Health Care, Obama.....

You are privileged.

Almost everyone here is. It is obvious you came from a place where you had the things you needed when you were a child.

Statistically, you're simply incorrect when you insinuate that everyone can just go out and work harder, get a better education, and get a higher paying job.

You really do appear to have no idea what growing up in a low-income family means and what it does to your chances of making these things possible. Impossible? No. Just a LOT harder.

You know what the tax rules are, and if you don't like it is appears you have the means to move. Or do you think ANY political body in your lifetime is going to change the tax code so you get to keep most of your money?

I once believed that the Republican Party would reduce taxes, and they occasionally did...but I don't place any faith in that anymore.
At this point, I would settle for no increases in taxes, but really...is that even a remote possibility?.....:shake:
As you might have figured out by now, I truly despise the State and Federal 'death taxes' that are imposed on anyone who is smart-hard working-thrifty-lucky-whatever enough to save a chunk of money and then unfortunately, die.
I struggle to understand how anyone can think that death taxes are acceptable.
 
You guys don't read anything, do ya? You just make up what I said and then respond to the straw man.

For the FOURTH time, I am not saying the gov't is entitled to it, only that the inheritor did not earn it.

I conclude that for several of you, complaining IS the end result you desire.

Yes, sometimes more than I wish I had.
 
Nice sense of entitlement, though.

Honestly, I think that that is kind of invalid because not every family works with the same dynamics as yours (I'm guessing from what I feel in your posts) has/had.

Personally, while the things that are earned and acquired by the family are not pooled per se, in my family we kind of view it is a unit rather than a group of people living together, and just as my parents took care of me when I was a child, I will work to take care of them when they get older and need extra care and attention. Because of this dynamic, while I guess you could consider it "entitlement", but really it's more of just the next generation in our family unit getting what the prior one left behind, and this will continue to my children if I at all can, and hopefully from them to theirs.
 
Hmm, death tax + crappy healthcare {and getting worse} system.

There wouldn't be a connection, would there?

Just kidding,

:beer:
 
Hmm, death tax + crappy healthcare {and getting worse} system.

There wouldn't be a connection, would there?

Just kidding,

:beer:

My healthcare has always been great. Getting worse now that the government has decided to take it over, though. Thanks for your concern, foreigner...
 
My healthcare has always been great. Getting worse now that the government has decided to take it over, though. Thanks for your concern, foreigner...
Well i guess you think thats some kind of insult but it's Canada day today and i live in the best country in the world, so sticks and stones...

:beer:
 
I can speak for myself, thanks. But the arguments on here only work if you guys get to speak for me, so keep trying.

Ooops. Sorry 'bout that. I meant to say these are the opinions of Resident Obama. Since you voted for him I suppose that means you don't actually disagree with any of it.

It'll be interesting to see how many jobs are created when the capital gains tax goes back up. Afterall, who in their right mind would pull $500,000 out of the stock market to open/expand a business and hire some people at 15% capital gains tax when they could just wait and pay 20% instead?
 
Wait a sec --

First of all, why do you care who I voted for? I don't recall telling you so you're making assumptions again. Do you think you are going to persuade me to vote a certain way in the future with your witty creations?

Secondly, your wild assumptions and playing to the crowd might be fun, but you don't get to speak for anyone but yourself. Not me, not Obama, just yourself. If you have something you wish to say, fine. Putting words in other people's mouths really makes you look silly, IMO.



Ooops. Sorry 'bout that. I meant to say these are the opinions of Resident Obama. Since you voted for him I suppose that means you don't actually disagree with any of it.

It'll be interesting to see how many jobs are created when the capital gains tax goes back up. Afterall, who in their right mind would pull $500,000 out of the stock market to open/expand a business and hire some people at 15% capital gains tax when they could just wait and pay 20% instead?
 
Interesting article.



Canadian Malpractice Insurance Takes Profit Out Of Coverage

Posted by Jane Akre
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:47 AM EST
Category: Major Medical
Tags: Insurance Industry, Medical Malpractice, Tort Reform


medical_solutions.jpg





For Profit V. Nonprofit

LEARN MORE
IMAGE SOURCE: iStockphoto / medical solutions / author: gmutlu

The St. Petersburg Times takes a look at the cost of insurance in Canada for health care providers.
A neurosurgeon in Miami pays about $237,000 for medical malpractice insurance. The same professional in Toronto pays about $29,200, reports Susan Taylor Martin.
A Canadian orthopedic surgeon pays just over $10,000 for coverage that costs a Miami physician $140,000. An obstetrician in Canada pays $36,353 for insurance, while a Tampa Bay obstetrician pays $98,000 for medical malpractice insurance.
Why the difference?
In the U.S., private for-profit insurance companies extend medical malpractice coverage to doctors.
In Canada, physicians are covered through membership in a nonprofit. The Canadian Medical Protective Association offers substantially reduced fees for the same coverage, especially considering that their payout is limited by caps in Canada just as in some U.S. states.
In 1978, the Canadian Supreme Court limited pain and suffering awards to just over $300,000, circumventing the opportunity for a jury to decide on an award depending on the case before them.
Canadian Medical Protective Association
Here’s how it works.
Fees for membership vary depending on the region of the country in which the doctor works and their specialty. All neurosurgeons in Ontario will pay the same, for example. The number of claims they have faced for medical malpractice does not figure into their premium
"We don't adjust our fees based on individual experience; it's the experience of the group,'' says Dr. John Gray, the executive director, "That's what the mutual approach is all about, and it helps keep the fees down for everyone,” he tells the St. Petersburg Times.
If a doctor is sued, the group pays the claim and provides legal counsel.
In the U.S., the push has been on for limiting claims, no matter how egregious the medical malpractice. President Obama was booed in June when, before the American Medical Association, he said he would not limit a malpractice jury award.
"We got a crazy situation where Obama is talking about the cost of medicine but he said, 'I don't believe in caps,' " complains Dr. Dennis Agliano, past president of the Florida Medical Association. "If you don't have caps, the sky's the limit and there's no way to curtail those costs.''
But the importance of limiting jury awards may not play into the big picture on health care reform.
Malpractice lawsuits amount to less than one percent of both the Canadian and the U.S. healthcare system, meanwhile between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die each year due to medical errors in hospitals alone, while 16 times as many suffer injuries without receiving any compensation, reports the group Americans for Insurance Reform.
Major Difference
In Canada, an injured patient is often required to pay for the initial investigation into his case. In the U.S. the contingency fee basis, usually in the range of 30 percent, allows the injured party to proceed without a financial downside.
In both the U.S. and Canada, the definition of medical negligence is that a duty of care was owed to the patient by the physician, there was a breach h of the standard of care and the patient suffered harm by the physician’s failure to meet that standard of care.
A bad outcome in itself is not the basis of a lawsuit.
The Canadian Medical Protective Association insures virtually all of the country’s 76,000 doctors, as opposed to the U.S. where private for-profit insurance companies cover physicians for medical malpractice.
In Canada, the median damaged paid in 2007 was $91,999 and judgments favored patients 25 times, doctors 70 times.
In the U.S., many physician groups are requiring patients to waive their rights to a jury trial, even though malpractice litigation accounts for just 0.6 percent of healthcare costs.
Public Citizen, the consumer group, charges that the facts don’t warrant the “politically charged hysteria surrounding medical malpractice litigation.”
For the third straight year, medical malpractice payments were at record lows finds the group in a study released this month. The decline, however, is likely due to fewer injured patients receiving compensation, not improved health safety.
2008 saw the lowest number of medical malpractice payments since the federal government’s National Practitioner Data Bank began compiling malpractice statistics. In 2008, payments were 30.7 percent lower than averages recorded in all previous years.
In the report titled, The 0.6 Percent Bogeyman, the nonprofit watchdog group states, “between three and seven Americans die from medical errors for every 1 who receives a payment for any type of malpractice claim.”
Public Citizen previously reported that about five percent of doctors are responsible for half of the medical malpractice in the U.S. that can result in permanent injury or death. #



Read more: http://news.injuryboard.com/canadia...f-coverage.aspx?googleid=267890#ixzz0sXELcYmm
 
Vote them all OUT! ....:mad2:

Here is our smug, 38 year incumbent, Pete Stark of California at a Town Hall meeting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsBP2sbhjCA&feature=ytn:mptnews

It's amazing that an elected Congressman would address his constituents in such a manner.

BTW: I sent an Email to the Governor of Arizona letting her know that I fully support their new law and urged them to stand firm.
I also urged her to tell Obama, California and the Mexican President "to go pound sand."
 
Last edited:
Vote them all OUT! ....:mad2:

Here is our smug, 38 year incumbent, Pete Stark of California at a Town Hall meeting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsBP2sbhjCA&feature=ytn:mptnews

It's amazing that an elected Congressman would address his constituents in such a manner.

BTW: I sent an Email to the Governor of Arizona letting her know that I fully support their new law and urged them stand firm.
I also urged her to tell Obama, California and the Mexican President "to go pound sand."
My old man, who lives in Chicago, has called Jan Brewers office twice. The second time was to apologize for calling drunk the first time and slurring so bad he wasn't sure they'd understand he supported her, lol.
 
You would think that California would jump on board with Arizona's new immigration law instead for threatening a boycott.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

Califronia deserves the fiscal mess that they are in!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38048981/ns/politics-more_politics/?GT1=43001

I feel bad for "AW-NOLD"...he is fighting a losing battle.

That was probably the scariest video I have ever seen. How demeaning he was to legitimate citizan's voicing legitimate concerns, makes me ashamed.

All California Politicians, including the Governator suck, they add to the problem. I will admit I voted for Obama. I had two problems with McCain, if he had run the actual Maverick campaign that he ran in 2000, I would have voted in a heart beat. He was liberal enough on the issues I cared about and conservative enough on the things I held dear.

But in 2008, he cowtowed to the conservative base because the RNC told him, so all of a sudden he kept going a little more right. That didn't bug me though, what really bugged me was his first major decision was choosing a Vice President that had never read a newspaper.

However this does not make me an Obama supporter either, it probably would have been better to abstain from the vote. But what really hurts our system is the lack of choices. The two party system hurts us.

I would venture to say that my Republican friends on this site don't agree with ALL of the right wing conservatism, things like Faith Based Financing and such

And I would venture to say my Dem friends here don't agree with all the Left wing change the world crap.

Why is it impossible to have more voices heard in Presidential elections. Again it's campaign finance reform, those extra parties can't get the monetary backing to make a serious run. As such we are left with 2 defunct parties.

As far as some of the interesting debates on this site, my bet is there is more that unites us than divides us.

I'm a Liberal, but
I also believe in my right to own a gun
I believe our troops need to come home and defend our border instead of fighting for rights of a group of people that will bomb us in another 10 years anyway
I believe the spending has gotten out of hand by both parties. Let's not forget the first bail out was a bill proposed by McCain and voted on for Bush, but then Obama opened the floodgates
I believe in reducing taxes
And I believe in freedom for every legal citizan and imprisonment for every illlegal one

But I also believe we need more government involvement and oversite in banking, and education.
I believe we need to have programs to research alternative energy
And the Bottom Line is we need someone in charge, not someone who can make a good speech

Rant over, thank you for listening. Sad Sad video Joe, I am embarrassed to have that schmuck in my party that is headed to hell in a handbasket
 
"For profit V. non-profit"

I don't understand the "we can't {the government} do it" mentality that prevades this board. The prevailing thoughts around here seem to be that private enterprise is better than the more goverment run {:eek:, notice i'm avoiding that bad word that starts with a S, he he} programs.

Who runs the police, fire and education systems?

Would it be better to let a haliberton type run these things?

How is the privativation of some prison services working?


Now there is room for both, here everyone pays for the education system though thier taxes. If you want little johnny to have more than the public system can offer you can sent him to private schools, at your own coin, no opting out of the pubic system allowed.

Same can work for healthcare, here the rich have a better option than the public system can offer. If i'm rich and am told i have cancer i can avoid our public systems delays and get an appointment much sooner in detroit.

But you have to have a strong public system that serves 90+% of the population, the words "pre-existing conditions" need to vanish and everyone, everyone has access to decent healthcare when needed.

Just my two cents, do i have a dog in this fight as i was recently asked? no, do i need one?

:beer:
 
"For profit V. non-profit"

I don't understand the "we can't {the government} do it" mentality that prevades this board. The prevailing thoughts around here seem to be that private enterprise is better than the more goverment run {:eek:, notice i'm avoiding that bad word that starts with a S, he he} programs.

Who runs the police, fire and education systems?

Would it be better to let a haliberton type run these things?

How is the privativation of some prison services working?


Now there is room for both, here everyone pays for the education system though thier taxes. If you want little johnny to have more than the public system can offer you can sent him to private schools, at your own coin, no opting out of the pubic system allowed.

Same can work for healthcare, here the rich have a better option than the public system can offer. If i'm rich and am told i have cancer i can avoid our public systems delays and get an appointment much sooner in detroit.

But you have to have a strong public system that serves 90+% of the population, the words "pre-existing conditions" need to vanish and everyone, everyone has access to decent healthcare when needed.

Just my two cents, do i have a dog in this fight as i was recently asked? no, do i need one?

:beer:

I think there are things that need Government involvement, but other things that don't. Healthcare was broken, but the current plan doesn't fix. It also doesn't put a cap on healthcare costs. As such, like everything else, if it's costing more money they'll need to charge more money. So my question is who is going to pay for

The single mother of 8 who is on welfare receiving foodstamps in governmetn housing and isn't working but is collecting unemployment.

she for damn sure doesn't have the cash, so who ends up paying for her? Me, that I'm not cool with, because there is absolutely no insentive for her to go out and get a job. She can sit home on her fat arse all day long eating cheetohs and watching Dr Phil, and when she has a heart attack I have pay her medical bills, and her welfare and all that crap.

Healthcare needs to remain privatized but adhere to certain governemnt oversight, like caps on malpractice lawsuits, incurance oversight and more. But having it run by the government is a recipe for disaster.
 
Whenever the government gets involved in anything they immediately create several more government agencies.
Even though there are existing agencies that already cover the same thing.
Then they hire 3 times as many people as is needed, then they pay those employees a lot of money and give them incredible benefits.
(Good example is the TSA...Bush was an idiot for creating that BS agency! Same lame employees only now they get payed/bene'd way better.)
The agencies never get disbanded, even if their purpose is complete/osolete/not needed.
You end up with HUGE inefficient, ever expanding, tax gobbling government agencies.
 
That was probably the scariest video I have ever seen. How demeaning he was to legitimate citizan's voicing legitimate concerns, makes me ashamed.

All California Politicians, including the Governator suck, they add to the problem. I will admit I voted for Obama. I had two problems with McCain, if he had run the actual Maverick campaign that he ran in 2000, I would have voted in a heart beat. He was liberal enough on the issues I cared about and conservative enough on the things I held dear.

But in 2008, he cowtowed to the conservative base because the RNC told him, so all of a sudden he kept going a little more right. That didn't bug me though, what really bugged me was his first major decision was choosing a Vice President that had never read a newspaper.

However this does not make me an Obama supporter either, it probably would have been better to abstain from the vote. But what really hurts our system is the lack of choices. The two party system hurts us.

I would venture to say that my Republican friends on this site don't agree with ALL of the right wing conservatism, things like Faith Based Financing and such

And I would venture to say my Dem friends here don't agree with all the Left wing change the world crap.

Why is it impossible to have more voices heard in Presidential elections. Again it's campaign finance reform, those extra parties can't get the monetary backing to make a serious run. As such we are left with 2 defunct parties.

As far as some of the interesting debates on this site, my bet is there is more that unites us than divides us.

I'm a Liberal, but
I also believe in my right to own a gun
I believe our troops need to come home and defend our border instead of fighting for rights of a group of people that will bomb us in another 10 years anyway
I believe the spending has gotten out of hand by both parties. Let's not forget the first bail out was a bill proposed by McCain and voted on for Bush, but then Obama opened the floodgates
I believe in reducing taxes
And I believe in freedom for every legal citizan and imprisonment for every illlegal one

But I also believe we need more government involvement and oversite in banking, and education.
I believe we need to have programs to research alternative energy
And the Bottom Line is we need someone in charge, not someone who can make a good speech

Rant over, thank you for listening.
Sad Sad video Joe, I am embarrassed to have that schmuck in my party that is headed to hell in a handbasket

You know, I don't care what party he was from.
Both Republican and the Democratic parties SUCK.
They each end up fighting over which gets the biggest piece of OUR pie and could care less about us.

Personally, If I was at that town meeting, I would have 'beatch' slapped that MF'r if he kept up his attitude.
(Of course I would now be in prison for assaulting a lofty and valuable Congressman!)

You are right, the political 2 party system is broken and we need to get ALL of these worthless turds out of office!
They are in Washington to set up their little kingdoms and make as much money as they can...not to represent what a majority of their constituents want.
 
Back
Top