Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 408

Thread: Health Care Debate

  1. #271
    http://www.economist.com/world/unite...=hptextfeature

    What will it mean for America? The short answer is that the reforms will expand coverage dramatically, but at a heavy cost to the taxpayer. They will also do far too little to rein in the underlying drivers of America’s roaring health inflation. Analysis by RAND, an independent think-tank, suggests that the reforms will actually increase America’s overall health spending—public plus private—by about 2% by 2020, in comparison with a scenario of no reform (see chart). And that rate of spending was already unsustainable at a time when the baby-boomers are starting to retire in large numbers.
    Yay I get to look forward to my premiums rising...

  2. #272
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post


    That's pretty much the same logic that got the US government into the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mess.

    Mortgage interest rates are too high for poor people. Well, let's mettle into the mortgage market and buy lots of mortgages with an implicit government guarantee. It will lower costs for everyone! And if there are imbalances, legislation will fix them.
    With the difference that healh care insurance has been fiscalized earlier this week, no matter what the Democrats claim to the contrary. And Lewkowski already mentioned the other factor

    What you don't get is that the people who bloated the current system are shoved out of the driver's seat.
    Congratulations America

  3. #273
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Yay I get to look forward to my premiums rising...
    You don't like uninsured "free loaders" showing up in ERs for their care, jacking up delivery costs that everyone has to absorb. Now you don't like more people in the insurance pools, jacking up your premiums? I thought you were Mr. Insurance--the more the merrier--shouldn't you be glad your industry practically guarantees your job now? Besides, if you want to lower your premium, raise your deductible. Or convert it to a CAT only plan, and pay OOP for anything but complicated care. Simple.

    ___________________________________


    Healthcare shouldn't be linked to employment

    By Jeff Jacoby
    Globe Columnist / October 19, 2008

    THE CHOICE you'll have," said Barack Obama during last week's debate, as he told voters what to expect if John McCain's health-insurance proposal becomes law, "is having your employer no longer provide you healthcare.

    "Don't take my word for it," he added. "The US Chamber of Commerce, which generally doesn't support a lot of Democrats, said that this plan could lead to the unraveling of the employer-based healthcare system."

    If only.

    An end to employer-based health insurance is exactly what the American healthcare market needs. Far from being a calamity, it would represent a giant step toward ending the current system's worst distortions: skyrocketing premiums, lack of insurance portability, widespread ignorance of medical prices, and overconsumption of health services.

    With more than 90 percent of private healthcare plans in the United States obtained through employers, it might seem unnatural to get health insurance any other way. But what's unnatural is the link between healthcare and employment. After all, we don't rely on employers for auto, homeowners, or life insurance. Those policies we buy in an open market, where numerous insurers and agents compete for our business. Health insurance is different only because of an idiosyncrasy in the tax code dating back 60 years - a good example, to quote Milton Friedman, of how one bad government policy leads to another.

    During World War II, federal wage controls barred employers from raising their workers' salaries, but said nothing about fringe benefits. So firms competing for employees at government-restricted wages began offering medical insurance to sweeten employment offers. Even sweeter was that employers could deduct those benefits as business expenses, yet employees didn't have to report them as taxable income. For a while the IRS resisted that interpretation, but Congress eventually enshrined the tax-exempt status of employer-based medical insurance in law.

    Result: a radical shift in the way Americans paid for medical care. With health benefits tax-free if they were employer-supplied, tens of millions of Americans were soon signing up for medical insurance through work. As tax rates rose, so did the incentive to keep expanding health benefits. No longer was medical insurance reserved for major expenditures like surgery or hospitalization. Americans who would never think of using auto insurance to cover tune-ups and oil changes grew accustomed to having their medical insurer pay for yearly physicals, prescriptions, and other routine expenses.

    We thus ended up with a healthcare system in which the vast majority of bills are covered by a third party. With someone else picking up the tab, Americans got used to consuming medical care without regard to price or value. After all, if it was covered by insurance, why not go to the emergency room for a simple sore throat? Why not get the name-brand drug instead of a generic?

    Unconstrained by consumer cost-consciousness, healthcare spending has soared, even as overall inflation has remained fairly low. Nevertheless, Americans know almost nothing about the costs of their medical care. (Quick quiz: What does your local hospital charge for an MRI scan? To deliver a baby? To set a broken arm?) When patients think someone else is paying most of their healthcare costs, they feel little pressure to learn what those costs actually are - and providers feel little pressure to compete on price. So prices keep rising, which makes insurance more expensive, which makes Americans ever-more worried about losing their insurance - and ever-more dependent on the benefits provided by their employer.

    De-linking medical insurance from employment is the key to reforming healthcare in the United States. McCain proposes to accomplish that by taking the tax deduction away from employers and giving it to employees. With a $5,000 refundable healthcare tax credit, Americans would have a strong inducement to buy their own, more affordable, insurance, rather than relying on their employer's plan. As millions of empowered consumers began focusing on price, price competition would flourish. And as employers' healthcare costs declined, most of the savings would return to employees as higher wages.

    For 60-plus years, a misguided tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance has distorted America's healthcare market. The price of that distortion has been paid in higher costs, fewer choices, and mounting anxiety. The solution is to restore market forces by fixing the tax code, and liberating Americans from an employer-based system that has made everything worse.
    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...to_employment/


    Note the date that was written. Too bad "the opposition party" didn't make these meaningful arguments, and push in this direction during "negotiations" for the bill. Too bad big business didn't step forward and remind us how legacy costs can drag a company to its grave (GM).

    Now we get to read the hysteria from business (Verizon) lamenting what tax breaks they'll lose, like their retirees' Rx scheme. Some 1B in write down. But they shouldn't have been able to take a federal subsidy (~$1,300/yr per person), and skim that off the top of their taxable income in the first place.

  4. #274
    QUESTION

    The new bill supposedly has an opt-out for states that create their own universal access plans. If they can cover all residents with some form of medical care, the federal mandate for all individuals to carry insurance is waived.

    Besides MA having their own state mandates, does anyone know of a state that's pursuing this? Or are they too busy filing law suits and paying attorneys general to claim the bill is unconstitutional?

  5. #275
    I wonder, if you got rid of employer-based insurance, would those companies have to raise salaries? One of the selling points of local government employment is that the salary may not be a good as a private industry job, but you get great benefits like insurance and retirement.

    Not that I'm complaining, actually I just found out that when I switch over to my husband's inusrance (a large private company) they actually have lower premiums for families than my government job does. And it's basically the same exact plan, same insurer and everything.

    I really wish insurance wasn't even around in the first place for anything but catastrophic purposes. A yearly checkup shouldn't cost so much that not having insurance deters you from doing it. The one year I went with no insurance was almost $200 and all they did was weight, blood pressure, a Pap smear and maybe one other test. With insurance, it's only $20. Now I know alot of that is costs for lab work (probably most of it actually) and to pay for the doctor's practice as well. It's just irritating.

  6. #276
    Employers would lose their tax deductions, and have to pay higher wages. That's why it keeps going in circles. Local gov'ment jobs have to answer to tax payers for those platinum plans, easier to make the recipients "pay their fair share" of premiums.

    That's the problem, no one complains as long as it benefits their company, self or family, their bottom line. But it's twisted the intended purpose of health insurance, and the definition of health CARE. All the cost-shifting seeped into office visits and what should be "affordable" things like vaccinations or strep tests. Now even those things are fairly expensive.

    "With insurance it's only $20" is a huge part of our problem and it's attitudinal.

  7. #277
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    With the difference that healh care insurance has been fiscalized earlier this week, no matter what the Democrats claim to the contrary. And Lewkowski already mentioned the other factor

    What you don't get is that the people who bloated the current system are shoved out of the driver's seat.
    You haven't read the bill.

    The people who bloated the current system are given one of many feet on the gas pedal.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    QUESTION

    The new bill supposedly has an opt-out for states that create their own universal access plans. If they can cover all residents with some form of medical care, the federal mandate for all individuals to carry insurance is waived.

    Besides MA having their own state mandates, does anyone know of a state that's pursuing this? Or are they too busy filing law suits and paying attorneys general to claim the bill is unconstitutional?
    The MA example is a terrible case study -- the system has ballooned from a 88 million deficit to a 4 billion deficit in about four years. It was totally unsustainable until this health bill came along and slipped-in Federal subsidies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catgrrl View Post
    I wonder, if you got rid of employer-based insurance, would those companies have to raise salaries? One of the selling points of local government employment is that the salary may not be a good as a private industry job, but you get great benefits like insurance and retirement.

    Not that I'm complaining, actually I just found out that when I switch over to my husband's inusrance (a large private company) they actually have lower premiums for families than my government job does. And it's basically the same exact plan, same insurer and everything.

    I really wish insurance wasn't even around in the first place for anything but catastrophic purposes. A yearly checkup shouldn't cost so much that not having insurance deters you from doing it. The one year I went with no insurance was almost $200 and all they did was weight, blood pressure, a Pap smear and maybe one other test. With insurance, it's only $20. Now I know alot of that is costs for lab work (probably most of it actually) and to pay for the doctor's practice as well. It's just irritating.
    Slowly decoupling employment from health insurance was a key platform of Republican policy on this. By removing tax structures that substantially increased taxes for individual health insurance and making insurance portable across state lines, it would have moved to break this ossified employer-insurer-health system[and now government] relationship.

  8. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    You haven't read the bill.
    It's over 2,000 pages. Have YOU read the bill?


    The MA example is a terrible case study -- the system has ballooned from a 88 million deficit to a 4 billion deficit in about four years. It was totally unsustainable until this health bill came along and slipped-in Federal subsidies.
    And mandated by Mitt Romney, a Republican. You still didn't answer the question---know of any states who are taking the bull by the horns?


    Slowly decoupling employment from health insurance was a key platform of Republican policy on this. By removing tax structures that substantially increased taxes for individual health insurance and making insurance portable across state lines, it would have moved to break this ossified employer-insurer-health system[and now government] relationship.
    It was part of the Dems wanting a public option too, but (R)s couldn't stand to remove tax structures that benefit Big Business, let alone cut Medicare spending. Competition from the guv'ment is anathema to conservatives, but they also won't cut the strings of corporate welfare. And everyone caves to lobbyists.

  9. #279
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    You haven't read the bill.

    The people who bloated the current system are given one of many feet on the gas pedal. relationship.
    You keep igoring the mechanism that has been set in motion. Something one doesn't need to read this bill for at all; the costs of health care are effectively fiscalized. That in its turn means that in the end health care is going to be a part of the federal budget. If you think this doesn't mean cost are going to brought down you seriously have to think again. Your government can't function for much longer if it gobbles up health care the way it is now.
    Congratulations America

  10. #280
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    With the difference that healh care insurance has been fiscalized earlier this week, no matter what the Democrats claim to the contrary. And Lewkowski already mentioned the other factor

    What you don't get is that the people who bloated the current system are shoved out of the driver's seat.
    And who is in the driver's seat now? It's not Congress, which has neither the means nor the inclination to try and actually manage anything.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  11. #281
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    You keep igoring the mechanism that has been set in motion. Something one doesn't need to read this bill for at all; the costs of health care are effectively fiscalized. That in its turn means that in the end health care is going to be a part of the federal budget. If you think this doesn't mean cost are going to brought down you seriously have to think again. Your government can't function for much longer if it gobbles up health care the way it is now.
    You mean the same government that owns a failing Amtrak and a self-destructing Social Security fund? I have absolutely no faith in the US government to do anything of the sort. Maybe European governments have that kind of self control, and thats why they are far more accepted over there, but I haven't seen anything that will get us less painfully out of this hole we're digging. Soon enough there won't be a way to get out without major issues at all.

  12. #282
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    And who is in the driver's seat now? It's not Congress, which has neither the means nor the inclination to try and actually manage anything.
    Lobbyists (6 for every legislator). Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Business. And senior citizens.

  13. #283
    You don't like uninsured "free loaders" showing up in ERs for their care, jacking up delivery costs that everyone has to absorb. Now you don't like more people in the insurance pools, jacking up your premiums? I thought you were Mr. Insurance--the more the merrier--shouldn't you be glad your industry practically guarantees your job now? Besides, if you want to lower your premium, raise your deductible. Or convert it to a CAT only plan, and pay OOP for anything but complicated care. Simple.
    Insurance premiums will rise. Funny I don't recall Obama and company stating, "Hey everyone we are going to get uninsured covered. But all of you will be paying more on your premiums." Nah they said, "Oh wow this saves you money! Your premiums will be lowered, we will make health care affordable AND cover the uninsured." Anyone with any amount of common sense would understand that can't all happen.

    Some honesty would be nice. (HAH like that will happen from Democrats)

  14. #284
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Insurance premiums will rise. Funny I don't recall Obama and company stating, "Hey everyone we are going to get uninsured covered. But all of you will be paying more on your premiums." Nah they said, "Oh wow this saves you money! Your premiums will be lowered, we will make health care affordable AND cover the uninsured." Anyone with any amount of common sense would understand that can't all happen.

    Some honesty would be nice. (HAH like that will happen from Democrats)
    I recall the Dems saying everyone would have to sacrifice and work together. That if everyone is in the insurance pool, eventually the costs of routine care via emergency rooms would be reduced.

    Anyone with common sense knows they haven't been paying anywhere near the "real cost" of care, when there are so many millions without care showing up at the wrong spot in the delivery system, or waiting too long and being much sicker.

    The big question is how much do you care about fellow citizens, and the overall health of our nation?

  15. #285
    The big question is how much do you care about fellow citizens, and the overall health of our nation?
    So do you consider health to be more important then freedom? Not that this bill will make people healthier... but even if we assume this bill will make people healthier. Do you consider that more important then the loss of certain freedoms?

  16. #286
    Did you know that freedom isn't some magic win-word you can evoke? You have to define what you mean by freedom, and let me tell you, your definition won't be met with universal acceptance
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  17. #287
    THAN

    I consider access to medical care as basic as an education, and part of life and liberty. I think if you DENY that to certain people based on income alone (or ability to pay) then only certain people are really FREE. Everyone else may as well be an indentured slave to circumstance.

    So how do you define Freedom, Lewk? The freedom to be so tight with your own money that you'd just as soon see barefooted kids in the gutter selling Chiclets?

  18. #288
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    And who is in the driver's seat now? It's not Congress, which has neither the means nor the inclination to try and actually manage anything.
    You claim administration and Congress are not in charge of the budget?

    Quote Originally Posted by coinich View Post
    You mean the same government that owns a failing Amtrak and a self-destructing Social Security fund? I have absolutely no faith in the US government to do anything of the sort. Maybe European governments have that kind of self control, and thats why they are far more accepted over there, but I haven't seen anything that will get us less painfully out of this hole we're digging. Soon enough there won't be a way to get out without major issues at all.
    Well, yeah like I said, you can still keep voting politicians in who won't do the right thing, but the gaping black hole in their work can't be hidden from view any longer. The exact same thing the some people are affraid of (costs running out of control) is going to force the government to set things in order. And the easiest way (least painful for voters) is going to cut in the 50 cents to the dollar that is wasted in US healtcare.

    And for those who believe it won't work that way; check out what happened/happens in Mass.
    Last edited by Hazir; 03-27-2010 at 10:04 PM.
    Congratulations America

  19. #289
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    So do you consider health to be more important then freedom? Not that this bill will make people healthier... but even if we assume this bill will make people healthier. Do you consider that more important then the loss of certain freedoms?
    Lets see, do I consider my health more important thAn freedom? Um, what freedom are we exchanging for the health care bill again? I'm not sure. Is it tax dollars? You think I'm losing some freedom because my taxes are certainly going up? I'm fine with that. Not worried about it at all.

    And it sure seems like once its up and running a LOT of people will have MORE freedom. Like they won't be so afraid to lose their job, or leave their job, and do something entrapeneurial now since they won't lose health coverage. Seems like the ability to get treatment for injuries and illnesses without being bankrupted might be very liberating, don't you agree?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  20. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    So do you consider health to be more important then freedom?
    You apparently do. I don't have the freedom to murder you, steal from you, or any number of horrible things, without penalty thanks to the government.

    Perhaps you can list the freedoms we're losing so we can debate them. The most obvious one I can see is the requirement to purchase healthcare, and I've already listed my grievance with that, but perhaps you can enlighten us. Be prepared to cite where in the Healthcare bill we're losing these freedoms so we'll know what to cite when writing/complaining to our state representatives...
    . . .

  21. #291
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    It's over 2,000 pages. Have YOU read the bill?
    Practically no one has really read the bill, that's the problem. It was rushed from the oven to the dinner table. And no, I haven't read all of it. But I have a good idea of what's in it from extensive summaries. And all of it doesn't point to any real cost controls. It's a backwards way of incentivising anything.

    And mandated by Mitt Romney, a Republican. You still didn't answer the question---know of any states who are taking the bull by the horns?
    Why do you keep insisting I'm a Republican? Or that anything that's created by a Republican is something I endorse? If there's any reason I wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney in 2010 it's because of the disaster of a health care plan he set up. Which is now the model for the federal system.

    It was part of the Dems wanting a public option too, but (R)s couldn't stand to remove tax structures that benefit Big Business, let alone cut Medicare spending. Competition from the guv'ment is anathema to conservatives, but they also won't cut the strings of corporate welfare. And everyone caves to lobbyists.
    Yes, competition from the government is anathema. Look what happened when the government meddled in the mortgage market.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    You keep igoring the mechanism that has been set in motion. Something one doesn't need to read this bill for at all; the costs of health care are effectively fiscalized. That in its turn means that in the end health care is going to be a part of the federal budget. If you think this doesn't mean cost are going to brought down you seriously have to think again. Your government can't function for much longer if it gobbles up health care the way it is now.
    Once again, this is the Fannie Mae model of doing things. "If we nationalize the costs, the government will bring costs down."

    Unfortunately, the government thinks it has bottomless pockets. And, like Fannie Mae, the likely results don't look too good.
    Last edited by Dreadnaught; 03-28-2010 at 05:20 AM.

  22. #292
    Who summarized it for you? The Heritage Foundation? A Wallstreet Journal editorial?

    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    You apparently do. I don't have the freedom to murder you, steal from you, or any number of horrible things, without penalty thanks to the government.

    Perhaps you can list the freedoms we're losing so we can debate them. The most obvious one I can see is the requirement to purchase healthcare, and I've already listed my grievance with that, but perhaps you can enlighten us. Be prepared to cite where in the Healthcare bill we're losing these freedoms so we'll know what to cite when writing/complaining to our state representatives...
    Dude. You lose the freedom to pull the plug on grandma. The death panels are going to decide now. DAMN!
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  23. #293
    I consider access to medical care as basic as an education, and part of life and liberty. I think if you DENY that to certain people based on income alone (or ability to pay) then only certain people are really FREE. Everyone else may as well be an indentured slave to circumstance.
    And yet we still have people make money by selling food...

    Just because something is a necessity doesn't mean that it should be taken from people at the point of the gun.

    If most people support having a social safety net then they can pay for it voluntarily. There are churches, charities, food banks and tons of organizations that feed people.

    Speaking of health care there are tons of charities and programs for people who can't pay for treatment.

    When you deny freedom you deny the very thing that gives strength to this nation.

    If the goal is "healthy people" where do you stop? Do you outlaw smoking? Do you outlaw fatty foods? Do you force people to exercise?

  24. #294
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Once again, this is the Fannie Mae model of doing things. "If we nationalize the costs, the government will bring costs down."

    Unfortunately, the government thinks it has bottomless pockets. And, like Fannie Mae, the likely results don't look too good.
    Fortunately, the government will be reminded that it doesn't.
    Congratulations America

  25. #295
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    And yet we still have people make money by selling food...
    If there was a situation where ~15% of the people had no access to food because they were priced out of the market, you can bet your ass the government would start distributing food.

    Just because something is a necessity doesn't mean that it should be taken from people at the point of the gun.
    Congratulations, you've just made an argument for the complete abolition of government and the state.

    If most people support having a social safety net then they can pay for it voluntarily. There are churches, charities, food banks and tons of organizations that feed people.
    What if they support having a more effective safety net?

    Speaking of health care there are tons of charities and programs for people who can't pay for treatment.
    Obviously, there aren't enough given the number of Americans who are unable to get access to the treatment they need.

    When you deny freedom you deny the very thing that gives strength to this nation.
    Meaningless platitudes are not and never have been the strength of America.

    If the goal is "healthy people" where do you stop? Do you outlaw smoking? Do you outlaw fatty foods? Do you force people to exercise?
    Wherever you want?
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  26. #296
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Speaking of health care there are tons of charities and programs for people who can't pay for treatment.
    Charity begging and hunting is exactly what someone with advanced colon cancer wants to be doing. Instead of, I don't know, not worrying about dieing. Talk about freedom. Freedom must be really awesome, that you can ignore how its used to stop someone in their 50s from getting hired to a job they've been doing for the past 20+ years because his age alone would send the company's health insurance premium through the roof, or how freedom is used by an insurance company to force a business to fire an employee thats actually using the health insurance his/her work provides.

    Lewkowski, you are a dumbass.

    I still can't believe people even defend the practice of health insurance. We shouldn't have to jump through hoops for health insurance, we should expect health care.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 03-28-2010 at 02:56 PM.

  27. #297
    Dread--you still didn't answer my question--are any states taking the bull by the horn, to provide access to care for all their residents, manage efficiency, and cut costs? MA tried a Republican's idea and that hasn't worked well either. States didn't have to wait for a federal mandate. Maybe this bill will light a fire under our collective asses, but complaining about it without giving alternatives is tiresome sour grapes.

    We already know how fannie and freddie fucked things up for every tax payer (even tho not everyone owns a home). But everyone IS reliant on our medical system, even the healthy people. Our gov'ment is not always efficient, but that doesn't mean we throw up our hands and resign all things to privatization. After all, our military works fairly well....



    Lewk--do you really think the US should rely on Free Clinics to set up basic care in sports arenas? Have you read about the thousands lining up for those? A broken hip or cancer can't be treated that way, using the ED is "free" but expensive. Voluntary safety nets aren't enough for a country with 300 million people, 80 million seniors, 15 million unemployed or underemployed.

    Do you really want to see bread lines and soup kitchens of the Depression Era? Read the news, all the churches and charities are short on funds and depleting inventory, they can't keep up with demand. But since you think voluntary contributions to charity are the way to go....send your tax refund and 10% of your income to FreeClinics.org or Salvation Army.

    That's the ticket, a two-tier system, haves and have nots, what a wonderful world that will be.

  28. #298
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    And yet we still have people make money by selling food...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_stamps ...

    ...or the subsidies the government gives farmers to grow food.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    When you deny freedom you deny the very thing that gives strength to this nation.
    Again...what freedoms? How are they being limited? Show us how they are...show us where in the Healthcare Bill and how they do so...
    . . .

  29. #299
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  30. #300
    Healthcare system before the reform made it so hard to receive affordable medical attention that the only freedom you may have was freedom to die.
    Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •