An example of why a public option would be nice in the United States

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/26614998/detail.html

I predict the Usual Suspects will harp on this:

'In a statement to 7NEWS the insurance company said, "We did not receive a full and timely payment and (Mrs. Flanagan) was provided several notices of the shortage and a grace period reminder notice on the last invoice, along with extended grace dates as provided for under COBRA regulations."'

Because, you know, a corporation like this is scrupulously honest and would never lie/deceive. I'm sure the notices WEREN'T buried in the teensy, tiny print of a bill w/the deliberate intent that they be missed!!! Also, you want to be on THEIR side over that of the little guy, anyway.

[August]

I predict the Usual Suspects will harp on this:


What's with this repeated mention of "Usual Suspects"? If you don't want people to comment then why do you bother to post?

Oh your link times out.

[Growler]

On the other hand, when my mom's cancer coverage through AFLAC lapsed while she was in the hospital, the hospital called them, explained the situation, and AFLAC reinstated her coverage retroactively to the date it lapsed. So yeah, insurance COMPANIES may be a pain, but PEOPLE still work there.

[Sailor Steve]

What's with this repeated mention of "Usual Suspects"? If you don't want people to comment then why do you bother to post?
Because he thinks he's a centrist and anyone who disagrees is falling off the right side. Of course he doesn't realize that he is "the usual suspects" for the far left.

Have you ever noticed how he never says anything, just posts a moderate insult and runs away? Tribesman gets grief for going over the edge, and he sometimes does, but at least he contributes to the debate, and often well.

Torvald, on the other hand, contributes nothing but the ocassional insult. This is the classic example of trolling at its worst.

[Bubblehead1980]

A "public option" would work no better and just further add to our nation's problems.

[Platapus]

This is not a public option or no public option issue.

This is an issue where a policy is being enforced to a strictness that, in this case, raises an emotional response.

Sure we all feel a bit angry when a person is denied medical coverage for a "mere" $0.02. That's the whole purpose of the story.

What I don't understand is why they did not pay the extra 2 cents when they paid their following month's bill?

If I get a bill, for something as important as medical insurance and it has listed

Forwarded balance $0.02
Current Balance $328.69
Total Due $328.71

Why didn't they either pay the extra $0.02 (no brainer) or immediately call the insurance company to ask about the two cents?

Ultimately it is the responsibility of the customer to pay the premium.

Did the insurance company act like jerks? Of course they did. Honestly does anyone expect caring and consideration from COBRA? :nope:

But, did this family take any reasonable actions to mitigate this issue such as paying the two cents or calling the company to inquire? Evidently not. Their solution was to ignore the problem.

Yes on an emotional level, this issue is terrible. I am angry at this. But logically I can't ignore that this family did contribute to this issue by not paying the full amount or calling/writing the insurance company to inquire about the "extra" $0.02

[gimpy117]

as i said before, people's health is a right. and why should we make health a profit based system?

[Platapus]

as i said before, people's health is a right. and why should we make health a profit based system?

When ever someone opines a "right", I like to ask what is the source of this "right"?

I am not saying that it is or is not a right, but I would be interested in knowing what you consider the source of this right?

[Growler]

When ever someone opines a "right", I like to ask what is the source of this "right"?

I am not saying that it is or is not a right, but I would be interested in knowing what you consider the source of this right?

Curious. I'd like to know as well; the concept is intriguing.

It is the responsibility of a company to provide the service paid for. It is the responsibility of the consumer to pay the company for services rendered. Simple economics.

[August]

people's health is a right.

Fine by me, but declaring it to be a right doesn't mean that the government has to, or even should, get involved in providing it. You also have a right to privacy. Does that mean the government has to guard your front door in order to make sure you get it?

...and why should we make health a profit based system?Because it is a profit based system.

Now I'm not unsympathetic to a Nationalized Health Care system but that presently does not exist and you can't just switch from one to the other like you turn on a light, even if the idea had complete backing from the medical community, which it doesn't.

First we'd have to train a complete new crop of surgeons, doctors, nurses, technicians orderlies and administrators because few of the existing ones are going to want to leave the much higher paying private practice for government service.

That alone will take quite some time and it won't be cheap.

Meanwhile though we'd also have to spend even more money to rent, buy or build hospitals and clinics all across our huge country in order to give that new crop of medics a place to work once they are ready. And then lets not forget that we'd have to start, collect, file, standardize and store 300 million sets of medical records. A huge undertaking just in itself.

So yeah, we have a right to health care, nobody is stopping you from buying as much as you require, but you can't expect to get it for free.

[August]

When ever someone opines a "right", I like to ask what is the source of this "right"?

I am not saying that it is or is not a right, but I would be interested in knowing what you consider the source of this right?

He's right. The Tenth Amendment says so.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[CaptainHaplo]

A person's health IS a right.

What is not is a right is public payment to care for and uphold that right for everyone else.

You want to be healthy? That's your right. You can exercise, eat healthy, not smoke or drink, etc. Those are your choices.

You want to be unhealthy? Thats your right too. You can eat bon-bons, lay around and get fat, diabetic , smoke up your lungs till you get cancer, drink till your liver dessicates and eat bacon till you clog your arteries. Those are also your choices.

To say that health care is a right, and that health care should NOT be a profit source for business, your saying that the doctors and nurses who take care of you should not be recompensed beyond a certain minimal level. Your saying that you have the RIGHT to make them use their knowledge on you for your benefit without them having benefit as well.

Personal health is a right. Publicly funded health care is trampling the rights of others who have to pay for your bad decisions.

[mookiemookie]

Your saying that you have the RIGHT to make them use their knowledge on you for your benefit without them having benefit as well.

And you're mis-characterizing the argument so as to create a strawman. No one said that health care professionals should work for free or even a pittance. What is being argued is that health insurance should be nationalized and taken away as a profit-making enterprise. The interests of health insurance company shareholders and the insureds are irreparably at odds. Scrap the for-profit model.


Personal health is a right. Publicly funded health care is trampling the rights of others who have to pay for your bad decisions.

If you believe that, you must have a serious moral quandary when you pay your insurance premiums each month. You're paying for the bad decisions of your fellow policyholders.

[Freiwillige]

Devil's advocate. Health care is not a right, Its a privilege. Its not set up in our constitution or the bill of rights. Our rights are guaranteed by the government but I don't see health care in any document of rights.

Health care is a privilege. You can earn it just like you could earn a Porsche but a right? How so??? People spout about rights and if it feel's good it must be a right, that is unless its completely wrong.

Not bashing just curious where the concept of Rights that aren't federally listed come from.

[August]

Not bashing just curious where the concept of Rights that aren't federally listed come from.

See my post #11 in this thread.

[Growler]

See my post #11 in this thread.

I'm not sure, August. Are you suggesting that health "as a right" exists in the US because the Bill of Rights suggests that, since someone says its' so, it is? I'm not trying to be truculent; I'm just not following your train of thought on the Tenth Amendment.

The way I read that, if the Fed doesn't call it a right, nor deny it as a right, then the States (individually) may decide to enforce a right on their own, pursuant to the wishes of their people; further, that the people themselves may decide what is a right.

Now, my need for amplification is this: Is the Amendment suggesting that, because the Constitution doesn't enumerate or deny the right of health, it is therefore an allowed right because an individual calls it so?

I really am not trying to be contrary; I am just trying to understand.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Wall o'text.

This. ^ :salute:

[gimpy117]

well we do have the right to: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
One could say that part of protecting ones right to life is to offer affordable and fair health care. I'm not saying that the bill of rights says the government is supposed to give people universal health care, but it is supposed to do things to help make sure these things are affordable.

[August]

I really am not trying to be contrary; I am just trying to understand.

Don't worry, I understand.

What the 10th Amendment basically says is that Americans have a right to anything unless the Constitution specifically gives their government the power to regulate or deny it.

Some of the framers were worried that some day someone would try to attempt to limit the freedom of the American people to what is listed in the Bill of Rights.

[Sailor Steve]

Not bashing just curious where the concept of Rights that aren't federally listed come from.
The concept of the Framers was that government has no rights at all. They were used to (and tired of) the background they came from, which said that the Government has all the rights, the Government owns you, you are a subject. They created the National Government because they had to, not because they wanted one. And they created that government to accomplish two things - arbitrate disputes between the States and deal with foreign policy. The first was because the States couldn't always agree on everything, and they needed some way to keep each other in line. The second was because foreign governments refused to deal with thirteen separate little nations severally and insisted that they would deal only with The United States, since that was what we had chosen to call ourselves.

Everything beyond that is outside the pervue of the Constitution, which specifies how the Government is to be run and then lists certain things that it is not allowed to touch. To hedge his bets, author James Madison made sure the Ninth and Tenth amendments were in there. The People have ALL the rights, the Government has none.

[August]

The concept of the Framers was that government has no rights at all. They were used to (and tired of) the background they came from, which said that the Government has all the rights, the Government owns you, you are a subject. They created the National Government because they had to, not because they wanted one. And they created that government to accomplish two things - arbitrate disputes between the States and deal with foreign policy. The first was because the States couldn't always agree on everything, and they needed some way to keep each other in line. The second was because foreign governments refused to deal with thirteen separate little nations severally and insisted that they would deal only with The United States, since that was what we had chosen to call ourselves.

Everything beyond that is outside the pervue of the Constitution, which specifies how the Government is to be run and then lists certain things that it is not allowed to touch. To hedge his bets, author James Madison made sure the Ninth and Tenth amendments were in there. The People have ALL the rights, the Government has none.

You said it far better than I did Steve. :salute:

[Kaye T. Bai]

One could say that part of protecting ones right to life is to offer affordable and fair health care.
Maybe. But is it really within the government's purview to ensure that?

I'm not saying that the bill of rights [sic] says the government is supposed to give people universal health care, but it is supposed to do things to help make sure these things are affordable.

Where exactly?

well we do have the right to: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'd hate to rain on your parade, but the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is taken from the United States' Declaration of Independence, which has no legal weight or bearing on how business is conducted in the country. That'd be the United States Constitution.

[gimpy117]

Maybe. But is it really within the government's purview to ensure that?

It's the governments job to make sure this right isn't being denied by things like extreme medical costs.

[Growler]

Don't worry, I understand.

What the 10th Amendment basically says is that Americans have a right to anything unless the Constitution specifically gives their government the power to regulate or deny it.

Some of the framers were worried that some day someone would try to attempt to limit the freedom of the American people to what is listed in the Bill of Rights.

The concept of the Framers was that government has no rights at all. They were used to (and tired of) the background they came from, which said that the Government has all the rights, the Government owns you, you are a subject. They created the National Government because they had to, not because they wanted one. And they created that government to accomplish two things - arbitrate disputes between the States and deal with foreign policy. The first was because the States couldn't always agree on everything, and they needed some way to keep each other in line. The second was because foreign governments refused to deal with thirteen separate little nations severally and insisted that they would deal only with The United States, since that was what we had chosen to call ourselves.

Everything beyond that is outside the pervue of the Constitution, which specifies how the Government is to be run and then lists certain things that it is not allowed to touch. To hedge his bets, author James Madison made sure the Ninth and Tenth amendments were in there. The People have ALL the rights, the Government has none.

Thank you, gentlemen - that clarifies beautifully.:up:

Curious how many laws we have on the books - and how open to interpretation many of them are over the years.

Health is a condition, not a right. What bothers me about socialized health care (in the US) is the slippery slope it starts the nation down; specifically, around the abortion issue. It's a clear cause of one party to outlaw the practice, and the other party to allow it. Both parties could sue - and win - a case based on the "right" to health, were it such a right. One wins on the basis of woman's health, while the other wins on the basis of fetus health. Every time Congress (more likely, the leanings of the SCOTUS) changed in dominant party, the law would be enforced differently. This is not the way to do business.

[Armistead]

Curious. I'd like to know as well; the concept is intriguing.

It is the responsibility of a company to provide the service paid for. It is the responsibility of the consumer to pay the company for services rendered. Simple economics.

You'd be surprised what they don't pay for, so read all the fine print. It's also a matter of policy to deny many bills the first time even if it's covered, although after calls from you or your Doctor they will pay up, but this tactic works, 28% don't follow up, get the bill and either pay it or not. They leave many areas gray on purpose. They should make fine unreadable print on some back page against the law. Think how corrupt that is, why, because it works and screws millions up every year. Whatever is written in fine print now should be changed to large print with a large "WARNING", read this, hire an attorney to understand it...or you could die. The profit is in the fine print.

The bigger question is health a right. The government already deems we have the right to life, the bill of rights protects the right to life, one reason ER rooms don't deny life threatening conditions, criminals in jail get good health care as do terrorist.

Yes, this right has to be paid for, like we all pay for prisions, education, ect..Why, if we didn't it would cost society as a whole. We all together pay cops and firefighters to protect life. We ban together to do so.
When one is denied or can't afford health care, all studies show it cost us all more in the long run, so we all suffer as a society, hospital charge more, Insurance goe's up, medicare 60 trillion in debt.

I have no problem with all making profit, but the medical industry as a whole has become a corporate monopoly based on mass profits. On this one area of health, ask yourself this...do you want people to act based on how they can help you the most or do you want them to act based on how much profit..? This is an affront to our right to life.

Today Doctor mistakes are the 3rd leading cause of death, 40,000 die every year from lack of care, millions do without meds, live in pain, so they can feed their kids instead. These get worse and usually cost us all more.
Many in pain just kill themselves.

All studies show one thing, no changes, in 10 years 40% of us could be without medical insurance. Recent studies show corporations are providing less and less options with insurance. All studies show the nice government care will have to be cut...I've met many a GOP member that got ill, lost his job, insurance and forced into pain and poverty changed their mind about a public option.

You have to ask yourself, public option or corporate control for mass profits....which is worse? We know both have bankrupted this country, but no CEO will get a 20 million dollar bonus at the end of the year at the expense of someone elses pain or death.

What we need is a properly regulated medical industry, I myself don't trust the government, but I trust corporations less...course they run the GOP, so would be a win win for them either way.

[CaptainHaplo]

And you're mis-characterizing the argument so as to create a strawman. No one said that health care professionals should work for free or even a pittance. What is being argued is that health insurance should be nationalized and taken away as a profit-making enterprise. The interests of health insurance company shareholders and the insureds are irreparably at odds. Scrap the for-profit model.

If you believe that, you must have a serious moral quandary when you pay your insurance premiums each month. You're paying for the bad decisions of your fellow policyholders.


Two points here mookie. First - if something is not for profit - then it can't make a profit. Meaning it cannot GROW. So the local doctor, with just him on staff - cannot afford to hire another physician or nurse - because he has no margin for it. The local small hospital that really SHOULD have an MRI machine because its servicing a fairly large area, can't purchase it because it has no profit to reinvest and grow.

Take profit out of the equation, and your reduced to the old west, one doctor in the whole town and hope he carries what you need in his little black bag when you see him. How exactly is that improving health care?

Secondly - the issue of insurance. I have the CHOICE of paying insurance premiums with everyone else that has my policy or provider. There is no moral quandry - its my CHOICE. The "public option" - as we see steps to put it in place using the existing health care bill - means EVERYONE pays - either through their own insurance premiums, non-coverage "fees" or just outright taxes. No choices given.

You want a public option? Fix it where my tax dollars, my private insurance payments and such don't fund it. Institute it to where only those who use it pay for it. Then fine. But you can't do that - there won't be enough money to pay the bills, so the difference gets lumped on everybody, without any of us having a choice.

So no - there is a big difference in me choosing my insurer and choosing to pay the premium and share the load with others - and having the government MAKE me.

Edit: Yes, its true that right now we are all paying for the care of the uninsured via higher premiums, exorbitant hospital bills and general taxes. However, that doesn't mean the "fix" is to formalize the high costs by recognizing the existing de facto problems and permanticizing them into law. Better to change the equation all the way around.

#1) Change how health care is delivered: disallow hospital emergency room care to non-emergency patients. Yes, allow hospitals to turn away non paying patients who are not in need of immediate emergency care.
#2) Repeal the insurance industry;s anti-trust exemption.
#3) Tort Reform
#4) Rework how Medicare and Medicaid payments are dealt with - paying doctors properly while dramatically reducing fraud.

[Sailor Steve]

It's the governments job to make sure this right isn't being denied by things like extreme medical costs.
No. Not even close. The Right To Life means that no one has the right to take your life, unless you forfeit that right through some crime. It does not mean that you have the right to force someone else to pay for your problems. You can argue that people should do so, and that it's a moral obligation, but a Right is something you are born with, not something the government assigns to you.

Since it was Jefferson who enumerated those Rights in the Declaration, let's look at another of his quotes to see what he really felt:

"Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
-Thomas Jefferson; first inaugural address, March 4, 1801

And another:

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
—Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787

[Tribesman]

Two points here mookie. First - if something is not for profit - then it can't make a profit. Meaning it cannot GROW.
:har::har::har::har::har::har:
CAPS LOCK strikes.
Reinvestment and growth is an element which must always be factored into the business model, so those "profits" are inbuilt.
Somone doesn't undeerstand the basic differences just like their earlier ridiculous claim that non profit means no wages.

Secondly - the issue of insurance. I have the CHOICE of paying insurance premiums with everyone else that has my policy or provider. There is no moral quandry - its my CHOICE. The "public option" - as we see steps to put it in place using the existing health care bill - means EVERYONE pays - either through their own insurance premiums, non-coverage "fees" or just outright taxes. No choices given.

CAPS LOCK really is a good indicator, everyone pays through both systems, there is no actual choice, you paid under the old healthcare bil just as you pay under the existing bill and will pay under any further bills and paid under all the previous bills.
If you don't want to pay move to Somalia.

[Takeda Shingen]

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
CAPS LOCK strikes.
Reinvestment and growth is an element which must always be factored into the business model, so those "profits" are inbuilt.
Somone doesn't undeerstand the basic differences just like their earlier ridiculous claim that non profit means no wages.


CAPS LOCK really is a good indicator, everyone pays through both systems, there is no actual choice, you paid under the old healthcare bil just as you pay under the existing bill and will pay under any further bills and paid under all the previous bills.
If you don't want to pay move to Somalia.

C'mon, man. There's no need to strike a condescending tone. Your arguments are good, they usually are; why start with the gratuitous laughing emoticons? All that will accomplish is needlessly pissing people off.

[Tribesman]

C'mon, man. There's no need to strike a condescending tone.
The view expressed was ridiculous. The emphasis that was put on with BIG LETTERS were the elements which were most incorrect.

why start with the gratuitous laughing emoticons?
It refelects the hilarity of the claims that had been made, especially when Haplo raises a mention of "morals" for good measure

As for good arguements?
How about them charities eh, not for profit by definition so how on earth do they grow?

[Platapus]

The confusion is the intermixing of two definitions. The first being the economic definition of a profit and the other a legal definition of profit in the context of distribution of profit. This is a common confusion.

NPOs have to make an economic profit (income > expenses). However, NPOs can't distribute profit to shareholders and the like. NPOs must reinvest their economic profit back into the organization. Where a for profit corporation does not have to. The "non profit" in Non Profit Organizations deals with the legal definitions of profit in the context of distribution.

I work for a NPO and I knock down six figures and I am one of the minions. I do make a little less than a counter part in a For Profit Corporation, but not by much. NPO does not mean volunteer nor starvation wages. :nope: My NPO has to make an economic profit in order for us to grow. Growth is an important factor in NPOs.

In operation, there is actually little difference between an NPO and a for profit corporation other than restrictions on how economic profits can be distributed. NPOs must distribute economic profits within the organization and For Profit organizations can distribute profits outside the corporation.

Short summary: NPOs have legal restrictions on how they can use Profit.

The use of the term "Profit" in Non-Profit Organizations is confusing and can mislead the public into thinking that they don't make a profit like the other money-grubbing for profit corporations. NPOs are just as money grubbing as the rest. :up:

They have to be in order to stay in business.

So if we were to make all hospitals Non-profit organizations, they would still be able to pay doctors the same salary they get in For Profit hospitals.

[mookiemookie]

Two points here mookie. First - if something is not for profit - then it can't make a profit. Meaning it cannot GROW. So the local doctor...

Health care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc) ≠ health insurance industry (Aetna, Wellpoint, Cigna). Again, you're mis-characterizing the argument and the rest is a strawman.

But you can't do that - there won't be enough money to pay the bills, so the difference gets lumped on everybody, without any of us having a choice.

Exactly. And that's fine.

[CaptainHaplo]

Exactly. And that's fine.

And this is where you and I have to agree to disagree. You think its "ok" for everyone to be made to pay for "helping" others. I view it as stealing from me to pay for someone else. You see it as acceptable, I see it as criminal. We differ.

At least there is still some civil discussion possible.

[mookiemookie]

And this is where you and I have to agree to disagree. You think its "ok" for everyone to be made to pay for "helping" others. I view it as stealing from me to pay for someone else. You see it as acceptable, I see it as criminal. We differ.

At least there is still some civil discussion possible.

*hat tip* :salute:

[CaptainHaplo]

Heck mookie - maybe we should run both run for office. We could hang out, yell and cuss and then say screw it and play silent hunter. They just need multiplayer!

Tax dollars at work! We'd still get more done that any of the clowns in washington now - regardless of party!

Ya know... there maybe something to this. How about having the letter (s) beside the name. For the subsim party. We don't have a unified plank except for subsims in every home!

[Tribesman]

You think its "ok" for everyone to be made to pay for "helping" others. I view it as stealing from me to pay for someone else. You see it as acceptable, I see it as criminal. We differ.


What is funny there is that one of those views is expressed by someone who claims to be a Christian preacher yet it is contrary to both the NT and OT.
I am sure there was some little baldy Indian fellow in glasses who made a very telling comment about such things.

[Tchocky]

I am sure there was some little baldy Indian fellow in glasses who made a very telling comment about such things.

That Ajaj Chopra has something to say about everything

[Growler]

The view expressed was ridiculous. The emphasis that was put on with BIG LETTERS were the elements which were most incorrect.


It refelects the hilarity of the claims that had been made, especially when Haplo raises a mention of "morals" for good measure

As for good arguements?
How about them charities eh, not for profit by definition so how on earth do they grow?

Jeez, lad. You are clearly an intelligent person with legitimately thought out and reasoned views, which is why I don't understand why you can't see how the tone you strike undermines the delivery of your content. The view expressed was ridiculous - to you (and perhaps others) - which is an opinion, not a universal truth (Were it so, this discussion wouldn't be happening). I can't figure out why you seem to choose to denigrate rather than educate - and education by denigration may be an effective means of teaching school yard bullies, but you are clearly above that level.

OT: Not-For-Profit means that, at the end of the year, the business may not post a profit. That's all. I've worked for NFPs, and am familiar with their operations. In many cases, funds that would be considered "profit" at the end of the year are instead placed into funds for other business-related expenses - for example, where I worked, a fund for the maintenance of the historic ships. It's usually not much money, unless something amazing happens during the year. Payroll, insurance, production costs, etc - all the expenses that any business, for or not-for profit - incur are part of the NFP bailiwick; the only major difference is the NFP's profit line at the end of the fiscal year must read -0-.

[Armistead]

The confusion is the intermixing of two definitions. The first being the economic definition of a profit and the other a legal definition of profit in the context of distribution of profit. This is a common confusion.

NPOs have to make an economic profit (income > expenses). However, NPOs can't distribute profit to shareholders and the like. NPOs must reinvest their economic profit back into the organization. Where a for profit corporation does not have to. The "non profit" in Non Profit Organizations deals with the legal definitions of profit in the context of distribution.

I work for a NPO and I knock down six figures and I am one of the minions. I do make a little less than a counter part in a For Profit Corporation, but not by much. NPO does not mean volunteer nor starvation wages. :nope: My NPO has to make an economic profit in order for us to grow. Growth is an important factor in NPOs.

In operation, there is actually little difference between an NPO and a for profit corporation other than restrictions on how economic profits can be distributed. NPOs must distribute economic profits within the organization and For Profit organizations can distribute profits outside the corporation.

Short summary: NPOs have legal restrictions on how they can use Profit.

The use of the term "Profit" in Non-Profit Organizations is confusing and can mislead the public into thinking that they don't make a profit like the other money-grubbing for profit corporations. NPOs are just as money grubbing as the rest. :up:

They have to be in order to stay in business.

So if we were to make all hospitals Non-profit organizations, they would still be able to pay doctors the same salary they get in For Profit hospitals.


Someone has a brain...

NPO's pay almost exactly the same as for profits to employees, have benefits, ect. What it stops is the rape of executives to pay themselves millions in salary and millions more in bonuses and profit, yet the controlling members are always paid very well.

Take Pharma..

"Many companies have even put their marketers in charge of their laboratories. At Pfizer, there was a program called CRAM, which stood for Central Research Assists Marketing. The name made it clear that the marketers were in charge.
The whole focus of the industry has changed. The drug companies center their efforts on medicines for chronic conditions that affect large portions of the American public — and therefore have vast potential markets — things like heartburn, depression, allergies, blood pressure. Even inside the labs, the scientists are told to focus only on drugs that could become billion-dollar sellers. That’s why we have six drugs to lower cholesterol that all work in the same way. And yet millions of very sick patients have no treatments."

They're several studies showing now big Pharm ignores studying medicines that actually heal and put their effort in meds to treat symptoms of chronic illness, the goal to keep someone sick as long as possible on as many pills as possible....very profitable.

Why we see a commercial every second scaring us that we need this pill for gas, depression, ect...Always some happy beautiful person taking the pill.

In the last several years since marketers run the labs, death due to over or incorrect prescription use have gone up 400% in 10 years. Many Doctors have little clue what the meds they give out do now. Studies show over 70% of americans take too many or wrong presciptions. Why, because health is tied to profit. Also Pharm has stopped making many meds that work well, because no profit in them.

Should our government not protect us from this?

Tort reform...would correct itself if health wasn't for mass profit.

Insurance corps work basically the same way. This is why were in such a mess.

[gimpy117]

No. Not even close. The Right To Life means that no one has the right to take your life, unless you forfeit that right through some crime. It does not mean that you have the right to force someone else to pay for your problems. You can argue that people should do so, and that it's a moral obligation, but a Right is something you are born with, not something the government assigns to you.

Since it was Jefferson who enumerated those Rights in the Declaration, let's look at another of his quotes to see what he really felt:

"Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
-Thomas Jefferson; first inaugural address, March 4, 1801

And another:

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
—Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787


Ahh more libertarian magic dust.
Im not saying the governemnt has to have universal health care (although it would be a good idea). I'm saying the government ought to do something about spiraling healthcare costs, and insurance companies screwing their customers. I think thats something we can agree on. But you seem to be dead set on jumping right to universal health care, and going off on some "don't take my money" tangent.

which is ironic, because many of you have no problem paying for other socialized programs that help other people. Under your rational, I should be incensed that i'm made to pay for the cops. I mean, I've never had call the police...so why should i have to pay for all those people who can't defend their own homes, or are just so "stupid" to live in a bad area.

on the subject on the Jefferson quotes, If those men thought everything they said was perfect in every way, we couldn't amend the constitution. Jefferson says something about "refraining men from injuring each other" I'm sure if he say an insurance company doing everything they could to deny coverage, when they needed it to get better, he would classify that as helping to injure somebody

[Sailor Steve]

Ahh more libertarian magic dust.
No, just an historical observation. I wasn't trying to discuss the benefits or problems with nationalized health care, as I don't consider myself educated enough on the subject to adequately argue it. My comments were based specifically on your statement that "It's the governments job to make sure this right isn't being denied by things like extreme medical costs." All I said was that that was never intended to be the Federal Government's job. Your jibe about "Libertarian magic dust" shows your own ultra-liberal bias and willingness to give labels to anything you don't like.

Im not saying the governemnt has to have universal health care (although it would be a good idea). I'm saying the government ought to do something about spiraling healthcare costs, and insurance companies screwing their customers. I think thats something we can agree on. But you seem to be dead set on jumping right to universal health care. And going off on some "don't take my money" tangent.
You're confusing me with someone else. I said nothing about any kind of health care; just that you're wrong in your statement about the "Government's job".

which is ironic, because many of you have no problem paying for other socialized programs that help other people. Under your rational, I should be incensed that i'm made to pay for the cops. I mean, I've never had call the police...so why should i have to pay for all those people who can't defend their own homes, or are just so "stupid" to live in a bad area.
Not really. We agree to pay taxes for the police because a volunteer police or fire department doesn't work in anything other than a small community, and a "per hire" version of those services could be a disaster. Also, those things are done at the State and Local levels. The Constitution doesn't provide for a national police force either.

As I said, I don't feel qualified to have an opinion on health care, universal or otherwise. It may be feasible on a state-by-state basis - I don't know. All I did was contradict a single erroneous statement. No "magic dust" at all.

on the subject on the Jefferson quotes, If those men thought everything they said was perfect in every way, we couldn't amend the constitution. Jefferson says something about "refraining men from injuring each other" I'm sure if he say an insurance company doing everything they could to deny coverage, when they needed it to get better, he would classify that as helping to injure somebody

The exact quote you're stretching for is from the Notes on the State Of Virginia: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."


And you conveniently ignore Jefferson's comments on "a wise and frugal government". I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you shouldn't be trying to pervert what those men said about how they felt to reflect what you "are sure" they really meant.

And you say that if they thought it was perfect they wouldn't have made amending it a posibility. Fine. It says nothing about Federal Health Care. Go ahead and amend it then. Good luck.

[Tribesman]

I can't figure out why you seem to choose to denigrate rather than educate
In this particular case both the wages and nonprofit issue have been thoroughly dealt with on several occasions by numerous people, the very same claims are then repeated by Haplo again in a few weeks as an attempt to build the same strawman in an effort to justify views that have already been well explained as rubbish.
That suggests that plain education is unable to penetrate his political/economic ideology which in turn is in contradiction of another ideology he claims to follow which leaves only denigration of his views as an avenue to explore.

[gimpy117]

You're confusing me with someone else. I said nothing about any kind of health care; just that you're wrong in your statement about the "Government's job".
yes you did steve, you steve, you said: "It does not mean that you have the right to force someone else to pay for your problems"

Legislation to control health care costs will not cost the american, but you were talking about government programs: ie health care programs.


Not really. We agree to pay taxes for the police because a volunteer police or fire department doesn't work in anything other than a small community, and a "per hire" version of those services could be a disaster. Also, those things are done at the State and Local levels. The Constitution doesn't provide for a national police force either.

As I said, I don't feel qualified to have an opinion on health care, universal or otherwise. It may be feasible on a state-by-state basis - I don't know. All I did was contradict a single erroneous statement. No "magic dust" at all.
no national police force? FBI? nobody complains here. Also, why is it bad for our police force to be a private organization for hire when your life is in jeopardy, but when your life in in danger when you need health care...its all a-ok?


The exact quote you're stretching for is from the Notes on the State Of Virginia: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
ok, so he's talking about freedom of religion. that quote seems pretty irrelevant now.


And you conveniently ignore Jefferson's comments on "a wise and frugal government". I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying you shouldn't be trying to pervert what those men said about how they felt to reflect what you "are sure" they really meant.

so it's ok for you to quote Jefferson for your own agenda...but not for me? Things go both ways. the only person who is sure what they really meant is those men. not us. So, you are doing the exact same thing when you assume Jefferson is on your side.


And you say that if they thought it was perfect they wouldn't have made amending it a posibility. Fine. It says nothing about Federal Health Care. Go ahead and amend it then. Good luck.

But we have that ability. to do so. There are many very good ideas that have been added later, like oh i dunno the abolition of slavery, womens suffrage, the barring of poll taxes, etc.

[Sailor Steve]

yes you did steve, you steve, you said: "It does not mean that you have the right to force someone else to pay for your problems"
And I meant it. I was, however, not talking about health care, but the general liberal concept that it's okay to steal from someone else to fix any problem you deem worthy.

Legislation to control health care costs will not cost the american, but you were talking about government programs: ie health care programs.
And I stated that I can understand that, but it is not the Federal Government's job.

no national police force? FBI? nobody complains here. Also, why is it bad for our police force to be a private organization for hire when your life is in jeopardy, but when your life in in danger when you need health care...its all a-ok?
I thought you might try to squeeze that in. The FBI was created to handle the investigation of cases that ran through multiple jurisdictions, again adhereing to what I said earlier about "arbitrating between the states". It was emphatically not created to be a police force.

ok, so he's talking about freedom of religion. that quote seems pretty irrelevant now.
Yep.

so it's ok for you to quote Jefferson for your own agenda...but not for me? Things go both ways. the only person who is sure what they really meant is those men. not us. So, you are doing the exact same thing when you assume Jefferson is on your side.
Not really. I assume they meant what they said. The quotes I used are not ambiguous at all. You, on the other hand, quoted out of context and assumed it to mean what it did not. I don't assume Jefferson is on my side; I take him at his word. In areas where he was more liberal (and he was) I quote him as well.

But we have that ability. to do so. There are many very good ideas that have been added later, like oh i dunno the abolition of slavery, womens suffrage, the barring of poll taxes, etc.
By Amendment, not by legislation that tries to bypass both the Constitution and the Process. If the Constitution were amended to support a form of national health care I might oppose the idea, but I would certainly support the act itself, as that's the way it was meant to be done. Have I ever said that I opposed that?

[yubba]

The U.S Government can't run a cementary, you really want them to run your health care ?

[gimpy117]

And I stated that I can understand that, but it is not the Federal Government's job.

why shouldn't it be the governments job to legislate reforms for helath care that allow more Americans to get it at an affordable cost, and make sure they can't have their coverage denied?

Partisan politics aside, anything that can be done to help our people have better health at an affordable cost is good. I fell like many of the voices of dissent have sold out to big business who's interests for profit are at odds when it comes to health care.

[Tribesman]

Government can't run a cementary
Is that the school which studies lime based binders?

[Sailor Steve]

why shouldn't it be the governments job to legislate reforms for helath care that allow more Americans to get it at an affordable cost, and make sure they can't have their coverage denied?
As I've said, and you seem to have ignored, is that I don't have any real objections to the idea. My point is that it is ILLEGAL for the Federal Government to do anything not specifically granted it by the Constitution. If you want to change that, advocate an Amendment. Just don't expect it to pass in your lifetime (at least in mine).

Partisan politics aside, anything that can be done to help our people have better health at an affordable cost is good. I fell like many of the voices of dissent have sold out to big business who's interests for profit are at odds when it comes to health care.
And I have no problem with that. My only argument was with your statement about the government's "job".

[TarJak]

Is that the school which studies lime based binders?
:har:That post rocks!

[Platapus]

The U.S Government can't run a cementary, you really want them to run your health care ?

Private companies can't run a cemetery. Do you really want them to run your health care?

http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-8228-burr-oak-cemetery-scandal-one-year-later.html

See I can find one extreme problem and staw-man an over-generalization too.

See how silly that form of argument is. :yep:

Every one, government, commercial, or ordinary citizens make mistakes and commit crimes. Does that mean that no one can be trusted to do anything? I don't think so.

[Tribesman]

See how silly that form of argument is.

You are very gentle.
Were you not slightly tempted along the lines of .....
"you think the government is capable of running an inter galactic conspiracy with various gods and aliens, hiding a whole planet that is going to eat the earth and brainwashing the population while building a secret telescope in one of the most inhospitable places on earth.... yet is somehow overwhelmed by the threat of running a hospital and is simply incapable of managing a health service" ?:hmmm:

[gimpy117]

As I've said, and you seem to have ignored, is that I don't have any real objections to the idea. My point is that it is ILLEGAL for the Federal Government to do anything not specifically granted it by the Constitution. If you want to change that, advocate an Amendment. Just don't expect it to pass in your lifetime (at least in mine).


And I have no problem with that. My only argument was with your statement about the government's "job".

So it's not the governments job to promote the general welfare of the people? when did that happen?

besides where does it say they can't pass a law about healthcare? I just read the constitution article over powers and limits on congress like 10 times.

[Sailor Steve]

Every one, government, commercial, or ordinary citizens make mistakes and commit crimes. Does that mean that no one can be trusted to do anything? I don't think so.
The problem I see here is that when a private company screws something up they go out of business. When the government screws something up they just raise our taxes to pay for it.

Of course you're right in that private companies do indeed cheat people all the time, and government is the only way to regulate that. I would rather have the Fed bring the bad ones to justice that try to run it themselves. When the government cheats people it's a lot harder to do anything about it.

[Sailor Steve]

So it's not the governments job to promote the general welfare of the people? when did that happen?
That's a fair point, but health care (and welfare as we know it) weren't a part of what they intended, or they would have done it themselves.

besides where does it say they can't pass a law about healthcare? I just read the constitution article over powers and limits on congress like 10 times.
I see you chose to ignore my last statement, even though I put it in all caps. You read it "like 10 times" and you still missed the 10th Amendment?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"Where does it say they can't"? The point is that they were so afraid of possible abuses by the Federal Government that they very specifically said that unless the Constitution specifically says it can, then it can't. Until you understand that, you miss the whole point of what the United States was meant to be.

[yubba]

[QUOTE=Platapus;1586338]Private companies can't run a cemetery. Do you really want them to run your health care?

First you got to get all the crooks out of the equassion, it isn't that hard to reform healthcare, once you take profit off the table, they run health care to make a profit so the shareholders can make 10% a year pretty good return after 10 years the prices go through the roof. So what have you seen the U.S Government do so well ?

[Tribesman]

That's a fair point, but health care (and welfare as we know it) weren't a part of what they intended, or they would have done it themselves.


Come on Steve, very early US history so you should get this.
When did the US first set up government run medical services with health cover for the welfare of the people/state?
You might have a popint on the extension of that to all citizens but that itself is countered by the fact the country and taxpayer have to do it anyway if the extension isn't there.

[Sailor Steve]

Come on Steve, very early US history so you should get this.
When did the US first set up government run medical services with health cover for the welfare of the people/state?
I assume you're referring to the 1798 Act For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, which created a series of hospitals for that segment of workers. Yes, the Congress, which was made up partly of the Framers themselves, passed the law, and President Adams signed it. The modern Veterans Administration considers this to be their founding. Each ship's Master was ordered to collect money from the sailors to pay for it.

And Thomas Jefferson, then vice-president, was one of it supporters. I have yet to find the opinion of James Madison on this.

That's a good point, and one proponents of the modern healthcare bill uses to support it. It can be argued that the merchant marine was vital to the survival of the nation at that time, and that this made it alright. But that same congress passed the Alien and Sedition acts, making it illegal to be French, and jailing anyone who openly critcized the president. The congress and president signed it, so that must be Constitutional also.

On the other hand, lawyers, judges and congressmen live and die by the precedent, so that does somewhat validate modern support.

And don't forget that James Madison opposed the Congress and the military having chaplains payed for by public tax money. Seemingly irrelevant, but it shows that the Founders themselves were divided on many of these issues.

You might have a popint on the extension of that to all citizens but that itself is countered by the fact the country and taxpayer have to do it anyway if the extension isn't there.
As I've said, I don't oppose government-mandated or government-run health care, as I don't understand how these things work. I just oppose anything that gives the Federal Government a bigger hold on our lives.

And in that I'm a hypocrite, because I use the VA all the time.

[Growler]

And in that I'm a hypocrite, because I use the VA all the time.


Whoa. Hang on a minute.

You EARNED that privilege; I have absolutely ZERO objection to the VA helping vets. Vets have given something back to this country; read that as "Have provided a service to, on the behalf of, every American citizen."

And were paid for it, I know; but tell me why socialized health care should provide for someone who's never provided anything to the citizens of the nation? That's where I run aground, because I can't justify my tax dollars going to help someone who's done f-all for their nation.

To be honest, otherwise, I'm cool with socialized health care: earned by four years of national service of some sort. Otherwise, private industry - at private industry rates. If you aren't willing to step up and offer four years of your life in some form of national service - Park service, fisheries, military, health care - then why should the nation provide for you?

[Platapus]

You are very gentle.
Were you not slightly tempted along the lines of .....
"you think the government is capable of running an inter galactic conspiracy with various gods and aliens, hiding a whole planet that is going to eat the earth and brainwashing the population while building a secret telescope in one of the most inhospitable places on earth.... yet is somehow overwhelmed by the threat of running a hospital and is simply incapable of managing a health service" ?:hmmm:


No I was just pointing out that finding an example of government error in running a cemetery some how indicates that the government can't run a health care system. The two really don't have much to do with anything.

If you think that some how a commercial company is immune to error, the example of the private cemetery scandal was given. If you are going to exclude the government for one example, then, by your logic, you must exclude commercial companies for both have made serious errors in running a cemetery.

And I hope that by using those examples I demonstrated that both inferences are incorrect and illogical.

When it comes to entrusting health care to the government, I also have concerns. But what is the alternative? Entrusting health care to corporations? Both options are not very good, so we are forced to accept the lesser of two evils. Given the crappy choice between entrusting the government and entrusting a corporation, the government is the less risky choice in my opinion. I would rather neither be in charge, but if forced to choose one, I sure aint entrusting a corporation. :nope:

[gimpy117]

I know; but tell me why socialized health care should provide for someone who's never provided anything to the citizens of the nation? That's where I run aground, because I can't justify my tax dollars going to help someone who's done f-all for their nation.

Well how about all the Social security checks I've helped pay, even though I'm currently not on social security? do I get to be all mad because you guys are taking my money I'm paying in? I'm sorry. But I'm getting tired of all the "holier than thou" attitude where everyone who uses a social program is some kind of bloodsucking rabble...but you all deserve your cut because you are somehow better. I don't want to sound ungrateful to the military, and if you were drafted like in Vietnam or something thats special, you deserve respect...But we haven't had a draft since Vietnam, so essentially the military was your career choice, same as any other person in this nation, and you were paid off of our tax dollars to render us a service.

You also are missing the point. You act like If you pay for a socialized health care system is money wasted. Every thought that if you pay into the system, you also get the benefit if you become sick? So maybe you would grumble one day about oh it's so much and look at all these bums...but then the next day you break your leg and need to use the very same system.

[CaptainHaplo]

I assume you're referring to the 1798 Act For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, which created a series of hospitals for that segment of workers. Yes, the Congress, which was made up partly of the Framers themselves, passed the law, and President Adams signed it. The modern Veterans Administration considers this to be their founding. Each ship's Master was ordered to collect money from the sailors to pay for it.


Steve - your wrong here.

It was NOT each ships master - it was the master of any ship engaged in international trade. No purely domestic shipping was affected. This is a critical distinction - because as a tax on international trade - it was legal since the Feds were tasked with handling international trade. If a ship's last port was in the US, then it paid no tax or fee. To compare this with an internal, domestic only mandate from government is ludicrous.

[mookiemookie]

To compare this with an internal, domestic only mandate from government is ludicrous.

To think it has nothing to do with government being in the health insurance business going back to the founding of our country is even more ludicrous.

[Growler]

Well how about all the Social security checks I've helped pay, even though I'm currently not on social security? do I get to be all mad because you guys are taking my money I'm paying in? I'm sorry. But I'm getting tired of all the "holier than thou" attitude where everyone who uses a social program is some kind of bloodsucking rabble...but you all deserve your cut because you are somehow better. I don't want to sound ungrateful to the military, and if you were drafted like in Vietnam or something thats special, you deserve respect...But we haven't had a draft since Vietnam, so essentially the military was your career choice, same as any other person in this nation, and you were paid off of our tax dollars to render us a service.

You also are missing the point. You act like If you pay for a socialized health care system is money wasted. Every thought that if you pay into the system, you also get the benefit if you become sick? So maybe you would grumble one day about oh it's so much and look at all these bums...but then the next day you break your leg and need to use the very same system.

While we're on the topic of missing points: Veterans earned VA benefits. Firefighters, police officers, civil servants earn benefits. Of course not all of them do; some are goldbricks or corrupt; the systems within which they operate should be catching them. Same as civilian state benefit programs. There are lots of people who benefit from the programs. There are also lots who exploit the system to their ultimate profit, at the expense of us and the expense of the people who genuinely need the help. The systems should be catching them, too. I would rather know that my tax dollars were going to people genuinely in need, rather than to people who are taking me and everyone else for fools. What's wrong with that? Is that too "holier than thou?" I never said any of those were any better than anyone else.

On the subject of paying the military with tax dollars: Go ahead and stop paying the military. Enjoy your new freedoms.

Oh, by the way? You know who pays McDonald's CEO his US$13.4M (2010) salary? Yeah, that would be non-tax dollars. So which is a better use of money? Tax dollars that give that E-2 his US$1K a month, and his health care after he fights for you, or that six-dollar Happy Meal that's going to drain your health care system - if the consumer doesn't drop dead of a massive coronary first?

None of this has ANYTHING to do with my point: National service (of some sort) = National sponsored Health Care.

Where did I raise the issue of Social Security? And oh yeah, while we're at it. If it helps get you through the night, then here's a freebie: My mom died two months before she would have received her first Social Security. There's your money. You're welcome.

Social Security is going to end sometime, but let it end on someone else. GREAT way to encourage change.

You seem to think that I think that paying into a socialized health care system is wasted money. Create a system that helps people who are content to suck off the teat, and it IS a waste of money.

I have zero compunction paying into a system within which the beneficiaries have contributed to a better, cleaner, safer country. How hard is that to understand? Earn your help. That's not hard... but I guess it is "Holier than thou."

[Armistead]

Most people on SS and medicare don't suck the teet as you think. Unless you're retired, if you become disabled it takes years for most to qualify, most get denied, have to get lawyers even after Doctors disable them. It's almost standard unless they fastrack a terminal illness, expect to wait years, 3-5 is standard.

To use medicare or caid, you first have to qualify, meaning you can have no assets of real value, then go through more red tape than you can imagine.

I've worked getting several truly disabled people help. Some couldn't stand it any longer living in severe pain and killed themselves. Many thousands of Americans face the will to live over pain with no care daily. Most that I know and deal with were middle class, worked hard, just got a severe illness that stopped them from working, then the insurance goes, Doctors , lose meds, then it's homelessness unless a family member will move you in.

[Sailor Steve]

Steve - your wrong here.

It was NOT each ships master - it was the master of any ship engaged in international trade. No purely domestic shipping was affected. This is a critical distinction - because as a tax on international trade - it was legal since the Feds were tasked with handling international trade. If a ship's last port was in the US, then it paid no tax or fee. To compare this with an internal, domestic only mandate from government is ludicrous.
That's true, but I was only answering Tribesman's challenge, so why are you taking me to task over it. Did I say I supported this? Go ahead, fight with somebody who agrees with you some more.

But don't talk to me.

[gimpy117]

well I'm very sorry for your loss growler but this goes to show that we can't generalize people on public programs. I just don't like the whole demonization of people who are using welfare, especially being somebody who has been in a hard working family that has been on food stamps. I work 40+ hours a week in the summer to pay for school and my mom used to handle 80% of the claims in her insurance agency...all for 30,000 a year...supporting me and my brother.

I am grateful for the military. Sadly The bulk of the money that has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't go to our deserving troops. It went to contractors on terrible contracts and research and buying new bells and whistles. Furthermore, I don't know if we are any more secure coming up on 10 years after 911

and, how is tax payers PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE "sucking off the tit"? we all pay for it, so we ALL can use it. sure, some don't pay as much because they don't have the means...but in the end we all get health care. Whatever happened to helping our fellow man? I think it's a travestry that in the richest nation in the world some of our citizens, like my neighbors who are some of the nicest people i know, have to have a bake sale so becky can stay alive while shes fighting cancer.

[Sailor Steve]

I do have a question on something I don't understand. Does the Health Care bill require everyone to purchase insurance? Does this include the homeless?

[gimpy117]

I do have a question on something I don't understand. Does the Health Care bill require everyone to purchase insurance? Does this include the homeless?

I think so. I can agree with you that it's a terrible Idea. whoever came up with the mandate part was the congress idiot.

[CaptainHaplo]

Steve,

I wasn't trying to argue with you, my friend. Just trying to make sure that historical fact isn't represented incorrectly.

As for the homeless question - one can only assume a homeless person would qualify for medicaid or its equivelant - and would thus be provided free insurance just as they are now. If you have an income that disqualifies you from such aid, then you would be mandated to purchase coverage. A failure to do so will mean you are subject to a penalty fee imposed by the government.

[August]

I think so. I can agree with you that it's a terrible Idea. whoever came up with the mandate part was the congress idiot.

I don't think it's gonna work anyways but if it has any chance at all then it's going to require mandatory participation.

[Growler]

well I'm very sorry for your loss growler but this goes to show that we can't generalize people on public programs. I just don't like the whole demonization of people who are using welfare, especially being somebody who has been in a hard working family that has been on food stamps. I work 40+ hours a week in the summer to pay for school and my mom used to handle 80% of the claims in her insurance agency...all for 30,000 a year...supporting me and my brother.

I am grateful for the military. Sadly The bulk of the money that has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't go to our deserving troops. It went to contractors on terrible contracts and research and buying new bells and whistles. Furthermore, I don't know if we are any more secure coming up on 10 years after 911

and, how is tax payers PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE "sucking off the tit"? we all pay for it, so we ALL can use it. sure, some don't pay as much because they don't have the means...but in the end we all get health care. Whatever happened to helping our fellow man? I think it's a travestry that in the richest nation in the world some of our citizens, like my neighbors who are some of the nicest people i know, have to have a bake sale so becky can stay alive while shes fighting cancer.

First off - let me apologize for the tone of my last post. Yesterday was not a shiny day for me; I had no call for the attitude I took with you.

to sum up: My issue isn't with the concept of paying for health care - please understand that. My issue is with the expectation of health care. I can't say it any clearer than this: I would gladly pay tax dollars to a system that ensured that everyone is covered - the only caveat being, the people who are eligible for coverage under the system have or are contributing to the betterment of their communities via some form of service - law enforcement auxiliaries, police officers, firefighters (career and volunteer), military, national guard service, street sweeping, library work - some action over a period of time to tell the rest of the community "I am committed to helping all of us be better" as a form of recompense, if you will, for the benefits of a health care system that covers the community.

What irks me is the expectation of many that the health care system will be provided to them, and all they have to do is walk in, and not do anything for it. Yes, I understand that paying taxes supports the system, too. But money isn't solving any of the problems here - it's not about money, it's about the expectations people seem to have - something for nothing, or something for their tax dollars. Give some time to your communities via a few years of some form of national service. It doesn't have to be military.

Let's face it - the more you make in income, the more you pay in taxes (basically; I'm not an expert o tax law, shelters, etc). Right now, the people making the most are paying for systems the people earning the least use. That's socialism already.

So here's the simplest distillation of my point: When we stop expecting from each other and start working with each other instead, we become much more effective in what we can do.

There's always going to be the few who seek something for nothing; those become very obvious when everyone around them is contributing, and they aren't. And by not contributing, they are choosing to not enjoy the benefits.

Now, clearly, there are cases where an individual cannot, through some means physical or mental, be involved in some form of national service. When everyone is contributing, helping those who genuinely need help is part of the process.

I'm not talking about communism, or socialism, or whatever -ism. What I'm saying is, if people want an nationalized health care system, they should be willing to help the nation for it.

[gimpy117]

First off - let me apologize for the tone of my last post. Yesterday was not a shiny day for me; I had no call for the attitude I took with you.

no problem, we all have our bad days. I'm not offended in the least