AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
A major difference between Democrats and Republicans
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maryskl wrote:
Hospitals do not turn people away if they are in auto accidents or suffer a stroke or heart attack. Do you think they should?


No, but I think we may come to that. I believe our middle class is fast becoming expendable and a liability. If you can't pay for care up front, you may be denied care if you can't produce a viable insurance card.

Joe Bageant wrote Deer Hunting with Jesus which described some Americans who honestly do not want any type of government help be it health care, welfare, etc. and do not believe in helping their fellow man unless they are family. They feel ashamed for asking for help and look down on anyone who asks for help. So they are the ones who are most ardently against Obamacare. They don't understand why the government provides help to its people or why certain segments of society expects help of any kind. They tend to be fiercely independent.

Then there are others who believe there is a contract between a country and its people where quid pro quo is standard. You defend me from my common enemies and I will look after you. That was the contract America made with its soldiers fighting WWII. In exchange for their duty and sacrifice, America gave them the GI bill, health care(Veterans and Medicare) and Social Security.

So I guess it's two Americas. One sees government helping its people or those who believe it's not the place for government to provide benefits, entitlements.

We may be evolving to the latter which will make America a very cold place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KarenS, it's not just deer-hunting Jesus freaks who are against Obama's health care plan. Many progressives ardently oppose it, too. And it's not because they're too ignorant to understand the plan, it's because these educated, thinking people simply think it's a terrible idea. It's really a mistake to characterize those who agree with Obama as patriotic soldier-respecters who love our country, and the opposition as ignorant and/or religious fanatics. The choice you offer--between people who want government to help people (who presumably cheer Obama and his plan) and those who don't believe in benefits (Obama's enemies) is a false one. Like many, many people I do believe in benefits and yet I think Obama's plan sucks. That's the huge gray area between the black and white view of the issue.

maryski, I find your suggestion that our insurance benefits be taxed bizarre. In the middle of the worst recession since the Depression, you want to raise taxes to teach us all a lesson? Huh? Yeah, that'll show us! And then we'll...uh...what? Get mad? I don't know who you're talking about when you say that most people don't make the connection between rising charges for healthcare and falling salaries. Do you really think Americans are that stupid? Why do you think the American people overwhelmingly supported the public option? It's not our fault Obama betrayed the whole country by giving that away before negotiations started (have you noticed a pattern there?)

And Frosty13, as far as insurance costs go, the rising costs are at least party explained by price fixing. Matt Taibbi put it very well, and this is something we all need to understand:

"[I]f you want to buy health insurance, you canít choose to buy either the cheapest possible private plan, or a public-run health plan. Instead, you have to buy private insurance from a group of companies which all collectively have an anti-trust exemption from the government, which allows them to artificially set prices higher. Youíre not buying the cheapest possible insurance directly on the open market; youíre effectively buying government-subsidized insurance at artificially high prices, through a middleman company."

I wish people would stop blaming the poor and dwindling middle class and start putting the responsibility where it belongs. If we can afford trillions in handouts to foreign banks and Wall Street CEOs, two billion a week for Afghanistan and God knows how much more for the rest of the secret wars we're fighting, we can find a way to give healthcare to American citizens. All we need is the will, but as long as our patriarchal society continues to value death over life, we will never summon it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 353
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LizE wrote:
KarenS, it's not just deer-hunting Jesus freaks who are against Obama's health care plan. Many progressives ardently oppose it, too. And it's not because they're too ignorant to understand the plan, it's because these educated, thinking people simply think it's a terrible idea. It's really a mistake to characterize those who agree with Obama as patriotic soldier-respecters who love our country, and the opposition as ignorant and/or religious fanatics. The choice you offer--between people who want government to help people (who presumably cheer Obama and his plan) and those who don't believe in benefits (Obama's enemies) is a false one. Like many, many people I do believe in benefits and yet I think Obama's plan sucks. That's the huge gray area between the black and white view of the issue.

maryski, I find your suggestion that our insurance benefits be taxed bizarre. In the middle of the worst recession since the Depression, you want to raise taxes to teach us all a lesson? Huh? Yeah, that'll show us! And then we'll...uh...what? Get mad? I don't know who you're talking about when you say that most people don't make the connection between rising charges for healthcare and falling salaries. Do you really think Americans are that stupid? Why do you think the American people overwhelmingly supported the public option? It's not our fault Obama betrayed the whole country by giving that away before negotiations started (have you noticed a pattern there?)

And Frosty13, as far as insurance costs go, the rising costs are at least party explained by price fixing. Matt Taibbi put it very well, and this is something we all need to understand:

"[I]f you want to buy health insurance, you canít choose to buy either the cheapest possible private plan, or a public-run health plan. Instead, you have to buy private insurance from a group of companies which all collectively have an anti-trust exemption from the government, which allows them to artificially set prices higher. Youíre not buying the cheapest possible insurance directly on the open market; youíre effectively buying government-subsidized insurance at artificially high prices, through a middleman company."

I wish people would stop blaming the poor and dwindling middle class and start putting the responsibility where it belongs. If we can afford trillions in handouts to foreign banks and Wall Street CEOs, two billion a week for Afghanistan and God knows how much more for the rest of the secret wars we're fighting, we can find a way to give healthcare to American citizens. All we need is the will, but as long as our patriarchal society continues to value death over life, we will never summon it.


Liz: It was not MY suggestion that health care benefits be taxed. I was merely responding to Frosty's assertion that the present bill would tax them. I have stated over and over again that I do not like the present bill. It does very little to help the situation. The only two measures in that bill I like are insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and that children can stay on their parent's plan until age 27. A simple majority of the people are not going to get universal health care passed. It will have to be a landslide for the policy makers to finally capitulate. Whether you want to admit it or not, there are quite a few people out there who are terribly uninformed. They do NOT see the connection between sluggish salaries and health care costs. Please remember before you jump me again that I am in favor or universal health care.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frosty13



Joined: 04 Oct 2010
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder about that growing discrepancy in incomes; I'd like to see some numbers, not about the difference in incomes, but about the number of people in each group. Is it possible the middle class is shrinking because some people are actually making more money?

But I don't assume that people who make more than $250,000 made it at the "expense" of people who don't make that much. How could they do that? If they earned it, they earned it. It's theirs unless they actually stole money that other people earned. I've been working some very long hours, up to 20 hours a day; at the end of that day, when I fall into bed, I don't think I've earned whatever I've earned at the expense of someone else. If, because I've worked that many hours, I'm then told I have to pay extra, is counter productive because it takes away my incentive to work those long hours. What's the point?

This class warfare that's being fostered is self-destructive to us as a people. The dividing line of $250,000 is completely illogical. Why should someone who makes $250,000 pay thousands of dollars more in taxes than someone who makes $249,999? Because they can isn't a good reason. If those people want to give thousands more in charity, that's out of the goodness of their hearts and it's theirs to give. It isn't in anyone's best interests for the government to take that money, spend most of it on a bureaucracy that wastes more of the money than it dispenses, and say it's for the common good. Look what they did to social security! The money was supposed to be held in trust. Uh huh. It goes into the general fund, and it's spent. No, I don't trust the federal government with my health care. I'm not against the states setting up state-run health care plans; that's their right. It isn't the right, or a permissible power, of the federal government.

Think about this: the health care program, as it is set up, will be overseen by a person appointed by the president. This person will have huge, unspecified powers. You may think that's okay while the party you favor is in power, but now think of the worst person, from the party you DON'T like, being in power, and having complete say-so over you and your family and the health care you get. Doesn't sound like a good idea, does it? What if a Republican president appoints someone who delays treatment for people in blue-voting states? What if a Democrat president does the same to people in red-voting states? It's way too political, and politics has no place in health care. The possibility for misuse of power, all in the hands of unnamed bureaucrats, is just too great.

The best thing Congress could do for us is to remove laws that THEY passed that prevent health care insurance from being sold across state lines. Insurance companies thus have very little competition within each state; they aren't forced to cover pre-existing conditions, because there's no upstart little company somewhere in another state that DOES start accepting people with pre-existing condition. That little upstart company would get clients in droves, they'd start taking business away from the big companies, and eventually the big companies would have to match the deal. That's the way it should work, if Congress would just get their stupid laws out of the way. Premiums would go down, too, because of market forces.

Elizabeth Edwards' sad death this week also made me think of something else. The health care monstrosity will cost women (not just women, but I'm talking specifically about breast cancer) their lives, because the sheer nature of it will slow down treatment. She was stage four before she was diagnosed, not because of any problem with her health care insurance but I guess the tumor just wasn't easily detected by touch. More and more women will be in progressed stages because of delays in testing. Then there's the horrible form of breast cancer, inflammatory breast cancer, that doesn't normally have a lump as a symptom, and is so aggressive that you don't have weeks to get treatment, you have DAYS. That's is. It's a fairly rare form of breast cancer, but it accounts for a high percentage of breast cancer deaths because it's so aggressive and doesn't have the normal symptoms. I lost a dearly loved friend to this last year, and I'll miss her for the rest of my life. She lived three weeks after diagnosis. I guess this is turning into a public service announcement, but everyone on this thread please read up on inflammatory breast cancer, and tell every woman you know about it. Some doctors have never seen a case, and don't know to look for it. By the time the usual tests have been done, it's too late. Please, everyone, learn about this. It may save your life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 353
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frosty13 wrote:
I wonder about that growing discrepancy in incomes; I'd like to see some numbers, not about the difference in incomes, but about the number of people in each group. Is it possible the middle class is shrinking because some people are actually making more money?

But I don't assume that people who make more than $250,000 made it at the "expense" of people who don't make that much. How could they do that? If they earned it, they earned it. It's theirs unless they actually stole money that other people earned. I've been working some very long hours, up to 20 hours a day; at the end of that day, when I fall into bed, I don't think I've earned whatever I've earned at the expense of someone else. If, because I've worked that many hours, I'm then told I have to pay extra, is counter productive because it takes away my incentive to work those long hours. What's the point?

This class warfare that's being fostered is self-destructive to us as a people. The dividing line of $250,000 is completely illogical. Why should someone who makes $250,000 pay thousands of dollars more in taxes than someone who makes $249,999? Because they can isn't a good reason. If those people want to give thousands more in charity, that's out of the goodness of their hearts and it's theirs to give. It isn't in anyone's best interests for the government to take that money, spend most of it on a bureaucracy that wastes more of the money than it dispenses, and say it's for the common good. Look what they did to social security! The money was supposed to be held in trust. Uh huh. It goes into the general fund, and it's spent. No, I don't trust the federal government with my health care. I'm not against the states setting up state-run health care plans; that's their right. It isn't the right, or a permissible power, of the federal government.

Think about this: the health care program, as it is set up, will be overseen by a person appointed by the president. This person will have huge, unspecified powers. You may think that's okay while the party you favor is in power, but now think of the worst person, from the party you DON'T like, being in power, and having complete say-so over you and your family and the health care you get. Doesn't sound like a good idea, does it? What if a Republican president appoints someone who delays treatment for people in blue-voting states? What if a Democrat president does the same to people in red-voting states? It's way too political, and politics has no place in health care. The possibility for misuse of power, all in the hands of unnamed bureaucrats, is just too great.

The best thing Congress could do for us is to remove laws that THEY passed that prevent health care insurance from being sold across state lines. Insurance companies thus have very little competition within each state; they aren't forced to cover pre-existing conditions, because there's no upstart little company somewhere in another state that DOES start accepting people with pre-existing condition. That little upstart company would get clients in droves, they'd start taking business away from the big companies, and eventually the big companies would have to match the deal. That's the way it should work, if Congress would just get their stupid laws out of the way. Premiums would go down, too, because of market forces.

Elizabeth Edwards' sad death this week also made me think of something else. The health care monstrosity will cost women (not just women, but I'm talking specifically about breast cancer) their lives, because the sheer nature of it will slow down treatment. She was stage four before she was diagnosed, not because of any problem with her health care insurance but I guess the tumor just wasn't easily detected by touch. More and more women will be in progressed stages because of delays in testing. Then there's the horrible form of breast cancer, inflammatory breast cancer, that doesn't normally have a lump as a symptom, and is so aggressive that you don't have weeks to get treatment, you have DAYS. That's is. It's a fairly rare form of breast cancer, but it accounts for a high percentage of breast cancer deaths because it's so aggressive and doesn't have the normal symptoms. I lost a dearly loved friend to this last year, and I'll miss her for the rest of my life. She lived three weeks after diagnosis. I guess this is turning into a public service announcement, but everyone on this thread please read up on inflammatory breast cancer, and tell every woman you know about it. Some doctors have never seen a case, and don't know to look for it. By the time the usual tests have been done, it's too late. Please, everyone, learn about this. It may save your life.


The middle class is shrinking and those leaving it are not shifting upward:
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/the-u.s.-middle-class-is-being-wiped-out-here%27s-the-stats-to-prove-it-520657.html?tickers=^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA

Perhaps one of the reasons you are working 20 hours per day is that making money is more difficult because fewer people have the funds to purchase goods and services. You can talk about class warfare all you want, but the bottom line is capitalism will not survive without vibrant consumers. Many of the factory and service jobs have been exported to countries where companies can pay their workers much less.

I find it curious that we "trust" businesses, but not people who work in government. I personally don't trust either one that much, but at least with government I have some recourse at the ballot box. If I complain to Blue Cross, they just tell me "tough luck. If you don't like our policies, then cancel." Just WHO is the government? They might be your neighbor who works for Social Security, or the person on the next street who is an assistant district attorney, or a chemist in Atlanta who works for the CDC, or the teacher who teaches your child. Why is a government employee somehow "less" than one who works for JP Morgan? Conservatives seem to have this mantra that if they shout: "CLASS WARFARE!" over and over again, people will just lay down and let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is not in our economic self interest to let economic policies drive our consumers into poverty. When everyone has disposable income to spend, everyone benefits. The current economic policy is sacrificing long term stability for short term gain.

The government IS more efficient at health care than insurance companies. Just ask most senior citizens who have experienced both. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 71. She has always done her yearly mammogram. The test caught hers before it metastasized. Less than 2 weeks later she was having surgery. She went through a modified mastectomy, 7 weeks of radiation and 5 years of tamoxifen. Nine years later, she is still cancer free. Medicare paid for everything except the cost of a private room. Elizabeth Edwards freely admitted that she did NOT get her check ups and the tumor was so large that she could feel it before she ever went to the doctor. So I don't see how using her as an example justifies the current system.

I had a speaker at my Chamber not long ago who was retired from Social Security's regional office. The picture he painted of the future of social security was much more favorable than most conservatives paint. Government is not a horrid monster anymore than businesses are always greedy bloodsuckers. As consumers and voters we have to be vigilant with both. I sure am glad I did not trust my retirement with Bernie Madoc. I have more faith that Social Security will survive than the investment company that might file bankruptcy in 5 years.

Everything in our economy must have checks and balances. Businesses put reins on the government through lobbying efforts and government puts the reins on businesses so they don't steal other people's money or dump toxic waste in the ground water our children drink. To state that government is ALWAYS wasteful and businesses are not is just incorrect.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frosty13



Joined: 04 Oct 2010
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maryski, I didn't intend to use Elizabeth Edwards as an example of anything not working, I simply said that her death made me think. She had progressed to stage four because she didn't do regular checkups. I guess I didn't say what I was trying to say very clearly, which was that even though her death had nothing to do with the system, the delay in getting treatment probably caused her death, and that a national health system would also cause delays in diagnosis, especially in the case of inflammatory breast cancer.

Why would I trust a business more than government? Because it's in a businesses best interest to do a good enough job that people continue to use it, whereas a government worker has no such worry. I can "vote" on a business by either returning or not going back, and I can do that much faster than waiting for a national election. I'm not saying businesses don't make mistakes, because they're run by human being who aren't perfect, but the response time is much faster. They either improve, or they're out of business. A bureaucrat making decisions a thousand miles away from me isn't under that kind of pressure, it would become nothing more than a matter of "Who's next?" If I have a family member in need of care and the selected care provider can't get to him/her for several weeks, I want options. I want to be able to go to someone else. I want the freedom to make my own health care decisions, because I certainly care more about me and my family than someone who has never met us and never will.

The downside of business and health care is that I agree with the president that there are unnecessary tests and procedures. I don't agree with the particular examples that he used, but definitely with the idea behind his statement. On the other hand, it's within my power to refuse tests and procedures that I think are unnecessary, and I try to educate myself and ask questions. I've argued with doctors. I've done independent research. I'm the one paying the bill, so I get final say.

Thanks for providing the link on income. I've already used up my extra time this morning, so it may be a day or so before I have the time to look into the numbers. But I still wonder how top earners make what they make at the "expense" of people who don't make as much, unless they're actually stealing the money? I think LeBron James makes an insane amount of money to shoot a basketball into a net, but the people who are paying him evidently think he's a good investment and will bring in enough
income to offset his salary. So the question is, would they increase the pay of, say, someone working in payroll, if they weren't paying LeBron James so much? Nope, because someone working in payroll isn't bringing in revenue. They're performing a service and they're paid what the company thinks that service is worth, but they aren't producing income for the company. Every time I catch myself thinking that movie stars or athletes aren't worth the money they're paid, I have to remind myself that they're worth it to the studios/sports owners they work for, and if they don't produce then they won't earn as much on the next movie or contract. I don't resent that they're making so much. I wish I could make that much money. But if a huge chunk of what I make is taken from me because I go over some arbitrary number, then there's no point in working so hard and I'll stop. That's why socialist programs will work for a while, but then collapse: they don't factor in human nature. As long as it's in my best interests, and the best interests of my family, I'll work myself half to death to provide. When it's no longer in my best interests, when I can work less and still have the same government-mandated services, you can bet I'll work less -- which means less in taxes being collected, not just from me but from hundreds of thousands of other people who see no benefit in working as hard as they did. There has to be a reward, the reward of bettering your own financial status, to make people work harder. In abstract, universal health care sounds humane and caring and utopian. In practice, the system eventually collapses because it destroys incentive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maryskl



Joined: 25 Apr 2009
Posts: 353
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frosty13 wrote:
Maryski, I didn't intend to use Elizabeth Edwards as an example of anything not working, I simply said that her death made me think. She had progressed to stage four because she didn't do regular checkups. I guess I didn't say what I was trying to say very clearly, which was that even though her death had nothing to do with the system, the delay in getting treatment probably caused her death, and that a national health system would also cause delays in diagnosis, especially in the case of inflammatory breast cancer.

Why would I trust a business more than government? Because it's in a businesses best interest to do a good enough job that people continue to use it, whereas a government worker has no such worry. I can "vote" on a business by either returning or not going back, and I can do that much faster than waiting for a national election. I'm not saying businesses don't make mistakes, because they're run by human being who aren't perfect, but the response time is much faster. They either improve, or they're out of business. A bureaucrat making decisions a thousand miles away from me isn't under that kind of pressure, it would become nothing more than a matter of "Who's next?" If I have a family member in need of care and the selected care provider can't get to him/her for several weeks, I want options. I want to be able to go to someone else. I want the freedom to make my own health care decisions, because I certainly care more about me and my family than someone who has never met us and never will.

The downside of business and health care is that I agree with the president that there are unnecessary tests and procedures. I don't agree with the particular examples that he used, but definitely with the idea behind his statement. On the other hand, it's within my power to refuse tests and procedures that I think are unnecessary, and I try to educate myself and ask questions. I've argued with doctors. I've done independent research. I'm the one paying the bill, so I get final say.

Thanks for providing the link on income. I've already used up my extra time this morning, so it may be a day or so before I have the time to look into the numbers. But I still wonder how top earners make what they make at the "expense" of people who don't make as much, unless they're actually stealing the money? I think LeBron James makes an insane amount of money to shoot a basketball into a net, but the people who are paying him evidently think he's a good investment and will bring in enough
income to offset his salary. So the question is, would they increase the pay of, say, someone working in payroll, if they weren't paying LeBron James so much? Nope, because someone working in payroll isn't bringing in revenue. They're performing a service and they're paid what the company thinks that service is worth, but they aren't producing income for the company. Every time I catch myself thinking that movie stars or athletes aren't worth the money they're paid, I have to remind myself that they're worth it to the studios/sports owners they work for, and if they don't produce then they won't earn as much on the next movie or contract. I don't resent that they're making so much. I wish I could make that much money. But if a huge chunk of what I make is taken from me because I go over some arbitrary number, then there's no point in working so hard and I'll stop. That's why socialist programs will work for a while, but then collapse: they don't factor in human nature. As long as it's in my best interests, and the best interests of my family, I'll work myself half to death to provide. When it's no longer in my best interests, when I can work less and still have the same government-mandated services, you can bet I'll work less -- which means less in taxes being collected, not just from me but from hundreds of thousands of other people who see no benefit in working as hard as they did. There has to be a reward, the reward of bettering your own financial status, to make people work harder. In abstract, universal health care sounds humane and caring and utopian. In practice, the system eventually collapses because it destroys incentive.


There are several assumptions that you are making that are not necessarily true. Why would you assume that someone with a breast cancer diagnosis would have to wait a long time for treatment under universal health care? They don't in other countries. My brother-in-law is from England. His mother was a nurse there for 35 years. When she was diagnosed with cancer, her treatment began immediately. My daughter has lived in France and Ireland (both with universal health care). She got a stomach virus in Ireland and hurt her knee in France. Her treatment was no different than in the USA except it was much cheaper. IF there has to be in prioritizing in treatment, the most crucial would get preference and the person who needs a hangnail removed might have to wait a little while. People are already receiving care in the USA without the ability to pay. The doctors, hospitals and lab technicians already have their workload to deal with. Universal health care would not increase that load. It might actually lessen it if people have access to testing that catches illnesses in their early stage so that the illness does not progress to a later much more expensive to treat stage. YOU and I are paying for them now in increased costs. How is it efficient to have insurance companies take another 30% off the top of health care costs and transfer it to the policy holders? What service are they selling that justifies that type of income at our expense? They serve no purpose but as a clearinghouse. How does that foster work ethic and capitalism? The socialism argument just does not fly here. The argument that businesses have to respond to their consumers or go out of business also does not apply. In 2007, private insurance policy holders reported that 45% had access problems (vs. 18% for Medicare). 35% of policy holders experienced problems with their bills (vs. 14 for Medicare). Conservative pollsters report that Medicare recipients' overall satisfaction with their health care was 60% to 40% for those private insured. So if the markets were going to take care of poor business or customer dissatisfaction, why is BCBS still raking in the money? Essential services are very different from other services (especially when competition is limited). Increasing competition might be one way to go EXCEPT what if your new company takes your money and runs? There would be no recourse and you couldn't pay your health care bills. If the government did not cover banks with depositor insurance, how many people would have lost everything in the latest bank fiasco? There is a certain security knowing that the government is not likely to fail at the same rate as businesses.

The UK and Ireland are every bit as capitalistic as we are, yet they have universal health care. In fact, until this latest economic crash Ireland had one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Healthy workers translate into a healthier economy. Do you really think that if I suddenly have my health insurance premiums (or the taxes collected to pay for health care) even out or decline I am going to stop working? Are you going to stop working if universal health care is eventually passed? It (socialism creates an environment where people have no incentive to work) sounds great in theory until you start to apply it to individual people. I might even work harder if I know that the health of myself and my family is no longer a worry thereby freeing up my mind for business pursuits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Donna Lea Simpson



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 249
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

maryskl said: I might even work harder if I know that the health of myself and my family is no longer a worry thereby freeing up my mind for business pursuits.

I really think this is true; when I worry, I can't work. I don't know how you all wade through the hundreds of possible HMOs etc to figure out which is the best deal for your family. That alone would drive me batty. How do those without good verbal skills wade through it all? And aren't people afraid to leave their insurer in case the next one is no better? All that paperwork for nothing. And I'm appalled that pre-existing conditions can bar you from health insurance? Sounds barbaric.

As a Canadian, I know a lot of folks who work very hard indeed, despite 'socialised' (stupid term) medicine. We're free to choose our own doctor, and the elderly and very ill get excellent care, I can attest to that.
_________________
Visit my blog for the latest!
http://donnaleasimpson.wordpress.com

http://www.donnaleasimpson.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great article in USA Today about ruling on health law offers a victory for freeloaders. Now I called them deadbeats, but freeloaders works for me.

Some folks think they don't have to play by the rules yet they expect the rest of us to subsidize their irresponsibility.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-12-14-editorial14_ST_N.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robert Reich on the widening income gap...

http://robertreich.org/post/2310443401

Frosty13, you're wondering how top earners make more at the expense of others? Well, look at the top earners at Goldman Sachs. It's pretty well documented how they and other Wall Street players deliberately foisted rotten financial instruments on an unsuspecting public (and then bet against those rotten instruments). Those top earners--and there are an awful lot of them--made tons of money at the expense of the rest of us. Then there are the top earners at BP. They also made lots of money at the expense of many others whose lives/livelihoods were negatively impacted by their decisions. These are two easy examples, there are many more--insurance companies who increased profits for shareholders (and bonuses for CEOs) by deliberately withholding benefits, sometimes to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, companies like KBR that provide shoddy work to our troops and make a fortune on it.

So there are many top earners who absolutely make their money at the "expense" of those below.

Now, if the playing field were even, then no matter what a person earned, it would have been earned fairly. But we don't live in a society with an even playing field. We live in an oligarchy where public policy is rigged toward making the rich richer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

KarenS wrote:
Great article in USA Today about ruling on health law offers a victory for freeloaders. Now I called them deadbeats, but freeloaders works for me.

Some folks think they don't have to play by the rules yet they expect the rest of us to subsidize their irresponsibility.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-12-14-editorial14_ST_N.htm


So, just curious. An unemployed single mother who can't afford insurance...would that be a deadbeat or freeloader? How about the under-employed dad working three jobs, none of which offer benefits, choosing between food or health insurance for the kids? Or a soldier back from war? Are these the irresponsible deadbeats you're talking about?

As long as healthcare is a for-profit industry, we're just pawns in a power struggle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LizE wrote:
KarenS wrote:
Great article in USA Today about ruling on health law offers a victory for freeloaders. Now I called them deadbeats, but freeloaders works for me.

Some folks think they don't have to play by the rules yet they expect the rest of us to subsidize their irresponsibility.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-12-14-editorial14_ST_N.htm


So, just curious. An unemployed single mother who can't afford insurance...would that be a deadbeat or freeloader? How about the under-employed dad working three jobs, none of which offer benefits, choosing between food or health insurance for the kids? Or a soldier back from war? Are these the irresponsible deadbeats you're talking about?

As long as healthcare is a for-profit industry, we're just pawns in a power struggle.


In our cold, new corporate world all those people you mentioned are liabilities. What's a single woman doing having children, the underemployed father who has no decent skill sets should be working on his education not having children and the war veteran should hope his VA benefits last long enough to provide medical care.

All those folks really should think twice about whether they will be able to purchase health insurance for themselves. They shouldn't expect others to pay for it for them.

So you think I should subsidize their medical care? I play by the rules. Why should my health insurance premiums rise because some won't purchase it for themselves? Or when they need medical care they go to the closest Emergency Room instead of to a doctor's office.

Either we go to Medicare for all, stick with Obamacare or go back to the way it was. I choose the first but can live with the second and abhor the last.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LizE



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 253

PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So you think I should subsidize their medical care? I play by the rules. Why should my health insurance premiums rise because some won't purchase it for themselves?


Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group