You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:50 AM

LIQUOR/DRUGS/TOBACCO VS. HEALTH CARE COSTS

Some others brought up good points recently that I really hadn't thought about.

Of those out in the world complaining about health care costs, how does their health insurance cost per month compare to the cost of their alcoholic beverage intake per month? Or the cost of their illegal drug intake per month? Or their cigarette costs per month?

There are those out there who use their government welfare money to buy groceries, etc., and then use their own earned money to pay for alcohol and illegal drugs.

And there are those out there who aren't on welfare of any kind, but who easily spend more on those items than on their health care.

Taxing anyone else to pay for someone's government-run health care makes no sense to me (and is certainly unfair), when giving up those things themselves would not only pay for the monthly health care of their own choice, but would actually improve their health and help them feel better at the same time!



clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:04 AM

I missed the memo that said the world is fair. Is it fair that the rich can use all kinds of tax avoidance that the less well off can't ? Alcohol and cigarettes are themselves taxed of course. Perhaps these goods should only be available to the better off in your world ? Maybe it would be fairer if nobody worked more than 40 hours per week until everyone has a job? I personally think it shouldn't matter if you can afford treatment when you are ill, it's a moral right for your government to supply it, and it is fair.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:15 AM

Personal responsibility is the most fair thing in life. It's the only thing any of us can really do anything about.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:29 AM

I believe that what most of our ancestors believed a privilege has now become a RIGHT. It has become a generational thing toi demand FREE and EXCELLENT. You won't like this one CC, mot likely. The Catholic Church and school consumes the very long block across the street from me. They have a free clinic there where docs donate time. They give out free diapers and baby formula and by looking at the people they service, they are nt descriminatory as to race or most likely religion. Our health care system has flaws but to pass what Obama is selling as cost saving is a lie. Nothing is free and excellent.. Know what Jan means about life choices-smoked 2+ pacs of cigarettes a day fr over 30 years. Most of my current health issues have to do with my breathing-surprise. Also smoking was most likely a huge contributor to my stroke-carotid artery blocked-smoking as well as high cholesterol does that. Have not smoked in a few years but the price never stopped me-would forego other things to get the smokes. Have had the artery cleaned again still high cholesterol Not sure if that might be heriditary as my family is filled with it or how my family cooks. Really like Allena (Jim)'s idea that one thing at a time is voted on not the mish mash that no one understands.

clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 9:33 AM

Jank0614
Personal responsibility is the most fair thing in life. It's the only thing any of us can really do anything about.

That works great if you're born into a middle class family. It doesn't work so well if you're born into a slum, with a pair of junkies for parents. With wealth and privilege come responsibility. The less well off deserve a place in society, not charity. Socialism is all about everyone having what they NEED, before some get everything they WANT.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 9:51 AM

Totally disagree, CC. There are too many millions of people born into the circumstances you mention who have taken personal responsibility, educated themselves, made good choices, and had a successful life.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 12:15 PM

And they were lucky and often gifted. And there are millions who do not. Do they deserve to die for being less fortunate and resourceful? By your standards, Linda should lose her health care because she admits making unhealthy lifestyle choices, in spite of a comfortable lifestyle.

You want morality based health care. I'd prefer REality based.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 12:47 PM

Not saying morality based.

But I'm saying if you make immoral choices or bad choices or illegal choices that doesn't give you the right to demand that people who worked hard for their money to give it up to help you.

If they CHOOSE to help, that's awesome- and many do. But I think it's practically stealing to do whatever you want with your body, knowing it's unhealthy, then demand someone who didn't make those bad choices pay for your choices.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 12:55 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/public-option-wasted-effort-lead-democratic-negotiator-says/ seems like somebody might be listening. Want to examine those co-op things as they have to be seeded by the government and don't trust the government a bit. My lifestyle has often been far from comfortable. When I made the initial choice to smoke it was deemed glamorous-look at the old movies. Even when I was in HS though athletic coaches forbid players from smoking because it made them "short winded". Long after I knew that smoking was hurting my health continued to do it. Nicotine is a powerful drug and quitting smoking was about the hardest thing I have ever had to do including learning to walk again after my stroke. No, Smoke, my life at times has been far from "COMFORTABLE" and I worked for the insurance I have even while making poor health CHOICES which increased everyone's medical costs by things like procedures, surgeries, physical therapy that I have had.

clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 1:01 PM

Most people do not choose to be addicts or alcoholics. My father had his own business, we weren't poor, but that doesn't mean i wasn't taught to be an alcoholic by the time i was fifteen. Just how do you turn your life around when you've never known any different ? Of course my addictions have affected my children. I turned my life around, but it doesn't mean my son did until he made his own mistakes. It doesn't mean there aren't emotional scars left on my daughters, despite the fact they all seem to be doing quite well. Why can't we just try to care for everyone ? Some want help even if they don't know it yet. I thought i was the atheist around here, where are these "christian" values i hear so much about ?

tuzilla
Tuzilla  (Level: 134.1 - Posts: 3778)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 1:02 PM

Not to distract, but maybe you should ask how "others" use of alcohol and tobacco affect "your" health care costs. I do not smoke, and only have the occasion drink. BUT, my health care insurance price come to me including the additional cost of dealing with alcohol and tobacco costs for everything from accidents caused by drunks to additional illnesses to treatment programs and medical costs from things ranging from lung cancer, to emphysema to cirrhosis, etc. It would be interesting to know how much costs would drop if I could be in an insurance pool for non-smokers and non-drinkers (I could refrain without much effort). Of course others might want a pool free of overeaters (ducks) and couch spuds.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 1:09 PM

Steve, in my last post noted that my choices increased everyone's health care costs.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 1:15 PM

It can be done. Paid an additional premium on my homeowner's insurance when I was a smoker. I could have lied probably but they are very good these days at figuring out down to minute details causes of fires-

tuzilla
Tuzilla  (Level: 134.1 - Posts: 3778)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 1:35 PM

I saw that, Linda.

I know homeowners insurance is HUGE on riders. They will hit you extra for everything conceivable, right down to a wedding ring, unless you are a cheapskate. Add up, for example, ALL your jewelry...rings, earrings, necklaces, watches, bracelets, etc. Think of replacement costs, and then look at the coverage you get before you start paying extra. It is pitiful, usually $3,000 or less.

Health care costs for everyone are much higher to support the additional treatments for smokers and drinkers (chronic). If you could magically separate them, my insurance would drop considerably, but we would have a whole new group of people who could not afford insurance. So, at the end of the day, I am not advocating trying to break all of us up into subgroups of smokers, drinkers, overeaters, drug users, genetically challenged, or any combination thereof, etc.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 1:40 PM

Looks like these co-ops will be the deal. Just heard Bob Bekle-dislike his pompous self- say so. What is the deal on them? Steve/? JIm/?Anyone who knows. Good ole Bob also says to look for te Dems to address tort refor and leave the Republicans with no talking points

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 2:04 PM

Jank, you say you fear government intrusion into personal decisions and finances, yet you advocate that the government intrude on and judge what people spend their money on before granting them access to health care! Your position seems to be that if one suffers from poor diet and fitness, or heaven forbid, the disease of addiction, well, that's just too darned bad, you spent your money on the wrong things, you brought it on yourself and you will just have to live or die as best you can with the consequences, you shouldn't expect to have anywhere to turn for help after the way you’ve behaved.

What about the children of the poor who have no choice about their unhealthy diets, who suffer disproportionately from obesity, and may not have even the most basic dental or vision care? There are already high taxes on tobacco and alcohol, supposedly to offset the cost of the societal damage they do. I'm fine with increasing those taxes, and with legalizing pot and taxing that, even a fast-food tax. All of those ideas have merit, but kids don't smoke and drink, and they often don’t have healthy food available, so how do they deserve not to have health care?

Linda, I don't demand "free and excellent" health care; though it certainly would be ideal, it's not what I'm asking for. I want health care that is affordable and adequate for all. I’m even willing to settle for something rather less than “free and excellent” if it means everyone will be covered.

I don’t know why opponents don’t see that insurance and health care reform with universal coverage is good business. Uninsured people are in poorer health to begin with, and put off seeking help until illness is far advanced and catastrophic, which means when they finally come or are brought to the ER, the treatment will cost taxpayers many, many times what it would've cost if prevented or caught and treated early. That's where there are major savings to be made by reform.

They also work sick and spread their illnesses. You'd better be praying we don't have an epidemic, because every illusion you cherish about the quality and efficiency of health care in this country will fall if that should catch us unprepared, and I really can't imagine that it will catch us any other way under the current "system".

And speaking of business, if you want to see REAL stimulus, roll back insurance premiums and watch the toasters, microwaves, cameras, TVs, computers and laptops fly off the shelves, driving the market and the creation of jobs. Too many people are doing without basic needs and modest comforts to pay for insurance, and in exchange for that sacrifice, they have to do constant battle with insurance company bean counters on many routine claims. We already have rationed care – rationed by bottom-lining corporate insurance pencil pushers.



lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.7 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 3:12 PM

Why are we stopping at nationalized free health insurance? I want nationalized free home owners insurance and car insurance as well. Please throw in life insurance, disability insurance, renter's insurance and traveler's insurance.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 3:43 PM

You're right. Health care shouldn't have anything to do with insurance.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.7 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 3:49 PM

I bet the hundreds of thousands of people working in the health insurance industry will be so delighted with their free health care, that they will hardly even notice being unemployed.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 3:59 PM

Not sure what free health care you mean, as that's not what's on offer, but the fact is that people have to retrain out of industries that no longer need them all the time.

Anyway, if the public option was approved, the insurance industry will be flooded with new customers, and should be hiring.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:08 PM

The Public option is no longer. The White House has given up on this issue - remains to be seen if their alternative is viable.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:11 PM

Things do not look good for the public option according to Conrad, Sebellius, and Gibbs on the sunday shows-delights me. I want to know how these co-ops would work-seems they need government start-up money.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:12 PM

They're still on break, you don't know that yet, and I fervently hope you're wrong. Without some sort of public option, they may as well let the Republicans block it and do nothing until after the elections. Then maybe we'll be able to get the bill we want.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:14 PM

It just makes me want to cry that you're gleeful about blocking people from medical care.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:17 PM

You make me want tio cry too by accusing me of things I do not do nor believe so guess we are even.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:28 PM

I don't know what I accused you of. Other than wanting to block health care for people who don't have it.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:28 PM

Jan

Jesus said love "thy neighbor as thy self"
You may not drink of smoke however there are some who suffer a vitamin deficiency which is an illness. Therefore, if you were an alcoholic I wouldn't mind my tax dollars to pay for your illness.

Jesus also said "he who is without sin let him cast the first stone"

Well, it is the constant rise of premiums; exclusion of pre-existing conditions which has caused people to either die or suffer painful consequences. And of course, those without any healthcare are without sin, seemingly. Paying for the lavish lifestyles of Ceo's is obscene, toxic and immoral!

The sense I make of your purport is appears to be a FALSE FRIEND OF ECONOMY.


smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:31 PM

I do wonder why the unhealthy behaviors and spending habits of the wealthy and well-insured are not questioned.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:36 PM

First it was the cost of the status quo ruining the economy. Then it was the protesters at the town halls until his ratings started to plumment. Then it was the way Cable news-Fox-covered the protesters. Now it is the insurance companies all except Aetna huge contributors to his campaign . The Republicans can block nothing. Democrats and Independents are leaving this public option thing it droves. The people don't want it. Obama has no credibility.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:43 PM

Obama has no credibility with the same people he never had any with in the first place. I'm not the only person in America, or even on Sploofus, who still believes he's trying to do what we elected him to do.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:43 PM

Perhaps because they are paying for their own insurance and are legal residents -think?

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.7 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:44 PM

I don't want to give the impression that I don't want health care for those who need it. I'm all for it, but in a manner that doesn't disrupt what is currently in place. At one time (and honestly I don't know if is still on the table because I get so disgusted that I shut off the TV and refuse to read anything about it) there was a proposal on the table that those of us with private health insurance (and I pay for mine - $304 a month to be exact) could keep our private health insurance, but if we changed jobs and the new job offered private health insurance, we would not be eligible for it. As soon as you ended your current private health insurance, you had to go on the gov't plan, even if another private plan was available to you. Those are the kinds of things that are wrong and don't make sense to me. However, I'm all for having an alternative for those who don't have health care available, like I do. We have a center down the hill that is completely grant funded, and people can go in there and receive free health care, regardless of their ability to pay. Why we don't have more grant funded places like that, I don't know because I think they are a fabulous idea and alternative.

But please don't take away my choice.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:45 PM

The Independet vote was what swung the election and people like me who were too compacent and din't vote-not next time

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:47 PM

I'm very gleeful about blocking some very power hungry people from taking what they have no right to take.

We will continue to take care of those who need help, and hopefully work toward something that actually works better for those who need it the most.

And no one on earth could be looking forward to those 2010 elections more than I.

I think some very blind conservatives who chose to teach the GOP a lesson have not only taught them, but learned a valuable lesson themselves.

The GOP had both houses and the presidency and did nothing about the health care problem (or illegal immigration - or a number of other very important issues). And conservatives let them get away with it.

They won't let them do that again. The sleeping giant has again been awakened, and starting with the election of 2010, they will make sure people get in there who will finally meet the needs.

At least, that's the way I read what I see, it is my fervent prayer that it starts to happen next year, and that is my prophecy today.

The rest of my prophecy I have only shared with 2 people here, and I pray my further prophecies are completely wrong.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:48 PM

There are ideas out there to give poorer people vouchers to buy health coverage too

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:49 PM

I don't think the plan takes away your choice, and I think there's a misunderstanding about the provision in question, but I don't have it at fingertip, and the race is on so I'm limited to what I can post during a commercial, but I'll comment later.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:50 PM

Smoke
Their spending habits are being discussed in the partisan wrangling you here on TV, view in print, on the Internet , and the town Hall Meetings. Yet, there are some who are so brainwashed and confused that they find ludicrous reasons to defend a person's having billions so to speak, as seems to be intent of this thread. That, to me, is the singular reason why More Americans need to wake up to the Ponzi scheme those Ceo's are doing. As long as there are zealots denying the true, toxic, illness. of this country, and FOX (Faux News) as a megaphone; the spending habits and scam will appeal to blind sheep.

It make no sense, in my opinion, for a multimillionaire to have a neighbor who hasn't affordable insurance coverage, any insurance or a pot to p** in . It is immoral and crime before the court of humanity.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:52 PM

If there's gonna be prophesyin', I'm outta here.



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 4:53 PM

Medicare is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 5:02 PM

So that means the Ponzi scheme which allows you to pay a discount fee-for-service is no longer palliative to you, Linda

If I recall correctly, on numerous occasions you practically lauded how satisfied you are with Medicare Advantage, in addition to lambasting the President for wanting to take it away.

Can you have it both ways?

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 5:07 PM

Donna - page 16 has been posted in a thread (you gave us the link yourself).

The wording is clear. If you change insurance - you have no choice but to change to the government plan. It was there in black and white - and is unarguable.

No matter how often the inaccuracy is repeated, the wording is clear. You will be forced to go on the government plan UNLESS YOU STAY with the insurance company you have at the time any public government health care bill is passed - it clearly says THAT ONE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAN IS GRANDFATHERED and no other.

I don't want to lose the option of taking personal responsibility to handle my insurance needs myself by my own choice.

It looks like the administration may move away from page 16.

Again - the bill is here:

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Just type in 16 at the top and you'll go right there. The wording is very easy to understand.







bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 5:12 PM

So Jan who are those your legislators deem needy? As you so eloquently have written it appears the ones who need would those would be alcoholics without genetic pre-conditions. However, your legislators are telling you a falsehood. Those without a vitamin b deficiency who drink will die from pancreatic cancer as some will look on say they deserved it.

How can the moral Right justify those actions ; I don't think Jesus, the original liberal would take that stance.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 5:14 PM

So Jan
Are you playing semantics over the word forced?

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.7 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 5:19 PM

Funny, even at my poorest, I never felt any billionaire owed me a damn thing.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 5:27 PM

Jealousy, envy, and wanting to take away what someone else has earned and owns is actually breaking one of the Ten Commandments (since the Bible is being used as a weapon today - especially by many who don't even believe in God.)

The only entity on earth God charged to take care of the poor is the Church - the believers, something I've opined often in these pages.

That is why there are so many hospitals started by the Churches, orphanages, charities. If there are any poor not taken care of, it's our fault - the believers. We need to do more. I need to do more.



bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 5:31 PM


Lodi
Funny, even at my poorest, I never felt any billionaire owed me a damn thing.
********************************************************************************

Even though they have profited off the back of you earnings and lied to you?

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 5:35 PM

Don't think Lodi probably did much barge toting and neither did you, Beverly

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 5:39 PM

Donna, Obama may be trying to do what you wanted, but he is losing the folks in the middle who put him over the top. I suspect



jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 5:43 PM

You're judging the whole elephant by touching the tail, Beverly.

People want well-paying jobs with great benefits.

The ONLY people who can create those well-paying jobs are the rich.

Made their wealth on our backs?

We make our wealth on THEIR backs too.

Did you buy your house for cash? No? Somebody had to have the money to lend you so you could have a house.

Did you pay cash for your vehicle? No? Somebody had to have the money to lend you so you could have a vehicle.

Do you pay cash for everything, or do you have a credit card? Yes? Well, that means somebody had to have the money to lend so you could use a credit card.

I for one am grateful for the many rich who have employed me in my life and made it possible for me to have a job, a house, a vehicle, food, clothing, etc.

Without the rich in America, we'd just be another land of people living in tents, starving to death, dying in the streets.

Maybe instead of the hate speech against them, we might find somewhere in our hearts to be a little grateful!

Without the rich employing me, I wouldn't have money to help the poor, either!

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 5:44 PM

Beverly, you like the President needs to pick your target and state YOUR PLAN not some vague dream. The Far Left willl be angry that the public option is dropped which it is so they can take the whole thing down if they choose.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 5:47 PM

Donna, Obama may be trying to do what you wanted, but he is losing the folks in the middle who put him over the top. I suspect a repeat of last fall's election today would be very close.

I, for one, am glad that Obama and Co are stepping back here. They were on a very destructive track pushing the public option - just ugly politics - and digging a hole from which they might not have been able to recover. And it sure wasn't just Republicans blocking this - all those moderate to conservative Democrats who want to hold their seats were caught between a rock (new taxes) and a hard place (Rahm Emanuel). We don't have the money and a majority of Americans oppose govt running health care.

Now maybe we'll get some reasonable reforms that don't break the bank.


bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 6:56 PM

Jan
Jealousy, envy, and wanting to take away what someone else has earned and owns is actually breaking one of the Ten Commandments (since the Bible is being used as a weapon today - especially by many who don't even believe in God.)

The only entity on earth God charged to take care of the poor is the Church - the believers, something I've opined often in these pages.

That is why there are so many hospitals started by the Churches, orphanages, charities. If there are any poor not taken care of, it's our fault - the believers. We need to do more. I need to do more.

************************************************************************

Jealousy, envy, and wanting to take away what someone else has earned are vastly different from need and discrimination in healthcare. You do realize many of those organizations are not for profit which exist from the government funds and are flooded to the point that many are struggling or no longer exist due to cutbacks.
As far as tent cities I suggest you take a lot the homeless crisis in America which too is being shut down. America is going to hell in a basket and it has nothing to do with envy.


Jan you also said …

I for one am grateful for the many rich who have employed me in my life and made it possible for me to have a job, a house, a vehicle, food, clothing, etc.

Without the rich in America, we'd just be another land of people living in tents, starving to death, dying in the streets.

Maybe instead of the hate speech against them, we might find somewhere in our hearts to be a little grateful!

Without the rich employing me, I wouldn't have money to help the poor, either!
******************************************************************************************************


I'm quite sure many people are grateful to be employed. Let’s just look at equity. Is it fair to be laid off without healthcare benefits; which btw, people are losing jobs because these Fat Greedy Barons are much quicker to lay people off; in order to maintain their lavish lifestyles? Without healthcare reform people pay more for healthcare because then you take home pay is less or are laid off with out coverage. The consequence is one will not have the credit credentials one needs for basic necessities as a mortgage/rent, car payment, food, .and spiraling heatlcare costs.
Yet these Fat Greedy Barons whom you bow before have taken the ability to exist at the basic necessities. That is only fair in mercantilism. I refuse to be surf


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:00 PM



jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:02 PM

I can't disagree with you more.

I think greedy baron is relative.

I make enough to have a decent place.

People who live on the street could call ME a greedy baron.

I think that's a huge tent that's mostly empty in reality.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:03 PM

Fat Greedy Barons ???

Sheesh, Beverly.

You really don't understand how the greatest economy in the world works.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:10 PM

Cuz if she did, she'd be living in France.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:16 PM

I guess Love is an economy with which money can't compare.


smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:24 PM

You might be right ...

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:25 PM

In your Christian Bible Love equates to .. Love thy neighbor as thy self. Do these Robber Barons treat you the same as themselves when they steal from you?. In addition to that, in your Christian Bible there is a commandment about stealing one could reference...

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:29 PM

"since the Bible is being used as a weapon today - especially by many who don't even believe in God."

I do hope you're not referring to me. If so you are in error again.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:34 PM

Probably Jan was referring to the basic generic nonbelievers- no one specific just those who quote a source which they themselves believe faulty

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:37 PM

I'll wait for Jan own words, thanks though, Linda a sensible input.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:39 PM

I don't believe it's "faulty," I believe it's ancient wisdom literature, and it's fair to use whatever makes sense to you. I also believe and quote much of the philosophy of the Dalai Lama, though I'm not a Buddhist. Because I don't believe in gods doesn't mean I don't believe in collective human wisdom.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:40 PM

Some of those living in tent cites, Jan, once also had a living wage; what happened?

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:40 PM

Only Cinderella fits the shoe.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:41 PM

Totally IMPRESSED

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:44 PM

Fine. Be cryptic. So much more effective than saying what you mean.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:47 PM

I am impressed by your wealth of knowledge and vast resources-nothing cryptic, Cupcake

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:49 PM

Sorry, Smoke. Perhaps Jan was the cryptic "cupcake" not me LOL

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:56 PM

No cupcakes here, just sour dough.

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.7 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 7:57 PM

Bigmama - how on earth did everyone who has worked hard, risked their money, and profited from their ventures, earned it on my back and by lying to me?

You know, my dad was the same way. He made some poor choices in his life, and as a result, didn't have the things other people had. Instead of admiring their tenacity and hard work, he was bitter and spiteful, always feeling that the only reason they had money was because they had screwed somebody out of it, or lied to get it. Didn't matter that they had spent 8 years in college, had taken out hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, had ventured their own money to start a business and build it from the ground up. Didn't matter that some of those people grew up poor and with determination and a lot of hard work, rose above their station and became successful. Nope, they were all "crooks" and you could see the jealousy and hatred visibly ooze from him whenever he talked about those people. He always felt people owed him something.

I figured this all out when I was still in grade school and vowed to never be like him. And I'm not. Proudly. I may not be a billionaire, but I came from nothing and I've worked hard for everything I have. And nobody owes me a damn thing unless I've earned it.


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:00 PM

Good for you, Lodi. You are what makes the US great

mrbojangles
Mrbojangles  (Level: 16.6 - Posts: 231)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:02 PM

and then there's Paris Hilton.....

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.7 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:08 PM

Except Paris Hilton. That B owes me money.

oldcougar
Oldcougar  (Level: 220.4 - Posts: 1935)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:24 PM

I wasn't aware quoting the Bible turned it into a weapon. Are we not supposed to spread the good word. I'm not sure who you're referring to as not believing in the Bible, but it isn't me. Even if one wasn't a Christian, there's plenty of wisdom in the words that would appeal to any good hearted, intelligent atheist. It is not proper for anyone here to judge who is or isn't a Christian & who may or may not quote the Bible. I believe God has reserved that right, for Himself.


I'm still working on the Canadian Healthcare post & still canning tomatoes

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:25 PM

Not you, Sweety! You've never expressed your belief or lack of it to my knowledge. But by your deeds you are known, and your deeds seem very kind and sweet!

mrbojangles
Mrbojangles  (Level: 16.6 - Posts: 231)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:28 PM

Lodi, Why so? Didn't she choose you as MBF?

lodi
Lodi  (Level: 98.7 - Posts: 2144)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:32 PM

She didn't! Can you imagine??? And I'm so fun and girly and so fashion conscious.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:39 PM

I've got nothing against rich people. I actually know some and I like them fine; they're a lot like me, only with money. Then again, I mostly know liberal rich people. Unfortunately, there weren't any in the preceding generation of my family.

About page 16. I remembered hearing the president talk about it in his health care press conference, and my memory is that the provision could have a negative impact on a small number of people, something like 5%, and they would be the people not in any group plan, self-employed people buying their own insurance out of pocket, who, if they lost or canceled their coverage, would have a specified period of time to replace their coverage through a proposed national insurance exchange or be fined (maybe in the form of a tax debit, dunno) to cover the cost of uninsured care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_exchange

From Modernhealthcare.com:

"A national health insurance purchasing “exchange” would be a viable solution for older Americans not yet eligible for Medicare, a White House official said during a town hall meeting hosted by AARP.

The meeting underscored the struggles of Americans ages 50-64 to get health insurance. "Half the calls we’ve received today” were from people of this age group who faced barriers to coverage either because they had a pre-existing condition, or couldn’t get coverage through their employer, David Certner, legislative counsel with AARP, informed reporters.

Fielding questions during the teleconference, Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said the Obama administration was working with Congress on a new plan to set up an insurance exchange, which would offer a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan that would allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

DeParle was optimistic about getting healthcare reform legislation done before the end of the year, stressing the importance of preventive care to reduce the number of emergency department visits and keeping costs down.

When asked if people with existing employer-based coverage would be affected, DeParle responded that the goal was to build upon the existing healthcare system. Those satisfied with their current coverage “shouldn’t be affected at all, except you’ll see your costs get lower over time.”

I've got more about page 16 but this may already be long.


jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:41 PM

You carried your little dog in the wrong brand handbag. You barbarian!


bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:41 PM

Except Paris Hilton. That B owes me money.

**************************************************************************

R Kelley owes my son lunch money from their high school days

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 8:52 PM

Who’s a barbarian? I’m sure you didn’t want this thread to degenerate into name calling I only brought the Christian bible in to remind everyone the Founding Fathers framed this nation upon Christian values. Definitely, loving one neighbor as oneself is in the bible and so the 8th commandment thou shall not steal.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 9:00 PM

Donna - I don't care how your sources try to spin it.

It means what the words say - and it affects ALL of us who want to keep our healthcare private. The words are very clear and easy to understand.

Beverly - bless your heart. Were you talking about anyone who carries a dog in a bag?

If you were, I can understand your question.

If not, you might look above your post to see who I'm calling a barbarian.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 9:15 PM

Jank, I already know you won't accept anything I say on this subject, regardless of source. I was responding to Lodi.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 9:20 PM

Andy

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.
************************************************************************************************************************************
Certainly, there is a value of compromise, diplomacy, bipartisanship, etc; but Abraham Lincoln is known for being the resolute leader that got us through the Civil War and freed the slaves. But you have to remember that he didn't free the slaves on day one. It is ludicrous to believe that there will be no public option in the healthcare plan. The President said at the last Town Hall that t wants the public option, and will not sign a bill without it. The President has made that clear everywhere he has gone.
With Democratics 60 votes or reconciliation, the Democratic house, the Democratic senate, and a Democratic President I doubt if the media fixation, of any thing, to sell newspaper and commercials on TV flies. Republicans are the minority and must fight for their political life if they are to survive; that includes wild conjectures..

Andy, Does the quote "not the essential element of the administration's health care overhaul " mean anything to you in its truest context? The real issue is public option.

Andy, you are playing into the media and its fixation. The media is full of it. It’s not over until the fat lady sings.

The president has said he would risk being a one term present to get healthcare . source:http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/obama_as_a_one-termer.php The Alantic


Aug 14 2009, 10:52 am by Chris Good
Obama As A One-Termer?

According to an Iowa congressman, President Obama has said he wouldn't mind being a one-term president if that's what it takes to get major health care and energy reforms passed. Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) told reporters after a town-hall on health care that, during a meeting with Blue Dogs (of which Boswell is one), Obama said he'd be willing to get bounced after four years. From the Radio Iowa blog:

"The president (said), 'I'm not going to kick the can down the road.' And he said that and I said, 'Well, that's something I'm kind of used to from southern Iowa, you know. I know about kicking the can down the road.' And he said, 'No, if it makes me a one-term president, I'm going to, we're going to take it on because the country is in need of us taking this on.' I respected that very much."



So is it worth it for you, Andy? Heads or tails, once the country falls into the doldrums of a tent city, the President can always come back to clean up another mess left by neo-cons. He is young enough to do that.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 9:25 PM

I don't accept anything anyone says about the bill if it's contrary to the wording of the bill. It didn't leave anything to interpretation on that subject.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 9:26 PM

That's my point. If you deem every explanation "spin" there's nothing to say to you.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 9:27 PM

The spin stops here.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 9:29 PM

Only in this case where the meaning of p. 16 is so clear it doesn't need explaining.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 9:39 PM

[Page 16] describes what happens to the completely unregulated individual insurance market which, not for nothing, is where the abusive parts of private insurance are on most frequent display, including exclusions on the basis of pre-existing conditions. If you already have a health insurance plan - nothing happens for the first five years. And by nothing, I mean nothing - they can't accept new customers but they also can't jack up your rates (individual market plan customers for Anthem Blue saw their premiums jump 30-40% this year). After year 5, the ground rules change. If the plan you're enrolled in as an individual meets the minimum standards offered in the Health Insurance Exchange, that's fine. If not, the private insurance company is required to offer you a plan that does meet the minimum standard benefits.

What determines what goes into this minimum standard benefits? You might want to keep on reading to page 27. The qualified benefits package includes coverage for hospitalization, doctors visits, prescription drugs, mental health, maternity, etc. that is defined to be "equivalent to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage." So right from the start, the definition is what private employer-sponsored plans are already providing. The Health Insurance Exchange is itself populated with private insurance options and, according to page 81, anyone buying from this transparent marketplace, whether because their employer doesn't offer them insurance or because they work for a small business "may choose coverage under any such plan" both for themselves and for their dependents. And, of course, those who cannot afford a plan are subsidized so they only pay a fraction of their income, and Uncle Sam picks up the rest.

Read that again. Not only is private insurance not being outlawed, it's receiving subsidies from the federal government.

Some of the folks who have emailed me presume that the House is trying to rig the game in favor of the public health insurance option, which is already widely expected to give the private insurance market real competition particularly on cost and quality. But they've got it backwards. If the measure of the benefits is that they're equivalent to prevailing employer-sponsored private coverage, it's private insurance that's driving the conversation. (And believe me, this drives progressives who were hoping for a stronger public option up the wall! That frustration and outrage can't be feined.)

So I suppose it may be somewhat misleading to say, "If you like your coverage you can keep it." It would be more fair to say, "If you like your coverage, and it isn't so insufficient and abusive that even most private insurers would have qualms screwing you over that badly, you can keep it."

healthcarechange.org

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 9:53 PM

If you like your coverage you can keep it. But if you find other you like more, you're out of luck. You cannot change to a different private coverage because it would not be grandfathered.

So as I've already said, if you want private health care, you better be somewhere you like and want to stay by the day BEFORE the bill is signed, because it says as of Day 1 of signing the bill, you either stay with that private care, or you're in the national system. You don't get to change to another private company in the future.

That's the exact wording of the bill. So in the wildest stretch of his words, he told the truth. If you like your coverage you can keep it. If you ever don't like it and want to change, you will not be allowed to change to another private system. You are sucked into the national system.

That also means if the government is in control and runs your private insurance company out of business (by competing with private insurance companies), you don't get to move to a different private insurance. You are sucked into the national system - like it or not.

It means if you get into the national system and find a private insurance company you like better, that's just your tough luck. There is no wording in the bill that allows you to opt out after the bill is signed.

I don't accept those terms, and hopefully enough other people don't accept it that page 16 will be changed.

The only way to get to stay in the private health system is for the words of the bill to get rid of "grandfathered" and "Y1" and anything else that puts ANY kind of stipulations on our freedom to choose.


jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 9:58 PM

And it's very misleading for him to say "It would be more fair to say, "If you like your coverage, and it isn't so insufficient and abusive that even most private insurers would have qualms screwing you over that badly, you can keep it."

That sentence flies in the face of ALL polls that are now saying between 70% and 85% of all people with health insurance DO like their coverage - they do not find it abusive!

He's just making stuff up.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 10:00 PM

The private insurance companies will be competing with each other for clients in the exchange - not with the government; the government will be a client in a pool to subsidize coverage for the poor.

That's why rates will go down - no monopolies tied to employment, insurance companies will have to offer more for less or another company will. Big pools bring prices down. A competitve national exchange and a big group option will force rates down.

Time for Hung.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 10:01 PM

Let's ask all the folks who like their coverage if they would like it even more if it cost a third less.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 10:37 PM

There's just no way. That's impossible.

But hopefully there will never be a chance for me (or all the others who believe bureaucracy drives prices UP, not down) to be proven right.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 10:45 PM

"Jealousy, envy, and wanting to take away what someone else has earned and owns is actually breaking one of the Ten Commandments (since the Bible is being used as a weapon today - especially by many who don't even believe in God.)

The only entity on earth God charged to take care of the poor is the Church - the believers, something I've opined often in these pages.

That is why there are so many hospitals started by the Churches, orphanages, charities. If there are any poor not taken care of, it's our fault - the believers. We need to do more. I need to do more."
_____________________________________________________

I understand your perspective Janice, but not everyone who is "rich" or relatively so is a believer nor do they feel any obligation to share their wealth with the the poor. What I've never understood about Christians who go around protecting the "rights" of the wealthy is that (follow my reasoning here) from the Christian perspective not everyone who is outside of jail is a good person. There are evil people in the world who would use their power in destructive ways.

It may be the responsibility of the Christians who have wealth and power to help the poor, but in a world of limited resources, who else can help but those who have control of those resources? No one of course, even those who want to help. So for those who would not use their wealth and resources in an appropriate manner in a way God intended for everybody why not take it from them and redistribute? You would call that jealousy?? It maybe that sometimes, but I highly doubt that that always applies.

I agree that in an ideal world such measures would not have to be taken, but we are not in an ideal world.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Sun, 16th Aug '09 11:03 PM

I like you avatar Jan; to me it symbolizes hope. I hope everyone who is debating government takeover especially those who have it will see the system has helped then in time of need. Others, I hope; those against President Obama's healthcare plan, will stop those parsing of words and see the current system is flawed and needs to fixed. You can have qualms of being screwed over very badly and you can keep it. However, I don't know who those people are that are being polled. Maybe, they're the ones who were never dropped as my brother was because he cost the insurance co. too much money.

clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Mon, 17th Aug '09 12:15 AM

What kind of president have you elected there ? This fool wants to help the disadvantaged in his own land, not kill thousands of innocent foreigners. What is the matter with you people ? Do you want all the corporate fat cats who depend on oil and arms manufacturing to end up on Medicare ? If this guy gets away with this he may set about feeding the 10% that are "food poor" too. Before you know it your prisons will start to empty and they'll be no work for all those sadistic, sorry enthusiastic, screws. There's even a danger Texas might stop executing people, and you'll get dragged into the 21st century. Now, we don't want that do we ?

madamec8
Madamec8  (Level: 82.6 - Posts: 893)
Mon, 17th Aug '09 12:38 AM

Maybe this could segue into another thread ... on the subject of children 'inheriting' their parents' addictions. Whether it's biological or environmental -- the kid will definitely have a better shot in a better environment.

No child should have to grow up in an alcoholic home ... or one with drug addicted parents ... it is the worse abuse imaginable, and the scars run deep. I'd like to re-direct resources to providing a stable and safe living environment (NO, NOT foster care) as young as possible. It is doable, we just don't have the will. As it is now, parents' rights outweigh those of the child, and yet when the kid hits 18 or whatever, he/she's expected to become 'responsible'?

I believe in well-run children's homes (NOT under the auspices of Social and Health services). Those parents should have to re-earn the right to raise their children. Years ago we had great children homes with resident parents through the Lutheran church. Bit by bit the $$ dried up and they had to close -- I think too much competition for DSHS.





clevercloggs
Clevercloggs  (Level: 27.4 - Posts: 1246)
Mon, 17th Aug '09 3:05 AM

I understand what you're saying, and i certainly don't dismiss it out of hand. Should we have been taken from my parents, there were six of us ? Should my children have been taken from me ? Is a neurotic mother on valium any better at bringing up kids ? Do we want to drive the problem underground rather than encourage addicts to seek help ? As a drink / drug counselor myself should i be duty bound to divilge what my clients tell me ? I am legally bound to divulge some things, but it's very much a matter of discretion. Like all things concerned with issue, it is complicated.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Mon, 17th Aug '09 4:53 AM

Bo, Paris Hilton earns her own money. She has a very nifty business.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Mon, 17th Aug '09 4:57 AM

Beverly, the President is retreating. The public option is dead. They are retreating to co-ops which I understand they always opposed.

I've always wanted the President to succeed, Beverly, but he has been on the wrong route for his first seven months and has nothing to show for it.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Mon, 17th Aug '09 5:05 AM

Andy
Wait and see.

madamec8
Madamec8  (Level: 82.6 - Posts: 893)
Mon, 17th Aug '09 5:06 AM

Reminder: there IS NO BILL! There are versions (4?) floating around. It's September. Don't expect anything to make it through Congress this year. If at all.

I still think it's interesting that many cling to the 47 million uninsured number and ignore the documented analysis (NOT an abcnews report) about the true numbers of legal residents. There's the issue -- do we want to spend $500 billion to uproot the existing system or find a supplemental way to help the truly needy (that would not include the millions who can afford insurance but don't want to pay the premium)? Why? Um, they don't 'like' the numbers?


collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.9 - Posts: 9952)
Mon, 17th Aug '09 5:26 AM

Beverly, in 45 days the new President's reign really begins His budget, his economy, his foreign policy.

He isn't getting anything done.


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus