World Politics

[redtreviso]

Live by the sword, die by the the sword.

Oh well..It wus'nt me tryun to inselt the teeching prefression and mispeling in the proces.

 

[patricknd]

Oh well..It wus'nt me tryun to inselt the teeching prefression and mispeling in the proces.

teachers are over rated and over payed anyway

 

[redtreviso]

teachers are over rated and over payed anyway

yay....A little gold star for your forehead from Rush and Glen

 

[patricknd]

yay....A little gold star for your forehead from Rush and Glen

it's a joke. i'll try to "wright" slower next time.

 

[Hugh Januss]

teachers are over rated and over payed anyway

Please tell me you spelled paid wrong on purpose.

 

[patricknd]

Please tell me you spelled paid wrong on purpose.

hell no, i ride the short bus

 

[rhubroma]

this post is a flat out lie and what you mention is illegal behaviour. Hospitals cannot require you to take out aloan to pay for service. The law is you are treated regardless of your ability to pay. If you have little money admitting will steer you towards government agencies who pay for your care such as Medicaid, Medical etc. Posts like this just heap lie upon lie.
Here is a personal example, i got a small settlement in a car accident i owed much in hospital bills. I was worried but my lawyer said"no problem" he called the hospital while i was in the room and it literally took less than a couple minutes
"Yes i have my client in the room, we negotiated a settlement of $29,000 total for his accident but he has over $15,000 of bills with you and he has no health insurance. What would you guys take to settle the bill? $2,500. Sounds good, send us the papers. thanks."

I felt bad but the attorney told me the hospitals are usually thrilled to receive anything as most people simply stiff them and they have no practical recourse under the law.My 2500 was roughly in line with insurance/government reimbursement.

If the hospitals required loans to pay for healthcare they would be rich and also in violation of the law.

Nope, I didn't lie. If this is inaccurate, then the medic who related this to me was lying. I seriously don't think he was, however. In fact, I'd bet my job he wasn't.

I wouldn't know if your case is typical, or if it was because of particular circumstances.

In any case, having to call a lawyer to settle the matter is not very flattering of the system. In fact, it demonstrates just how barbaric it is.

 

[rhubroma]

IME experience England has or at least had a private insurance structure in place. I know of no one who would dare go to the National insurance dentists for example. While the doctors in the National system were not always the worst, in a general sense the best & the brightest went into the private system. The national system was filled with immigrant doctors who would agree to work for lower wages in exchange for being allowed to immigrate.
I have personal experiences with socialized medicine in Scandinavia where the system is paid for with heavy taxation. In Norway one of the richest per capita countries in the world thanks to oil reserves and small population, the benefits have had to have be reduced despite the great amount of money put into the system.
Canada? US surgeons are making a fortune in border cities due to the Canadians that come across to pay out of pocket for surgery that is
"elective" in their home country. Knee replacements apparently are not neccessary to ones good health. You can wait years for chemo treatments in England. the list goes on forever. Socialized medicine doesn't work the way people tend to portray it.
What is worse about america?
While we don't have socialized medicine per se, we do make hospitals treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay. That is the law and it is posted in every hospital. In addition Medicare & medicaid allow people access to care at little to no cost.
I have a friend who is a critical care nurse. Some gang members come in and require very expensive treatment for gunshot wounds, lots of blood used , expensive surgeons, hours in the emergency room, all at no cost to the individual. Some of these guys have come in multiple times and racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars of care at no cost.
at the same hospital they mentioned a man who had a drinking problem, he was able to come in monthly for dialysis for no cost. tens of thousands of dollars of care monthly provided for free.
that is the law.
So taxpayers here in America do pay for healthcare and people receive it.
It is the best system i have found.
However it is probably not for the doctors. Looking at my mothers medicare statement her doctor is reimbursed at the rate of about 5 McDonald happy meals for a visit. If the Obama care were to stand and if Happy meals remain steady he will get 3-4 happy meals. Considering his landlord and other creditors take thousands of happy meals a month i don't know how he can remain in business and continue to provide the care at this level. Not really fair to balance the budget on the doctors, pretty soon US doctors will go the way of england, longer waits. less choice. Die while you are waiting for your chemo to be approved. Oh well you were old anyway...

Just to be fair i should mention that i hold a National insurance card for Britain. I could get my healthcare for free but instead choose to pay money here in the US for care.

What an astonishing performance.

Ok, so I only mentioned England to not leave them out on technical grounds. However, I'm aware how the wellfare state has taken a tremendous hit since the Thatcher years. Thus Britian is not typical of Europe. Most would call it the 51st US State in the neoliberal sense.

This is why one refers to the Anglo-Saxon "disease" at the market.

This certainly isn't the case in the other states I mentioned.

Canadians with money who go seek private treatment in the US do so as a privileged class that can afford it. I have met many Canadians, however, who are quite proud to have public health care as against the horrors those of meager economic means, without insurance, can encounter in the States as they have commented upon.

You can not convincingly argue against public health care in the revolting way you have here. It will convince no one. Not even Scott So Cal.

 

[rhubroma]

I see the difference.

There are many problems with our healthcare system... mostly revolving around cost and access (which usually can be attributed, at least in part, to cost).

The first thing I would do is lift (some) regulations on insurance companies allowing them design health policies similar to the way auto insurance can be "customized". The idea being some coverage is better than none.

Secondly, if we are going to stipulate that healthcare is a basic right of an 'enlightened' society then the trial lawyers need to be kept on a very short leash.

Third, revisit mandatory ER care for non-life threatening situations. I think if insurance coverage is relatively inexpensive most people will get on board with it voluntarily and especially if there are financial consequences for showing up to the ER with a cold.

There literally are dozens of things that can be done but were never addressed because the intent of the current bill is to cause the eventual collapse of private insurance, thus paving the way for a single payor government entitlement.

My God, I exclaimed when I read it, how Scott So Cal could have developed if he had grown up in a different state, found himself a different wife, had had different university professors! Etcetera.

It's like when he looks at a picture and understands nothing about painting. He goes to the concert, but doesn't understand the least thing about music. He pretends to read books, but doesn't read any. Yet at mealtimes he prattles away nonstop and talks down all around him with his arrant nonsense.

 

[TRDean]

My God, I exclaimed when I read it, how Scott So Cal could have developed if he had grown up in a different state, found himself a different wife, had had different university professors! Etcetera.

It's like when he looks at a picture and understands nothing about painting. He goes to the concert, but doesn't understand the least thing about music. He pretends to read books, but doesn't read any. Yet at mealtimes he prattles away nonstop and talks down all around him with his arrant nonsense.

Kinda sounds like you....LOL!

 

[Anonymous]

My God, I exclaimed when I read it, how Scott So Cal could have developed if he had grown up in a different state, found himself a different wife, had had different university professors! Etcetera.

It's like when he looks at a picture and understands nothing about painting. He goes to the concert, but doesn't understand the least thing about music. He pretends to read books, but doesn't read any. Yet at mealtimes he prattles away nonstop and talks down all around him with his arrant nonsense.

You should probably limit your comments to things you know something about. Like, philosophy, ancient civilizations, marxism.... Stuff like that.

 

[redtreviso]

My God, I exclaimed when I read it, how Scott So Cal could have developed if he had grown up in a different state, found himself a different wife, had had different university professors! Etcetera.

It's like when he looks at a picture and understands nothing about painting. He goes to the concert, but doesn't understand the least thing about music. He pretends to read books, but doesn't read any. Yet at mealtimes he prattles away nonstop and talks down all around him with his arrant nonsense.

Its not that complicated,..He just listens to Rush Limbaugh

 

[rickshaw]

Ooh! Ooh!

You should probably limit your comments to things you know something about. Like, philosophy, ancient civilizations, marxism.... Stuff like that.

Man alive, I haven't seen anybody play the "commie card" for F'in ever! Joe McCarthy would be proud of you, but Karl would pe pyssed you didn't capitalize (pun intended) his namesake... (dabbing a tear from my eye now)

I'm amazed there can be so much debate here. Its simple: Health Care for Profit VS Health Care for ... you know, people's well being. Three cheers for Capitalism. Right?

(ps. you get rid of all the ignorant arrogance and these forums would be pretty desolate places..)

 

[redtreviso]

""Despite his reputation as a tax slasher, Reagan raised taxes three times, and tripled the deficit during his eight years in office. Sadly, his working-class "Reagan Democrat" admirers don’t seem to remember that one of his tax hikes raised payroll taxes, which hurt poor and middle-class Americans and shielded the wealthy. The main reason he's remembered as a tax-cutter is because of what he did to tax rates for the uber-rich: He slashed the top rate from 70 percent to 28 percent, and income inequality has soared ever since, so that today, the top 1 percent of Americans controls a quarter of the nation's wealth, as opposed to 8 percent when Reagan became president.

If that 70 percent rate sounds a little high, it's useful to remember that the top rate was 94 percent at the end of World War II, and after a brief drop to 82 percent, it stayed in the 90s under Republican Dwight Eisenhower; it was Democrat John F. Kennedy who slashed it to 70 percent. (It's actually worth reading this whole article.) The über-rich -- the top tenth of 1 percent -- saw their share of income drop from nearly 12 percent before the Great Depression, to under 3 percent by the 1970s. Those are the tax rates that powered the postwar boom -- the expansion of public education and universities, highway construction and home-ownership, government-funded research and development -- that we think of as the American dream.

So let's be clear: Reagan began a destructive spiral of concentrating wealth in the hands of fewer people, and deregulating business, that culminated in the economic crash we're still digging out of today. He even heralded it, by signing the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institution Act, which waved the "Go" flag on the savings and loan scandal, and foreshadowed the repeal of Glass-Steagall a decade later. To review: Under Reagan, income inequality began to grow, household savings dwindled, household debt correspondingly began to rise, and the clout of the financial industry exploded. The top 0.1 percent of Americans saw their share of income climb higher than it was before the Great Depression. And here we are.

Finally, while President Reagan is remembered as a genial optimist, Matthew Dallek and Steve Kornacki are right to remind us of the original Reagan: the proto-Nixon, who used race and fear to become California's governor in 1966. Reagan defeated California Gov. Pat Brown, running against Brown's supposed tolerance for black Watts rioters and Berkeley radicals, channeling white fears of urban violence, and riding a backlash against civil rights and the Great Society. When Reagan beat Brown he vanquished liberalism, and liberalism "never really recovered," Dallek wrote in "The Right Moment," his book about Reagan's first victory. Nixon learned from Reagan, and played on white fears that government was helping undeserving blacks; Reagan then learned from Nixon, and cut out the nasty racial rhetoric, attacking government, rather than its beneficiaries. By the time he became president, he talked less about "welfare queens," and he'd stopped railing about "young bucks" buying steaks with food stamps, or calling city streets "jungle paths after dark." But the damage had been done, and all but the super-rich are poorer for it.
""""

http://www.salon.com/news/the_real_reagan/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2011/02/04/reagan_war_on_poverty

 

[Anonymous]

Man alive, I haven't seen anybody play the "commie card" for F'in ever! Joe McCarthy would be proud of you, but Karl would pe pyssed you didn't capitalize (pun intended) his namesake... (dabbing a tear from my eye now)

I'm amazed there can be so much debate here. Its simple: Health Care for Profit VS Health Care for ... you know, people's well being. Three cheers for Capitalism. Right?

(ps. you get rid of all the ignorant arrogance and these forums would be pretty desolate places..)

Thanks for the drive by. Go back and read the last 600 or 700 pages and you'll likely spot a trend.

Thanks for boiling the haelthcare debate down to terms everyone can comprehend

Always nice for the ignorant to point out ignorance.

Cheers, Ricky.

 

[rhubroma]

Kinda sounds like you....LOL!

Everything is really autobiographical. So that when I attack and deride Scott SoCal for his shameful behavior and base thoughts, I'm really attacking myself, I'm just living my own shamefulness and basenesson a proxy basis and through the persona of Scott SoCal.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Thanks for the drive by. Go back and read the last 600 or 700 pages and you'll likely spot a trend.

Thanks for boiling the haelthcare debate down to terms everyone can comprehend

Always nice for the ignorant to point out ignorance.

Cheers, Ricky.

Yeah go back and read the entire thread and you will see that Scott has convinced everybody that if we just keep to the plan of healthcare for profit that everything will magically turn out to be just perfect. Ayn Rand said so.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah go back and read the entire thread and you will see that Scott has convinced nobody that if we just keep to the plan of healthcare for profit that everything will magically turn out to be just perfect. Ayn Rand said so.

Fixed it fer ya.

Profit is such a dirty word...

 

[rhubroma]

Fixed it fer ya.

Profit is such a dirty word...

How relieved the landlord will be!

 

[runninboy]

What an astonishing performance.

Ok, so I only mentioned England to not leave them out on technical grounds. However, I'm aware how the wellfare state has taken a tremendous hit since the Thatcher years. Thus Britian is not typical of Europe. Most would call it the 51st US State in the neoliberal sense.

This is why one refers to the Anglo-Saxon "disease" at the market.

This certainly isn't the case in the other states I mentioned.

Canadians with money who go seek private treatment in the US do so as a privileged class that can afford it. I have met many Canadians, however, who are quite proud to have public health care as against the horrors those of meager economic means, without insurance, can encounter in the States as they have commented upon.

You can not convincingly argue against public health care in the revolting way you have here. It will convince no one. Not even Scott So Cal.

Of course i can't convince someone like you who doesn;t deal with reality too well. You think in terms of theory, i think in terms of practical application. Healthcare is provided in the US regardless of your ability to pay. European healthcare is at a diminishing level of service at a rising cost. Canadians come across the border not as a priveledged class who have money to burn but as people who's inadequate system does not care for them. Oh you want a knee replacement? Sorry not neccessary. learn to limp.
Sweden, Norway. Denmark, all cutting back the level of care. You are searching for an ideal that no longer exists because it was non sustainable.
Good luck you are gonna need it.

 

[runninboy]

""Despite his reputation as a tax slasher, Reagan raised taxes three times, and tripled the deficit during his eight years in office. QUOTE]

sorry had to edit there was just way too much bs that is basically a flat out lie.
Guess what Congress makes the budget and the president signs the budget. It was a Democratic Congress that sent President Reagan a budget he was against. He tried to fight them but he was reluctant to shut down the government like Clinton did. The Congress sent him the budget just before Christmas and unlike Clinton he was not going to put government workers out of work at the Holidays. So he signed a budget he didn't agree with.
Unfortunately people(usually democrats, go figure) tend to forget that it was a Democratic Congress who made the budgetary blunders that Reagan gets the blame for.
Just in case you forget your government
the president makes requests to the House, then the HOUSE draws up the budget then they vote on it it, once it is approved it moves to the Senate where it is voted on, once it passes the Senate it moves to the Presidents desk for him to sign. He has only two choices,sign it into law, or veto and send it back to the house.
So "Reagan" didn't have control over the deficit, the Democratic Congress dropped the ball on that one.
cheers!

 

[redtreviso]

look.. its scotty and runnin and friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuBPrcwNHWY

 

[runninboy]

look.. its scotty and runnin and friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuBPrcwNHWY

You can't present a valid argument so instead you just call people names and try to be funny.
just sad....

In your world the President writes the budget so i guess i should just wait until you have educated yourself a wee bit more in U.S. government before i try to have a discussion with you.

 

[Hugh Januss]

""Despite his reputation as a tax slasher, Reagan raised taxes three times, and tripled the deficit during his eight years in office. QUOTE]

sorry had to edit there was just way too much bs that is basically a flat out lie.
Guess what Congress makes the budget and the president signs the budget. It was a Democratic Congress that sent President Reagan a budget he was against. He tried to fight them but he was reluctant to shut down the government like Clinton did. The Congress sent him the budget just before Christmas and unlike Clinton he was not going to put government workers out of work at the Holidays. So he signed a budget he didn't agree with.
Unfortunately people(usually democrats, go figure) tend to forget that it was a Democratic Congress who made the budgetary blunders that Reagan gets the blame for.
Just in case you forget your government
the president makes requests to the House, then the HOUSE draws up the budget then they vote on it it, once it is approved it moves to the Senate where it is voted on, once it passes the Senate it moves to the Presidents desk for him to sign. He has only two choices,sign it into law, or veto and send it back to the house.
So "Reagan" didn't have control over the deficit, the Democratic Congress dropped the ball on that one.
cheers!

That's gotta be why they call it "Reaganomics".
Yeah right it was Democratic Congress Trickle Down Theory.

 

[redtreviso]

You can't present a valid argument so instead you just call people names and try to be funny.
just sad....

In your world the President writes the budget so i guess i should just wait until you have educated yourself a wee bit more in U.S. government before i try to have a discussion with you.

Don't try to disavow Reagan's economic policies...All the GOP talking heads claim it proudly.You own it..Read recent David Stockman interviews and get back to us.