ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[john9blue]

And show me the progressives in office. The Democrats? Ha. There is one progressive in all of Congress.

who? sanders?

Yes. And before you go, "oh so you're to the left of the Democrats, so you must be a socialist," you have to be delirious to believe any party calling itself "progressive" party whose biggest influence in the past couple of years on this issue are Blanche Lincoln and the Blue Dog Democrats. He is the only one on the left in Congress who is actively working against the vicegrip the Democrats and Republicans parties have on power.

no, i know. if progressive radio has taught me anything, it's that real leftists are pissed at democrats for being almost as corporatist as the republicans.

[Timminz]

Make more money.

Yeah, you damn lazy poor person!



If all you stupid poor folks would just work harder, the world wouldn't have all these problems with poverty.

[BigBallinStalin]

Schroedinger's Catbox Thread of the Year

(well, really the last two pages). Before clicking the link to here, I think "Does the catbox drama exist or not exist? Let's find out..."

________________________--

"Let's have a conversation about Socialized Healthcare."


[enter Night Strike and PLAYER]

NS: "You damn people and your pre-existing conditions!! GET THEM POST-EXISTING FFS!!!

PLAYER: "As a member of the Lumpenproleteriat, I demand money from everyone for prices that I feel are unfair/that I don't want to pay!!!"

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not advocating unconstitutional Obama-style corporate welfare. I'm advocating the French system, a mix of public insurance and private doctors which is entirely constitutional.

We already have public insurance with private doctors in Medicare and Medicaid, and they don't pay the doctors the price of the procedures.

Apparently you think Blue Cross does better?

and here I thought your complaint was that the government programs were too expensive!

Anyway, I don't think this recent plan is the real fix, but its a minor step in the correct direction. I like either the French system or the Swiss system the best.

And either way, the government's issuing of "public insurance" is in itself unconstitutional as there is nothing in the constitution saying the government's job is to sell a product.

There is nothing saying it cannot when public safety is at risk.

[PLAYER57832]

Or this:
[Phatt's description of socialized healthcare]

The Efficiency of the Court System combined with the Compassion of the IRS

Health care run by private insurance --

Fantastic care for the extremely rich, very good care for the moderate and only moderately wealthy people as long as they stay healthy and keep their job. For the rest -- forget even getting the tests you need to decide if you are seriously ill or not unless and until you are poor enough for Medicaid or old enough for Medicare.

Oh, yeah.. and the conscience of a blind money-making machine, where anyone human is forbidden by rules from excercising their own judgment.

[Night Strike]

and here I thought your complaint was that the government programs were too expensive!

That's the sad part of it: it IS too expensive. Yet while they are wasting money through government bureaucracies and paying way too much for hard goods like wheelchairs, they slight doctors by only paying them a percentage of the actual costs of the medical care. It's just about the ultimate travesty: running huge deficits while still skimping on the actual payments needed.

And either way, the government's issuing of "public insurance" is in itself unconstitutional as there is nothing in the constitution saying the government's job is to sell a product.

There is nothing saying it cannot when public safety is at risk.

The public safety is not at risk, and even if it were, it's NOT the federal government's responsibility. The federal government is responsible for securing our nation from foreign threats, not from germs.
Furthermore, your statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. If the Constitution is silent on an issue, it means that issue belongs to the state governments. It does not mean that the federal government can suddenly decide to do it. The federal government has a list of specific tasks it can do, and it has no power to do more than that.

[PLAYER57832]

and here I thought your complaint was that the government programs were too expensive!

That's the sad part of it: it IS too expensive. Yet while they are wasting money through government bureaucracies and paying way too much for hard goods like wheelchairs, they slight doctors by only paying them a percentage of the actual costs of the medical care. It's just about the ultimate travesty: running huge deficits while still skimping on the actual payments needed.

Like I said earlier... how about applying those same criteria to the insurance companies. Know what you will find?

They give far LESS care for MORE and take a hefty profit on top of that.

I keep asking for your alternative and all you offer is "government is BAD".
I say, government does better than private companies, then you say you plan won't hand everything over to private companies to control...

So, fine.. spill it. What is this brilliant plan you have that is BETTER than what we currently have or than is seen everywhere else in the world except here?

And either way, the government's issuing of "public insurance" is in itself unconstitutional as there is nothing in the constitution saying the government's job is to sell a product.

There is nothing saying it cannot when public safety is at risk.

The public safety is not at risk, and even if it were, it's NOT the federal government's responsibility. The federal government is responsible for securing our nation from foreign threats, not from germs.

Protection is protection.
Second, millions uninsured absolutely are at risk and do present a public health risk to everyone.

Furthermore, your statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. If the Constitution is silent on an issue, it means that issue belongs to the state governments. It does not mean that the federal government can suddenly decide to do it. The federal government has a list of specific tasks it can do, and it has no power to do more than that.

LOL.. just becuase someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they "don't understand". You might try reading to Federalist Papers for a few other people who "don't understand" the constitution.. a list that includes a few of the writers , in fact.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not advocating unconstitutional Obama-style corporate welfare. I'm advocating the French system, a mix of public insurance and private doctors which is entirely constitutional.

And show me the progressives in office. The Democrats? Ha. There is one progressive in all of Congress.

To clarify. I am not "advocating" Obama's plan as a cure. I only say that it is one step in the direction we need to go. Dropping it will make things even worse than they are.

The primary positive changes from the health care law are that companies can no longer exclude pre-existing conditions and no longer can set "lifetime limits" that essentially are an '"escape clause" for insurance companies to say "OK.. so you have paid for 30 years, but now we can no longer make a profit off you, so bye-bye... tough diddly if you cannot get care anywhere else." Those limits ensure that when someone gets really, really sick, they insurance company will simply drop them, force them to give up everything they have accrued and then go on the welfare roles. (even if it means losing a job to do it!).

Do I think the insurance companies will find more tricks and ways to avoid payment? Of course! However, only by making the insurance companies at least play on a halfway even field, forcing them to cover everyone they claim to cover, not just take payments and then dump those they don't want to cover onto the government, will the failure of insurance truly become apparent.

This is not at all about healthcare reform, it is purely about insurance reform.. and only a minor measure in that direction. I believe we are in for some big problems, regardless.

What I really expect is that insurance premiums will rise AND more will simply drop out of the business. Then folks might finally realize how stupid relying on private insurance provided by employers was from the start and actually consider some of the types of programs used in other countries.

Essentially, I think Obama is "playing chicken" with the insurance companies, which is why they faught tooth and nail against this. Either the companies step up and show they CAN provide real and true, lasting coverage for everyone or they show they cannot.

[PLAYER57832]

If anyone watched the Republican Debate on CNN, Romney had a great line: if Obamacare has not already been declared unconstitutional or been repealed, on the first day of office he would grant waivers to all 50 states.

Then you will keep paying for my kid's healthcare, instead of the insurance company (we will be insured, but if the old rules are reinstated, the insurer won't have to cover their pre-existing conditions). Neither my husband or I will be truly insured for anything but 100% new injuries and illnesses .. though we will still have to pay full premiums.

but hey, at least its not socialism
Except.... HMOs pretty much are, only much worse.

Here's a novel idea: pay for your own damn kids. You chose to have them, so take care of them. When I choose to have kids, it will be MY responsibility to take care of them too. I'm not going to go crying to the federal government to require you to pay for them.

OK, mister "I am contributing to society SO much more than you..."

You keep making these accusations. Fine. Let's compare a few things:

How much,exactly, do you think responding to 4 different California Earthquakes, helping with cleanup, assessing damages, etc (all at my own expense) is worth? How much is offering over 300 First Aid and CPR classes FOR FREE to the public is worth? (at least 6 people, often 12, in each class). How much do you think years of tutoring students, adults in both reading, writing, math and just speaking proper English is worth? How much is cleaning up garbage along roads and in streams worth to society? How much do you think 7 years of responding to injured people, no my own time, is worth? How much is giving food to those who don't have enough, clothes and goods to people without, including those hurt by natural disasters or just local fires/problems, worth? How much worth is it to watch idiot neighbor's kids, up to and including literally pulling 4 from the front of cars (one mother thanked, me.. and "promptly" got her child on ADHD medication, the others...) . a

And.. how much do you think 25 years of fighting fires, saving lives and property, on top of working 40 hours is worth? How about coaching football, baseball and running scout troops, including being the "designated responsible adult" in many boys' lives. is worth?

The first few paragraphs are some (not all) of my accomplishments. The last is a partial list of my husband's accomplishments. They are all things that he had all but given up before I married him. but has been able to do for the past 14 years.

I don't even get into the things we each have done, for pay. I can GAURANTEE that every one of my jobs has had a lasting and permanent impact on not just my local area, but the country. Can you claim the same, for all you MIGHT have been making a few more dollars? My data has been of direct use in the BP disaster. I helped fight more than a few California wildfires... and many other things I won't bother to mention here. I am published more than once in my field. Can you claim ANYTHING like those accomplishments?

So.. you want to consider me a deadbeat and dreg on society? Go ahead. I will stand up what I have done against your so-called "accomplishments" any day!

[Night Strike]

If anyone watched the Republican Debate on CNN, Romney had a great line: if Obamacare has not already been declared unconstitutional or been repealed, on the first day of office he would grant waivers to all 50 states.

Then you will keep paying for my kid's healthcare, instead of the insurance company (we will be insured, but if the old rules are reinstated, the insurer won't have to cover their pre-existing conditions). Neither my husband or I will be truly insured for anything but 100% new injuries and illnesses .. though we will still have to pay full premiums.

but hey, at least its not socialism
Except.... HMOs pretty much are, only much worse.

Here's a novel idea: pay for your own damn kids. You chose to have them, so take care of them. When I choose to have kids, it will be MY responsibility to take care of them too. I'm not going to go crying to the federal government to require you to pay for them.

OK, mister "I am contributing to society SO much more than you..."

You keep making these accusations. Fine. Let's compare a few things:

How much,exactly, do you think responding to 4 different California Earthquakes, helping with cleanup, assessing damages, etc (all at my own expense) is worth? How much is offering over 300 First Aid and CPR classes FOR FREE to the public is worth? (at least 6 people, often 12, in each class). How much do you think years of tutoring students, adults in both reading, writing, math and just speaking proper English is worth? How much is cleaning up garbage along roads and in streams worth to society? How much do you think 7 years of responding to injured people, no my own time, is worth? How much is giving food to those who don't have enough, clothes and goods to people without, including those hurt by natural disasters or just local fires/problems, worth? How much worth is it to watch idiot neighbor's kids, up to and including literally pulling 4 from the front of cars (one mother thanked, me.. and "promptly" got her child on ADHD medication, the others...) . a

And.. how much do you think 25 years of fighting fires, saving lives and property, on top of working 40 hours is worth? How about coaching football, baseball and running scout troops, including being the "designated responsible adult" in many boys' lives. is worth?

The first few paragraphs are some (not all) of my accomplishments. The last is a partial list of my husband's accomplishments. They are all things that he had all but given up before I married him. but has been able to do for the past 14 years.

I don't even get into the things we each have done, for pay. I can GAURANTEE that every one of my jobs has had a lasting and permanent impact on not just my local area, but the country. Can you claim the same, for all you MIGHT have been making a few more dollars? My data has been of direct use in the BP disaster. I helped fight more than a few California wildfires... and many other things I won't bother to mention here. I am published more than once in my field. Can you claim ANYTHING like those accomplishments?

So.. you want to consider me a deadbeat and dreg on society? Go ahead. I will stand up what I have done against your so-called "accomplishments" any day!

No one's accomplishments gives them the right to take money from other people to pay for their own needs. And that's the real issue here that you continue to believe. According to the liberal mindset, all that I have to work for is for the things I want; everybody else has to work for the things I need since I have the power to demand those needs from the government. Sorry, but that's not how the real world works. You work for what YOU need, and then you get your wants with your extra money.

[PLAYER57832]

No one's accomplishments gives them the right to take money from other people to pay for their own needs. And that's the real issue here that you continue to believe.

No, you may wish to claim that is the issue, but you ignore the real world.

See, I asked a specific question. How much are each of those things worth, to society. You want to claim I am "not contributing", only "demanding services" (never mind that the only service I get beyond what you get is a subsidy for my children's medical insurance ). Fine.. take the FULL accounting. You want to claim all that matters is your personal paycheck and desires. I say there is much more to this than that.

So, again, answer the question: How much is all the above worth? .. a monetary figure.

According to the liberal mindset, all that I have to work for is for the things I want; everybody else has to work for the things I need since I have the power to demand those needs from the government.

Not even close to a true "liberal mindset". The liberal mindset says that things in no way, shape or form start out "equal", so pretending that everything will "balance out" with a bit of hard work or study is insane and incredibly harmful to society. When a poor child cannot get a decent education unless they are lucky enough to be the one in a thousand who gets a scholarship, then there are 999 kids who grow up to be less productive and helpful adults. When kids come to school hungry, they cannot learn. When they are hungry for extended period, it hurts their growth and development. To be quite frank, many of those "welfare idiots" did not start out that way.

AND.. when insurance companies are allowed to take profits, drive up the cost of insurance, offer special discounts to big employers and pass on the costs to everyone else.. including small employers and individuals, then turn around and dump most of those they consider "too expensive" (they keep a few to trot out as "examples of how they really do well")... it HURTS.
When insurance companies are allowed to negotiate unsustainable prices, REQUIRE that they pay less than the "set rate" -- the point that the "set rate" becomes something few can truly pay.. it hurts! (yes, Medicaid and Medicare negotiate, also, but not in the same way).

Sorry, but that's not how the real world works. You work for what YOU need, and then you get your wants with your extra money.

Well, it would be nice if you actually looked at how the real world looks, becuase the REAL truth is that its highly doubtful you truly are paying all you think you are. No one in this world is an island... you just want to pretend its OK to take all the benefits we "stupid liberals" provide without giving any credit... because the only credit you want to see is your own tax bill and direct costs. You pretend you have no wider impact and thus neatly avoid the real responsibility every person on earth owes their society.

[Night Strike]

Then let me choose who and where to give my money instead of handing it all over to the government and letting them take 50% off the top. If helping with money is so great, then cut out the middle man! Polls and studies have repeatedly demonstrated that it's conservatives who give the most time and money to those in need because those people know that their actions will directly help somebody. We don't need to turn it over to a greedy government who wastes just as much money as they spend.

[GreecePwns]

who wastes just as much money as they spend.

With this, you killed any credibility you had, which was negligible to begin with.

[PLAYER57832]

Then let me choose who and where to give my money instead of handing it all over to the government and letting them take 50% off the top.

Because even if flat tax credits were offered, too many people will simply decide not to pay for food inspection, roads, public vaccination programs, pollution cleanup, banking regulation, or even the military. Also, just administering all the individual payments would be such an unbridled and unpredictable mess nothing would be accomplished except even more bureacracy.

If helping with money is so great, then cut out the middle man! Polls and studies have repeatedly demonstrated that it's conservatives who give the most time and money to those in need because those people know that their actions will directly help somebody. We don't need to turn it over to a greedy government who wastes just as much money as they spend.

LOL there are a lot of things I could say to this. But let me start with you still have not answered my question. What value are the things I mentioned above?


Next.. let's LOOK at one of those studies.. specifically, the one by Syracruse professor, Dr Brooks.
Here is the first Google posting discussing the study:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... l_giv.html
(could not find a link to the actual study.. maybe its 20 pages back???)

From the outset, his definitions have little to do with YOUR labels of "conservative" and "liberal". A big focus of his definition was religion. The tie-in was that those who have strong religious involvement are more likely to donate to charity than those who do not. See, I would fit very neatly in his "conservative" label, not "liberal"..which sort of blows your argument out of the water. He also counted liberals as making more money ... over $400 more a month (or 6% more income) than conservatives. Again, rather blows your "liberals are just unproductive tax takers" mindset.

Second, while the study did look at things like donating blood, it does NOT look at time. My argument above was about your dismissal of time ---and basically anything that does not cause a direct and immediate cost or monetary benefit to you. Its easy for you to claim that "the government wastes money", because you just dismiss most of the benefits the government offers. Most things the government does are inherently unprofitable. Even things that could be profitable are prevented from becoming so in order not to compete with private business. This is true if you are talking about prisoners making uniforms, the NIH doing medical research or patents issues on biologic material found within national parks.

Thirdly, look at what types of charities are included. (This link provides an interesting view: http://drtaxsacto.blogspot.com/2008/12/ ... ls-or.html) Donations to churches make a HUGE percentage. Some church donation does trickle down to the community (some more, some less, depending on the church), but a lot is invested in church maintenance, education and other things that are of marginal or no value to those outside that church community. A high percentage of other giving is directed at specific issue causes.

In short, nothing above really counters or even addresses what I have said.

Also... the greatest irony here is that, in this thread "taking out the middle man" is EXACTLY what I am arguing needs doing.. taking out the private insurers for basic medical care. Let them handle the superfulous and "extra" stuff, the optional stuff. Let the government fund the necessary procedures. Greecepwn mentioned France's system. From what I remember, it was pretty good. I also remember liking the Swiss system. Japan is rather unique in that they require payment to keep people healthy, instead of just compensating when someone needs fancy treatments. At this point ANYTHING would be better than our insurance company CEO created programs.

[PLAYER57832]

And show me the progressives in office. The Democrats? Ha. There is one progressive in all of Congress.

who? sanders?

Yes. And before you go, "oh so you're to the left of the Democrats, so you must be a socialist," you have to be delirious to believe any party calling itself "progressive" party whose biggest influence in the past couple of years on this issue are Blanche Lincoln and the Blue Dog Democrats. He is the only one on the left in Congress who is actively working against the vicegrip the Democrats and Republicans parties have on power.

This is yet another irony of Nightstrikes view. From what I have seen, both you and radiojake probably are truly liberal. I actually am only liberal on some issues. Even in economics, I am only moderately liberal. The Democrats are absolutely not.

[GreecePwns]

And show me the progressives in office. The Democrats? Ha. There is one progressive in all of Congress.

who? sanders?

Yes. And before you go, "oh so you're to the left of the Democrats, so you must be a socialist," you have to be delirious to believe any party calling itself "progressive" party whose biggest influence in the past couple of years on this issue are Blanche Lincoln and the Blue Dog Democrats. He is the only one on the left in Congress who is actively working against the vicegrip the Democrats and Republicans parties have on power.

This is yet another irony of Nightstrikes view. From what I have seen, both you and radiojake probably are truly liberal. I actually am only liberal on some issues. Even in economics, I am only moderately liberal. The Democrats are absolutely not.

I don't like labels. Especially ones given to me by others.

[Night Strike]

Then let me choose who and where to give my money instead of handing it all over to the government and letting them take 50% off the top.

Because even if flat tax credits were offered, too many people will simply decide not to pay for food inspection, roads, public vaccination programs, pollution cleanup, banking regulation, or even the military. Also, just administering all the individual payments would be such an unbridled and unpredictable mess nothing would be accomplished except even more bureacracy.

You don't get it. The individual payments would NOT be administered! The whole point is removing the administration and letting people help people. If I see a person in need, I donate either to that person or to a non-profit organization that directly helps that person. These organizations almost always use their money to get the most bang for their buck; to help the most people with as few dollars as possible.

Also... the greatest irony here is that, in this thread "taking out the middle man" is EXACTLY what I am arguing needs doing.. taking out the private insurers for basic medical care. Let them handle the superfulous and "extra" stuff, the optional stuff. Let the government fund the necessary procedures. Greecepwn mentioned France's system. From what I remember, it was pretty good. I also remember liking the Swiss system. Japan is rather unique in that they require payment to keep people healthy, instead of just compensating when someone needs fancy treatments. At this point ANYTHING would be better than our insurance company CEO created programs.

So you're "taking out the middle man" by replacing the private insurers with the government? I still see a middle man.

You still fail to see that I am not responsible for paying for the "necessary procedures" of someone else. Next time I go to the hospital, can I just send you the bill? Since it will be a necessary trip, it's not my responsibility to pay for it, so I deem that YOU are responsible for paying for it. I have no personal responsibility to take care of my needs. Thank you for freeing me up to only have to pay for the things I want.

[PLAYER57832]

And show me the progressives in office. The Democrats? Ha. There is one progressive in all of Congress.

who? sanders?

Yes. And before you go, "oh so you're to the left of the Democrats, so you must be a socialist," you have to be delirious to believe any party calling itself "progressive" party whose biggest influence in the past couple of years on this issue are Blanche Lincoln and the Blue Dog Democrats. He is the only one on the left in Congress who is actively working against the vicegrip the Democrats and Republicans parties have on power.

This is yet another irony of Nightstrikes view. From what I have seen, both you and radiojake probably are truly liberal. I actually am only liberal on some issues. Even in economics, I am only moderately liberal. The Democrats are absolutely not.

I don't like labels. Especially ones given to me by others.

I agree and apologize. My wording was poor. Not sure how to phrase it better, so I will just leave it at that.

[PLAYER57832]

Then let me choose who and where to give my money instead of handing it all over to the government and letting them take 50% off the top.

Because even if flat tax credits were offered, too many people will simply decide not to pay for food inspection, roads, public vaccination programs, pollution cleanup, banking regulation, or even the military. Also, just administering all the individual payments would be such an unbridled and unpredictable mess nothing would be accomplished except even more bureacracy.

You don't get it. The individual payments would NOT be administered! The whole point is removing the administration and letting people help people. If I see a person in need, I donate either to that person or to a non-profit organization that directly helps that person. These organizations almost always use their money to get the most bang for their buck; to help the most people with as few dollars as possible.

LOL.. apparently you have no real idea how non=profits work. They are not just robots that take and hand out money. They do have people who run the programs, deal with issues.. ie "beauracracy".

Besides that just how much money do you think a charity to "oversee bankers" would really recieve? Or, more to the point, would individuals be able to put up more than those banks themselves could put up to counter any limits?

Also... the greatest irony here is that, in this thread "taking out the middle man" is EXACTLY what I am arguing needs doing.. taking out the private insurers for basic medical care. Let them handle the superfulous and "extra" stuff, the optional stuff. Let the government fund the necessary procedures. Greecepwn mentioned France's system. From what I remember, it was pretty good. I also remember liking the Swiss system. Japan is rather unique in that they require payment to keep people healthy, instead of just compensating when someone needs fancy treatments. At this point ANYTHING would be better than our insurance company CEO created programs.

So you're "taking out the middle man" by replacing the private insurers with the government? I still see a middle man.

One, uniform administrator instead of 50 different middle people. Yes.

You still fail to see that I am not responsible for paying for the "necessary procedures" of someone else. Next time I go to the hospital, can I just send you the bill? Since it will be a necessary trip, it's not my responsibility to pay for it, so I deem that YOU are responsible for paying for it. I have no personal responsibility to take care of my needs. Thank you for freeing me up to only have to pay for the things I want.

OK, let's try to put this in more simple terms.. but I suspect you will continue to pretend you cannot comprehend.

1. YOU, not I are the only one attempting to claim that I should not be paying for my medical bills. MY complaint is that I HAVE PAID insurance DO pay for medical care through my taxes, but because we have a system geared toward making insurance companies money (doctors are now only secondary) and saving employers money on premiums without real regard to quality or types of care provided, we cannot get any coverage. I AM NOT happy to thrust my kids onto taxpayers, but the insurance companies are quite happy with that state of affairs.

So, to put it more simply -- I am not getting what I paid for years to get.

2. Why should you pay? Its called INSURANCE. That means you pay a little now, so that when the time comes you won't be hit with a huge bill beyond what any reasonable person can pay in one fell swoop. You are healthy now. GREAT! So was I for years. I am still not terribly unhealthy, its just that insurance definitions mean basically any illness is enough for them to reject someone. I know you believe you are an exception and don't have to worry about that. and, right now.. the insurance companies pretty much mean you won't be able to get coverage when you need it anyway. Hey! You can just join the millions of others who similarly find they are suddenly uninsured when sick (or have kids who are) and be forced to give up your home, all your assets (IF you evne have any.... seems like you said you were a renter at one point? ). Then we taxpayers will be picking up YOUR bills.

3. How exactly do you come to the idea that a system predicated upon making a profit can provide cheaper services than a system that is limited and regulated to not make a profit?

[stahrgazer]

Arguments about not paying for services you don't use (not gonna quote Nightstrike's full comment, so paraphrased) fly by the wayside if you consider that I am paying taxes for other people's children to go to school. I don't have children, so why should I pay for your kids' school?

I don't plan to go to Afghanistan, so why should I pay for people who are warring over there?

I don't do this I don't do that i don't do the other.

Player's right, it's about societal requirements.

At one time, lots of folks in the United States were employed by large employers who valued them enough to want to keep them healthy. Now, big businesses consider those employees completely disposable, not WORTH keeping healthy; if they're gone, the business just moves overseas.

Which means, the major "historical" contributor to societal health is diminished and nearly gone.

What replaces it?

Okay, buy your own insurance, right? Well... there's just this problem about those major companies that decided US people were so very disposable that the businesses moved overseas.. because someone else has the jobs people here might have been able to purchase their healthcare with.

Small companies can't really afford what larger companies used to afford. That has been an historical trend and is still the case: small businesses, mom-n-pop shops, are generally not able to fund their employees' healthcare - although they used to be able to subsidize more than they can now.

The big reasons Social Security started in the first place is because people who retired no longer had access to the healthcare the larger companies provided when they were working for those companies.

Now, a majority of the working-age (ineligible for medicare) population (rather than an historical minority) no longer have access to the healthcare larger companies provided when the majority of the working-age population was working for those companies.

This creates a new societal need. Or we say, yup, businesses are right, entire populations are totally disposable, let them die since they have no jobs and no healthcare; that's just how capitalism works, after all, and we who make enough should be free to spend it as we want rather than as the society (who have contributed to those who make enough by purchasing things - when we were mainly working) needs.

So essentially, the healthcare provided by medicare needs to be spread among a larger population, because now, a larger population is in the same boat that mainly "retirees" used to be in: no longer working for the larger companies that used to provide healthcare as part of wages and benefits packages.

It's not that different, really, from the reason taxes began paying for "public schools" - a need to keep a population mentally healthy and growing vs. a need to keep a population physically healthy and growing.

So, okay, gimme back all my taxes too. I can't afford to drive much anymore so I shouldn't pay for roads. I've already explained I don't have kids, so I shouldn't pay for schools. I'm not going to be able to get social security or medicare myself so I shouldn't have to pay for seniors who get it now. While at it, no WIC (no kids, why do I care if kids have milk?) no medicaid (you may think my ideas are crazy, and I do limp, but I don't actually qualify for mental or physical disability so why should I pay for others?)

I'm also not too crazy about war, so I don't want to pay for that either. Borders are overrun by illegal immigrants that can be argued as tearing down the country from the inside, so why bother paying for "security?" So, end the military portion of taxes too.

The list goes on.

But as Player said, taxes are to support societal needs.. and he makes an EXTREMELY valid point about "churches" focusing their money. Most of the churches I ever attended had all sorts of collections to send missionaries overseas here, there, and everywhere; but none chose to collect to fund a local health clinic.

I just explained why the societal needs of healthcare changed. I'm not going to cite the studies that back up the information I gave that U.S. healthcare was founded on being provided by the workplace, nor am I going to cite the studies that back up the millions of jobs that aren't found within the United States anymore, nor am I going to cite the studies that reflect the diminished benefits packages for those who ARE still working.

You can look them up yourself.. or ignore those facts because you wish to.

In the meantime, the idea of reducing retirees' benefits is anathema to a large segment of population (seniors) who vote.

Rather selfish of them, if you think about it: they've had healthcare pretty much their entire lives. Not so the generations that are paying for seniors' medical needs (but cannot afford to pay for the medical needs for themselves or their own families).

[Phatscotty]

Obama has ended "selling" waivers for the super great health care reform plan. all the super rich who are going to pay Obama back with favors are going to get even richer at the expense of the poor and middle.

Last Call has passed!

[thegreekdog]

Obama has ended "selling" waivers for the super great health care reform plan. all the super rich who are going to pay Obama back with favors are going to get even richer at the expense of the poor and middle.

Last Call has passed!

But, but, but... I thought the Democrats were supporters of the poor and middle class and only Republicans favored the evil wealthy fatcats?!?!?!

If this is not enough evidence that the country is really run by one political party, I don't know what else we can possibly provide. I mean, companies give money to candidates opposing each other in elections... that might be better evidence, but this is pretty damning.

[PLAYER57832]

Obama has ended "selling" waivers for the super great health care reform plan. all the super rich who are going to pay Obama back with favors are going to get even richer at the expense of the poor and middle.

Last Call has passed!

But, but, but... I thought the Democrats were supporters of the poor and middle class and only Republicans favored the evil wealthy fatcats?!?!?!

If this is not enough evidence that the country is really run by one political party, I don't know what else we can possibly provide. I mean, companies give money to candidates opposing each other in elections... that might be better evidence, but this is pretty damning.

I don't believe anyone here really disputes this.
Ironically, the ones who do are the Republicans, by attempting to proclaim themselves the party of "pro family values" and being Pro Americanbusiness (the small type illustrative of their double speak)

[Phatscotty]

Obama has ended "selling" waivers for the super great health care reform plan. all the super rich who are going to pay Obama back with favors are going to get even richer at the expense of the poor and middle.

Last Call has passed!

But, but, but... I thought the Democrats were supporters of the poor and middle class and only Republicans favored the evil wealthy fatcats?!?!?!

If this is not enough evidence that the country is really run by one political party, I don't know what else we can possibly provide. I mean, companies give money to candidates opposing each other in elections... that might be better evidence, but this is pretty damning.

I don't believe anyone really disputes this.
Ironically, the ones who do are the Republicans, by attempting to proclaim themselves the party of "pro family values" and being Pro Americanbusiness (the small type illustrative of their double speak)

non-sequitor

[Woodruff]

You don't get it. The individual payments would NOT be administered! The whole point is removing the administration and letting people help people. If I see a person in need, I donate either to that person or to a non-profit organization that directly helps that person. These organizations almost always use their money to get the most bang for their buck; to help the most people with as few dollars as possible.

Do some research into charities...you'll be surprised. During my time in the military, there was an annual campaign that happened where a boatload of charities came to the military (and probably others, for all I know) asking for donations. You'd get a booklet of all the charities, and it included all of the percentages of where the money went. Most did fairly poorly with the money, and some were truly miserable (as in less than 50% actually being put to use toward the charitized individuals/research).

There are a few that do really well. But they are very few.