- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
It doesn't change the legal system. However, it does encourage health. Just like my medical plan at work. They are starting to spend on preventative medicine. Get everyone on insurance, then the insurance people will be encouraged to keep people healthy. There are protections in Obamacare to make sure that the insurance companies do not get to sacrifice people's health for the profit of the insurance companies. It would be leas of a problem if there was a single-payer system or even a public option so that we did not have to so closely monitor the insurance folks.
Obamacare does a lot to re-balance the financial equation to emphasize health and not health care. Keeping people healthy is much less expensive than caring for them when they are sick.
On the negative side, there's all those extra years of social security that they will be collecting.
And as evidence you offer...?
You just said our system doesn't do that. Now you say it does. Insurance is part of the system. More double talk
Yeah, makes you wonder why people want to inflict "free" healthcare on the rest of us.Really? Have you seen the overwhelming lines at the free care given in Los Angeles and elsewhere?
Wrong. Insurance companies have been doing it for several years. Doctors encourage good diets. What doctor do you know that promotes lifestyles that are unhealthy?OK, I'll type slower. The current system does not try to encourage health. The system that is the basis of Obamacare tries to do do more to encourage health over health care. Private insurance and no public option was an attempt at compromise with the uncompromising Republicans. We would be better off having a public option. That comes on the next improvement to the health care system that was started with the Obamacare system.
The reason for our lower relative life expectancy and high costs has little to do with the quality of healthcare (which is excellent), and EVERYTHING to do with an overabundance of lard asses who live off of Doritos and Diet Coke.
You spend more then any other country on Health Care, and get worse results...
Wrong. Insurance companies have been doing it for several years. Doctors encourage good diets. What doctor do you know that promotes lifestyles that are unhealthy?
Obama had closed door meetings with dems no GOP allowed
Obama says closed-door meetings on health care were a mistake - Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2010
Really I think the first thing the Republicans need to do is just see it Obama's way. Bohner has even gone so far as to back track and say they will just let Obama let the tax cuts on the rich expire, while the taxcuts on below 200k will be made permanent. How could they disagree on such a thing?
Moderator's Warning: |
Really I think the first thing the Republicans need to do is just see it Obama's way. Bohner has even gone so far as to back track and say they will just let Obama let the tax cuts on the rich expire, while the taxcuts on below 200k will be made permanent. How could they disagree on such a thing?
How clever of you. Nothing like repeating a cliché from Sarah who doesn't even know that the so called "death panel" is end of life counseling that was first proposed by a Republican Senator. Damn Republicans complain when the Democrats don't do what they want and they complain when they do.
Seems that Republicans are more interested in spreading lies than seeking the truth.
Sarah Palin's 'Death Panels' "Lie of the Year" - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com
You may have a nice relationship with your primary care provider. Not everyone has a primary care provider. Those people should be so lucky as to have someone to tell them how to care for their health. That is what the Obamacare system is intended to provide.
I have had dealings with doctors who were more interested in how soon they could get me under the knife than they we interested in finding non-surgical alternatives. But that is not the point. Having everyone get access to doctors that are interested in keeping people healthy is the goal. While your personal physician may have an interest in your well being, I don't think that the same is true of your local hospital. Their goal is to make money (profits) as a result of people being sick. When you come in the door of a hospital, they are not wanting to get you on your way as fast as possible. They are looking at the insurance metrics for how much they can make off of someone who has whatever you have.
A simple example of the kind of thing that we should have for everyone -- flu shots. If everyone had access to flu shots, the cost to the economy of the flu would be reduced. Having access to flu shots does not mean knowing where the local Wal Mart is where they are giving flu shots if you can pay for it. If means that everyone who wants a flu shot can get a flu shot. What happens in the current system, is that people who can't afford the shots don't get them and then they get the flu. They then go to the emergency room of some hospital for treatment. Since these people can't pay for the medical care, it gets transfered to "the system" and it is much higher than it would be if we had given them the flu shot in the first place.
But, as usual, I'm wandering. The system is not optimal. It is not even close to reasonable, much less optimal.
I really hope that you can understand the difference between a closed door meeting and not compromising. One of the things that could have been discussed in the closed door meeting was how they were going to compromise with the Republicans.
Unfortunately, the only "compromise" that the Republicans were interested in was to drop the whole idea of addressing the health care problem in America. What the Republicans offered was a non-solution. When the Democrats modified the program in order to meet Republican objections, the Republicans still voted no. Claiming that it was Obama who was not willing to compromise is, at best disingenuous, and at worst, just an outright lie.
Now, this is the beginning of a real compromise.
This chart..."shows" that a family of 4, who earns minimum wage, after all the entitlement/government programs are factored in has more disposable income than a similar family who earns $60K.
let's start ripping this one down so as to be able to cut them off at the knees.
The latest conservative talking point - Democratic Underground
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/en...um-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak
...America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system...
Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up "benefits calculators."...
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimu wage) has more disposable income than a amily making $60,000 a year.
If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
It gets even scarier if one assumes a little dishonesty is throwin in the equation.
If the one-week-a-month worker maintains an unreported cash-only job on the side, the deal gets better than a regular $60,000-a-year job...
Now where it gets plainly out of control is if one throws in Supplemental Security Income.
Best of all: being on welfare does not judge you if you are stupid enough not to take drugs all day, every day...
...there is no drug testing to get welfare checks.
I don't have a regular doctor I avoid them unless absolutly necassary.I do have insurance if I need one. So it is my fault others can't make healthcare a priority? This is not the governments responsibility to force others to pay for your healthcare.
Getting back on topic, I believe that IF the Jackasses fail to reinstate the tax cuts, they will rue the day they neglected this. And the sad truth is that we are not in a recession. We are in a Depression,..right now, and just starting to come out of it.
Only one problem here. The Progressive/Fascist congress, along with the Anti-Colonial Collectivist in the WH, have been making war against the small, and medium, businesses in the US, to the extent they are not budging financially. If they see their taxes going up again, they will further entrench. And this will cause another economic crash, just in time for the 2012 election.
Perhaps there will be a plus here in that the Tea Party will get more followers in congress, including the Senate. Let's hope so.
After the Great Depression of the 1930's taxes on the richest Americans went to 94% during World War II. After that prosperity reigned. In 1961, those taxes were 91% and Americans, through the 60s, had more purchasing power than we do now.
What the government could do is raise income taxes on the richest Americans (billionaires) to 99%, while exempting small business owners. Think there isn't anyone making over a Billion $ year in salaries ? There are. Parade magazine, each year, does a cover story on Americans' incomes, with their pictures and occupations. Two years ago, the highest income shown was John Arnold, a hedge fund manager (1.5 Billion/year). This year it was the CEO of Google - sorry, I forgot his name ($2 Billion/year). If these guys were taxed at 99%, they'd still be raking in 15 and 20 million a year respectively. I'd trade places with that, 99% tax bracket and all, and so would most Americans. That would create almost 110,000 jobs at $30,000/year each. Not a solution to all the unemployment, but a good steppingstone, and especially good if you're unemployed, and you happen to be one of those 110,000 people.
Also, the 110,000 would be high energy spenders in the stores (AKA the US economy), providing am additional boost for the economy, wheras very rich people don't spend much money (they already have everything), and what they do spend, has a very high % spent outside the United States (mostly Europe and the Caribbean), creating losses from the US economy, similar to remittances losse$ from illegal aliens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?