The Cellar - Impeding changes to our Health Care system

Page 57 of 203

« First

107

157

Last »

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Impeding changes to our Health Care system (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=16747)

ZenGum

09-14-2009 08:41 PM

"I don't care if the project is viable. I'm getting you the money, and you damn well better spend it."

I've seen this quote attributed to some US senator, speaking to a civil engineer.

It is much the same the world over, I think.

ETA: cellar cookie jar just threw up this:
"If Patrick Henry thought that taxation without representation was bad, he should see how bad it is with representation."

sugarpop

09-15-2009 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 591136)

Seems to me it could be written so the IRS has to divulge that information for anyone requesting "affordability credits".
Leave up to the individual to decide whether they want the credits or privacy.

OMG! That was awesome!

Representive Anthony Weiner discussed health care reform with Bill Maher on Sept. 11 on Real Time. It was awesome. He wants a single payer system though, and he explained that if we went to single payer, the thing would pay for itself through all the money saved from premiums and profits, and of course those high salaries costs hundreds of millions of dollars. I honestly don't know why democrats didn't argue for that. As Bill Moyers said recently, "I think...too many Democrats have had their spines surgically removed."

TheMercenary

09-15-2009 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 594821)

"I don't care if the project is viable. I'm getting you the money, and you damn well better spend it.

Damm, that sounds like the military. :D

sugarpop

09-15-2009 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 591848)

Damm better than having the government running anything. So far they have not been able to do a good job at any of it. :cool:

Funny you would feel that way, after working in a government-run agency for so long, and receiving government-run health care.

Honestly, all these politicians working in government who hate the government and think it can't do anything right? Maybe they shouldn't be in government. After all, they are the ones running it, if it's broke, it's their damn fault, right?

*edit to add* And the proof that private corporations work better is proven, I guess, by all the shenanigans those contractors were up to in Afghanistan when they were supposed to be gaurding the embassy. :eek:

TheMercenary

09-15-2009 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 595111)

Funny you would feel that way, after working in a government-run agency for so long, and receiving government-run health care.

Yea, but everyone of those people earned it and made sacrifices to get it. What did the crack whore on the corner cranking out her babies daddies do to earn it?

Quote:

Honestly, all these politicians working in government who hate the government and think it can't do anything right? Maybe they shouldn't be in government. After all, they are the ones running it, if it's broke, it's their damn fault, right?

I can't agree more. It is the Demoncrats fault. They have been in charge of Congress for over 2 years.

sugarpop

09-15-2009 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 592287)

One of the purposes of socialised medicine is to ensure that everybody gets access to healthcare regardless of their income. It equalises service, not input. A 1% tax on someone earning $20k a year, whilst it is mathematically less than a 1% tax on someone earning $200k a year, has a far greater impact on that person's finances: they're the ones on the breadline; the ones struggling to put food on their family's table and the ones with the least capacity to borrow in times of trouble. The lower the earnings, the less surplus there is to tax.

Taking larger contributions from people who are earning larger incomes goes some way to equalising the impact of the cost of healthcare. If you equalise the contributons by some kind of flat tax approach, then you are taking from the wealthy man's surplus and the poor man's food cupboard.

I love you. :p That reasoning is WHY we have a graduating tax system in this country. But people who want everyone to pay exactly the same are usually people with higher incomes. And they make that argument, even though they pay much less taxes than they used to. The tax burden has increasingly shifted over time to the middle class and upper middle class.

sugarpop

09-15-2009 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 592593)

I fully understand that. And to that I say tough. If you want to get it, you need to pay your portion. No one gets a pass. I am quite sure that friends of mine who make $400 a month would gladly pay $16 a month (4%) of their income if they knew that they would have health insurance.

So you think income tax should be 4%? Really? :headshake

sugarpop

09-15-2009 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar (Post 593909)

Wrong. Undocumented immigrants don't cost American citizens a single penny when everything is accounted for. They contribute more money into the economy and the tax base than they use in social services. This is an irrefutable fact.

When Americans are visiting the UK and they get hurt, do you know what happens? They get medical care and no bill. Why? Because not giving medical care to someone in need is inhuman and asinine.

I believe that is also true of other countries as well. At least, I know someone who was injured while on vacation in France, and they treated her at no charge. I know someone who was deathly ill while in CHINA, and they treated her, at no charge. I know someone who was in motorcycle accident in Australia, and they fixed his teeth. I don't know if they charged him or not, but he sure did have great teeth! :D

And hey, even fucking RWANDA has universal health care now, with home visits. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/537/index.html

sugarpop

09-15-2009 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune (Post 593887)

So we implement healthcare reform and the ER line goes down, except for the illegals -- still an improvement. In terms of health care reform, there are exactly two options open for dealing with illegal immigrants: provide them healthcare as well or turn them away entirely. Guess which of these options no doctor would ever attempt?

To say we shouldn't pass healthcare reform because of illegals is cutting off our nose to spite our face.

There is actually another solution, enforce laws against slave labor, so people who are here can actually AFFORD to buy heatlh care. Who is really to blame? The person who comes here looking for a better life, or the person who employs them for dirt cheap wages so they don't have to pay wages a legal citizen or immigrant would take?

I take that back. There are plenty of Americans working for slave wages as well.

xoxoxoBruce

09-15-2009 11:36 PM

5 Myths About Health Care Around the World

sugarpop

09-15-2009 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune (Post 593983)

Well, of course it is just my opinion, just as it is the opinion of many that reform won't work. I would say that most can agree that the current system isn't working and is unsustainable for our future without some kind of correction being made.

Barbara Boxer stated recently (I think it was on on Morning Joe) that without reform, people in California would paying 41% of their income on health insurance by 2016, if we don't pass reform. I have heard that number quoted elsewhere as well, so it is very true the current system is unsustainable. How many of you can afford to pay 41% of your income for insurance? (I don't know if that number includes co-pays and deductibles, or if it is just for premiums.)

sugarpop

09-15-2009 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 594152)

I want to be him. Some make better choices than others. I deal with surgeons, few if any lead this type of life. Oh, and they busted ass to get there, a journey few would do or could do. Some are willing to go the distance and make the sacrifice to have a better life, some are not. Those that do should not feel bad or be vilified for hard work and reward.

I don't think anyone is villifying doctors. Most doctors do work hard to get where they are, and they deserve to be paid well for what they do.

People are, however, villifying insurance companies, and rightly so. Look at it logically, all they do is collect money and then pay for the things they think they should pay for. They deny many claims, even though people have been paying in good faith, and many of those people either die while fighting the insurance company, or they end up going bankrupt because the costs are so high. They are glorified middlemen. If the government was the payor, you would just go to the doctor and never see the bill. The doctor would bill the government, and the government would pay the bill. Pretty simple.

sugarpop

09-16-2009 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 594407)

Just wait til you see what happens if the Supreme Court overturns provisions of McCain-Feingold and gives expanded first amendment rights of free speech to corporations. In recent similar cases, the liberals on the court would not give those first amendment rights to corporations; the conservations on the court would.

If overturned, the 2012 campaign will be a corporate feeding frenzy.

Yes, it makes me ill to think about it. I literally cannot STAND all the friggin' commercials for drugs. Pot is illegal, but pharmacuetical companies can legally push all the drugs they want to on TV? Sickening.

One more thing about big pharma not mentioned, most of the money going into r&d comes from the government anyway, through the NIH. They fund most of the research in this country, NOT big pharma, although they would have you believe otherwise.

sugarpop

09-16-2009 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar (Post 594555)

I'm disgusted at the fact that Obama doesn't say, "This health care reform will happen and it will have a public option whether Republicans like it or not."

and the fact that he has made a deal with the pharmaceutical companies not to negotiate lower prices for drugs or import drugs from Canada. The whole point is to lower costs and use greater buying power as a way to do it.

I know someone with lung cancer and his meds are over 15 thousand dollars a month. That's insane. The drugs do not cost a hundred thousandth of that to produce. I see putting drugs that can save lives out of the price range of people as an affront to humanity and a disgusting display of profiteering on the human suffering.

I agree. I am MORE than disgusted that he made deals with big pharma, and I am MORE than disgusted that he is caving on other things as well. He hasn't stood up to republicans the way he should either. HE WON. THEY LOST. But he is allowing them to decide the debate of what gets in the bill? It is sickening.

ZenGum

09-16-2009 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 595111)

Republicans are people who believe government doesn't work and then get elected to prove it (P. J. O'Rourke).

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 AM.

Page 57 of 203

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page