breakdown of the direct costs of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is:

Initial hospitalization – 43 percent
Rehabilitation – 16 percent
Physician costs – 14 percent
Hospital Readmission – 14 percent
Medications and other expenses – 13 percent
My Grandmother happen to be one of those 10%. Her care cost a bit more because she was charged for her air lift from Portsmouth, OH to Columbus, OH and spent 17 days in the hospital, racking up debt, just to stay alive.

[BanginJimmy]

Yall go out of your way to find some type of evidence against a common sense argument. I may have been incorrect in stating that the "Government" owns the FD and PD, but a local government owns it. And here and there I suppose a county or city will deny them. But I'm not about to backpedal as those were used as examples. Its common sense to care for somebody in need. Why does it even matter? You cant place a cost on your life nor can you on someone elses. Talking all this negativity towards the idea of helping people live is beyond me.

How was it common sense when your argument was already proven wrong?

Every country that has socialized health DOES PUT A PRICE ON LIFE. David pointed that out back on like page 2 of this thread.


Like the Military who train you to kill for instance, when u get injured, your cared for (most likely to get you back into the fight) and thats that. There are no questions about what company is providing your insurance, your injured, they fix you free of charge.

You couldnt be more wrong. Unless you are in a combat environment, your unit is "charged" a fee based on the number of troops in the unit. That fee is pooled with all other units using that medical facility to provide the operating budget for that facility.


Jimmy stop being a smartass. Workers Comp may have separate laws but its just the same with child birth.

If being correct is being a smartass to you then no. I agree it is he same with child birth. Federal law requires businesses to give a certain amount of time to come back from child birth. This is called maternity leave. Just because they dont get paid for it doesnt mean they dont get it. Also, most companies to pay for maternity leave at the same rate they pay out short term disability. Now, if a woman doesnt want to go back to work when she is able to do so, that is a choice she makes and a company should not be liable for that choice.


She cant just give birth and bam be back at work.

Really? We just had a lady at my job have a baby and she was back in about 3 weeks. It did not take a year.



As I said Norway allows a whole year off with pay no questions just your having a baby so... your having a baby, take care of him/her.

it doesnt take anywhere near a year to get back on your feet and back to full strength after having a baby.




Your injured in Norway, see a doctor free of charge, get cared for free of charge, then take a week or two off to recover or longer if need be,

They have that in the US too. It is called long term and short term disability. Most major medical plans do cover it. Oh, and it isnt free. The govt just takes it ahead of time and doesnt charge a copay. Then again, it may take you 2 or 3 months to see the doc, so good luck.



so you can be productive for the country.

Yes comrade, the peasants must be at full strength to assure the strength of the nation and the party.


So again, you'd rather watch a child die because the family is uninsured when whatever the problem with their child is curable, fixable, stoppable simply by doing it?

Someone shows up in the hospital and the hospital is required to treat them, whether the patient has the ability to pay or not.


Because it will cost the insurance company to MUCH too save your life.

Once again, every country with socialized medicine is doing this already. They are rationing care based on future productivity and the costs to save you.

[BanginJimmy]

So you want to fix america mr. president? One word, FAIRTAX. Thank you

Fairtax would help, but spending is the real problem.

[bafbrian]

Yall go out of your way to find some type of evidence against a common sense argument. I may have been incorrect in stating that the "Government" owns the FD and PD, but a local government owns it. And here and there I suppose a county or city will deny them. But I'm not about to backpedal as those were used as examples. Its common sense to care for somebody in need. Why does it even matter? You cant place a cost on your life nor can you on someone elses. Talking all this negativity towards the idea of helping people live is beyond me.

Like the Military who train you to kill for instance, when u get injured, your cared for (most likely to get you back into the fight) and thats that. There are no questions about what company is providing your insurance, your injured, they fix you free of charge.

Jimmy stop being a smartass. Workers Comp may have separate laws but its just the same with child birth. She cant just give birth and bam be back at work. As I said Norway allows a whole year off with pay no questions just your having a baby so... your having a baby, take care of him/her. Your injured in Norway, see a doctor free of charge, get cared for free of charge, then take a week or two off to recover or longer if need be, so you can be productive for the country.

David, of course that may happen, its part of the counties ordinance system of whatever. I mentioned it for understanding because again, it doesnt make sense. I cant speak against it nor do I care to, this isnt about the fire protection in places that have the option to pay or not pay, this is about a constant tax to keep the service your government, local, state, city, county is providing you with. If your paying for it out of taxation, then its available to you when you need it. You dont need news to tell you that.

So again, you'd rather watch a child die because the family is uninsured when whatever the problem with their child is curable, fixable, stoppable simply by doing it? Or... yourself, knowing you have been diagnosed with cancer and you know you can either get it under control or even prevent it (as some forms of cancer are preventable) its ok with you to just die because u didnt have some damn insurance or you couldnt afford the co-pay when needed to cover the expense? Because it will cost the insurance company to MUCH too save your life. God forbid you get played when your time comes and u need assistance then, say you get it and you have to refinance your home or downgrade and are stuck paying 30-50k in medical bills because your insurance company only covered the initial 4 days of treatment, but not the hospital stay, the drugs, the reoccurring visits and check-ups.

My Grandmother is now 40k or so, in debt from her stroke just because she had a stroke and didn't prepare for it, he daughter (my aunt) sold her home to cover the upfront costs and the physical therapy required so her mother could keep her home she's been in for 74years. U know why this cost her so much? Because he health insurance dropped her due to age. Do you want me to verify the "average" cost of a stroke http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/stroke/stats.htm:
Economic Cost of Stroke
* The total cost of stroke to the United States is estimated at $43 billion per year.
* The direct costs of medical care and therapy are estimated at $28 billion per year.
* Indirect costs from lost productivity and other factors are estimated at $15 million per year.
* The average cost of care for a patient up to 90 days after stroke is $15,000.
* For 10 percent of patients, the cost of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is $35,000.
* The percentage breakdown of the direct costs of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is:

Initial hospitalization – 43 percent
Rehabilitation – 16 percent
Physician costs – 14 percent
Hospital Readmission – 14 percent
Medications and other expenses – 13 percent
My Grandmother happen to be one of those 10%. Her care cost a bit more because she was charged for her air lift from Portsmouth, OH to Columbus, OH and spent 17 days in the hospital, racking up debt, just to stay alive.

Tricare, the medical care provided via the military, has varying levels of care: Tricare Prime, Prime Remote, Prime Remote Overseas, Guard/Reserve, and Standard. Might have missed one or two. Depending on which you choose, will determine what costs you will bear. I am currently enrolled in Tricare Prime Remote, I pay no out of pocket costs, nor does my unit. My wife wanted to keep her doctors and enrolled her in Tricare Standard, depending on what service is rendered, there may be a cost involved and again, my unit doesn't pay a fee. Not sure what unit you are with BanginJimmy, but you might want to investigate that fee your unit is being charged.

As far as you Grandmother goes, that situation is fucked up. That is the kind of reasoning why Healthcare Reform should have been instituted. Does that mean everything in the Health Reform Bill was correct? By all means, no. But, a matter like this validates to me that health insurance is not a commodity, is it a basic human right. Kind of reminds me of document which speaks of ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting general welfare. It seems to me that the health insurance business is not about protecting people, but about protecting profit; once those who are insured aren't profitability anymore, they are dropped. Anyone else see what is wrong here?

[BanginJimmy]

Tricare, the medical care provided via the military, has varying levels of care: Tricare Prime, Prime Remote, Prime Remote Overseas, Guard/Reserve, and Standard. Might have missed one or two. Depending on which you choose, will determine what costs you will bear. I am currently enrolled in Tricare Prime Remote, I pay no out of pocket costs, nor does my unit. My wife wanted to keep her doctors and enrolled her in Tricare Standard, depending on what service is rendered, there may be a cost involved and again, my unit doesn't pay a fee. Not sure what unit you are with BanginJimmy, but you might want to investigate that fee your unit is being charged

I dont believe he is talking about dependent care but care for the actual member.

Every unit is appropriated a certain amount for medical care for its troops. As unit numbers change, so does that appropriation.



As far as you Grandmother goes, that situation is fucked up. That is the kind of reasoning why Healthcare Reform should have been instituted. Does that mean everything in the Health Reform Bill was correct? By all means, no. But, a matter like this validates to me that health insurance is not a commodity, is it a basic human right. Kind of reminds me of document which speaks of ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting general welfare. It seems to me that the health insurance business is not about protecting people, but about protecting profit; once those who are insured aren't profitability anymore, they are dropped. Anyone else see what is wrong here?

You wont find anyone that doesnt say the health industry as a whole needs a ton of reform, but that doesnt make the current bill worth it. The current bill has nothing in it to reign in costs, instead it has dozens of provisions that will raise costs. There is nothing in the bill to reduce fraud, but there are things that will make fraud easier.

Yes, there are several provisions of the bill I am a supporter of, but that doesnt mean the bill is worth keeping in its present form. Because of those provisions though, I am not a fan of repeal unless there is something there to replace it.

Any bill I would support would have ZERO govt involvement in my medical decisions. The bill would have very serious penalties, STARTING with the loss of his/her license, for fraud. There would be massive tort reform that caps both punitive and liability awards at 10x the estimated lifetime earnings of the victim. Also under tort reform would be a loser pays, both client and lawyer equally, for frivolous lawsuits.

[bafbrian]

I dont believe he is talking about dependent care but care for the actual member.

Every unit is appropriated a certain amount for medical care for its troops. As unit numbers change, so does that appropriation.

You wont find anyone that doesnt say the health industry as a whole needs a ton of reform, but that doesnt make the current bill worth it. The current bill has nothing in it to reign in costs, instead it has dozens of provisions that will raise costs. There is nothing in the bill to reduce fraud, but there are things that will make fraud easier.

Yes, there are several provisions of the bill I am a supporter of, but that doesnt mean the bill is worth keeping in its present form. Because of those provisions though, I am not a fan of repeal unless there is something there to replace it.

Any bill I would support would have ZERO govt involvement in my medical decisions. The bill would have very serious penalties, STARTING with the loss of his/her license, for fraud. There would be massive tort reform that caps both punitive and liability awards at 10x the estimated lifetime earnings of the victim. Also under tort reform would be a loser pays, both client and lawyer equally, for frivolous lawsuits.

I gotcha. IIRC, there is only a set amount for units that are CONUS.

I hope we can all agree on your post regarding the healthcare bill. No dount that the bill has many positive and negative aspects. Only time will tell what is the best course of action to replace that parts which are negative. One fear that I have is that even if we amend and change the negative aspects, the positive aspects might suffer as well. I think what people fear with the bill that it is set in stone and cannot be or will be hard to amend.

Not that I think government should make medical decisions, then who should? Family? Insurance Companies? Pick your poison and suffer the consequences. As far as Tort Reform, definitely a serious issue that needs to be addressed more.

I think the lawsuit concept should applied system wide. Imagine what that would do if there was a consequence for losing.

[BanginJimmy]

I think what people fear with the bill that it is set in stone and cannot be or will be hard to amend.

Obama has already said he would veto any significant changes to the bill though. I think the only way to assure personal freedoms are not taken away is a repeal and replacement, not changes to the current bill. That would require heavy bipartisan support in the Senate though and I think that a large enough support base would bring that as Senators up for re-election in 2012 try to save their jobs. The protections need to be in the bill, but not the mandates to buy insurance. Not the requirement that companies write a policy on all comers, regardless of existing conditions, for the same prices.


Not that I think government should make medical decisions, then who should? Family? Insurance Companies? Pick your poison and suffer the consequences. As far as Tort Reform, definitely a serious issue that needs to be addressed more.
There are only 2 people that should be making medical decisions for someone. Either that individual, or the eldest member of the immediate family. Obviously a living will that appoints someone to that role should be enforced whenever possible. Remember that without other instructions from someone with the proper decision making authority a hospital is required to do anything possible to save or extend a life.


I think the lawsuit concept should applied system wide. Imagine what that would do if there was a consequence for losing.

Because this is so prevalent in the medical field, the medical field would be most impacted. I think you could honestly see an overall drop of at least 10% in medical overhead immediately. The vast reductions in malpractice insurance alone would make a sizable impact. Add to that the offensive amount of money spent on defensive procedures and drugs and the drops in prices could really be dramatic.

[David88vert]

David, of course that may happen, its part of the counties ordinance system of whatever. I mentioned it for understanding because again, it doesnt make sense. I cant speak against it nor do I care to, this isnt about the fire protection in places that have the option to pay or not pay, this is about a constant tax to keep the service your government, local, state, city, county is providing you with. If your paying for it out of taxation, then its available to you when you need it. You dont need news to tell you that.

So again, you'd rather watch a child die because the family is uninsured when whatever the problem with their child is curable, fixable, stoppable simply by doing it? Or... yourself, knowing you have been diagnosed with cancer and you know you can either get it under control or even prevent it (as some forms of cancer are preventable) its ok with you to just die because u didnt have some damn insurance or you couldnt afford the co-pay when needed to cover the expense? Because it will cost the insurance company to MUCH too save your life. God forbid you get played when your time comes and u need assistance then, say you get it and you have to refinance your home or downgrade and are stuck paying 30-50k in medical bills because your insurance company only covered the initial 4 days of treatment, but not the hospital stay, the drugs, the reoccurring visits and check-ups.

My Grandmother is now 40k or so, in debt from her stroke just because she had a stroke and didn't prepare for it, he daughter (my aunt) sold her home to cover the upfront costs and the physical therapy required so her mother could keep her home she's been in for 74years. U know why this cost her so much? Because he health insurance dropped her due to age. Do you want me to verify the "average" cost of a stroke http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/stroke/stats.htm:
Economic Cost of Stroke
* The total cost of stroke to the United States is estimated at $43 billion per year.
* The direct costs of medical care and therapy are estimated at $28 billion per year.
* Indirect costs from lost productivity and other factors are estimated at $15 million per year.
* The average cost of care for a patient up to 90 days after stroke is $15,000.
* For 10 percent of patients, the cost of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is $35,000.
* The percentage breakdown of the direct costs of care for the first 90 days after a stroke is:

Initial hospitalization – 43 percent
Rehabilitation – 16 percent
Physician costs – 14 percent
Hospital Readmission – 14 percent
Medications and other expenses – 13 percent
My Grandmother happen to be one of those 10%. Her care cost a bit more because she was charged for her air lift from Portsmouth, OH to Columbus, OH and spent 17 days in the hospital, racking up debt, just to stay alive.

Let me make this perfectly clear to you. I have no problem with my tax dollars being used for emergency care or for those providing a legitimate service for our country, such as our military having veteren's care covered.
I do not support giving general healthcare to the masses who should be purchasing their own insurance for non-emergency, maintenance, or elective procedures. Proper financial planning is needed.
My grandmother had a heart attack and spent time in the hospital 2 years ago. Due to proper financial planning many years before, my grandfather left her with enough money to cover medical issues. Is this a rarity? No, not in my family. None of my family has been rich, but all have been able to handle their needs to get insurance and to cover their own medical costs. Are you claiming that you are not capable of planning your own financial future, and need the government to do it for you?

[Browning151]

I do not support giving general healthcare to the masses who should be purchasing their own insurance for non-emergency, maintenance, or elective procedures. Proper financial planning is needed.


This is exactly what the whole argument boils down to, be it healthcare, welfare etc. this is the basic principle that needs to be addressed. Many people don't want to be accountable for themselves anymore, at all. There are far too many people who are perfectly content to sit back and let someone else worry about their problems instead of taking responsibility for themselves and their family and planning for future circumstances. If you combine the fact that far too many people have that mentality with the fact that many people are grossly under-educated on how to even begin to save and prepare for such events and you end up with our current situation. Just my :2cents:

[bafbrian]

Let me make this perfectly clear to you. I have no problem with my tax dollars being used for emergency care or for those providing a legitimate service for our country, such as our military having veteren's care covered.
I do not support giving general healthcare to the masses who should be purchasing their own insurance for non-emergency, maintenance, or elective procedures. Proper financial planning is needed.
My grandmother had a heart attack and spent time in the hospital 2 years ago. Due to proper financial planning many years before, my grandfather left her with enough money to cover medical issues. Is this a rarity? No, not in my family. None of my family has been rich, but all have been able to handle their needs to get insurance and to cover their own medical costs. Are you claiming that you are not capable of planning your own financial future, and need the government to do it for you?

I can only speak intelligently about my situation. I have always budgeted my money pretty well. When I was no longer carried on PeachCare, I wasn't able to afford health insurance. Between rent, water, electric, gas, food, and phone bills, wasn't enough left to purchase health insurance. Between the time I was 18 and when I went Active Duty, I had a choice between health insurance and bills, I chose bills so I could continue to work, eat, and have a place to live. It is easy to say proper financial planning is needed and not give a plan. You can plan all you want and still not have the resources left to purchase health insurance.

[blaknoize]

My grandmother had a heart attack and spent time in the hospital 2 years ago. Due to proper financial planning many years before, my grandfather left her with enough money to cover medical issues. Is this a rarity? No, not in my family. None of my family has been rich, but all have been able to handle their needs to get insurance and to cover their own medical costs. Are you claiming that you are not capable of planning your own financial future, and need the government to do it for you?

I am not claiming any such thing. My grandmother knew she was old but my family happened to have many members die off during that time. Our money went to their care/bills/funerals as well. The bills eventually exceeded what we were bringing in. It also has a bit to do with the amount of income a particular family is bringing in as a whole. I'm not sure where a majority of your family is located but we aren't in a nearly affluent part of the country or city for that matter. The only person in the family that was capable to assist was my aunt as she was the wealthiest of all in the area. Now yes, I have family in a few other cities (1 couple in ATL, 1 old couple in NYC, 1 Uncle in NC, 1 cousin in Cincinnati (who ended up in the hospital himself this year ekk) and a cousin in MI.)

- Note after re-reading my initial post, I have to state that I listed the information wrong. My aunt did not sell her home DUE TO the bills, she had already sold her home and used the money from the sell to assist her mother with up-front costs. My grandmother just so happen to suffer the stroke at that time. Then just used savings to purchase her home she is in today.

My ATL family is taking care of the wife's mother who is in a special needs housing situation and from what she has told me, that eats up almost another mortgage payment, she works 2 jobs for that reason. The NYC residents are well into their respective lives and are on a fixed income barely getting by, unlike in their heyday when money was coming back in forth likea seesaw. My Uncle in NC is also retired, not to sure about his actual status as we don't normally communicate with him. My cousin in Cinci has never been that well off, but he did make an effort to assist in all this. Also the cousin in MI helped a bit, but he is young in his career and raising his own family. For an example, I probably have others, but what happened was coincidence and it was managed as best as possible.

[blaknoize]

So to some I may be wrong in my view of this whole healthcare thing. I believe it should be provided to all, at a fair price because its life. It is a common sense argument because you cant always PLAN for your accidents or your aliments. A business model that is designed to make a profit will always try its hardest to turn a profit, in this case by not providing necessary care to those most in need or those who cost "more" than deemed medically practical.

I always get ran thru the mud on this view of mine because I am from the "unhealthiest metropolitan area" in America, although they seem to state just obesity, my teeth speak of what bad water can do to you and the industry in the area has crippled so many. WIKILINKY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington%E2%80%93Ashland,_WV%E2%80%93KY%E2%80%93 OH,_Metropolitan_Statistical_Area)

[BanginJimmy]

So to some I may be wrong in my view of this whole healthcare thing. I believe it should be provided to all, at a fair price because its life. It is a common sense argument because you cant always PLAN for your accidents or your aliments. A business model that is designed to make a profit will always try its hardest to turn a profit, in this case by not providing necessary care to those most in need or those who cost "more" than deemed medically practical.

Here is the problem with your "solution" to the problem. Every country that is using a socialized health model is also limiting those they care for and what they treat because costs far exceed what they bring in through taxes and premiums. On top of that are the lower quality of care, less medical innovation, and longer wait times for care, especially specialist care that are common is all of these models.

In the US we use capitalism and the power of choice to demand better care and it works. You dont like your doc, go find another one. Dont like the way you are treated by your insurance company, move on to a different one. In Norway, for example, if you dont like your insurance company, too bad, thats all you get. In Canada, if you dont like your insurance company, too bad, and if you go somewhere else you can be fined for it.

[blaknoize]

In the US we use capitalism and the power of choice to demand better care and it works. You dont like your doc, go find another one. Dont like the way you are treated by your insurance company, move on to a different one. In Norway, for example, if you dont like your insurance company, too bad, thats all you get. In Canada, if you dont like your insurance company, too bad, and if you go somewhere else you can be fined for it.

How can you even say that about another country and its people though, have u BEEN to Canada for your needs, have u BEEN to Norway or The UK or France? My "solution" is already in practice and given the numbers and the overall longevity of the people whom use that form of healthcare and arent shackled with debt, I believe fully that it works well. This current capitalist approach to healthcare is completely incorrect. There may be an "insurance" as you say over there however, I believe that to be incorrect in itself. Its a practice called solidarity, each person has and will continue to help one another in their greatest time of need. They understand this because, unlike America and TV, they KNOW they will eventually need help and KNOW they arent likely to afford the brunt of skyrocketing prices like we have here in America. So instead, they have a system set to help all and it will hopefully remain that way.

You ignored my run down of a capitalist business model in generic form about our current system here. If healthcare is a business, owned by businessmen and women, the business must be profitable so their may be the GOOD instances where care is given to a particular person and its all over our news as "American Health Care is rated whatever." Thats all well and dandy but when you come down hard with something and cant afford it and your company drops u, who will come to ur rescue? In social world, WE have your back and the government owns the business so it will never be broke and have to worry about turning a profit, the doctors are paid by us and have great equipment and great education and a passion for their work.

I've needed my crown replaced in my mouth for the past 3yrs yet I havent gone to a dentist because that crown alone will cost me $800 plus the work needed to my other 3 missing teeth and all pitted ones. You know why I havent? I CANT FUKIN AFFORD IT, I've been quoted in the 3k plus range, not even counting the initial scan and so forth. So u kno what I'ma do? I'll go overseas, get that work done and tell yall all about it. Tell u how little time I spent in the waiting room and bring back my meager bill, if any and rub it all in ur face. My cousin just so happen to not need any care while abroad so I cant use his trip for a basis of this argument.

IDK bout u Jimmy or even David, you guys are in ur 30's, you two must of dodged everything health related and are just as healthy as possible. Great teeth, good vision, strong bones, no family histories of cancer or diabetes or anything for that matter to talk down on this. Its not even an idea I just came up with on my own, it is in practice. Also, those over their aren't scared to tell their government what to do, if they didnt like their current system and the way it was ran, it would be handled. They protest and those in Parliament and in Power understand that they better do work or suffer removal from their role. Americans are scared to speak out and just agree with what is told to them.

[bafbrian]

Here is the problem with your "solution" to the problem. Every country that is using a socialized health model is also limiting those they care for and what they treat because costs far exceed what they bring in through taxes and premiums. On top of that are the lower quality of care, less medical innovation, and longer wait times for care, especially specialist care that are common is all of these models.

In the US we use capitalism and the power of choice to demand better care and it works. You dont like your doc, go find another one. Dont like the way you are treated by your insurance company, move on to a different one. In Norway, for example, if you dont like your insurance company, too bad, thats all you get. In Canada, if you dont like your insurance company, too bad, and if you go somewhere else you can be fined for it.

Uh, we don't do use pure capitalism in this country, I think that is evident given the current economic climate. The current Health Insurance system is broken. The way the system works is, you either have the money to purchase health insurance or not. In this country, if you cannot afford health insurance, then its too bad. That is the problem. If I have would opted to purchase health insurance when I turned 18, I would of had to sacrifice my own livelihood (housing and bills) just to maintain it.

It is not as simple as, try one insurance company and if you don't like it, switch. That option is not always available, more common in rural areas. More common is that one insurance company has a monopoly on an area and you don't have a choice. Giving companies the opportunity to sell insurance across state lines and increase competition would help reduce costs. Unfortunately, even with more competition, it doesn't guarantee that everyone will be able to afford health insurance. What about those who still couldn't afford it? Does we just tell them "good luck"?

[David88vert]

IDK bout u Jimmy or even David, you guys are in ur 30's, you two must of dodged everything health related and are just as healthy as possible. Great teeth, good vision, strong bones, no family histories of cancer or diabetes or anything for that matter to talk down on this. Its not even an idea I just came up with on my own, it is in practice. Also, those over their aren't scared to tell their government what to do, if they didnt like their current system and the way it was ran, it would be handled. They protest and those in Parliament and in Power understand that they better do work or suffer removal from their role. Americans are scared to speak out and just agree with what is told to them.

First, I actually have been overseas to several countries. I have friends from around the world also, and have discussed various healthcare systems with those who have had to live with it for most of their lives as well. There are good points and bad points to every healthcare system.

I have been healthy all of my life, and have health insurance. I have paid my dental and vision out of my pocket though, and it has been much cheaper than if I had paid for it through taxes or insurance.

The key to insurance is to understand what it is for. It is not a maintenance payment to cover every little cost - it is a payment to cover major medical high-cost issues. Insurance should not be used to cover a regular checkup - that should be paid out of pocket.
If your car needs an oil change, do you call your auto insurance company and expect them to pay for it? If you need new windshield wipers, do you submit an insurance claim? The problem that I see with your idea of socialized healthcare is that it is not realistic in controlling its costs - in order to be affordable, only major costs should be covered under a plan, and the rest should be out-of-pocket, if you want a system that can work.

[bu villain]

I know this is just an anecdote but I lived in a country with socialized healthcare for a while. My wife went in for things I would never dream of going in for (stomach ache, simple fever, etc). She would go during her lunch break sometimes and waiting was never an issue and it was all free. As a foreigner, I wasn't covered under the government and yet I paid less than I would have had to pay here with my corporate health insurance plan. It seems clear to me that the cost of healthcare is a bigger problem than whether it is private or government controlled.

[David88vert]

I know this is just an anecdote but I lived in a country with socialized healthcare for a while. My wife went in for things I would never dream of going in for (stomach ache, simple fever, etc). She would go during her lunch break sometimes and waiting was never an issue and it was all free. As a foreigner, I wasn't covered under the government and yet I paid less than I would have had to pay here with my corporate health insurance plan. It seems clear to me that the cost of healthcare is a bigger problem than whether it is private or government controlled.

I agree 100% with that statement. Cost is the biggest issue.

[blaknoize]

I know this is just an anecdote but I lived in a country with socialized healthcare for a while. My wife went in for things I would never dream of going in for (stomach ache, simple fever, etc). She would go during her lunch break sometimes and waiting was never an issue and it was all free. As a foreigner, I wasn't covered under the government and yet I paid less than I would have had to pay here with my corporate health insurance plan. It seems clear to me that the cost of healthcare is a bigger problem than whether it is private or government controlled.

It was all free... in a sense as its not all up front. That is the point of all this debate and arguing. I could care less who or what gets help from my tax $$, your alive and well. Not suffering only because u cant afford the care. To me, it doesnt matter. Through all the #'s and all the statistics... why does it matter? When you need help, you get it, simple as that, then continue on till the next time you need it or not at all.

Help your friends help their friends, your neighbors help their neighbors and their neighbors friends. You alive, your suffering, get the help and go on with life. Shut up with all the cost this and cost that.

[David88vert]

It was all free... in a sense as its not all up front. That is the point of all this debate and arguing. I could care less who or what gets help from my tax $$, your alive and well. Not suffering only because u cant afford the care. To me, it doesnt matter. Through all the #'s and all the statistics... why does it matter? When you need help, you get it, simple as that, then continue on till the next time you need it or not at all.

Help your friends help their friends, your neighbors help their neighbors and their neighbors friends. You alive, your suffering, get the help and go on with life. Shut up with all the cost this and cost that.

Why don't you go ahead and send the government another 10% of your pay to get us started? Go ahead, cut the check today for 2010 and send it in.

[AirMax95]

There are enough taxes taken/given already. The problem lies in that we have "governing" officials who either A) Have their own personal agenda for things, B) Are too stupid to admit they don't know what they are doing, C) Aren't called out and reprimanded accordingly. We blow money like dope boys at a strip club on free parking and entry night. Proper allocation of funds would be a good starting point to get things on track, just saying.

I'd rather have a Nanny McFrugal running the ship. I'm going to the capital soon to sit in on a session, just to see/hear how these "smart people" work on the local level.

Nathan Deal comes to mind, lol. We elevcted and offical that can mange his own funds to manage our state....HOE LEE SHIaTsu.

[bu villain]

It was all free... in a sense as its not all up front. That is the point of all this debate and arguing. I could care less who or what gets help from my tax $$, your alive and well. Not suffering only because u cant afford the care. To me, it doesnt matter. Through all the #'s and all the statistics... why does it matter? When you need help, you get it, simple as that, then continue on till the next time you need it or not at all.

Help your friends help their friends, your neighbors help their neighbors and their neighbors friends. You alive, your suffering, get the help and go on with life. Shut up with all the cost this and cost that.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Whether you like it or not, doctors have to get paid, hospitals need operating income, cutting edge technology, research and treatment is expensive. We do not have unlimited resources. The goal should be how to get the best care for as many people as possible with the resources we have. That is anything but simple.

[BanginJimmy]

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Whether you like it or not, doctors have to get paid, hospitals need operating income, cutting edge technology, research and treatment is expensive.


And you have pointed out the biggest drawback of every socialized medicine model in the world. They simply dont have the money for everything. So instead of cutting edge technology you get something that works, but not as well. Have you ever seen a Brit's dental work? How about the scars from a simple, in the US, surgery in Soviet Russia? Doctors dont get paid well at all in many of these countries. In India, every doctor worth anything leaves as soon as possible. This has left a huge shortage of doctors, and even worse, a shortage of doctors capable of teaching their specialties. Hospitals with funds shortages leads to rationing and long waits for simple procedures. I read a story about a Canadian kid that had to wait 2 months in a knee brace for an MRI. Here in the US, I saw my doc on a monday morning and got my MRI done later that day. The next monday I got the results of my MRI back. That would not even be considered possible, nevermind the norm, in Canada.

[David88vert]

There are enough taxes taken/given already.

WHO are the taxes taken from? What percentage group are you in? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%? In order to be "fair", everyone should be inputing into system as a percentage of their needs.
What you are advocating is a system that takes from those that succeed and gives free healthcare to those who have not put into the system in a proportiate amount to what they claim. That only works if you are one that does not put into the system in an equivacable amount to what you received from the system.

[blaknoize]

Why don't you go ahead and send the government another 10% of your pay to get us started? Go ahead, cut the check today for 2010 and send it in.

I can afford the 10% so it wouldn't bother me to do so. I'm not indebted, actually I have no debt and making only 36k a year I can thoroughly afford that. Are you indebted so much that 10% will bury u or something? Or is because your greedy? I will travel abroad and compare what I'm saying now to what I'm hearing from my UK co-worker or my Canadian co-worker. Your worried about a bit of money so u can get STUFF. I could live with 20% of my wages cut for the sake of others and myself needed super expensive ass help.

Just 2-3% of all the income everyone makes in this country could remedy that doc pay/technology and maybe even infrastructure issue (or most) and that could be a flat tax, since the amount they pay in the tax is higher in relation to the amount they make. But we're all to worried about being "rich" and being taxed at the "rich" level, when none of us are RICH. We're middle-class!! If you can fucking live on your less than 40k or 80k a year and aren't spending and spending and spending on nothing important, no 1-10% of income cut will matter.

So again, I will be traveling to The UK hopefully next spring and stay for a week, get my teeth worked on and ask plenty of questions to those in the business and/or have been serviced by this (shitty, long-wait period, dated technology area, who are all poor and unable to compete with the American Dollar) and let you all know what its really about and not what your hearing on TV.

[Browning151]

Or is because your greedy?

Please, define greed.

[David88vert]

I can afford the 10% so it wouldn't bother me to do so. I'm not indebted, actually I have no debt and making only 36k a year I can thoroughly afford that. Are you indebted so much that 10% will bury u or something? Or is because your greedy? I will travel abroad and compare what I'm saying now to what I'm hearing from my UK co-worker or my Canadian co-worker. Your worried about a bit of money so u can get STUFF. I could live with 20% of my wages cut for the sake of others and myself needed super expensive ass help.

Just 2-3% of all the income everyone makes in this country could remedy that doc pay/technology and maybe even infrastructure issue (or most) and that could be a flat tax, since the amount they pay in the tax is higher in relation to the amount they make. But we're all to worried about being "rich" and being taxed at the "rich" level, when none of us are RICH. We're middle-class!! If you can fucking live on your less than 40k or 80k a year and aren't spending and spending and spending on nothing important, no 1-10% of income cut will matter.

So again, I will be traveling to The UK hopefully next spring and stay for a week, get my teeth worked on and ask plenty of questions to those in the business and/or have been serviced by this (shitty, long-wait period, dated technology area, who are all poor and unable to compete with the American Dollar) and let you all know what its really about and not what your hearing on TV.

Since you can afford to, please go ahead and do it. Make a video of it and post it for us to see. Actually go ahead and start sending in an extra 10% to the government. Don't just talk about it.


Can I afford to send an extra 10%? I already do, as I am in one of the higher tax brackets. I'm already doing more than my part, as I do not use any government paid healthcare - I have to pay for that myself also.

Utilizing the money that I earn for my own family is not greedy, it's practical. Utilizing government money that you did not earn to pay your costs is greedy.

Why are you traveling to the UK to get your teeth worked on? Because it's cheaper? Why don't you just pay a dentist here?
You have already shown that you have no clue about how R&D is funded for technological advances. Do you really think that the UK is the leader in technilogical advances in dentistry?

[bu villain]

I read a story about a Canadian kid that had to wait 2 months in a knee brace for an MRI. Here in the US, I saw my doc on a monday morning and got my MRI done later that day. The next monday I got the results of my MRI back. That would not even be considered possible, nevermind the norm, in Canada.

That is because in Canada, care is rationed by need and in the US it is rationed by who has the most money. You can get your health care fast because you can afford insurance and/or the cost of the MRI. There is no line to wait in because many of the people who might have been in the line can't afford it and thus go without treatment all together. It's obvious which system is better for you but less so for society as a whole.

[bu villain]

Some feel it is a moral imperative to provide healthcare for those who can't afford it while others feel no moral obligation to help others obtain healthcare. I doubt any amount of discussion will bridge this fundamental gap. That's why our laws and regulations should focus on the things we can all agree on (e.g, lowering costs, promoting preventative care, health education, etc.)

[AirMax95]

....delete

[AirMax95]

WHO are the taxes taken from? What percentage group are you in? 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%? In order to be "fair", everyone should be inputing into system as a percentage of their needs.
What you are advocating is a system that takes from those that succeed and gives free healthcare to those who have not put into the system in a proportiate amount to what they claim. That only works if you are one that does not put into the system in an equivacable amount to what you received from the system.

Whoa Whoa....maybe my cronic boredness at work allowed me to give poor response.

I am saying plainly that the idea of taxing more, at this point, is pointless. An extra 10% is not going to help if the current "contributions" are being poorly allocated.

I fall in the 25% range, fearing 28% change.

[David88vert]

Whoa Whoa....maybe my cronic boredness at work allowed me to give poor response.

I am saying plainly that the idea of taxing more, at this point, is pointless. An extra 10% is not going to help if the current "contributions" are being poorly allocated.

I fall in the 25% range, fearing 28% change.

Ok, I understand your saying that we do not need to collect more taxes as a whole for the country to add to healthcare. I disagree with this, as we are already running a bigger deficit each year, and adding additional costs of healthcare would have to be collected from somewhere/someone - or other programs would have to be cut or funding reduced. You cannot give additional benefits without affecting either source of revenue or expenditures.

Now, WHO would pay more? The rich? Why should they pay for others people's healthcare? They don't utilize the socialist healthcare in other countries due to the waiting and inferior care. They come to the US to get the best care, as they can afford it. So it wouldn't really be fair to charge them for a service they do not use, is it? Would you like to pay for my next tuneup to my car, just because I think you can afford it better?

The poor cannot afford to pay for they system - but that is exactly who uses the majority of the current healthcare systems benefits right now. The poor tend to run to the emergency room for every small thing, as they do not want to pay for a doctor. If you don't believe it, go to the ER at any hospital in the metro area and see for yourself. In California and Texas, hospitals are closing their doors due to the sheer amount of illegals who do not pay, and are abusing the free part of our system right now.

So tell me, who should pay for the system? The ones who use the system, or those who don't? Socialist healthcare reform is always touted as being "fair,", but the fact is, it is not fair. It undermines a capitalist economy by the explotation of resources from society members that are successful, to those who choose to make poor choices. The fact is, if you are indigent, you already get free healthcare. If you have resources, you can purchase advanced healthcare through cutting-edge technology and drugs.

[BanginJimmy]

That is because in Canada, care is rationed by need and in the US it is rationed by who has the most money. You can get your health care fast because you can afford insurance and/or the cost of the MRI. There is no line to wait in because many of the people who might have been in the line can't afford it and thus go without treatment all together. It's obvious which system is better for you but less so for society as a whole.

Wrong as usual. Care is not rationed in the US any more than BMW's and Vette's are. I dont have a lot of money, but I have a very nice health care plan because throughout my life I made a couple good choices to go along with the bad ones. I managed to learn a marketable skill that landed me a job with a multi-national corporation that offers its employees quality health and pension plans.

With that said, why should it be my responsibility to purchase a health care plan for someone that chose to break into a house instead of get a job? He got caught, served time, now cannot find more than a menial job because he is a felon. How about the 18y/o mother that has 2 kids by 2 different dads? Since I didnt get her pregnant, why should I foot the bill for it anymore than I already do?

Dont give me that crap about compassion either. I probably give a greater percentage of my money to charities than 99% of this board because the charities I give to, I know where the money is going. I know it is not going to the sponges of society, but to the kids that those sponges bring into the world.

[BanginJimmy]

Please, define greed.

x2


I would love to hear this.

[blaknoize]

Since you can afford to, please go ahead and do it. Make a video of it and post it for us to see. Actually go ahead and start sending in an extra 10% to the government. Don't just talk about it.
Can I afford to send an extra 10%? I already do, as I am in one of the higher tax brackets. I'm already doing more than my part, as I do not use any government paid healthcare - I have to pay for that myself also.
Utilizing the money that I earn for my own family is not greedy, it's practical. Utilizing government money that you did not earn to pay your costs is greedy.
Why are you traveling to the UK to get your teeth worked on? Because it's cheaper? Why don't you just pay a dentist here?
You have already shown that you have no clue about how R&D is funded for technological advances. Do you really think that the UK is the leader in technilogical advances in dentistry?

Obviously because its cheaper. A dentist here will cost to much for me to pay out of pocket as I dont run on credit. There is a better way to get that done without going upside down in cost, just to eat food and smile.

On this technology thing you talk about. Since we have the latest and greatest why is it that none of the people that really need it get to use it? Its only those with the money that can get scan for their life. Your 31, you've seen people die off that you knew (maybe because I know I have) due to the inability to afford that scan or... can afford the scan but not the work because the scan itself cost them both arms. You may complain of your tax but at least you can complain, this money thing makes you think your better or have done something better than another person your same age.

Now to my 10% contribution to government, that will be a no, because our government will not use it for what its intended for. But as an example: If my family gave your family 10% of their earnings and your family gave mine the same, we would "insure" one another and if another family gave 10% of their earnings neither one of those families would have to worry about payment because its already paid for. Its an investment in one another for when your GOING to need it. Works exactly the same as saving for retirement, that money we ALL put into our system would earn interest on itself and be available to those 3 families that need REAL help or just simple repairs to ones body. Now imagine if a whole community did that, or can u imagine sharing a few bills here and their for solidarity?

To continue: say that neighborhood and its 10% contribution to one another was used to push 1 student of each respective practice for any kid that really wanted to help their fellow neighbors. Oh look, free college education on behalf of the neighborhood for you to help the neighborhood out AND as a bonus, u get paid from the neighborhood for helping folks that need it, because thats your job. You could probably do that with just 2% of that 10% of each neighbor in the area. You will try and find specific #'s and incidents of pay grades and all that, ladeda, but its an example.

Whats your income? 45k, 70k? Your living great I could only imagine that for myself, but once I get there I can complain about things like how much I'm paying in taxes and what not, but... of the available income and disposable income I have, I can enjoy myself, 36k is enough for me to get a nice 1 level home with a full basement (value of roughly 110k), 2 car garage, new car payment (of 25k or less) and finance new furniture out the ass and get my lil goodies I want here and there.

To try and answer the greed I mentioned, which I cant, but I will try. Your not willing to help someone in need is greed. Just as a country not willing to help its people in need is greed. I may have said this before, but if America has the BEST health care system with the BEST doctors and the BEST technology, how come we are the worse off? We dont live as long as others in other nations poorer than us, which can be found, again on the CIA factbook. We dont live any longer than any nation that is "social" in its health needs with this AMAZINGLY NEW TECHNOLOGY we have and incredibly high paid doctors. I would only assume with a country that is balling in the trillions we could afford a few billion to help one another so... as I said previously, this strong profitable nations workforce can continue to grow, learn and prosper and even attract others to move here for the hopes of the same.

Yall try to bash me on Norway, the UK, France, Germany even, but you cannot deny the fact that they all live longer than us. Not sure how u could possibly find any issues with Norway, your just worried about their tax, even though they're balling with even half their income their making more than us. NOK is less than Dollar, but Dollar is less than Euro, NOK and Euro exchange not NOK and Dollar. Because in this mind, if the currency is worth LESS to another, that means it can buy the exact same in THAT country for less. 45,000 Euros a year only make around 36,000 Kroners a year. So a Norwegian wouldn't need as much to buy the same products.

To conclude, no I wont send 10% to this Government, but would I give my 10% a check to someone that really needed it, yes, because thats only $60 a paycheck, $60 that, if you needed it every week, would help u get your medication so you can fuking live. Also the "rich" get the amazing Bush Tax CUT of almost 85k a year, at least the highest rollers in this country, Alan Grayson can tell you that.

-- You may have some amazing ass insurance because u can afford it, but if u just so happen to be that man or woman that becomes diseased solely because thats what your body will do when it gets older, and you 70k a year is maxed out through ur final few yrs of home payments, car notes for the kids and grand kids, charitable "gifts", your medication(s) and the cost of living and those super bills that you incurred because u needed help, u will then request help. But bitches like you guys over here huffing and puffing over a little bit of your income going to help the needy because they arent "like you" and you cant verify why they need the help, will let them die. Oh just you wait till we all bang 60's, late 70's even 80's yet cant die, but must use medication and or need routine checkups and physicals and whatnot to function in our day to day lives, seeing every fukin year we are 10, 20, 40, 50k in debt simply because we're alive. When all along, those 40+ yrs of youth we all could of put our into something for our own futures to help us survive when we need it. 1%, 6%, 11%, why do u care, its just a little bit of money. Its not just for "those other fukin people u dont know" its also for you, because all those fukin people u dont know are doing it to, for other people they dont fukin know. One day that "person u dont fukin know" could be you and those other fukin people u dont know will help you. Not because they wont to or because they care for u, but because they can and thats how it is.

[blaknoize]

And yes, I will travel, for the experience, because I'm not narrow-minded and I would love for this rich ass country to show some care for each other, because all of us made this country rich and the "rich" aren't going to aid us without us speaking up. The idea, again, isnt far-fetched, if there are issues with "social" care then lets actually analyze it. Its not hard, pick out the things that are obviously in disarray and test different ideas till we get it right. Not sit here and bitch.

Yall bitches protect the rich because they're "RICH" not because your rich. If I was rich I wouldn't mind. If I made 1.5mil net (ignore tax for this example) lost 5mil in taxes, whatever, I'm balling, fucking bbaaallliinngg, you can tax the shit outta me but I'm still balling. I have a home, a car, a washer dryer, can take trips, fix shit, make bad decisions and all that without a worry in my mind because I'm STILL MAKING ONE FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS A FUCKING YEAR. Your all worried about some fukin taxes for the rich. If your total amount income regardless of tax is a million dollars, why would you complain? Is it because other people are telling you what they are making or grossing or netting? You cant even spend a million a year if you live right.

[David88vert]

Obviously because its cheaper. A dentist here will cost to much for me to pay out of pocket as I dont run on credit. There is a better way to get that done without going upside down in cost, just to eat food and smile.
And there you go. You ar not looking for advances in dentistry, and to have the best possible. You are just looking for a cheap price. That is the difference between you and I. I want quality in dental care - and I spend it out of pocket. I had no trouble saving up and affording my family's dental care, why should I pay for others dental care, when no one else is going to assist me?




On this technology thing you talk about. Since we have the latest and greatest why is it that none of the people that really need it get to use it? Its only those with the money that can get scan for their life. Your 31, you've seen people die off that you knew (maybe because I know I have) due to the inability to afford that scan or... can afford the scan but not the work because the scan itself cost them both arms. You may complain of your tax but at least you can complain, this money thing makes you think your better or have done something better than another person your same age.
The poor do get to use it - whenever they really need it for LIFE-SAVING needs. We have free emergency care for those that do not have the financial means to support themselves. They get x-rays, cat scans, etc - if they are in emergency care. Go to any hospital and ask the financial department where there money comes from for those in lower income levels. Technnology works well - who do you think got rid of polio, smallpox, etc? Where do you think almost all of the drugs available have come from?



Now to my 10% contribution to government, that will be a no, because our government will not use it for what its intended for. ...
And what exactly makes you think that if we "fund" a healthcare program, that it will get the funding marked to it? We already have healthcare programs, and if the government is doing such a poor job now, what makes you think it will get better if you give them more money? If you say that they do not need more money, tell us where they are going to pull that money from -in other workds, what programs are they going to cut.



To continue: say that neighborhood and its 10% contribution to one another was used to push 1 student of each respective practice for any kid that really wanted to help their fellow neighbors. Oh look, free college education on behalf of the neighborhood for you to help the neighborhood out AND as a bonus, u get paid from the neighborhood for helping folks that need it, because thats your job. You could probably do that with just 2% of that 10% of each neighbor in the area. You will try and find specific #'s and incidents of pay grades and all that, ladeda, but its an example.
There is no free lunch - and no free college. You are living in a dream world if you think there is. There are tax incentive programs in place for people to plan for college now. Look up 529's. Better education does not mean that the person you send through will get a better job, or be a better member of society either. People complain about the cost of their HOA's now, and have trouble paying basic living expenses now - and you want them to pay for someone else's kid to go party at UGA? Let me bring you back to reality - we do not live in a utopian society, as one never has existed, nor ever will. There is no magical government system that will give everyone the perfect life. Life is about making choices and living with those choices.



Whats your income? 45k, 70k? Your living great I could only imagine that for myself, but once I get there I can complain about things like how much I'm paying in taxes and what not, but... of the available income and disposable income I have, I can enjoy myself, 36k is enough for me to get a nice 1 level home with a full basement (value of roughly 110k), 2 car garage, new car payment (of 25k or less) and finance new furniture out the ass and get my lil goodies I want here and there.
My income is enough for me to be in a higher tax bracket. Do I have disposable income? No. Why? Because I already pay out enough in taxes to cover all of your family's emergency care needs right now.



...I may have said this before, but if America has the BEST health care system with the BEST doctors and the BEST technology, how come we are the worse off? We dont live as long as others in other nations poorer than us, which can be found, again on the CIA factbook. We dont live any longer than any nation that is "social" in its health needs with this AMAZINGLY NEW TECHNOLOGY we have and incredibly high paid doctors. I would only assume with a country that is balling in the trillions we could afford a few billion to help one another so... as I said previously, this strong profitable nations workforce can continue to grow, learn and prosper and even attract others to move here for the hopes of the same.
Americans life expectancy is not because of the medical care, but rather, the choices they make. We eat unhealthy food because it tastes good, we smoke, we drink, etc - all because we chose to. Our technology allows us to have these indulgences and still keep a long life. Additionally, "helping everyone" through the force of taxes is not choosing to help out your fellow humans. Tht wouldn't solve this "greed" of wanting to keep what you earn through work. If I choose to help, it should be just that - a choice. I give to charities already, but it is my choice who I give it to, and how much.



Yall try to bash me on Norway, the UK, France, Germany even, but you cannot deny the fact that they all live longer than us. Not sure how u could possibly find any issues with Norway, your just worried about their tax, even though they're balling with even half their income their making more than us. NOK is less than Dollar, but Dollar is less than Euro, NOK and Euro exchange not NOK and Dollar. Because in this mind, if the currency is worth LESS to another, that means it can buy the exact same in THAT country for less. 45,000 Euros a year only make around 36,000 Kroners a year. So a Norwegian wouldn't need as much to buy the same products.

To conclude, no I wont send 10% to this Government, but would I give my 10% a check to someone that really needed it, yes, because thats only $60 a paycheck, $60 that, if you needed it every week, would help u get your medication so you can fuking live. Also the "rich" get the amazing Bush Tax CUT of almost 85k a year, at least the highest rollers in this country, Alan Grayson can tell you that.

$60 a week, $3120 a year - Are you unable to purchase medical insurance and dental care for that much each year? You shouldn't spend even close to that. Most of it should be available for investment. If you are responsible for your own financial future, you should be able to not only pay for medical needs, but also contribute to reducing your future needs from the government. For me, it would be a lot more than $60 a week.



-- You may have some amazing ass insurance because u can afford it, but if u just so happen to be that man or woman that becomes diseased solely because thats what your body will do when it gets older, and you 70k a year is maxed out through ur final few yrs of home payments, car notes for the kids and grand kids, charitable "gifts", your medication(s) and the cost of living and those super bills that you incurred because u needed help, u will then request help. But bitches like you guys over here huffing and puffing over a little bit of your income going to help the needy because they arent "like you" and you cant verify why they need the help, will let them die. Oh just you wait till we all bang 60's, late 70's even 80's yet cant die, but must use medication and or need routine checkups and physicals and whatnot to function in our day to day lives, seeing every fukin year we are 10, 20, 40, 50k in debt simply because we're alive. When all along, those 40+ yrs of youth we all could of put our into something for our own futures to help us survive when we need it. 1%, 6%, 11%, why do u care, its just a little bit of money. Its not just for "those other fukin people u dont know" its also for you, because all those fukin people u dont know are doing it to, for other people they dont fukin know. One day that "person u dont fukin know" could be you and those other fukin people u dont know will help you. Not because they wont to or because they care for u, but because they can and thats how it is.
Perhaps you still don't understand - plan for your OWN financial future. It is clear that you are not currently prepared for your own financial future, and have not covered all of your own needs yet. With that in mind, what makes you think that you have acquired enough knowledge to explain to those that are prepared how they should spend their money? Currently, you are one of those that is in the lower income brackets, looking for others to pay your way, and make life easier for you. Why should I, one who has already been where you are, and have worked hard and made good decisions, and lived below my means, give you the money that I have earned and worked for, for free? Specifically, why should I personally pay for your health insurance? That is what you are asking for - for me to personally pay for your health insurance.

[David88vert]

And yes, I will travel, for the experience, because I'm not narrow-minded and I would love for this rich ass country to show some care for each other, because all of us made this country rich and the "rich" aren't going to aid us without us speaking up. The idea, again, isnt far-fetched, if there are issues with "social" care then lets actually analyze it. Its not hard, pick out the things that are obviously in disarray and test different ideas till we get it right. Not sit here and bitch.

Yall bitches protect the rich because they're "RICH" not because your rich. If I was rich I wouldn't mind. If I made 1.5mil net (ignore tax for this example) lost 5mil in taxes, whatever, I'm balling, fucking bbaaallliinngg, you can tax the shit outta me but I'm still balling. I have a home, a car, a washer dryer, can take trips, fix shit, make bad decisions and all that without a worry in my mind because I'm STILL MAKING ONE FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS A FUCKING YEAR. Your all worried about some fukin taxes for the rich. If your total amount income regardless of tax is a million dollars, why would you complain? Is it because other people are telling you what they are making or grossing or netting? You cant even spend a million a year if you live right.


Since housing is a need also, and a lot of people are homeless, the rich should build everyone a house also while they pay for their healthcare also, right?

Who decides how people should live? You? You think that everyone should live the same way, and have the same needs? You think the government should make the decision on where you live, how much food you are provided (so everyone gets the same amount - to be fair), what possessions that they own, etc? That's communism, plan and simple. Sounds like you might want to move to a communist country. Why don't ou do that, and let us know how that works out for you.

[blaknoize]

Perhaps you still don't understand - plan for your OWN financial future. It is clear that you are not currently prepared for your own financial future, and have not covered all of your own needs yet. With that in mind, what makes you think that you have acquired enough knowledge to explain to those that are prepared how they should spend their money? Currently, you are one of those that is in the lower income brackets, looking for others to pay your way, and make life easier for you. Why should I, one who has already been where you are, and have worked hard and made good decisions, and lived below my means, give you the money that I have earned and worked for, for free? Specifically, why should I personally pay for your health insurance? That is what you are asking for - for me to personally pay for your health insurance.

I'm younger than you, my income is lower than you, my education is lower than you. I throw my numbers out there for real examples. So no, that is incorrect on me expecting and wanting hand-outs and assistance, even though we have all had assistance from family and friends to get where we are today, you have, I have. I know many who do and could use it to better their lives and get through it all to see a good future then pursue it, thats the point.

[blaknoize]

Since housing is a need also, and a lot of people are homeless, the rich should build everyone a house also while they pay for their healthcare also, right?

Who decides how people should live? You? You think that everyone should live the same way, and have the same needs? You think the government should make the decision on where you live, how much food you are provided (so everyone gets the same amount - to be fair), what possessions that they own, etc? That's communism, plan and simple. Sounds like you might want to move to a communist country. Why don't ou do that, and let us know how that works out for you.

Why are u talking about housing? This isnt about housing, its about healthcare for all. Just like why Honda provides "safety for everyone" in all of their cars, DX to EX because its unfair to provide only a person that is better off than u; a chance to survive a crash. It is unfair in Honda's eyes to allow someone else that can spend just a bit more to drive a more "premium" class car in their lineup a higher chance of survival in an accident than any other person who picked up a lesser version of that same car.

Same thing in relation to healthcare, why is it that someone else can get the care they need if they have the $$ but another person with a little less $$ cannot? Stop this trying to roll me into communist ideas, its a socialistic idea that is, again, being used by every other industrialized nation but us.

[BanginJimmy]

Just like why Honda provides "safety for everyone" in all of their cars, DX to EX because its unfair to provide only a person that is better off than u; a chance to survive a crash. It is unfair in Honda's eyes to allow someone else that can spend just a bit more to drive a more "premium" class car in their lineup a higher chance of survival in an accident than any other person who picked up a lesser version of that same car.

This has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. A Hummer is safer than a DX or EX also, so should we be required to buy one of those?


Same thing in relation to healthcare, why is it that someone else can get the care they need if they have the $$ but another person with a little less $$ cannot?

Because this is the real world, not a socialist utopia. People that make more money have better things. Back to your car analogy. Should everyone be required to buy a Civic because there are some people that cant afford a BMW? Why is it that someone can get a better car just because they have more money?




Stop this trying to roll me into communist ideas, its a socialistic idea that is, again, being used by every other industrialized nation but us.

So now we should do it because everyone else does it, is that really your argument? Remember, the people from those countries that can afford it come to the US for medical care for a reason. Our medical care is better in every imaginable way.

[David88vert]

Why are u talking about housing? This isnt about housing, its about healthcare for all. Just like why Honda provides "safety for everyone" in all of their cars, DX to EX because its unfair to provide only a person that is better off than u; a chance to survive a crash. It is unfair in Honda's eyes to allow someone else that can spend just a bit more to drive a more "premium" class car in their lineup a higher chance of survival in an accident than any other person who picked up a lesser version of that same car.

Same thing in relation to healthcare, why is it that someone else can get the care they need if they have the $$ but another person with a little less $$ cannot? Stop this trying to roll me into communist ideas, its a socialistic idea that is, again, being used by every other industrialized nation but us.

Emergency care is already provided by our current system. No one can be refused emergency medical care under current laws.
The healthcare push from the liberal platform is to provide maintenance care to everyone through taxation. This is not the same thing.

Ultimately, it all comes down to this question: Who pays for it? Liberals claim it's everyone, but its not that simple. Those that pay federal payroll tax (including SS and Medicare), pay for the current system for everyone. Those that are working for cash, not working, or working in an environment where they can manipulate what they are "paid", pay less than most, or nothign at all. That's a lot of people. Everyone benefits though. Since this money is not enough to support additional healthcare, you will need another source of federal income to support the additional costs.

47% of Americans pay no income tax, it means the other 53% are paying all of the cost for the current programs offered by the government. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1
Please explain how it is fair for half of America to be forced to pay for the benefits of the entire country? Where is your social equality and justice in that?
You think that the rich don't pay enough, and should pay more?:
"The top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government."
"The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment."
"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
You think that is fair?

[BanginJimmy]

Something I heard today on the radio that made a lot of sense.


The truely rich, do not pay social security taxes, medicare taxes or income taxes. The truely rich are also not tied to any single country so they can go to wherever the tax situation and lifestyle are balanced to their liking.

The added taxes in the health care bill and if the Bush Tax cuts expire will affect only the high income earners. These are the people that worked their tails off going through college and working up the corporate or practice ladder into high paying positions. These high income earners are the men and women that routinely pulled all nighters studying at Harvard, Yale, and Cornell. They graduated and moved onto even higher degrees with even more long hours. After school, these evil people started doing the grunt work of a first year associate at a major law firm or doing rounds during their residency. What these people are not is trust fund babies that never work a day in their life. Even if they grew up with a silver spoon, they had to earn their stripes in the exact same manner as anyone else that sat in their seat.

[bu villain]

Wrong as usual. Care is not rationed in the US any more than BMW's and Vette's are. I dont have a lot of money, but I have a very nice health care plan because throughout my life I made a couple good choices to go along with the bad ones. I managed to learn a marketable skill that landed me a job with a multi-national corporation that offers its employees quality health and pension plans.

With that said, why should it be my responsibility to purchase a health care plan for someone that chose to break into a house instead of get a job? He got caught, served time, now cannot find more than a menial job because he is a felon. How about the 18y/o mother that has 2 kids by 2 different dads? Since I didnt get her pregnant, why should I foot the bill for it anymore than I already do?

Dont give me that crap about compassion either. I probably give a greater percentage of my money to charities than 99% of this board because the charities I give to, I know where the money is going. I know it is not going to the sponges of society, but to the kids that those sponges bring into the world.

Owning a BMW or Vette will not add 10 to 20 quality years to your life but access to basic healthcare can. You can't pretend we all live independently from one another. It's easy to just blame someone for their mistakes and wash your hands of them but it doesn't change the fact that our future as a society would be better if we have a healthier populace. Imagine how much more productive our society would be if sick days were cut in half and people could work 10 years longer. Healthcare costs would drop dramatically using smart preventative medicine. This is not about charity or fairness, this is effectiveness.

It's also interesting to see how you categorize poor people as all being deadbeats and felons.

[BanginJimmy]

Owning a BMW or Vette will not add 10 to 20 quality years to your life but access to basic healthcare can.

No it wont, but either will rationed healthcare.




You can't pretend we all live independently from one another. It's easy to just blame someone for their mistakes and wash your hands of them but it doesn't change the fact that our future as a society would be better if we have a healthier populace. Imagine how much more productive our society would be if sick days were cut in half and people could work 10 years longer.

The same can be said of our schools. How long has the govt been running those into the dirt all the while limiting your choices in which school you or your kids can go to.





Healthcare costs would drop dramatically using smart preventative medicine. This is not about charity or fairness, this is effectiveness.

I'm not going to search for the article again, but I posted one sometime last year in one of the other large healthcare threads about how all this preventive medicine will actually be more expensive when looked at on a macro scale. Basicly, if you run a $100 (low estimate) test on 1 million people a year for a disease that costs 100k (high estimate) to treat, you need to find 10,000 people with that disease every year just to break even. Even the most aggressive and widespread cancers dont have an infection rate even close to that.





It's also interesting to see how you categorize poor people as all being deadbeats and felons.

That is typicly the case. People that stay out of trouble and apply themselves to their schooling and work typically do not end up poor. I dont want to hear a sob story either about the lady with 2 kids and no job that is poor because her husband died or left either. That is a rare case and typically centers on someone that was pregnant at a young age and either didnt graduate from HS or didnt make an effort to get a job on her own or who was married to some deadbeat that was more worried about getting pussy and being cool that working and school. Both of which can be catagorized in with daedbeats and felons.

[David88vert]

Owning a BMW or Vette will not add 10 to 20 quality years to your life but access to basic healthcare can. You can't pretend we all live independently from one another. It's easy to just blame someone for their mistakes and wash your hands of them but it doesn't change the fact that our future as a society would be better if we have a healthier populace. Imagine how much more productive our society would be if sick days were cut in half and people could work 10 years longer. Healthcare costs would drop dramatically using smart preventative medicine. This is not about charity or fairness, this is effectiveness.

It's also interesting to see how you categorize poor people as all being deadbeats and felons.


The UN disagrees with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
France's and Norway's LE is 80, and the US is 78 - basic math tells you that it is 2, not 10 - and we have a lot more people die of unnatural causes - such as car crashes.

[bu villain]

No it wont, but either will rationed healthcare.

So are you arguing that providing regular basic health care will not increase quality and length of life at all?


The same can be said of our schools. How long has the govt been running those into the dirt all the while limiting your choices in which school you or your kids can go to.

What are you getting at? That everyone would be better educated if there were no public schools? I don't disagree that public schools suck, but the alternative would probably leave millions of kids receiving no education what so ever. Also I wasn't aware that the gov would stop you from attending a private school if you could afford it.



I'm not going to search for the article again, but I posted one sometime last year in one of the other large healthcare threads about how all this preventive medicine will actually be more expensive when looked at on a macro scale. Basicly, if you run a $100 (low estimate) test on 1 million people a year for a disease that costs 100k (high estimate) to treat, you need to find 10,000 people with that disease every year just to break even. Even the most aggressive and widespread cancers dont have an infection rate even close to that.

That's why you wouldn't test for that disease. We should only test for the things that would likely have an impact. That's why I said SMART preventative medicine. Additionally routine checkups are good for doctor patient interaction about health in general. Everyone knows cheeseburgers are not healthy but you are a lot more likely to change your diet if a doctor tells you that you are on track for a heart attack.


That is typicly the case. People that stay out of trouble and apply themselves to their schooling and work typically do not end up poor. I dont want to hear a sob story either about the lady with 2 kids and no job that is poor because her husband died or left either. That is a rare case and typically centers on someone that was pregnant at a young age and either didnt graduate from HS or didnt make an effort to get a job on her own or who was married to some deadbeat that was more worried about getting pussy and being cool that working and school. Both of which can be catagorized in with daedbeats and felons.

Any data to support this vast generalization? Even if this absurd statement were true, I still think our society would be better off if former felons, irresponsible mothers, and various other people who made mistakes in their lives were able to get BASIC health care.

[bu villain]

Sorry if you thought I meant every single person in the country would experience such results. The people with great health care plans already would not likely see an increase at all but the nearly 50 million people living below the poverty line might be a bit better off.

[BanginJimmy]

So are you arguing that providing regular basic health care will not increase quality and length of life at all?

Not for the people that are paying for it. The people that are paying for it will see no difference.




What are you getting at? That everyone would be better educated if there were no public schools? I don't disagree that public schools suck, but the alternative would probably leave millions of kids receiving no education what so ever. Also I wasn't aware that the gov would stop you from attending a private school if you could afford it.

That kids would be far better educated if the govt got out of the way. If I have kids that are of school age, let me take the portion of my taxes that go to schools and use it to put my kids through the school of my choice or give me a voucher equal to that sum. Under the current system, if I want to send my kids to a private school I have to pay to send your kids to school while paying additional money out of pocket to send my kids to school. If a voucher system was in place, anyone could afford to send their kids to private schools.





That's why you wouldn't test for that disease. We should only test for the things that would likely have an impact. That's why I said SMART preventative medicine. Additionally routine checkups are good for doctor patient interaction about health in general. Everyone knows cheeseburgers are not healthy but you are a lot more likely to change your diet if a doctor tells you that you are on track for a heart attack.

So what disease do you test for? I brought up cancer, what would have more of an impact than that? I know how we could reduce those costs, we could only test the people that fit a certain criteria and dont have any other serious health issues. We wont call that rationing though, we will call that SMART preventive medicine.

Do you really believe that the majority of people in this country are going to change their habits because a doctor says it isnt healthy? If that was the case, fast food chains would be gone and Phillip Morris execs would be looking for other jobs.




Any data to support this vast generalization? Even if this absurd statement were true, I still think our society would be better off if former felons, irresponsible mothers, and various other people who made mistakes in their lives were able to get BASIC health care.


Since 1996, the poverty rate of single-mother families declined by roughly 20 percent, from 41.9 percent to 33.6 percent in 2001.

Not an exact statistic, but 1/3 of all single mothers live in poverty.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_ajc-equal_time.htm

[BanginJimmy]

The people with great health care plans already would not likely see an increase at all but the nearly 50 million people living below the poverty line might be a bit better off.


Not true at all. There is no telling how many of those below the poverty line would simply go on doing what they did to start with such as eating too much garbage food, smoking, doing drugs and drinking too much alcohol.

[David88vert]

Sorry if you thought I meant every single person in the country would experience such results. The people with great health care plans already would not likely see an increase at all but the nearly 50 million people living below the poverty line might be a bit better off.

Not true. As I showed before, you will need additional funding to expand healthcare to 47 million additional people. That is fact.
As employers drop their plans, insurers will raise the rates to the employers that don't in order to keep their profit margins. Those that continue to have employer provided healthcare plans will have to pay more for the same coverage PLUS pay into the government program. The only option for millions will be to drop their plans and join the government plan - essentially forcing insurance companies out of the healthcare business and creating a single payer system.
The same happens for those with private pay healthcare plans.
Additionally, all of those employed by helathcare insurers will need to look for new jobs, which could dump more people into the government system, and cost them their healthcare plans.
Now, since the government is known to screw up almost every single program that they have ever done, do you think that these people will receive better care than they currently pay for? They won't, and you know it.

[bu villain]

Not for the people that are paying for it. The people that are paying for it will see no difference.

Well I am one of the ones paying for it and I think it's a worthwhile use of my money because the basic health of the people in my country concerns me.


That kids would be far better educated if the govt got out of the way. If I have kids that are of school age, let me take the portion of my taxes that go to schools and use it to put my kids through the school of my choice or give me a voucher equal to that sum. Under the current system, if I want to send my kids to a private school I have to pay to send your kids to school while paying additional money out of pocket to send my kids to school. If a voucher system was in place, anyone could afford to send their kids to private schools.

Hey that sounds great but how will you fund schooling for the kids of poor parents?


So what disease do you test for? I brought up cancer, what would have more of an impact than that? I know how we could reduce those costs, we could only test the people that fit a certain criteria and dont have any other serious health issues. We wont call that rationing though, we will call that SMART preventive medicine.

I am not a doctor so I can't tell you which diseases would be cost effective to test for. Additionally its not just testing for disease it's also vaccinations, education, and treatment. If you can discover and treat say high blood pressure with a cholesterol pill, that can save a lot of money if it prevents an emergency room trip for a heart attack. I don't understand why you equate preventative medicine with rationing.


Do you really believe that the majority of people in this country are going to change their habits because a doctor says it isnt healthy? If that was the case, fast food chains would be gone and Phillip Morris execs would be looking for other jobs.

I agree some people will never change certain habits but many others will. Look at the rates of smoking in this country over the last 50 years. What do you attribute the declines to if not education about the health consequences? Do you really not know anyone who has changed their diet, drinking/smoking habits, or exercise based on their doctor's advice? How many diabetecs do you think died because they couldn't be bothered with their insulin injections? Just because something is not a cure all does not mean it has no value.


Not an exact statistic, but 1/3 of all single mothers live in poverty.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_ajc-equal_time.htm

This is incorrect logic to assume (if p then q) means (if q then p). Even if 3/3 single mothers live in poverty, that doesn't mean that any significant portion of poor people are single mothers. To make matters worse, you are further assuming that most single mothers are so because they were just plain irresponsible as opposed to death of a husband, divorce, etc.

[bu villain]

Not true. As I showed before, you will need additional funding to expand healthcare to 47 million additional people. That is fact.

Never said it wouldn't take additional funding. You quoted where I said that those with good health care now wouldn't see an increase but that was talking about an increase in life expectancy, not costs.


As employers drop their plans, insurers will raise the rates to the employers that don't in order to keep their profit margins. Those that continue to have employer provided healthcare plans will have to pay more for the same coverage PLUS pay into the government program. The only option for millions will be to drop their plans and join the government plan - essentially forcing insurance companies out of the healthcare business and creating a single payer system.
The same happens for those with private pay healthcare plans.
Additionally, all of those employed by helathcare insurers will need to look for new jobs, which could dump more people into the government system, and cost them their healthcare plans.

Why hasn't the government option pushed private schools out of business, or UPS/FedEx out of the mail business? There will always be a private market for people who want better coverage and better customer service than the government will provide.


Now, since the government is known to screw up almost every single program that they have ever done, do you think that these people will receive better care than they currently pay for? They won't, and you know it.

I am pretty happy with many government programs (NASA, FDA, national highway system, USPS just to name a few). You are right though that I don't think people who pay for their health care now will get better care by having a government option, but that's not my goal. My first goal is to get everyone a basic level of care and then secondly, how to bring down costs for everyone.

[David88vert]

Never said it wouldn't take additional funding. You quoted where I said that those with good health care now wouldn't see an increase but that was talking about an increase in life expectancy, not costs.

Why hasn't the government option pushed private schools out of business, or UPS/FedEx out of the mail business? There will always be a private market for people who want better coverage and better customer service than the government will provide.

I am pretty happy with many government programs (NASA, FDA, national highway system, USPS just to name a few). You are right though that I don't think people who pay for their health care now will get better care by having a government option, but that's not my goal. My first goal is to get everyone a basic level of care and then secondly, how to bring down costs for everyone.

The UN has shown that the average life expectancy will not change. However, if people have to pay out more to fund other people's healthcare costs, where do you think they will suffer? The most likely place is in the quality of the food they purchase. If they are forced to purchase lower quality food, then their health may suffer.

Do you have any idea how much private school costs? I do. I send my daughter to private school, and believe me, it is a sacrifice. I have no choice but to make this sacrifice though, as public education is so poor in quality in Georgia, and specifically in DeKalb County, that I cannot place her in a location that is not conducive to her development. Luckily, there are enough other people who feel the same way and make the sacrifice. I also sacrifice to provide them with quality private healthcare insurance - as a responsible parent should. A government program would increase my cost and sacrifice to maintain the status quo. How is that fair to someone who works and provides for his family? Your method of providing healthcare lowers the quality of care and raises the cost for me and my family - and these are the people that I am personally responsible for - not a stranger on the other side of the country who chooses to drink and smoke and ruin their kidneys, lungs,and heart, and who is unwilling to pay for his own health insurance.

[bu villain]

The UN has shown that the average life expectancy will not change. However, if people have to pay out more to fund other people's healthcare costs, where do you think they will suffer? The most likely place is in the quality of the food they purchase. If they are forced to purchase lower quality food, then their health may suffer.

I would like to see the UN data you are talking about. If going to the doctor for regular checkups and basic health care doesn't extend life or at least improve quality of life, why does anyone do it?

I don't find your food argument convincing. Everyone in life has to decide how to allocate their money. You could make the same argument about every single dollar paid in taxes, whether it is for healthcare or anything else. There is no particular reason to assume if taxes go up that everyone will start eating worse food.


Do you have any idea how much private school costs? I do. I send my daughter to private school, and believe me, it is a sacrifice. I have no choice but to make this sacrifice though, as public education is so poor in quality in Georgia, and specifically in DeKalb County, that I cannot place her in a location that is not conducive to her development. Luckily, there are enough other people who feel the same way and make the sacrifice. I also sacrifice to provide them with quality private healthcare insurance - as a responsible parent should. A government program would increase my cost and sacrifice to maintain the status quo. How is that fair to someone who works and provides for his family? Your method of providing healthcare lowers the quality of care and raises the cost for me and my family - and these are the people that I am personally responsible for - not a stranger on the other side of the country who chooses to drink and smoke and ruin their kidneys, lungs,and heart, and who is unwilling to pay for his own health insurance.

I can sympathize with your concern about costs as I also am the sole provider for my family (including a good health care plan). I think working to reduce the costs of healthcare is one of the most important issues facing our country today, but it's still secondary to providing basic coverage to everyone.

I pay taxes for public schools and I have no kids, is that fair? In my opinion, it is because it does benefit me to live in a society where everyone is given an education. You benefit as well in the same way even if your kids go to private school.

Is it fair for you to pay for someone's health care who drank and smoked their whole life? No it's not but it's also not fair that someone like you go bankrupt because your child gets a serious disease (medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country). If I have to pay for the smokers health care in order to ensure you won't go bankrupt if your child gets that disease, I will make that deal.

You say that it is difficult to provide health care and private schooling with your income but you chastise people who can't afford health care. It sounds like you draw the line for reasonable cost of health care at what you can afford. I can't help but wonder if your feelings would change if healthcare becomes more than you can afford.

[David88vert]

I would like to see the UN data you are talking about. If going to the doctor for regular checkups and basic health care doesn't extend life or at least improve quality of life, why does anyone do it?

I don't find your food argument convincing. Everyone in life has to decide how to allocate their money. You could make the same argument about every single dollar paid in taxes, whether it is for healthcare or anything else. There is no particular reason to assume if taxes go up that everyone will start eating worse food.



I can sympathize with your concern about costs as I also am the sole provider for my family (including a good health care plan). I think working to reduce the costs of healthcare is one of the most important issues facing our country today, but it's still secondary to providing basic coverage to everyone.

I pay taxes for public schools and I have no kids, is that fair? In my opinion, it is because it does benefit me to live in a society where everyone is given an education. You benefit as well in the same way even if your kids go to private school.

Is it fair for you to pay for someone's health care who drank and smoked their whole life? No it's not but it's also not fair that someone like you go bankrupt because your child gets a serious disease (medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country). If I have to pay for the smokers health care in order to ensure you won't go bankrupt if your child gets that disease, I will make that deal.

You say that it is difficult to provide health care and private schooling with your income but you chastise people who can't afford health care. It sounds like you draw the line for reasonable cost of health care at what you can afford. I can't help but wonder if your feelings would change if healthcare becomes more than you can afford.

I just posted up the link in post #112 in the previous page - did you not read my post?
"The UN disagrees with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country
France's and Norway's LE is 80, and the US is 78 - basic math tells you that it is 2, not 10 - and we have a lot more people die of unnatural causes - such as car crashes. "

If a family's costs rise, but their income does not, where do you think they will cut? I suggest you do some studying - try reading the 1910 study by Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree in York, England. BBC did a special on it called A Life Without Work. Rowntree found that people had to spend on their shelter, and would spend less on their food, and even go without, to have shelter first. This had a direct effect on their health. BBC also showed that it still is happening the same way now - a 100 years later.
My food analogy was based upon fact, so believe what you want, but you are simply in denial as it does not agree with what you want to see.

The education that the public schools provide is not worth the cost. Take a look at how many people are out doing the worng thing or working for peanuts. How about all of those on government assistance? Guess where they got their education from.

I had a friend that went bankrupt from his child's sickness. He was able to rebuild after a few years and all of them are living fine now. The hospitals wrote off the costs, and the taxpayers ultimately paid for it. The current status quo cost less per family than your proposal to prepay these occurances.

My feelings won't change. I have made sacrifices to prepare my family's finances. Why should I have prepare other peoples financial situations for them? That is exactly what you are after. You are saying that I, the one who has sacrificed and prepared and planned properly to take care of my family, should pay the healthcare costs of people who do not. You are saying that I am not smart enough to know how to spend the money that I work for and earn, and that my money should be taken from me by the government, and the government, in its infinite knowledge, knows how to spend my money better than I do. That they can provide proper healthcare for everyone, when they can't even get basic programs like Social Security - I won't rely on it either.

[BanginJimmy]

I think working to reduce the costs of healthcare is one of the most important issues facing our country today, but it's still secondary to providing basic coverage to everyone.

And again I ask. Name a single portion of the healthcare law that will REDUCE costs to anyone.


I pay taxes for public schools and I have no kids, is that fair? In my opinion, it is because it does benefit me to live in a society where everyone is given an education. You benefit as well in the same way even if your kids go to private school.

I realize I will have to live with paying to send some deadbeat's kids to school for them, but if I have kids that are currently in private school, why should I pay for my kids AND the deadbeat's kids?

The problem with the voucher programs is that they work and the govt teachers are afraid their poor quality education will be phased out in favor of a decent education.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/press-releases/african-american-students-increase-test-scores-in-school-voucher-programs,-study-shows




Is it fair for you to pay for someone's health care who drank and smoked their whole life? No it's not but it's also not fair that someone like you go bankrupt because your child gets a serious disease (medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country). If I have to pay for the smokers health care in order to ensure you won't go bankrupt if your child gets that disease, I will make that deal.

I wont go bankrupt because I do have insurance. So again, why should I pay double so someone else doesnt have to pay anything?

Now, if the govt comes back and says this new program will not cover HS dropouts, smokers, those who drink excessively, and the obese, then we can talk.

Quit rewarding those that make poor life and lifestyle choices and you will find that the numbers of those that engage in that behavior will drop.


You say that it is difficult to provide health care and private schooling with your income but you chastise people who can't afford health care. It sounds like you draw the line for reasonable cost of health care at what you can afford. I can't help but wonder if your feelings would change if healthcare becomes more than you can afford.

If he is anything like me, you then make cuts in the extras to afford the things that are required.

A major medical plan costs as much as your average cell phone bill. So anyone that has a cell phone and no medical coverage I will say that they made a choice that a cell phone was more important to them then covering themselves for a medical disaster.

Just a quick search on ehealthinsurance.com for my zip code and my b-day

a plan from Humana One for example:

yearly deductible: $5200
coinsurance: 0 after deductible has been met.
Office visits: 0 after deductible has been met

Cost: $53.82 a month

[Browning151]

A major medical plan costs as much as your average cell phone bill. So anyone that has a cell phone and no medical coverage I will say that they made a choice that a cell phone was more important to them then covering themselves for a medical disaster.

Exactly, it's all about personal choice and some people don't want to take responsibility for themselves. That goes hand in hand with welfare programs, if you have a cell phone, cable tv, internet access, buy cigarettes or alcohol then you have no business getting "assistance" from the gov't. Quit spending your money on luxury items and spend it on feeding your family. We've gotten to the point of such an ass-backwards view of things in this country: "I can't afford to put food on the table and have a cell phone, so I'll get the cell phone and let the gov't pay for my needs" instead of people providing basic living necessities and then if anything is left over you get to enjoy luxury spending. Cell phones, cable tv, internet and all that other junk are not basic necessities than anyone must have to live and that should be first priority when it comes to budgeting ones spending.

[bu villain]

I just posted up the link in post #112 in the previous page - did you not read my post?
"The UN disagrees with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country
France's and Norway's LE is 80, and the US is 78 - basic math tells you that it is 2, not 10 - and we have a lot more people die of unnatural causes - such as car crashes. ".

I already responded to that when you first made the post but you still didn't answer my question. So your position is that going to a doctor for basic health care has no value?


If a family's costs rise, but their income does not, where do you think they will cut? I suggest you do some studying - try reading the 1910 study by Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree in York, England. BBC did a special on it called A Life Without Work. Rowntree found that people had to spend on their shelter, and would spend less on their food, and even go without, to have shelter first. This had a direct effect on their health. BBC also showed that it still is happening the same way now - a 100 years later.
My food analogy was based upon fact, so believe what you want, but you are simply in denial as it does not agree with what you want to see..

Your cherry picked facts are not telling the whole story. It's not hard to see the rediculousness of your argument. You really think someone with a 250,000 dollar house driving a beamer is going to have their grocery bill as the first item on the chopping block if their health care costs go up? And as we both know poor people don't pay taxes so they don't have to make any sacrafices.


The education that the public schools provide is not worth the cost. Take a look at how many people are out doing the worng thing or working for peanuts. How about all of those on government assistance? Guess where they got their education from..

You believe if we just got rid of public schools we wouldn't have people doing the wrong thing, making low wages, or being on government assistance. Really?


I had a friend that went bankrupt from his child's sickness. He was able to rebuild after a few years and all of them are living fine now. The hospitals wrote off the costs, and the taxpayers ultimately paid for it. The current status quo cost less per family than your proposal to prepay these occurances.

That's exactly opposite of what I am advocating. I already said if testing would cost more than the savings of finding problems early then I wouldn't support that test.


My feelings won't change. I have made sacrifices to prepare my family's finances. Why should I have prepare other peoples financial situations for them? That is exactly what you are after. You are saying that I, the one who has sacrificed and prepared and planned properly to take care of my family, should pay the healthcare costs of people who do not. You are saying that I am not smart enough to know how to spend the money that I work for and earn, and that my money should be taken from me by the government, and the government, in its infinite knowledge, knows how to spend my money better than I do. That they can provide proper healthcare for everyone, when they can't even get basic programs like Social Security - I won't rely on it either.

I realize you feel no moral obligation to help anyone out but your own family even if it would benefit the world your family lives in. Point made.

[bu villain]

And again I ask. Name a single portion of the healthcare law that will REDUCE costs to anyone.

I am sorry, I didn't know I was talking about the healthcare law.


I realize I will have to live with paying to send some deadbeat's kids to school for them, but if I have kids that are currently in private school, why should I pay for my kids AND the deadbeat's kids?

Because if he goes to school there is a better chance that the deadbeat's kids won't be on welfare when he grows up and thus taking your tax money/robbing you.


The problem with the voucher programs is that they work and the govt teachers are afraid their poor quality education will be phased out in favor of a decent education.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/press-releases/african-american-students-increase-test-scores-in-school-voucher-programs,-study-shows

Yes if we only had private schools, education would be better for those at school but there would be millions of kids not going to school at all.


I wont go bankrupt because I do have insurance. So again, why should I pay double so someone else doesnt have to pay anything?
Now, if the govt comes back and says this new program will not cover HS dropouts, smokers, those who drink excessively, and the obese, then we can talk.
Quit rewarding those that make poor life and lifestyle choices and you will find that the numbers of those that engage in that behavior will drop.

A large percentage of people who go bankrupt from medical bills have health insurance too. I don't think we should cover a liver replacement for an alcoholic or a stomach staple for a fat person either. I am mostly advocating for basic health care. I wouldn't count either of those things as being basic. I prefer to use education as the method of changing behavior rather than trying to quicken the inevitable decline of a person's life.


A major medical plan costs as much as your average cell phone bill. So anyone that has a cell phone and no medical coverage I will say that they made a choice that a cell phone was more important to them then covering themselves for a medical disaster.
Just a quick search on ehealthinsurance.com for my zip code and my b-day
a plan from Humana One for example:
yearly deductible: $5200
coinsurance: 0 after deductible has been met.
Office visits: 0 after deductible has been met
Cost: $53.82 a month

Wow, I am totally getting ripped off by my corporate health plan. It costs about $500 a month and that's just for me and my wife with no preexisting conditions under 30 years old.

[David88vert]

I already responded to that when you first made the post but you still didn't answer my question. So your position is that going to a doctor for basic health care has no value?

Your cherry picked facts are not telling the whole story. It's not hard to see the rediculousness of your argument. You really think someone with a 250,000 dollar house driving a beamer is going to have their grocery bill as the first item on the chopping block if their health care costs go up? And as we both know poor people don't pay taxes so they don't have to make any sacrafices.

You believe if we just got rid of public schools we wouldn't have people doing the wrong thing, making low wages, or being on government assistance. Really?

That's exactly opposite of what I am advocating. I already said if testing would cost more than the savings of finding problems early then I wouldn't support that test.

I realize you feel no moral obligation to help anyone out but your own family even if it would benefit the world your family lives in. Point made.

I never said that going to the doctor had no value. It is a simple fact though that the countries that provide socialized healthcare do not see s general increase on longevity - which was one of your original points. It is simply not true for society in general. Other factors have a larger effect than a 15-30 min docitor visit. Health-based choices, such as proper eating, rest, stress reduction, etc, play a much bigger role for the general population.

I am not cherry picking - I am talking about the majority of the population. The families that make under 100K GROSS are going to faced with choices. Do you no care about the families that have experienced the loss of a income earner? They are the ones that do pay taxes but are being forced to change their quality of life with reduced income. Leveling everything by decimating everything is Marxism.

I never said that we would get rid of the public school system, but I will say that it does not properly prepare people to be successful. This is due to a variety of reasons, one of which is a poor nuturing environment. BTW - Do you realize that federal income tax is not how the majortity of the public education system is funded? It is mostly from local property taxes and state resources. Its simple to remove the majority of those taxes if you desire - rent or move to a cheaper location.

Again - who decides what tests are too be done? And if a test is not provided under the plan, who is responsible for those who die due to be refused the test that might save their life? Is it the doctor, the government, who?

I already pay more in taxes each year than you make gross. Who are you to decide that I should provide more for society? I am trying to improve my society - by directly improving my own family members lives first. Your ideas only drag everyone down to the same level, rather than improving the ones that you actually can interface with. I already contribute more financially to general society than you do, but you seem to think that I am should be obligated to pay more of what I work for to those who do not put out the same level of effort? What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

[David88vert]

A large percentage of people who go bankrupt from medical bills have health insurance too. I don't think we should cover a liver replacement for an alcoholic or a stomach staple for a fat person either. I am mostly advocating for basic health care. I wouldn't count either of those things as being basic. I prefer to use education as the method of changing behavior rather than trying to quicken the inevitable decline of a person's life.

Wow, I am totally getting ripped off by my corporate health plan. It costs about $500 a month and that's just for me and my wife with no preexisting conditions under 30 years old.

So, you believe that someone should be playing God and denying care to those who do not fit into your definition of basic healthcare. That is rationing - which we have been explaining to you for days.

Yes, you are getting ripped off - BIG TIME. I pay less than $300/month for excellent coverage for a family of 4 with Blue Cross Blue Shield of GA, including Long Term Disability, and Long Term Care. My office visits cost me nothing, and I have no maximum lifetime benefit limitation. Since I get it through my employer, it is pre-tax dollars also. I suggest that you reshop for insurance.

[BanginJimmy]

Because if he goes to school there is a better chance that the deadbeat's kids won't be on welfare when he grows up and thus taking your tax money/robbing you.

His parents should be sending him to school, but as I said, I dont like it, I dont agree with it, but I'm also not losing sleep over my property taxes going to fund schools.



Yes if we only had private schools, education would be better for those at school but there would be millions of kids not going to school at all.

OK let me try this very simple idea again as it obviously went over your head. I will try smaller words this time.

If you use a voucher program you are using the money YOU HAVE ALREADY PAID through property taxes to pay for the school. There is little to nothing more out of pocket and if it is like most of the schools I am familiar with, it is actually cheaper per student to send them to a middle of the road private school than it is to send a kid to a govt school in the same area.






A large percentage of people who go bankrupt from medical bills have health insurance too. I don't think we should cover a liver replacement for an alcoholic or a stomach staple for a fat person either. I am mostly advocating for basic health care. I wouldn't count either of those things as being basic. I prefer to use education as the method of changing behavior rather than trying to quicken the inevitable decline of a person's life.

No one is going bankrupt because they dont have the cash for a checkup and get their blood pressure checked. They are going bankrupt because of cancer and other diseases that would be covered by a major medical plan. When averaged over a full year, a family of 4 can manage to get their check-ups and vaccs for less than $50 a month. Major medical is why people go bankrupt and I could draw up a plan that would cover everyone, including the illegals, with a major medical plan for less than half of what the current legislation will cost. That plan I used as an example would cover 50 million people for ~30bil a year with a final price tag of 400bil over 10 years (I was generous the bureaucratic expenses). That is less than half of the price tag that the current legislation has and would cover even more people.




Wow, I am totally getting ripped off by my corporate health plan. It costs about $500 a month and that's just for me and my wife with no preexisting conditions under 30 years old.

Yes you are. I have a higher end plan and mine costs me about $170 a month for me and my wife. I pay $20 for any doc visit and $50 for an emergency room visit. No lifetime or yearly caps and I honestly cant think of anything that isnt covered. Scripts cost me $5 for generic, and $15 for name brand if there is a generic available.

[AirMax95]

$500 a month? Holy shit, I'd be mad too.

[BanginJimmy]

$500 a month? Holy shit, I'd be mad too.

Now we know why he is such a fan of a single payer. He stands to gain from it.

[bu villain]

This is a very interesting debate and I hope some others will jump in so we have more than 3 opinions. I think Jimmy and David have many very valid points but we have differing morals that can not be reconciled. Just to summarize my opinion:

1. I am not advocating single payer for ALL healthcare expenses (only basic and preventative that can be shown to save money)
2. I am not advocating the "Obama" health care law
3. We should strive to provide catastrophic insurance that EVERY american can afford

PS. David, how did you get a hold of my financial information? Seriously, I want to know.

[David88vert]

This is a very interesting debate and I hope some others will jump in so we have more than 3 opinions. I think Jimmy and David have many very valid points but we have differing morals that can not be reconciled. Just to summarize my opinion:

1. I am not advocating single payer for ALL healthcare expenses (only basic and preventative that can be shown to save money)
2. I am not advocating the "Obama" health care law
3. We should strive to provide catastrophic insurance that EVERY american can afford

PS. David, how did you get a hold of my financial information? Seriously, I want to know.

We already have emergency care. No one can be refused at the hospital. That point is already taken care of without Obamacare.
Basic, limited coverage is a negotiable item, which I do not have a problem with it being discussed and a potential plan for all US citizens; however, that has never been the intent of Obamacare. From day one, it has been planned for it to become a single-payer government-controlled system.
If you are not advocating Obamacare, perhaps you should develop and document your own plan, and share it with you Congressman. See how far that gets you.
You have posted some basic financial information on yourself in the threads in this forum. Perhaps I have some of yours confused with blaknoize. You are paying too much for insurance, regardless though if you are paying $500 per month for 2 adults with no previous issues.

[bu villain]

If you are not advocating Obamacare, perhaps you should develop and document your own plan, and share it with you Congressman. See how far that gets you.

I don't think that would be a good use of my time. I am no expert in health care and do not want to engage in such a crusade. However I do have the time and will for a little debating so that I can at least open myself up to new ideas and perspectives and hopefully do the same for others who are willing.


You have posted some basic financial information on yourself in the threads in this forum. Perhaps I have some of yours confused with blaknoize.

Maybe you mixed us up. I could try to impress you with how much I make (or taxes I pay) but that has no relevance to this topic anyways. Ideas should be judged on their merits, not the individual expressing them.


You are paying too much for insurance, regardless though if you are paying $500 per month for 2 adults with no previous issues.

Sounds like it. My company offers several plans. I used to be on the one that only costs around 40 bucks a month but I switched to the highest one because my wife and I plan on having a child soon. I had two coworkers recently who compared the cost of their first year with a kid on the highest and lowest plans. It turned out to be pretty much a wash in the end. If there were complications, I don't want to lose my house so I was willing to make the high payment to ensure I will be covered under the worst of circumstances. I will shop around more though to see if I can get a better rate. Thanks for the advice.

[David88vert]

I don't think that would be a good use of my time. I am no expert in health care and do not want to engage in such a crusade. However I do have the time and will for a little debating so that I can at least open myself up to new ideas and perspectives and hopefully do the same for others who are willing.

Maybe you mixed us up. I could try to impress you with how much I make (or taxes I pay) but that has no relevance to this topic anyways. Ideas should be judged on their merits, not the individual expressing them.

Sounds like it. My company offers several plans. I used to be on the one that only costs around 40 bucks a month but I switched to the highest one because my wife and I plan on having a child soon. I had two coworkers recently who compared the cost of their first year with a kid on the highest and lowest plans. It turned out to be pretty much a wash in the end. If there were complications, I don't want to lose my house so I was willing to make the high payment to ensure I will be covered under the worst of circumstances. I will shop around more though to see if I can get a better rate. Thanks for the advice.

Actually, it might be a good use of your time, as our Congress can't seem to get the job done right. As much time as we discuss it on here, you could probably already be done. :-)

I probably did, as one of the two of you was commenting on how little he made, but hopefully will make more in the future.

A good plan should not be too expensive. When my son was born 18 months ago, it cost me a total of $250, and everything else was fully covered - about $14K. As I mentioned earlier, I do not pay anywhere nearly as much as you do. Check to see if you can get a good deal on BCBS through a private insurer. You can also check them direct: http://www.bcbsga.com/health-insurance/plans-and-benefits/pb-overview

[BanginJimmy]

1. I am not advocating single payer for ALL healthcare expenses (only basic and preventative that can be shown to save money)

3. We should strive to provide catastrophic insurance that EVERY american can afford



Are you advocating for preventive care, or for catastrophic care? As I made an example of earlier, major medical care can be had for the cost of a cell phone bill for an individual. For a family it would be more expensive, but if you choose to have a family, you should think of this beforehand.

[bu villain]

Are you advocating for preventive care, or for catastrophic care? As I made an example of earlier, major medical care can be had for the cost of a cell phone bill for an individual. For a family it would be more expensive, but if you choose to have a family, you should think of this beforehand.

Both. Preventative care when it is determined to save costs in the long run (e.g., keeping people out of the emergency room) and catastrophic for unforseen issues that require large amounts of care (e.g., child born with faulty heart valve). Your example is an interesting point but it doesn't tell the whole story. It's difficult to compare apples to apples with insurance because there are so many factors (previous histories, deductables, out of pocket maximums, etc). For some the costs may be as low as you state while for others it can be quite a bit higher.

[BanginJimmy]

Both. Preventative care when it is determined to save costs in the long run (e.g., keeping people out of the emergency room) and catastrophic for unforseen issues that require large amounts of care (e.g., child born with faulty heart valve). Your example is an interesting point but it doesn't tell the whole story. It's difficult to compare apples to apples with insurance because there are so many factors (previous histories, deductables, out of pocket maximums, etc). For some the costs may be as low as you state while for others it can be quite a bit higher.


So you want your typical employer provided health care plan at the typical employer health care price, but without the employer to pay the 50-80% of the premium.


Buying your own health care plan is NOT considerably more expensive than your average employer provided plan. You just dont have the employer to pick up the lion's share of the price.

[bu villain]

So you want your typical employer provided health care plan at the typical employer health care price, but without the employer to pay the 50-80% of the premium.

I believe many typical plans require copays for visits and often a percentage of tests and treatment even for basic services. Also I didn't say I expected it to cost the same price as a corporate plan.


Buying your own health care plan is NOT considerably more expensive than your average employer provided plan. You just dont have the employer to pick up the lion's share of the price.

I agree but I'm not sure what your point is.

We have spent a lot of time discussing my ideas, so let's give yours some attention. Give me your views on the following:

1. Do you think it's a problem that medical bills are one of the top causes of bankruptcy? If so, how can we change that? If not, why not?

2. How do we keep people from using the emergency room as an alternative to traditional care?

3. Would our society be better off if everyone had health insurance? If so, how can we convince those without it to attain it? If not, how do you feel about people defaulting on their medical bills?

[David88vert]

I believe many typical plans require copays for visits and often a percentage of tests and treatment even for basic services. Also I didn't say I expected it to cost the same price as a corporate plan.
I agree but I'm not sure what your point is.
We have spent a lot of time discussing my ideas, so let's give yours some attention. Give me your views on the following:

1. Do you think it's a problem that medical bills are one of the top causes of bankruptcy? If so, how can we change that? If not, why not?

2. How do we keep people from using the emergency room as an alternative to traditional care?

3. Would our society be better off if everyone had health insurance? If so, how can we convince those without it to attain it? If not, how do you feel about people defaulting on their medical bills?

So, you think that we need to provide more care to more people, but it won't cost as much? Do you really believe that? If so, then there is no possible way that you will ever understand enough about health cost for your opinion to be relavent.

1. Why does it need to change? If someone does not choose to have enough medical coverage, and ends up in bankruptcy, then so be it. Bankruptcy is not the end of the world. They can rebuild their credit quickly if it was due to medical costs.
Canada still has bankruptcys due to medical costs: http://www.american.com/archive/2009/august/the-medical-bankruptcy-myth
http://www.gabar.org/communications/consumer_pamphlet_series/bankruptcy/


2. The answer is personal responsibility. Until people change their own habits, and get insurance, they will continue to exploit the system to get something for nothing. A lot of illegals abuse the system this way. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125027261061432585.html

3. No, it would be best if everyone that might need insurance to be able to pay their medical bills would get it - illegal and legal. The rich can afford their bills, so they will not need insurance.
How do you convince people to get it - teach them to be responsible for themselves and their family, rather than tell them to let the government take care of them.
If they default and declare bankruptcy, they can rebuild from there. It is not the end of their lives. they won't lose their house, as it is considered an unsecured debt by law.

[Browning151]

So, you think that we need to provide more care to more people, but it won't cost as much? Do you really believe that? If so, then there is no possible way that you will ever understand enough about health cost for your opinion to be relavent.

1. Why does it need to change? If someone does not choose to have enough medical coverage, and ends up in bankruptcy, then so be it. Bankruptcy is not the end of the world. They can rebuild their credit quickly if it was due to medical costs.
Canada still has bankruptcys due to medical costs: http://www.american.com/archive/2009/august/the-medical-bankruptcy-myth
http://www.gabar.org/communications/consumer_pamphlet_series/bankruptcy/


2. The answer is personal responsibility. Until people change their own habits, and get insurance, they will continue to exploit the system to get something for nothing. A lot of illegals abuse the system this way. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125027261061432585.html

3. No, it would be best if everyone that might need insurance to be able to pay their medical bills would get it - illegal and legal. The rich can afford their bills, so they will not need insurance.
How do you convince people to get it - teach them to be responsible for themselves and their family, rather than tell them to let the government take care of them.
If they default and declare bankruptcy, they can rebuild from there. It is not the end of their lives. they won't lose their house, as it is considered an unsecured debt by law.

I completely agree here.

You cannot force people to be healthy and you cannot force them to be responsible, those are things that must be taught. Requiring that people purchase health insurance or moving to a single player system only makes people more reliant on gov't. We simply cannot expect that every social problem be left to the gov't to be remedied, at some point people have to take personal responsibility for their actions.

[BanginJimmy]

I believe many typical plans require copays for visits and often a percentage of tests and treatment even for basic services. Also I didn't say I expected it to cost the same price as a corporate plan.

Then how much should it cost? The answer to that question, alone with what factors are allowed to impact that price, is the answer to this whole debate if you ask me.



1. Do you think it's a problem that medical bills are one of the top causes of bankruptcy? If so, how can we change that? If not, why not?

No I dont think that is a problem when you take it as a whole. Specific examples may be an issue with me, but as a general statement, no. It comes down to personal responsibility. If you are responsible in your life, you will have the support system, such as family and work, to get back on your feet even if a major illness causes you to go into bankruptcy.


2. How do we keep people from using the emergency room as an alternative to traditional care?

There is no way to do this without allowing hospitals to turn people away. I dont agree with this approach though as there are times that major medical issue can seem final at first glance.



3. Would our society be better off if everyone had health insurance? If so, how can we convince those without it to attain it? If not, how do you feel about people defaulting on their medical bills?

No, our society will not be any better off if everyone had health insurance. Individuals would be, but society as a whole would not be. First off, if people dont want something, then they should not be required to buy it. It really is that simple. If you choose not to buy insurance, then you should be liable for the entire cost of your bills.

As I have pointed out, the cost of your average cell phone will pay for your major medical coverage. If you choose a cell phone over medical coverage, then you take that risk and should reap the consequences of that poor decision.

[bu villain]

So, you think that we need to provide more care to more people, but it won't cost as much? Do you really believe that? If so, then there is no possible way that you will ever understand enough about health cost for your opinion to be relavent..

Generally speaking I agree with you. I said costs would change, you just assumed I meant downward. However, I admit I don't know the full impact because the fact is that right now many people are getting care and not paying their bills and you are paying for them. Right now you pay through higher costs passed on by the hospitals, with a government plan you pay through taxes. I don't really know which way is worse.


1. Why does it need to change? If someone does not choose to have enough medical coverage, and ends up in bankruptcy, then so be it. Bankruptcy is not the end of the world. They can rebuild their credit quickly if it was due to medical costs.
Canada still has bankruptcys due to medical costs: http://www.american.com/archive/2009/august/the-medical-bankruptcy-myth
http://www.gabar.org/communications/consumer_pamphlet_series/bankruptcy/
.

There will always be bankruptcy for medical payments of course. The question is what is a reasonable level? If 99% of the population was going bankrupt for this reason, it would seem something is wrong that needs to be addressed. Of course percentages are no where near 99% but you get my point hopefully. What is an acceptable rate?


2. The answer is personal responsibility. Until people change their own habits, and get insurance, they will continue to exploit the system to get something for nothing. A lot of illegals abuse the system this way. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125027261061432585.html.

That would be great but we don't live in that world so unless you are happy with people not paying their medical bills at the rate they are now, and jacking hospital costs up, just telling someone to be more responsible won't solve the problem.



3. No, it would be best if everyone that might need insurance to be able to pay their medical bills would get it - illegal and legal. The rich can afford their bills, so they will not need insurance.
How do you convince people to get it - teach them to be responsible for themselves and their family, rather than tell them to let the government take care of them.
If they default and declare bankruptcy, they can rebuild from there. It is not the end of their lives. they won't lose their house, as it is considered an unsecured debt by law.

Once again, this would be ideal but teaching an entire nation of people (many recent immigrants) to share your morals is going to be difficult and take a lot of time.

[bu villain]

Then how much should it cost? The answer to that question, alone with what factors are allowed to impact that price, is the answer to this whole debate if you ask me.

Agreed 100%. For me, the cost should be such that any family working a respectable job should be able to afford it without going bankrupt (except maybe in the worst circumstances). I know this is somewhat vague because the exact details are too complex but this is my general opinion.


No I dont think that is a problem when you take it as a whole. Specific examples may be an issue with me, but as a general statement, no. It comes down to personal responsibility. If you are responsible in your life, you will have the support system, such as family and work, to get back on your feet even if a major illness causes you to go into bankruptcy.

On an emotionally level I agree. I was raised to be responsible for myself and my actions. On an intellectual level though I recognize that others do not live by the same mantra and their actions still affect me through increased hospital costs and various other social issues. I would like to minimize those effects if possible.


There is no way to do this without allowing hospitals to turn people away. I dont agree with this approach though as there are times that major medical issue can seem final at first glance.

I assume you are talking about immediately life threatening issues. Otherwise I believe hospitals can and do turn people away.


No, our society will not be any better off if everyone had health insurance. Individuals would be, but society as a whole would not be. First off, if people dont want something, then they should not be required to buy it. It really is that simple. If you choose not to buy insurance, then you should be liable for the entire cost of your bills.

I disagree it's that simple (don't want it = don't pay for it). We pay taxes but certainly we do not all agree with every dollar spent on taxes. Likewise we pay for individuals who default on medical bills when we pay ours because the hospital has to recover their losses through paying customers.


As I have pointed out, the cost of your average cell phone will pay for your major medical coverage. If you choose a cell phone over medical coverage, then you take that risk and should reap the consequences of that poor decision.

To reiterate I don't believe those costs are accurate for many people in this country. For some people yes, but for everyone, no. Also many jobs require you have a phone so your employer can contact you so you can't necessarily make that trade.

[David88vert]

There will always be bankruptcy for medical payments of course. The question is what is a reasonable level? If 99% of the population was going bankrupt for this reason, it would seem something is wrong that needs to be addressed. Of course percentages are no where near 99% but you get my point hopefully. What is an acceptable rate?
That would be great but we don't live in that world so unless you are happy with people not paying their medical bills at the rate they are now, and jacking hospital costs up, just telling someone to be more responsible won't solve the problem.
Once again, this would be ideal but teaching an entire nation of people (many recent immigrants) to share your morals is going to be difficult and take a lot of time.

The rate is not the issue. People only will go into bankruptcy from major medical costs, not preventive care or general healthcare costs, and those that do go bankrupt from major medical costs can rebuild from bankruptcy, so it is not an issue to focus on. The point is that people should plan to deal with their own non-emergency care - this is personal responsibility.
Not taking personal responsibility for your own general healthcare is tantamount to making yourself a ward of the state. What's next, state provided housing, and we work state sponsored jobs? Endenture ourselves to the government? No thanks. The bottom line is that we do have to teach personal responsibility to millions - as our ancestors did. If you don't understand this, you should go back to school and study history.

[David88vert]

Agreed 100%. For me, the cost should be such that any family working a respectable job should be able to afford it without going bankrupt (except maybe in the worst circumstances). I know this is somewhat vague because the exact details are too complex but this is my general opinion.
On an emotionally level I agree. I was raised to be responsible for myself and my actions. On an intellectual level though I recognize that others do not live by the same mantra and their actions still affect me through increased hospital costs and various other social issues. I would like to minimize those effects if possible.
I assume you are talking about immediately life threatening issues. Otherwise I believe hospitals can and do turn people away.
I disagree it's that simple (don't want it = don't pay for it). We pay taxes but certainly we do not all agree with every dollar spent on taxes. Likewise we pay for individuals who default on medical bills when we pay ours because the hospital has to recover their losses through paying customers.
To reiterate I don't believe those costs are accurate for many people in this country. For some people yes, but for everyone, no. Also many jobs require you have a phone so your employer can contact you so you can't necessarily make that trade.
People do not go bankrupt from normal healthcare costs. You do not have a coherent grasp on reality of healthcare costs, based upon your statements.
Raising your taxes will not lower your costs. Basic math should have taught you this.

Since 1986, emergency care has been addressed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - It is an unfunded mandate, not funded through federal taxes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

In October 2009, average for a single person on a single plan was $250 per month:
•On average, the annual premium was $2,985 for a single person and $6,328 for a family.
•The annual premium differed from state to state. For example, the premium for a family health plan in New York was $13,296, while a similar plan in Iowa was $5609.
•The annual premiums for health plans were also different depending if the annual deductible was high or low. For example, family plans with no deductible had an average premium of $12686 each year, while plans with an annual deductible of $10,000 had an average premium of $5380 each year.

[bu villain]

So what I am hearing is that you all are fine with the number of people defaulting on their medical bills and making other families pay for the increased cost of healthcare that go with it. Is that a fair statement of your opinions?

Also, do you have a problem with the fact that people are forced to buy car insurance?

[David88vert]

So what I am hearing is that you all are fine with the number of people defaulting on their medical bills and making other families pay for the increased cost of healthcare that go with it. Is that a fair statement of your opinions?

Also, do you have a problem with the fact that people are forced to buy car insurance?

You are hearing improperly. What part of "people do not go bankrupt over normal routine healthcare costs" do you not understand?
You advocate giving everyone free healthcare, and claim that people are going bankrupt over medical costs, but the fact is that normal office visits, prescriptions, outpatient hospital visits, are not bankrupting people. This is not an item that you need insurance for. You do not care car insurance to pay for your oil changes, new tires, etc.
People file bankruptcy over large emergency costs, and major illness treatments - this is what they should have insurance for. You do car car insurance for wrecks - major issues. If people show personal responsibility for their own lives and carry major medical insurance, as they should, then they wouldn't have to file bankruptcy except for a very few with extremely costly illnesses.

Yes, for the very few who carry reasonable insurance, and have an illness that exhausts their insurance, and they have to file bankruptcy, I can live with that. It would be a lot cheaper than it is now, and a lot cheaper than providing general healthcare to the masses.
And those that still had to file bankruptcy could still rebuild their lives in 2-7 years, whereas with Obamacare, all of America will spend its life rebuilding for generations.

[BanginJimmy]

Also, do you have a problem with the fact that people are forced to buy car insurance?


Back to this old, tired, and basicly BS argument.

Just for you though, I will explain this for the millionth time.

Driving is a privilege gives to people who meet certain criteria. One of those criteria is that you carry a minimum amount of insurance. If you CHOOSE not to own a car, then you are not required to purchase insurance. Comparing auto insurance to the mandate in Obamacare would be saying that even if you dont own a car, you are still required to carry auto insurance to help keep costs down.

[BanginJimmy]

Oh and a federal judge just gave the constitution its first victory in this fight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40642879/ns/politics-more_politics/

[bu villain]

You are hearing improperly. What part of "people do not go bankrupt over normal routine healthcare costs" do you not understand?

Why do you keep arguing against things I am not saying. I have never once said that people are going bankrupt over routine health care costs.


You advocate giving everyone free healthcare

I specifically stated I am not for providing smokers with new lungs so you are unfairly generalizing my views.


This is not an item that you need insurance for. You do not care car insurance to pay for your oil changes, new tires, etc.

Again, I never stated otherwise. I simply asked if you agreed with the requirement for insurance? I am in complete agreement with you on this.


Why do I keep getting the feeling you are debating someone else whose views are only loosely related to mine. It's like you have already decided what I believe even when I don't say it.

[bu villain]

Back to this old, tired, and basicly BS argument.

Just for you though, I will explain this for the millionth time.

Driving is a privilege gives to people who meet certain criteria. One of those criteria is that you carry a minimum amount of insurance. If you CHOOSE not to own a car, then you are not required to purchase insurance. Comparing auto insurance to the mandate in Obamacare would be saying that even if you dont own a car, you are still required to carry auto insurance to help keep costs down.

Just like David... I didn't make any argument about how car insurance compares to health insurance. You just took my question, assumed my views, and started ranting about it.

Car insurance and health insurance do have distinct differences as you pointed out however there are some similarities. Requiring health insurance is not like mandating people without a car to pay car insurance because everyone does have a body (unlike a car) that can be injured. As long as we treat anyone who comes in the emergency room, everyone is a potential user of those services. The point of insurance isn't just to protect the owner against their own costs, it is also to protect the rest of society against people who can't afford their bills in the event of an accident.

[bu villain]

Oh and a federal judge just gave the constitution its first victory in this fight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40642879/ns/politics-more_politics/

And rightly so. I don't believe the commerce clause was ever intended for such a purpose. However you will probably still accuse me of supporting Obamacare because you have already decided there are only two sides to the health care debate.

[David88vert]

Why do you keep arguing against things I am not saying. I have never once said that people are going bankrupt over routine health care costs.
I specifically stated I am not for providing smokers with new lungs so you are unfairly generalizing my views.
Again, I never stated otherwise. I simply asked if you agreed with the requirement for insurance? I am in complete agreement with you on this.
Why do I keep getting the feeling you are debating someone else whose views are only loosely related to mine. It's like you have already decided what I believe even when I don't say it.

So you are for giving free healthcare to the masses, except for those you chose not to - smokers in particular? Who do you think should not be covered? Who do you think should be covered? Who pays for all of it? How is it fair to those who pay, when others do not?

[BanginJimmy]

This is a very interesting debate and I hope some others will jump in so we have more than 3 opinions. I think Jimmy and David have many very valid points but we have differing morals that can not be reconciled. Just to summarize my opinion:

1. I am not advocating single payer for ALL healthcare expenses (only basic and preventative that can be shown to save money)


Why do you keep arguing against things I am not saying. I have never once said that people are going bankrupt over routine health care costs.

So you arent advocating a single payer system for ALL heath care expenses. Just basic, preventive, and major medical should be covered. I have a better idea, why not tell use what medical issues you ARENT in favor of a single payer for because it seems you have covered everything in the areas you are in favor of.

You said you liver replacements for alcoholics, what about all the other medical issues caused by alcholism? What about the costs to treat a smoker with emphysema or lung cancer caused by their smoking? Maybe someone that is obese with diabetes?




EDIT: it seems I just basicly copied David's post.

[bu villain]

So you are for giving free healthcare to the masses, except for those you chose not to - smokers in particular? Who do you think should not be covered? Who do you think should be covered? Who pays for all of it? How is it fair to those who pay, when others do not?

For me it's not about who is covered but what care is covered. I advocated giving basic healthcare defined as routine checkups and selected preventative medicine (e.g, vaccines). The full list of what is "basic" would have to be hashed out by doctors and policy makers based on the anticipated quality of life benefits and costs. I believe if people can walk into a doctors office for these sorts of minor things without worrying about the bill, they will be much more likely to become informed and involved with their health.

It could be paid for through the same method our highways, schools, and police departments are. (i.e., taxes). As far as fairness goes, you could make the same argument about any publicly funded goods/services. Is it fair for someone to pay for national highways if they never leave their homes, or to pay for the war in Iraq if they disagree with it?

[bu villain]

EDIT: it seems I just basicly copied David's post.

To address catastropic insurance, I have no problem with the free market handling the issue of what is covered and what is not but the fact is unless everyone has coverage or can afford all their bills, everyone else ends up footing the bill when someone defaults. Either way, the public is subsidizing other peoples health care. Right now it is other health care users that pay for it (through higher medical costs). Requiring everyone to have such coverage would expand the group of subsidizers to the whole population.

[David88vert]

For me it's not about who is covered but what care is covered. I advocated giving basic healthcare defined as routine checkups and selected preventative medicine (e.g, vaccines). The full list of what is "basic" would have to be hashed out by doctors and policy makers based on the anticipated quality of life benefits and costs. I believe if people can walk into a doctors office for these sorts of minor things without worrying about the bill, they will be much more likely to become informed and involved with their health.

It could be paid for through the same method our highways, schools, and police departments are. (i.e., taxes). As far as fairness goes, you could make the same argument about any publicly funded goods/services. Is it fair for someone to pay for national highways if they never leave their homes, or to pay for the war in Iraq if they disagree with it?


Basic healthcare services are already cheap enough not to be a problem. CVS Minute Clinics offer basic quick services pretty cheaply, even if you don't have insurance. I don't see where these costs would prevent someone from going to the doctor. If you can't afford $70 for a basic office visit, then you can't afford to have a car, a cellphone, or TV service.
http://minuteclinic.com/services/

According to Blue Cross Blue Shield, the average doctor's office visit is $60. Again, if you can afford to have cable or satellite TV, or a cell phone, or A/C and heat even, then you can afford basic healthcare.

With Walmart offering generic prescriptions for $4 per month, you cannot make a case to provide medications at taxpayers expense either.
http://www.walmart.com/cp/4-dollar-prescriptions/%20http://www.walmart.com/cp/1078664

Bottom line - Basic healthcare is like changing your oil on your car - insurance isn't meant to pay for everyday costs, or minor repairs - it's there to cover the large costs from major issues. You don't use your house insurance to pay for a new mailbox, or for a broken refrigerator. You pay for those items out of pocket. It seems to me that you really don't understand what insurance is for, and you think that it is a wallet that you can pull from. Let me enlighten you - its not a bank account, so that you can pull out off anytime to pay for minor costs. It's a cost that you pay to have protection IF you need it for a major expense.

[David88vert]

To address catastropic insurance, I have no problem with the free market handling the issue of what is covered and what is not but the fact is unless everyone has coverage or can afford all their bills, everyone else ends up footing the bill when someone defaults. Either way, the public is subsidizing other peoples health care. Right now it is other health care users that pay for it (through higher medical costs). Requiring everyone to have such coverage would expand the group of subsidizers to the whole population.

Catastrophic and emergency costs are the most important thing that a government plan should cover if we have one. These are the cost that cause bankruptcies, and what cause financial hardships, not daily healthcare. People already receive emergency services, whether they can afford to pay for them or not. Hospitals use the accounts of those who do not pay as write-offs. You are not actively paying them from federal taxes.
Requiring everyone to have healtcare coverage does not expand the group of subsidizers, as half of the population is getting money from the federal government, rather than paying it in. So who do you think would foot the additional costs? I'll tell you - the other half.

You have shown in your statements that you really have no clue about what you are typing in regards to taxation or healthcare costs, including insurance.

[BanginJimmy]

It could be paid for through the same method our highways, schools, and police departments are. (i.e., taxes). As far as fairness goes, you could make the same argument about any publicly funded goods/services. Is it fair for someone to pay for national highways if they never leave their homes, or to pay for the war in Iraq if they disagree with it?

So who should be taxed more? The 50% of the population that pays more taxes than they get refunded and likely already pay for their insurance, or the other 50% of the population that dont pay federal income taxes and are more likely to not have insurance?

[bu villain]

Basic healthcare services are already cheap enough not to be a problem...

My stance on that isn't that people can't afford a checkup its that people are actively not choosing to spend their money that way. I would like a system that will encourage people to take a more active role in their health than they currently do.


So who should be taxed more? The 50% of the population that pays more taxes than they get refunded and likely already pay for their insurance, or the other 50% of the population that dont pay federal income taxes and are more likely to not have insurance?

As I am in the half that does pay taxes, I'm not thrilled about it either but that is a whole other issue. Feel free to start a new thread for that.


You have shown in your statements that you really have no clue about what you are typing in regards to taxation or healthcare costs, including insurance.

I admit, I am not a health care, taxation, or public policy expert, never claimed to be. You aren't either despite your smug demeanor. I suppose I could just shut my mouth about what I feel is right and let you tell me what is good for me. I'm truly fine that you don't agree with me but what does bother me is how dissmissive you are of any idea I bring up as a possible way of bettering the health of our fellow Americans. If half of all Americans died tomorrow you wouldn't care as long it could somehow be attributed to a poor choice they made at some point in their lives. You've made it clear that your goal is to show argumentative superiority, not to search for ways to improve lives.

[David88vert]

My stance on that isn't that people can't afford a checkup its that people are actively not choosing to spend their money that way. I would like a system that will encourage people to take a more active role in their health than they currently do.
As I am in the half that does pay taxes, I'm not thrilled about it either but that is a whole other issue. Feel free to start a new thread for that.
I admit, I am not a health care, taxation, or public policy expert, never claimed to be. You aren't either despite your smug demeanor. I suppose I could just shut my mouth about what I feel is right and let you tell me what is good for me. I'm truly fine that you don't agree with me but what does bother me is how dissmissive you are of any idea I bring up as a possible way of bettering the health of our fellow Americans. If half of all Americans died tomorrow you wouldn't care as long it could somehow be attributed to a poor choice they made at some point in their lives. You've made it clear that your goal is to show argumentative superiority, not to search for ways to improve lives.

In your above statement, you have stated that people are not choosing to allocate their own funding to provide healthcare to their own benefit. They made that choice. You seem to think that a solution to this is to put this responsibility in the hands of the government, rather than educate individuals to practice personal responsibility. Have you ever heard the adage, "Give a man a fish today, and you will have to provide him another tomorrow, but if you teach him to fish today, he will be able to provide for himself."?

You do not answer the questions posed to you, and when you do make a statement, you make it errantly. You are not proposing anything that will improve health or extend lives, as I have shown previously in the thread. You are simply proposing an increase in the cost of healthcare, to create a rationed system that will undermine the financial well-being of US citizens who are currently doing the right thing to provide proper planning for their families. You seem to think that the responsible people of society should be massively penalized to supplement those who have no desire to take responsibilty for their own actions.

I have shown repeatedly that the argument that basic healthcare is too expensive and will cause families to enter bankruptcy is a falacy, and that emergency care is already provided to those in need, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Your arguments are null and void, if you do not have anything further to bring to the table. Since your ideas are not moving us forward, perhaps you should listen to voices more reasonable and logical, that live in reality, rather than an utopian dreamland.

I already made it very clear how to improve the healthcare system, but it appears that you are unable to mentally process and retain the information, or you chose to ignore it. I stated many times that the issue is healthcare costs, not the service provided. In order to reduce these costs, people must practice personal responsibility and purchase their insurace to cover just the major costs, and pay the rest out of pocket - just like auto insurance, house insurance, etc. This would reduce the amount that is paid to insurance companies in the form of premiums, and would allow the free market to lower costs. As insurance companies would be paying out less, they would have the ability to lower their rates to be more competitive with other companies providing the same insurance services.
Additionally, tort reform could reduce the amount that doctors have to pay for medical malpractice insurance, and could help address the high cost of some procedures. It is unlikely to have an effect on basic healthcare services costs; however, as they are already affordable. If you truly are unable to afford a doctor's visit, there are many free clinics across the country. There is no excuse for a single-payer, government-run healthcare system.

And finally, half of all Americans are not going to die from not receiving free doctor's checkups. You are being overly dramatic with your statements, and not putting forth factual statements. You only state unfounded ideas, I put forth facts and sources. Do you really think that you have a leg to stand on when you are not able to address the correct issues without substance?

[bu villain]

In your above statement, you have stated that people are not choosing to allocate their own funding to provide healthcare to their own benefit. They made that choice. You seem to think that a solution to this is to put this responsibility in the hands of the government, rather than educate individuals to practice personal responsibility. Have you ever heard the adage, "Give a man a fish today, and you will have to provide him another tomorrow, but if you teach him to fish today, he will be able to provide for himself."?

So who exactly is teaching these people to fish? Because they don't seem to be doing a very good job. I am a proponent of personal responsibility as well but I just don't see it as the end all be all of morality.


You do not answer the questions posed to you, and when you do make a statement, you make it errantly. You are not proposing anything that will improve health or extend lives, as I have shown previously in the thread. You are simply proposing an increase in the cost of healthcare, to create a rationed system that will undermine the financial well-being of US citizens who are currently doing the right thing to provide proper planning for their families. You seem to think that the responsible people of society should be massively penalized to supplement those who have no desire to take responsibilty for their own actions.

Many of the ideas I gave are not verifiable until we try them so how can you claim they won't help as if it were fact. You call helping others a penalty, I call it being a good neighbor. Of course we have to draw the line somewhere though. I draw it after helping with basic healthcare but I also wouldn't propose you should pay for his mortgage.


I have shown repeatedly that the argument that basic healthcare is too expensive and will cause families to enter bankruptcy is a falacy, and that emergency care is already provided to those in need, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Your arguments are null and void, if you do not have anything further to bring to the table. Since your ideas are not moving us forward, perhaps you should listen to voices more reasonable and logical, that live in reality, rather than an utopian dreamland.

I'm getting tired of saying this but ....

I DON'T BELIEVE BASIC HEALTHCARE COSTS CAUSE BANKRUPTCY


I already made it very clear how to improve the healthcare system, but it appears that you are unable to mentally process and retain the information, or you chose to ignore it. I stated many times that the issue is healthcare costs, not the service provided. In order to reduce these costs, people must practice personal responsibility and purchase their insurace to cover just the major costs, and pay the rest out of pocket - just like auto insurance, house insurance, etc. This would reduce the amount that is paid to insurance companies in the form of premiums, and would allow the free market to lower costs. As insurance companies would be paying out less, they would have the ability to lower their rates to be more competitive with other companies providing the same insurance services.
Additionally, tort reform could reduce the amount that doctors have to pay for medical malpractice insurance, and could help address the high cost of some procedures. It is unlikely to have an effect on basic healthcare services costs; however, as they are already affordable. If you truly are unable to afford a doctor's visit, there are many free clinics across the country. There is no excuse for a single-payer, government-run healthcare system.

Your solution of having people be personal responsible is the status quo. It isn't a solution, it's a rationalization.

Tort reform: You haven't discussed this with me yet so don't say I'm ignoring your ideas. I'm all for looking at ways to reduce doctor's liabilities where reasonable but I don't see it as reducing costs that significantly because the fact is doctors make mistakes and it is reasonable that wronged patients get compensation. The nature of working on people's bodies is going to lead to those mistakes being very costly because the effects can be so serious. If you would like to discuss specifically how we can reduce these liabilities I am all ears.


And finally, half of all Americans are not going to die from not receiving free doctor's checkups. You are being overly dramatic with your statements, and not putting forth factual statements. You only state unfounded ideas, I put forth facts and sources. Do you really think that you have a leg to stand on when you are not able to address the correct issues without substance?

Of course I was being overly dramatic with my statement because I was using exaggeration to make a point. Answer this question, if we knew there was a deadly outbreak of some virus and everyone could just go to a CVS and get innoculated for 50 bucks, would you feel any remorse if half the population decided not to get the shot and died?

[BanginJimmy]

So who exactly is teaching these people to fish? Because they don't seem to be doing a very good job.

I'll give you a hint. It is the same people you want to make your health care decisions for you.




Many of the ideas I gave are not verifiable until we try them so how can you claim they won't help as if it were fact.

All of these things have been tried before and are currently used in Europe and several other countries. They resulted in increased costs, reduced quality of care and rationing in every occasion. I dont want to hear your Nancy Pelosi line "we have to pass the bill to see whats in it" crap. These are not new, untested concepts.


You call helping others a penalty, I call it being a good neighbor.

So when is my "neighbor" going to contribute something? It seems that I am doing all the contributing and he is doing all the leeching.



Of course we have to draw the line somewhere though. I draw it after helping with basic healthcare but I also wouldn't propose you should pay for his mortgage.

Didnt you say earlier we, as tax PAYERS, should also pay for major care?




Your solution of having people be personal responsible is the status quo. It isn't a solution, it's a rationalization.

Call it what you will, but it is better than the current ideas coming from Washington.


Tort reform: You haven't discussed this with me yet so don't say I'm ignoring your ideas. I'm all for looking at ways to reduce doctor's liabilities where reasonable but I don't see it as reducing costs that significantly because the fact is doctors make mistakes and it is reasonable that wronged patients get compensation. The nature of working on people's bodies is going to lead to those mistakes being very costly because the effects can be so serious. If you would like to discuss specifically how we can reduce these liabilities I am all ears.

No one ever said anything about eliminating torts, just reforming them. There most definitely needs to be a cap on punitive damages and we need a loser pays system to get rid of all the garbage lawsuits.

Tort reform also goes MUCH further than just malpractice insurance rates though. You also have tens of billions spent every year by doctors performing unnecessary tests and procedures as a defense against lawsuits.



Of course I was being overly dramatic with my statement because I was using exaggeration to make a point. Answer this question, if we knew there was a deadly outbreak of some virus and everyone could just go to a CVS and get innoculated for 50 bucks, would you feel any remorse if half the population decided not to get the shot and died?

none at all, in fact, I would probably be pretty happy about it. Anyone that ignorant is more than likely a sponge on society and society as a whole would be better off without them infecting it. If you make the choice that $50 is more important than your life, then you deserve what you get.

[David88vert]

BanginJimmy answered exactly as I would.

[bu villain]

Thanks for the debate but I'm ready to move on now. I definitely learned some things and will continue to consider other points of view. Happy New Years everyone.