Wow! Doctors Speak Out

[Kathianne]

Ahead of SCOTUS ruling:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20220529obamacare_diagnosed_as_quackery_court_cong ress_advised_to_quash_it/


Obamacare diagnosed as quackery Court, Congress advised to quash it By Sally C. Pipes
Tuesday, May 29, 2012

The Supreme Court hasn’t yet rendered its verdict on Obamacare, but the nation’s doctors have. And they think it will wreck America’s health care system.


The latest evidence comes from a new survey of young doctors by the Physicians Foundation. Nearly 60 percent of doctors aged 40 and under are pessimistic about the future of American health care. Just 22 percent are optimistic.


The number-one reason doctors cited for their pessimism? Obamacare, which was singled out by more than a third. Add in related concerns — like distrust of government to do the right thing and the feeling that government intervention hurts patient care — and the docs’ hostility to Obamacare becomes even more intense.



When asked specifically for their diagnosis of Obama- care, just 23 percent say it will have a positive impact on their practice. Half say the effect will be negative.


These findings line up with an earlier survey of doctors by consulting firm Deloitte, which found that two-thirds of all doctors expect the quality of health care to decline under Obama- care. Physician pessimism is understandable, as Obama- care’s promises are crumbling even before the law takes full effect.


For example, Americans were promised repeatedly that they could keep their insurance if they liked it. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) now admits that as many as 20 million people could lose their employer-provided coverage and have to buy insurance on government-run exchanges.


Obamacare was also supposed to bend the health care cost curve down, but the government now estimates that it will add more than $300 billion to the nation’s health tab over the next decade. According to the CBO, the cost of the law over the decade commencing in 2010 has risen to $1.76 trillion — almost double the original estimate of $940 billion...

[fj1200]

Ahead of SCOTUS ruling:

Obamacare was also supposed to bend the health care cost curve down, but the government now estimates that it will add more than $300 billion to the nation’s health tab over the next decade. According to the CBO, the cost of the law over the decade commencing in 2010 has risen to $1.76 trillion — almost double the original estimate of $940 billion...
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20220529obamacare_diagnosed_as_quackery_court_cong ress_advised_to_quash_it/

With the cost estimates rising doesn't that mean BO should repeal his own bill that he only signed if it wouldn't raise the deficit "one dime"?

[logroller]

Ehhh, what do doctors know anyways?

[Abbey Marie]

Have we even studied the effect this will have on our bright students choosing a different career to avoid all the hassles?

[Trigg]

Have we even studied the effect this will have on our bright students choosing a different career to avoid all the hassles?

We dont have to study it...we already know there is going to be a doctor shortage.


This year, about 17,000 U.S. medical students were matched through the 60-year-old system of interviews and evaluation by teaching hospitals across the country. Some will finish residency after three years and go on to be primary-care physicians. Others will specialize in surgery, cardiology or other areas that require more training. We need all of them and many more. Based on the projections, our nation needs to train about 24,000 residents each year — 50% higher than today — over the next 15 years to close the gap between the number of doctors we have and the number we need.



http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-21/news/31222246_1_teaching-hospitals-doctor-shortage-new-doctors

[Nell's Room]

If Obamacare means that healthcare is to be government funded, then I would be all for it. Over here, us Aussies have a good healthcare system, and we cannot understand why the Americans are saddled with such huge medical bills to pay.
From where I sit, it seems that the healthcare system in the US is not too crash hot, and needs to be changed. It needs to stop sending people broke, and making it difficult for people to buy insurance.
Here, we have private health cover, but that is optional. If you don't have it, you go through the public system and you still get a level of care that is second to none.

[Shadow]

We dont have to study it...we already know there is going to be a doctor shortage.



http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-21/news/31222246_1_teaching-hospitals-doctor-shortage-new-doctors

I had heard one of my doctors talking about this awhile back. And also about how once Obamacare goes into effect most specialized doctors (like neurosurgeons for example) will have to work 24/7 just to cover the malpractice insurance they will need. Found an article stating the same...saying that due to this most will retire early leaving a dwindling field.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/obamacare-fail-tort-reform-malpractice-insurance-costs-crippling-medicine-article-1.452167

[avatar4321]

Im surprised the left isnt gung ho at repealing Obamacare to make this case moot. If the Supreme Court comes out with a decision on this case overturning Obamacare as expected, there is going to be a precedent to seriously challenge former decisions that expanded the Commerce clause beyond it's original intent. If that happens, expect challenges to countless government programs that overreach that clause.

[SassyLady]

If Obamacare means that healthcare is to be government funded, then I would be all for it.

So, instead of everyone being responsible for their own health insurance, you are advocating those that pay taxes be the people that pay for the health care of those that don't pay taxes?

[Little-Acorn]

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to SassyLady again."

[Little-Acorn]

If the Supreme Court comes out with a decision on this case overturning Obamacare as expected, there is going to be a precedent to seriously challenge former decisions that expanded the Commerce clause beyond it's original intent. If that happens, expect challenges to countless government programs that overreach that clause.

Every silver lining has an even more silvery lining. :D :D ;D

[Trigg]

If Obamacare means that healthcare is to be government funded, then I would be all for it. Over here, us Aussies have a good healthcare system, and we cannot understand why the Americans are saddled with such huge medical bills to pay.
From where I sit, it seems that the healthcare system in the US is not too crash hot, and needs to be changed. It needs to stop sending people broke, and making it difficult for people to buy insurance.
Here, we have private health cover, but that is optional. If you don't have it, you go through the public system and you still get a level of care that is second to none.


My sister lives in Finland and also has gov. funded "free" healthcare. Her taxes are through the roof.

To get an MRI or any specialized scan she may wait 2-3 months.

They have a massive Dr. shortage and consequently are seeing nurse practitioners or Physicians Assistants.

They also tend to use the emergency room as a Dr's office. Since it's free they see no reason to wait for an appointment for a cold and so go to the ER anytime they want.

In order to see a real doctor MOST people carry private health insurance on top of the "Free" stuff.


I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that kind of a system is better than what we have.

[Abbey Marie]

Great post, Trigg! Proof is in the pudding, as they say.

[Nell's Room]

So, instead of everyone being responsible for their own health insurance, you are advocating those that pay taxes be the people that pay for the health care of those that don't pay taxes?

People should be responsible for themselves in the sense that they shouldn't smoke or get fat, because smokers and the obese are huge drains on the public purse.

If I am sick, I go to the doctor, and I pay for my visit. But if I need to visit the hospital, my treatment here is free. Everyone here pays a little more tax to cover the public system. My taxes go toward paying for everyone else's healthcare, and their taxes go toward paying for mine. Everyone helps out each other, and the rich are not treated better than the poor, and no one is stuck with a massive bill that sends them bankrupt. The system works well for us.

[Nell's Room]

My sister lives in Finland and also has gov. funded "free" healthcare. Her taxes are through the roof.

To get an MRI or any specialized scan she may wait 2-3 months.

They have a massive Dr. shortage and consequently are seeing nurse practitioners or Physicians Assistants.

They also tend to use the emergency room as a Dr's office. Since it's free they see no reason to wait for an appointment for a cold and so go to the ER anytime they want.

In order to see a real doctor MOST people carry private health insurance on top of the "Free" stuff.


I'm sorry, but I fail to see how that kind of a system is better than what we have.

Over here, I have never had to wait for a scan. It does depend on where you live, though. In regional areas, you can have your scans pretty much straight away, but in the city, where there is a larger population, you may have to wait. If your case is deemed urgent, you will get your treatment sooner. There is no reason why a person with a minor ailment should have their CT scan before someone who is in immense pain. Those who need it more come first, and everyone else must wait. I have no issue with this.

I do not know about the healthcare system in Finland, so I cannot comment on this.

Yes, you are correct that people go to the hospital for a runny nose because its free, but, while this may piss you off, these people won't get seen by a doctor for hours and hours. The triage nurse will know if they simply have a cold, and they will be waiting in that waiting room for hours and hours while the genuine sick people get seen to. So it doesn't matter who wants free treatment, they are made to wait for it, and most end up going home, anyway.

Let me tell you how well our healthcare system works: Three years ago, my sister became very ill. She was first diagnosed with meningitis, but this wasn't correct. Sh suffered a stroke at home and was rushed to hospital in Melbourne. There, she had multiple tests, xrays, and CT scans, MRI's, the works. It was found that she had lesions on her heart. The doctors were going to operate on her on the Monday (they said this on Friday) but they did some more tests the next day and found that the lesions had grown. The doctors told us they needed to operate immediately, at 11.15 in the morning. Exactly two hours later, she was in the OR, having major open heart surgery.

Over a month in hospital (one of the best public hospitals in the country) countless tests and surgery that would have totaled at least half a million dollars if she had to pay for it. ALL FREE. All taxpayer funded. My sister is alive today because of our public health care system, so how can I say anything bad about it?

Also, our private doctors work at public hospitals as well, because our public hospitals are second to none. They are not perfect, but we provide a brilliant level of care, without the worry and stress of a huge medical bill to come home to.

[avatar4321]

Every silver lining has an even more silvery lining.
:D ;D

I am just praying to God that this is overturned and we can make ground against those really dumb precedents that allowed FDR to expand the government.

[SassyLady]

People should be responsible for themselves in the sense that they shouldn't smoke or get fat, because smokers and the obese are huge drains on the public purse.

If I am sick, I go to the doctor, and I pay for my visit. But if I need to visit the hospital, my treatment here is free. Everyone here pays a little more tax to cover the public system. My taxes go toward paying for everyone else's healthcare, and their taxes go toward paying for mine. Everyone helps out each other, and the rich are not treated better than the poor, and no one is stuck with a massive bill that sends them bankrupt. The system works well for us.

So, over there everyone works and pays the same amount of tax?

[Trigg]

Over here, I have never had to wait for a scan. It does depend on where you live, though. In regional areas, you can have your scans pretty much straight away, but in the city, where there is a larger population, you may have to wait. If your case is deemed urgent, you will get your treatment sooner. There is no reason why a person with a minor ailment should have their CT scan before someone who is in immense pain. Those who need it more come first, and everyone else must wait. I have no issue with this.

I do not know about the healthcare system in Finland, so I cannot comment on this.

Yes, you are correct that people go to the hospital for a runny nose because its free, but, while this may piss you off, these people won't get seen by a doctor for hours and hours. The triage nurse will know if they simply have a cold, and they will be waiting in that waiting room for hours and hours while the genuine sick people get seen to. So it doesn't matter who wants free treatment, they are made to wait for it, and most end up going home, anyway.

Let me tell you how well our healthcare system works: Three years ago, my sister became very ill. She was first diagnosed with meningitis, but this wasn't correct. Sh suffered a stroke at home and was rushed to hospital in Melbourne. There, she had multiple tests, xrays, and CT scans, MRI's, the works. It was found that she had lesions on her heart. The doctors were going to operate on her on the Monday (they said this on Friday) but they did some more tests the next day and found that the lesions had grown. The doctors told us they needed to operate immediately, at 11.15 in the morning. Exactly two hours later, she was in the OR, having major open heart surgery.

Over a month in hospital (one of the best public hospitals in the country) countless tests and surgery that would have totaled at least half a million dollars if she had to pay for it. ALL FREE. All taxpayer funded. My sister is alive today because of our public health care system, so how can I say anything bad about it?

Also, our private doctors work at public hospitals as well, because our public hospitals are second to none. They are not perfect, but we provide a brilliant level of care, without the worry and stress of a huge medical bill to come home to.

Glad your sister is doing well. She would have gotten the same level of care in the US and just as prompt.

Just out of curiosity what do you pay in taxes for your "free" healthcare? See, because that's my point. Not only do you pay a much higher tax rate (I know my sister does), but you also probably carry private insurance. Why is that? If your insurance is so fabulous why bother with the private stuff?

Also your premise of being sent home with HUGE hospital bills is wrong for a lot of people.. It depends on a persons individual health plan. For instance, anything I have done at a hospital or clinic is free, I only pay for what is left of the doctors fees, radiology reading fees or ER doctor's fees, after my insurance pays.

We also have a huge population of people who pay nothing because they get gov. insurance called medicad which is paid for by the taxpayers for low income people.

[Trigg]

Australia also has a doctor shortage



Australia has a shortage of doctors. There has been a shortage in the bush for years, and now it is hard for many patients even in metro areas to find a GP to take them on. We cope by importing doctors from other counties. In fact, Australia has been the highest per capita importer in the world of foreign-trained doctors.
Politicians have tried for many years to help. First increasing the output of doctors, but then realising that under “fee for service”, more doctors means more costs for Medicare. So medical student numbers were cut back


http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/18/australia-needs-more-doctors-but-does-it-need-more-medical-schools/

[darin]

I LOVE australia!!

</SPAN>
http://www.divyy.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NickyWhelan6.jpg</SPAN>



Doing a little math though...Healthcare is hardly free. I'm unsure what portion of the tax burden goes to the beaurocrats running their health system, and then to the providers...but from this site (http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/content/12333.htm), my taxes would go through the roof.

My fed tax in Australia would be almost $30,000/year. I can't believe it's a whopping 37% on top of every dollar my family makes over 80k. ALL that taking of MY income to cover the health care of people I am not obliged to care about. Ends up being about twice my current rate, percentage wise - even adding in my average anual medical costs.

Compare that to my Blue Cross @ ~$3600 year + $25 co-pays, per visit.

I wonder if folks down under would be able to buy equal or better private insurance at a cheaper cost. Rhetorical question, I suppose. I also wonder how much more money folks would give to medical charities to help the truly needy, if the gov didn't steal so much of their income...that's my second and final Rhetorical question of the day.

Course, with folks like Ms Whelan...might be worth it...just sayin. :)

[Abbey Marie]

Does anyone know if any country has been able to go from nationalized/socialized health care, back to private? Seems to me that would be nearly impossible, even though everyone will see that is is a disaster. It's like putting the genie back in the bottle.

[Kathianne]

Does anyone know if any country has been able to go from nationalized/socialized health care, back to private? Seems to me that would be nearly impossible, even though everyone will see that is is a disaster. It's like putting the genie back in the bottle.

After searching a bit, found this site http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/5/448.full that seems to discuss if and how it could be done, even why it might be. Of course, it comes down to that would be a bad thing...

[ConHog]

I LOVE australia!!

</SPAN>
http://www.divyy.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NickyWhelan6.jpg</SPAN>



Doing a little math though...Healthcare is hardly free. I'm unsure what portion of the tax burden goes to the beaurocrats running their health system, and then to the providers...but from this site (http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/content/12333.htm), my taxes would go through the roof.

My fed tax in Australia would be almost $30,000/year. I can't believe it's a whopping 37% on top of every dollar my family makes over 80k. ALL that taking of MY income to cover the health care of people I am not obliged to care about. Ends up being about twice my current rate, percentage wise - even adding in my average anual medical costs.

Compare that to my Blue Cross @ ~$3600 year + $25 co-pays, per visit.

I wonder if folks down under would be able to buy equal or better private insurance at a cheaper cost. Rhetorical question, I suppose. I also wonder how much more money folks would give to medical charities to help the truly needy, if the gov didn't steal so much of their income...that's my second and final Rhetorical question of the day.

Course, with folks like Ms Whelan...might be worth it...just sayin. :)

The argument that if the government didn't take so much in taxes people would give to charity is a fallacy. Charity comes from the heart, not from woohoo my taxes weren't as much this year. I wouldn't up my charitable contributions one single dime because well I give enough now in time and money, and many are in similar situations. And most of those who claim they would give more if their taxes weren't so high, are no doubt giving NOTHING now, so no reason to believe they'd give more if their tax bill was lower.

I don't buy it. not for one second.

[logroller]

The argument that if the government didn't take so much in taxes people would give to charity is a fallacy. Charity comes from the heart, not from woohoo my taxes weren't as much this year. I wouldn't up my charitable contributions one single dime because well I give enough now in time and money, and many are in similar situations. And most of those who claim they would give more if their taxes weren't so high, are no doubt giving NOTHING now, so no reason to believe they'd give more if their tax bill was lower.

I don't buy it. not for one second.

I agree completely; but there are some detrimental market effects of public subsidy. Its just too hard for non-profits to compete with public healthcare providers; so they close down. Same could be said for education, really. There's an opportunity cost to either system. The question then becomes, is the service more broadly available as a result of public funding. I think that's the key really: overall benefit. There's no way to have all covered without sacrificing quality or price.
Is it better to have A) high-priced, great care for most, B) higher-priced great care for all or C) lower-priced lesser care for all.

[Abbey Marie]

The argument that if the government didn't take so much in taxes people would give to charity is a fallacy. Charity comes from the heart, not from woohoo my taxes weren't as much this year. I wouldn't up my charitable contributions one single dime because well I give enough now in time and money, and many are in similar situations. And most of those who claim they would give more if their taxes weren't so high, are no doubt giving NOTHING now, so no reason to believe they'd give more if their tax bill was lower.

I don't buy it. not for one second.

Maybe, maybe not. One thing I believe to be certain: with higher taxes, people will give less.

[Kathianne]

I agree completely; but there are some detrimental market effects of public subsidy. Its just too hard for non-profits to compete with public healthcare providers; so they close down. Same could be said for education, really. There's an opportunity cost to either system. The question then becomes, is the service more broadly available as a result of public funding. I think that's the key really: overall benefit. There's no way to have all covered without sacrificing quality or price.
Is it better to have A) high-priced, great care for most, B) higher-priced great care for all or C) lower-priced lesser care for all.

I don't disagree that taxes alone enter much into the 'giving' equation. However, the ability to say, 'I'm taking care of those people or problems, etc., through taxes,' certainly does enter into the equation. Anyone that disagrees, I'm not buying the nonsense you're trying to sell. (I've always found sentences like the proceeding one very conducive to discussions, haven't you?)

[logroller]

I don't disagree that taxes alone enter much into the 'giving' equation. However, the ability to say, 'I'm taking care of those people or problems, etc., through taxes,' certainly does enter into the equation. Anyone that disagrees, I'm not buying the nonsense you're trying to sell. (I've always found sentences like the proceeding one very conducive to discussions, haven't you?)

Absolutisms are unproductive to debate; there's no other valid position to take.;)

I know what you're saying in though. Its odd too, because there is a great deal of public funding of charities; which is beset with dilemma.(see:charitable choice) Admittedly this stemmed from a shift away from wholly public provisions, it nonetheless blurs the line between public/private-- Promulgating bitter public sentiments. Then when public funds are reduced, the bitterness remains long after.

[Kathianne]

Absolutisms are unproductive to debate; there's no other valid position to take.;)

I know what you're saying in though. Its odd too, because there is a great deal of public funding of charities; which is beset with dilemma.(see:charitable choice) Admittedly this stemmed from a shift away from wholly public provisions, it nonetheless blurs the line between public/private-- Promulgating bitter public sentiments. Then when public funds are reduced, the bitterness remains long after.

Considering the number of studies that demonstrate that conservatives give more to charities than liberals, might it not be a function of what they individually feel should be the source of help for the indigent? Liberals believe government through taxes, while conservatives tend to be more prone to local charitable outlets?

[ConHog]

I don't disagree that taxes alone enter much into the 'giving' equation. However, the ability to say, 'I'm taking care of those people or problems, etc., through taxes,' certainly does enter into the equation. Anyone that disagrees, I'm not buying the nonsense you're trying to sell. (I've always found sentences like the proceeding one very conducive to discussions, haven't you?)

I wouldn't disagree that some give less because of taxes. I just believe that no one would give more if taxes were less.

And of course we all realize that of course there are exceptions either way.

I wasn't making an argument about public vs private health care services either.


On that subject , the main change I would like to see is I think that we DO need health care INSURANCE reform. I would like to see an insurance co op. Many companies band together to provide an insurance pool that anyone is eligible for. Just like with an energy co op a state wide board comprised of government officials AND industry experts sets prices both for insurance prices and medical costs.

I know that idea is repulsive to some, but how can ANYONE think that $1800 for a 30 minute ER visit is okay? Just as an example.

[SassyLady]

I know that idea is repulsive to some, but how can ANYONE think that $1800 for a 30 minute ER visit is okay? Just as an example.

My sister had heart attack and renal failure and what they did for her in the first 30 minutes of the ER saved her life....yeah, I would say it's worth $1800.

[ConHog]

My sister had heart attack and renal failure and what they did for her in the first 30 minutes of the ER saved her life....yeah, I would say it's worth $1800.

Really? Not ALL ER visits come to that you know. My dad visited because his back was hurting so bad he couldn't even sleep and he was afraid there was something else wrong with him. 2 X rays, poke around on his back, 30 minutes total with a DR and they wanted $1800.

[Nell's Room]

So, over there everyone works and pays the same amount of tax?

Nope, everyone pays different levels of tax depending on your income. When I start earning more money, I will contribute more. I haven't heard a single Aussie say they have a problem with contributing to our healthcare system.

[Nell's Room]

Glad your sister is doing well. She would have gotten the same level of care in the US and just as prompt.

Just out of curiosity what do you pay in taxes for your "free" healthcare? See, because that's my point. Not only do you pay a much higher tax rate (I know my sister does), but you also probably carry private insurance. Why is that? If your insurance is so fabulous why bother with the private stuff?

Also your premise of being sent home with HUGE hospital bills is wrong for a lot of people.. It depends on a persons individual health plan. For instance, anything I have done at a hospital or clinic is free, I only pay for what is left of the doctors fees, radiology reading fees or ER doctor's fees, after my insurance pays.

We also have a huge population of people who pay nothing because they get gov. insurance called medicad which is paid for by the taxpayers for low income people.

I don't pay as much in taxes as most people as I am earning a low income - although not low enough for me to qualify for government assistance - but its probably something like 1% of our taxes going toward healthcare.

I'm sure sister would have got the same treatment in an American hospital, but as she was on a non existent income at the time, she wouldn't have been able to afford insurance and may not have been seen as a low income earner either (she was on government benefits at the time) so would have been stuck with a bill.

We have a private system as well for people who think its better to get their own private room rather than share a room. The problem with private insurance is that there is always a 'gap'. Insurance might cover a few grand but you get stuck with the rest. If you have a major illness, your premiums increase so you wouldn't be able to afford insurance anyway, which is why so many people go public.


Australia also has a doctor shortage

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/18/australia-needs-more-doctors-but-does-it-need-more-medical-schools/

Yes, we have a doctor shortage, but that isn't related to our healthcare system.

[SassyLady]

Really? Not ALL ER visits come to that you know. My dad visited because his back was hurting so bad he couldn't even sleep and he was afraid there was something else wrong with him. 2 X rays, poke around on his back, 30 minutes total with a DR and they wanted $1800.

But that wasn't your question. You asked:



how can ANYONE think that $1800 for a 30 minute ER visit is okay? I gave you an example.

[Nell's Room]

But that wasn't your question. You asked:

I gave you an example.

IMO, your sister shouldn't have had to pay a cent for her treatment. It should have been free of charge, completely taxpayer funded. There is nothing wrong with making Americans care for each other in their time of need, and having the entire country help you out with your medical treatment really is a great gift.

[logroller]

My sister had heart attack and renal failure and what they did for her in the first 30 minutes of the ER saved her life....yeah, I would say it's worth $1800.
That's a great anecdote sassy. 2010 estimates (the highest annual outlay over the ten year cbo estimate) of Obamacare were $224 billion, which seems like a lot; but if you break that down over 300 million Americans, it's about $750 per person--would you say that's worth it?

[Kathianne]

Nope, everyone pays different levels of tax depending on your income. When I start earning more money, I will contribute more. I haven't heard a single Aussie say they have a problem with contributing to our healthcare system.

Well you may not of heard of any complaints, but your government has:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/03/us-australia-health-idUSTRE6220ES20100303


Australia government plans $45 billion overhaul of health Tue, Mar 2 2010
By Rob Taylor (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=rob.taylor&)
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced a US$45 billion funding takeover of the country's ailing health-care system on Wednesday, proposing to wrest it away from the states and cut hospital waiting lists...


Australia spent more that A$103 billion on health care in 2007-08, with only A$5.5 billion going to new infrastructure. Public hospital spending totaled around A$30 billion.
Successive surveys show health care is among the most important issues for voters and Rudd won office in 2007 promising to take over hospitals and end long-running squabbles with state governments over who should control the public health system.
The plan could be bitterly opposed by state governments because it strips them of a core function under Australia's constitution and places stricter controls on federal funding. Currently, Canberra hands health money over to the state governments which then decide how to spend it.





I don't think Rudd is PM anymore? ;)

[Nukeman]

IMO, your sister shouldn't have had to pay a cent for her treatment. It should have been free of charge, completely taxpayer funded. There is nothing wrong with making Americans care for each other in their time of need, and having the entire country help you out with your medical treatment really is a great gift.
Here's the problem with the thinking of folks from other countries!! Australia has 22 million resedents we have 20 million in NY state alone. We have 15x the population that you do how do you pay for that number of people with a "federal" tax funded plan and still keep the same day/next day service that Americans are accustomed to. YOU CAN'T!!! You can not compare a country of 20 million to a country of 350 million you just cant do it it is not the same never will be.. End of story!!

[darin]

The argument that if the government didn't take so much in taxes people would give to charity is a fallacy. Charity comes from the heart, not from woohoo my taxes weren't as much this year. I wouldn't up my charitable contributions one single dime because well I give enough now in time and money, and many are in similar situations. And most of those who claim they would give more if their taxes weren't so high, are no doubt giving NOTHING now, so no reason to believe they'd give more if their tax bill was lower.

I don't buy it. not for one second.

It's not an argument. It's a question. Its a question meant for the reader to answer. Your rebuttal is telling about YOUR view about what you would do with your money and how you give it. "There's no reason to believe they'd give more" is one of those improvable 'facts' we see frequently. I contend there IS a reason to believe people would give more because I can gauran-fucking-tee with reduced total tax burden my donations would increase because I'd have more wiggle room. Since "I" am a "people" I now have provided you a reason to believe people would give more.

Pretty simple, really.

edit - on the subject of ER visits and fees, etc.

It's a self-licking ice cream cone. People DEMAND high wages and Low prices. People DEMAND the right to SUE for honest mistakes. People DEMAND college degrees. People DEMAND free shit.

We can't have free shit because our health-care providers work to pay off oppressive amounts of student debt because colleges must fufill the request of their workforce for high wages. We can't have lower-cost health care until we lower the insurace premiums folks have to pay. We cant lower the premiums because insurance companies must fulfill the requirement of higher wages and benefits of its employees, and ownership's desire to make money. Those companies can't make money if lawdy-dawdy-every-body can sue for even the slightest even HONEST mistake. And it goes on. And on. And on.

[fj1200]

Yes, we have a doctor shortage, but that isn't related to our healthcare system.

:laugh:


IMO, your sister shouldn't have had to pay a cent for her treatment. It should have been free of charge, completely taxpayer funded. There is nothing wrong with making Americans care for each other in their time of need, and having the entire country help you out with your medical treatment really is a great gift.

Why should we be forced to pay for others?

[Abbey Marie]

I don't pay as much in taxes as most people as I am earning a low income - although not low enough for me to qualify for government assistance - but its probably something like 1% of our taxes going toward healthcare.

I'm sure sister would have got the same treatment in an American hospital, but as she was on a non existent income at the time, she wouldn't have been able to afford insurance and may not have been seen as a low income earner either (she was on government benefits at the time) so would have been stuck with a bill.

We have a private system as well for people who think its better to get their own private room rather than share a room. The problem with private insurance is that there is always a 'gap'. Insurance might cover a few grand but you get stuck with the rest. If you have a major illness, your premiums increase so you wouldn't be able to afford insurance anyway, which is why so many people go public.



Yes, we have a doctor shortage, but that isn't related to our healthcare system.

Then what is it due to?

[Trigg]

IMO, your sister shouldn't have had to pay a cent for her treatment. It should have been free of charge, completely taxpayer funded. There is nothing wrong with making Americans care for each other in their time of need, and having the entire country help you out with your medical treatment really is a great gift.


It isn't "free of charge", it costs people a heck of a lot of their salary, note DMP's post.

You state that you hardly pay anything into a system that you enjoy the benefits of.

A story was put out here not long ago stating that half the US population 150 million are on some sort of gov. benefit. That includes medicare and social security for older people which they've paid into. Still, most people who are getting those benefits (medicare and SS) and no longer working and are retired.

That leaves the other 150 million (much less actually because children aren't contributing yet) to pay for all of that. The US just couldn't afford to have "free" healthcare that taxes us as the rate that Australia or other European countries do.

[Nukeman]

It isn't "free of charge", it costs people a heck of a lot of their salary, note DMP's post.

You state that you hardly pay anything into a system that you enjoy the benefits of.

A story was put out here not long ago stating that half the US population 150 million are on some sort of gov. benefit. That includes medicare and social security for older people which they've paid into. Still, most people who are getting those benefits (medicare and SS) and no longer working and are retired.

That leaves the other 150 million (much less actually because children aren't contributing yet) to pay for all of that. The US just couldn't afford to have "free" healthcare that taxes us as the rate that Australia or other European countries do.
To expand on that theer are about 100 million people in the work force!! That means that 1 person is paying for themselves plus 2.5 others. How is that even remotely fair!!!!!

[SassyLady]

That's a great anecdote sassy. 2010 estimates (the highest annual outlay over the ten year cbo estimate) of Obamacare were $224 billion, which seems like a lot; but if you break that down over 300 million Americans, it's about $750 per person--would you say that's worth it?

Where did I say that I endorsed Obamacare at any level? ConHog asked if $1800 for a 30 minute Emergency Room visit was worth it. I gave an example.

Using your example.....do you really think those 300 million Americans will only make one visit to the Emergency Room a year and only for 30 minutes? Give me a more realistic breakdown and I might debate it with you.

[ConHog]

It's not an argument. It's a question. Its a question meant for the reader to answer. Your rebuttal is telling about YOUR view about what you would do with your money and how you give it. "There's no reason to believe they'd give more" is one of those improvable 'facts' we see frequently. I contend there IS a reason to believe people would give more because I can gauran-fucking-tee with reduced total tax burden my donations would increase because I'd have more wiggle room. Since "I" am a "people" I now have provided you a reason to believe people would give more.

Pretty simple, really.

edit - on the subject of ER visits and fees, etc.

It's a self-licking ice cream cone. People DEMAND high wages and Low prices. People DEMAND the right to SUE for honest mistakes. People DEMAND college degrees. People DEMAND free shit.

We can't have free shit because our health-care providers work to pay off oppressive amounts of student debt because colleges must fufill the request of their workforce for high wages. We can't have lower-cost health care until we lower the insurace premiums folks have to pay. We cant lower the premiums because insurance companies must fulfill the requirement of higher wages and benefits of its employees, and ownership's desire to make money. Those companies can't make money if lawdy-dawdy-every-body can sue for even the slightest even HONEST mistake. And it goes on. And on. And on.

ah so now we're touching on tort reform, which absolutely needs to be part of the equation; yet where has that conversation taken place?

Just another reason to outlaw lobbyists.

[fj1200]

ah so now we're touching on tort reform, which absolutely needs to be part of the equation; yet where has that conversation taken place?

Just another reason to outlaw lobbyists.

Democrats don't need lobbyists to bend over for the trial lawyer association. YOU need a lobbyist to counteract that S'.

[Nell's Room]

Well you may not of heard of any complaints, but your government has:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/03/us-australia-health-idUSTRE6220ES20100303



I don't think Rudd is PM anymore? ;)

That was because the State government was refusing to allocate any funds to the hospitals in need. Public hospitals need government money to operate, and our Premier wasn't doing his job, so Rudd tried to get control of the hospitals so he could help us out. It wasn't about the actual healthcare, it was about the Premier not caring enough to keep those hospitals running.


Here's the problem with the thinking of folks from other countries!! Australia has 22 million resedents we have 20 million in NY state alone. We have 15x the population that you do how do you pay for that number of people with a "federal" tax funded plan and still keep the same day/next day service that Americans are accustomed to. YOU CAN'T!!! You can not compare a country of 20 million to a country of 350 million you just cant do it it is not the same never will be.. End of story!!

If everyone paid a dollar a day in extra taxes which went toward your healthcare system, I think that might be enough. Don't say something won't work when you haven't even tried it.


Why should we be forced to pay for others?

Why shouldn't you do the right thing and help out your fellow countrymen? I am sick of the American attitude of 'I can afford my healthcare so tough shit to anyone who can't'. People are dying over here because they can get proper treatment. People are going bankrupt because they can't afford to pay the bills - why not help everyone out by contributing?


Then what is it due to?

Poor conditions and low pay. The government pays their wages, but instead of paying them what they deserve, they prefer to give themselves a pay rise. The poor conditions relate to the lack of security - nurses being attacked by drug addled patients, for example.

[SassyLady]

If everyone paid a dollar a day in extra taxes which went toward your healthcare system, I think that might be enough. Don't say something won't work when you haven't even tried it.

If I knew without a doubt that the extra dollar was in fact going to help out another individual that needed it, it wouldn't be so hard to swallow increase in taxes. But, what percentage of that dollar actually goes to help and what percentage goes to the bureaucrats running the system?


Why shouldn't you do the right thing and help out your fellow countrymen? I am sick of the American attitude of 'I can afford my healthcare so tough shit to anyone who can't'. People are dying over here because they can get proper treatment. People are going bankrupt because they can't afford to pay the bills - why not help everyone out by contributing?

I am doing the right thing. I am supporting myself so that you don't have to pay extra taxes taking care of me. If everyone did that, then there wouldn't be a problem. People who spend their money on cell phones, lattes, fast cars, big screen tv's and video games instead of purchasing a medical insurance policy do not have my sympathy. People who have assets obtained them with some type of purchasing power ... that could have been used to get insurance.

I just recently lost my insurance benefits that didn't cost me anything ... no premiums, no co-pays, no deductibles. I now have to pay $4,500/year for coverage that isn't quite as good and will mean more out of pocket co-pay charges and higher deductibles. But I adjusted my budget to compensate.....made cuts elsewhere in my budget ... because health care coverage is important to me. So, yes, I am one of those Americans that say people should make insurance a top priority instead of just thinking the government will step in and pay for everything.

[Nell's Room]

If I knew without a doubt that the extra dollar was in fact going to help out another individual that needed it, it wouldn't be so hard to swallow increase in taxes. But, what percentage of that dollar actually goes to help and what percentage goes to the bureaucrats running the system?

I am doing the right thing. I am supporting myself so that you don't have to pay extra taxes taking care of me. If everyone did that, then there wouldn't be a problem. People who spend their money on cell phones, lattes, fast cars, big screen tv's and video games instead of purchasing a medical insurance policy do not have my sympathy. People who have assets obtained them with some type of purchasing power ... that could have been used to get insurance.

I just recently lost my insurance benefits that didn't cost me anything ... no premiums, no co-pays, no deductibles. I now have to pay $4,500/year for coverage that isn't quite as good and will mean more out of pocket co-pay charges and higher deductibles. But I adjusted my budget to compensate.....made cuts elsewhere in my budget ... because health care coverage is important to me. So, yes, I am one of those Americans that say people should make insurance a top priority instead of just thinking the government will step in and pay for everything.

I do now know how much of that $1 would go to helping out someone else. I would want every cent to go toward assisting another person.

You pay four and a half grand a year for insurance when you probably don't even visit the hospital to make use of that money you have wasted. If that $4,000 isn't spent on your own medical treatment, where does it go?

[SassyLady]

I do now know how much of that $1 would go to helping out someone else. I would want every cent to go toward assisting another person.

You pay four and a half grand a year for insurance when you probably don't even visit the hospital to make use of that money you have wasted. If that $4,000 isn't spent on your own medical treatment, where does it go?

I have had surgeries in the past that were well over $30K for the two day in-hospital visit. At $4500/year that would take about six years to pay off. So, while I may not use the entire $4500 in one year, it only takes one visit to the hospital to use up all that I've paid in previously. If the insurance company uses it in the meantime to pay for another person's hospital, then so be it.

[Nell's Room]

I have had surgeries in the past that were well over $30K for the two day in-hospital visit. At $4500/year that would take about six years to pay off. So, while I may not use the entire $4500 in one year, it only takes one visit to the hospital to use up all that I've paid in previously. If the insurance company uses it in the meantime to pay for another person's hospital, then so be it.

But my point is, why should you have to spend your savings paying off those bills at all? It isn't like you chose to get sick, is it?

[SassyLady]

But my point is, why should you have to spend your savings paying off those bills at all? It isn't like you chose to get sick, is it?

Because it is not your responsibility to protect my savings by paying extra in taxes. That's why.

[Nell's Room]

Because it is not your responsibility to protect my savings by paying extra in taxes. That's why.

I believe it is my responsibility, as an Australian citizen and as a human being, to help out my fellow Australians by paying a little extra in taxes to ensure they receive free medical treatment when they need it.

I do not understand why this is seen as a bad thing?

[SassyLady]

I believe it is my responsibility, as an Australian citizen and as a human being, to help out my fellow Australians by paying a little extra in taxes to ensure they receive free medical treatment when they need it.

I do not understand why this is seen as a bad thing?

It's not free.....it is costing someone else money that they might need to help buy their own insurance policy. If you choose to donate money to the national healthcare donation box, then more power to you. Go for it. That would make it free ... because no one was forced to put money into it. If you truly think people should help others out of the goodness of their heart, then let them do it. Forcing people to pay taxes to fund healthcare doesn't make them a better person....it just means they don't want to go to jail for not paying taxes.

If you truly think $1 from each person will help, then put a box on the tax return that says "do you want to contribute a dollar to the public healthcare fund". Or better yet, leave it wide open .... "how much do you want to contribute to the healthcare fund". If people are truly as caring as you expect them to be, then you'll probably get more than a $1.

[logroller]

Where did I say that I endorsed Obamacare at any level? ConHog asked if $1800 for a 30 minute Emergency Room visit was worth it. I gave an example.

Using your example.....do you really think those 300 million Americans will only make one visit to the Emergency Room a year and only for 30 minutes? Give me a more realistic breakdown and I might debate it with you.

Well what's it worth to save one person.? Or provide wellness care? This reminds me of the "would you have sex with me for a million dollars?" pickup line. "Yes...well then how bout $20?"

Is it price or principle? That's what I was getting at. Of course no one wants to pay for other's healthcare; but who wants to get sick, lose their job, health insurance and either burn through the remainder of their savings or burden themselves with debt for the rest of their life? A hundred years ago such things wouldn't have been an issue. Today it is; it's a conundrum, sassy. I think there are advantages to a wholly private healthcare system; but there's problems with it too. Simply giving the sick and poor public healthcare is a recipe for shitty healthcare and higher burdens upon public funding: our taxes.

I don't want socialized healthcare, or even a public option; I want a regulated private system that puts healthcare ahead of profits. I think every citizen should be a participant in that market.

[SassyLady]

Well what's it worth to save one person.? Or provide wellness care? This reminds me of the "would you have sex with me for a million dollars?" pickup line. "Yes...well then how bout $20?"

Is it price or principle? That's what I was getting at. Of course no one wants to pay for other's healthcare; but who wants to get sick, lose their job, health insurance and either burn through the remainder of their savings or burden themselves with debt for the rest of their life? A hundred years ago such things wouldn't have been an issue. Today it is; it's a conundrum, sassy. I think there are advantages to a wholly private healthcare system; but there's problems with it too. Simply giving the sick and poor public healthcare is a recipe for shitty healthcare and higher burdens upon public funding: our taxes.

I don't want socialized healthcare, or even a public option; I want a regulated private system that puts healthcare ahead of profits. I think every citizen should be a participant in that market.

Response to the bold portion .... No one wants this to happen to anyone. However, why is it my problem to protect your assets and your savings or to worry about you going into debt? Why shouldn't people save money for health care? Just like they save money to buy a car, or a house, or a boat? I think people should budget for insurance just like they budget for utilities. Everyone needs electricity and I don't pay their electrical bills.

I totally agree with your last paragraph. People should not think of healthcare as a luxury item ... it should be budgeted as a basic, every day item, like utilities.

[logroller]

Response to the bold portion .... No one wants this to happen to anyone. However, why is it my problem to protect your assets and your savings or to worry about you going into debt? Why shouldn't people save money for health care? Just like they save money to buy a car, or a house, or a boat? I think people should budget for insurance just like they budget for utilities. Everyone needs electricity and I don't pay their electrical bills.

I totally agree with your last paragraph. People should not think of healthcare as a luxury item ... it should be budgeted as a basic, every day item, like utilities.

It's not really about protecting my savings as I see it; thats a manifestation of the problem. It's about the health of our citizenry. There is a social contract which extends beyond me and mine.

Oh but you do pay their electrical bills, sassy. Discounts are given to the poor and even, as the case with my mother, those with special medical needs.

[SassyLady]

Oh but you do pay their electrical bills, sassy. Discounts are given to the poor and even, as the case with my mother, those with special medical needs.

Are those discounts subsidized by government or a discount provided by the supplier?

[SassyLady]

It's not really about protecting my savings as I see it; thats a manifestation of the problem. It's about the health of our citizenry. There is a social contract which extends beyond me and mine.


I thought you referred to losing one's assets (i.e., house and savings) as being unfair when one got sick.

Why is it that those that work hard, save their money, plan well, and budget appropriately have to bear the burden of the social contract? Especially for those who choose to put their health at risk by not having nutritional diet? What responsibility do those who don't take care of themselves have toward the social contract? Why are social contracts one-sided?

[logroller]

Are those discounts subsidized by government or a discount provided by the supplier?
Both really; utilities are heavily subsidized by the government because they offer a benefit to the society as a whole-- economically speaking, we're more productive. there are other reason having to with natural monopolies. The discounts are offered by the power companies because utilities commission requires them to do so; as the utilities commission sets the price.


I thought you referred to losing one's assets (i.e., house and savings) as being unfair when one got sick.

Why is it that those that work hard, save their money, plan well, and budget appropriately have to bear the burden of the social contract? Especially for those who choose to put their health at risk by not having nutritional diet? What responsibility do those who don't take care of themselves have toward the social contract? Why are social contracts one-sided?

I suppose any of us could, instead of working and paying taxes, take advantage of the system instead. How's that one-sided?
The way I see it, those who choose to leach off the system do so anyways. What I see as a problem are those who don't want to, but because Medicare isnt available unless you're in dire financial straits, are instead burdened with the healthcare expense that they could escape were they to earn less.

[logroller]

^kind of a side point, but it's similar to how the AMT functions. The tax system shouldn't punish those who make more. And that's not merely a critique of progressive tax; but rather, that specific tax. I think it makes sense that someone who makes more, pays more as a percentage-- but it should be steadily progressive, and it's not.

[fj1200]

If everyone paid a dollar a day in extra taxes which went toward your healthcare system, I think that might be enough. Don't say something won't work when you haven't even tried it.

Why shouldn't you do the right thing and help out your fellow countrymen? I am sick of the American attitude of 'I can afford my healthcare so tough shit to anyone who can't'. People are dying over here because they can get proper treatment. People are going bankrupt because they can't afford to pay the bills - why not help everyone out by contributing?

Do you really think $300 million would do anything in this country, or $1 per in your country? 20 times that gets blown through via fraud alone.

Why would you be sick of an "American attitude"? Do you know that the incidence of bankruptcy in the US is practically identical to that of Canada which does have a national HC system? Besides, you have this built in presumption, a false one at that, that because we are resistant to a single-payer option we don't care about those in need.


Poor conditions and low pay. The government pays their wages, but instead of paying them what they deserve, they prefer to give themselves a pay rise. The poor conditions relate to the lack of security - nurses being attacked by drug addled patients, for example.

Seems you have your answer right there doesn't it?


You pay four and a half grand a year for insurance when you probably don't even visit the hospital to make use of that money you have wasted. If that $4,000 isn't spent on your own medical treatment, where does it go?

Do you understand the concept of insurance? It shouldn't be incumbent on government to tax the working class to pay for the medical care of the retired class (who spend the vast majority of HC dollars). There are all sorts of unseen costs to separating the payment of a medical bill from the benefit of the medical service.


But my point is, why should you have to spend your savings paying off those bills at all? It isn't like you chose to get sick, is it?

Because that's what you should be saving for. With your logic why should a retiree have to spend their savings to pay for their retirement expenses... or food... or rent... or...

[Nell's Room]

Seems you have your answer right there doesn't it?

So instead of the government paying our doctors, you'd prefer they decide for themselves what their work is worth? No thanks.


Because that's what you should be saving for. With your logic why should a retiree have to spend their savings to pay for their retirement expenses... or food... or rent... or...

Yeah, and they shouldn't for a holiday either before they settle down in their twilight years...gotta pay off that insurance! Seriously, bills add stress. The less bills equals the less stress.

[Nell's Room]

It's not free.....it is costing someone else money that they might need to help buy their own insurance policy. If you choose to donate money to the national healthcare donation box, then more power to you. Go for it. That would make it free ... because no one was forced to put money into it. If you truly think people should help others out of the goodness of their heart, then let them do it. Forcing people to pay taxes to fund healthcare doesn't make them a better person....it just means they don't want to go to jail for not paying taxes.

If you truly think $1 from each person will help, then put a box on the tax return that says "do you want to contribute a dollar to the public healthcare fund". Or better yet, leave it wide open .... "how much do you want to contribute to the healthcare fund". If people are truly as caring as you expect them to be, then you'll probably get more than a $1.

You are being forced to pay taxes right now. Why not object to this, seeing as you are being forced? You will pay taxes or else you will get into huge trouble. You pay taxes toward things that you won't ever use, do you not? Why is this okay, but being 'forced' to contribute to a healthcare system is somehow worse?

[SassyLady]

You are being forced to pay taxes right now. Why not object to this, seeing as you are being forced? You will pay taxes or else you will get into huge trouble. You pay taxes toward things that you won't ever use, do you not? Why is this okay, but being 'forced' to contribute to a healthcare system is somehow worse?

I really don't like pay taxes for anything other than protection (military) and infrastructure. You'll find that I object to paying taxes for most things that people should pay for themselves.

[SassyLady]

So instead of the government paying our doctors, you'd prefer they decide for themselves what their work is worth? No thanks.

So, you truly are a socialist.



Yeah, and they shouldn't for a holiday either before they settle down in their twilight years...gotta pay off that insurance! Seriously, bills add stress. The less bills equals the less stress.

If you pay cash as you go, there are no bills.

[logroller]

You are being forced to pay taxes right now. Why not object to this, seeing as you are being forced? You will pay taxes or else you will get into huge trouble. You pay taxes toward things that you won't ever use, do you not? Why is this okay, but being 'forced' to contribute to a healthcare system is somehow worse?

Here in the US, nearly half don't actually pay taxes. Now I don't know your situation, but based on your posts I'm guessing you don't pay taxes. I mean really, a dollar a year for healthcare..preposterous! You couldn't even buy a box Bandaids for a dollar. So when you make such asinine statements it only reinforces the beliefs held by those who do, actually, pay taxes that those who seek healthcare provisions on the public dime have absolutely no grasp of fiscal realities; and furthermore believe a hard lesson learned on such would be just what the doctor should prescribe, not free services.

[fj1200]

So instead of the government paying our doctors, you'd prefer they decide for themselves what their work is worth? No thanks.

No, the market decides. See the difference there?


Yeah, and they shouldn't for a holiday either before they settle down in their twilight years...gotta pay off that insurance! Seriously, bills add stress. The less bills equals the less stress.

:rolleyes: Sassy is right.


So, you truly are a socialist.

She's likely right about something else as well. Right Sass?

[fj1200]

Here in the US, nearly half don't actually pay taxes. Now I don't know your situation, but based on your posts I'm guessing you don't pay taxes. I mean really, a dollar a year for healthcare..preposterous! You couldn't even buy a box Bandaids for a dollar. So when you make such asinine statements it only reinforces the beliefs held by those who do, actually, pay taxes that those who seek healthcare provisions on the public dime have absolutely no grasp of fiscal realities; and furthermore believe a hard lesson learned on such would be just what the doctor should prescribe, not free services.

To be fair, most workers do pay SS and Medicare taxes but the problem is that any single-payer preferring progressive will insist that the rich are the ones that should shoulder the burden for it.

[Nell's Room]

Here in the US, nearly half don't actually pay taxes. Now I don't know your situation, but based on your posts I'm guessing you don't pay taxes. I mean really, a dollar a year for healthcare..preposterous! You couldn't even buy a box Bandaids for a dollar. So when you make such asinine statements it only reinforces the beliefs held by those who do, actually, pay taxes that those who seek healthcare provisions on the public dime have absolutely no grasp of fiscal realities; and furthermore believe a hard lesson learned on such would be just what the doctor should prescribe, not free services.

I do pay taxes, but because I earn a low income, I don't pay as much as others do. I do my best, though, and look forward to the day when I find full time work and start supporting my country like I should be.

[Kathianne]

To be fair, most workers do pay SS and Medicare taxes but the problem is that any single-payer preferring progressive will insist that the rich are the ones that should shoulder the burden for it.

Anyone that works at all, pays into SSI and Medicare. FICA is the largest with holding of pay check. Indeed, will say that at my part time minimum wage job, by FICA is more than my disposable income. If I had a 'real job' this wouldn't be worthwhile. That is wrong. Work should always have value.

[aboutime]

What I have seen here in most of the posts about how Doctors get paid, or how they earn their living is...it is forgotten, and not mentioned that Doctors are in Business for themselves.
That is why they normally create their own Offices, hire their assistants, clerical, and medical help to increase their potential to INCREASE their business profits.
If the government...as in Obamacare...is permitted to determine how much doctors are permitted to charge for their services, either privately, or while working in hospital settings. The doctors lose, and...as we are now seeing. Many are choosing to leave the medical profession because they Can't afford to stay in business, while providing jobs for their help.
Has anyone noticed how Medical schools are graduating fewer MD'S, while Law Schools are busting at the seams with more students?

Will the day soon come when a visit to a Lawyer for a Blood test, or A Virus will be the rule of thumb?
I know. That's a dumb question. But...those new Lawyers are actually the one's who are Driving MD's out of business. Merely with the increased costs of Malpractice Insurance...most Doctors can no longer afford.

[Abbey Marie]

What I have seen here in most of the posts about how Doctors get paid, or how they earn their living is...it is forgotten, and not mentioned that Doctors are in Business for themselves.
That is why they normally create their own Offices, hire their assistants, clerical, and medical help to increase their potential to INCREASE their business profits.
If the government...as in Obamacare...is permitted to determine how much doctors are permitted to charge for their services, either privately, or while working in hospital settings. The doctors lose, and...as we are now seeing. Many are choosing to leave the medical profession because they Can't afford to stay in business, while providing jobs for their help.
Has anyone noticed how Medical schools are graduating fewer MD'S, while Law Schools are busting at the seams with more students?

Will the day soon come when a visit to a Lawyer for a Blood test, or A Virus will be the rule of thumb?
I know. That's a dumb question. But...those new Lawyers are actually the one's who are Driving MD's out of business. Merely with the increased costs of Malpractice Insurance...most Doctors can no longer afford.

I mentioned on the first page, I think, that we may see fewer people leaving the profession. And a study was posted showing it, right?

[ConHog]

]If I knew without a doubt that the extra dollar was in fact going to help out another individual that needed it, it wouldn't be so hard to swallow increase in taxes. But, what percentage of that dollar actually goes to help and what percentage goes to the bureaucrats running the system?[/B]



I am doing the right thing. I am supporting myself so that you don't have to pay extra taxes taking care of me. If everyone did that, then there wouldn't be a problem. People who spend their money on cell phones, lattes, fast cars, big screen tv's and video games instead of purchasing a medical insurance policy do not have my sympathy. People who have assets obtained them with some type of purchasing power ... that could have been used to get insurance.

I just recently lost my insurance benefits that didn't cost me anything ... no premiums, no co-pays, no deductibles. I now have to pay $4,500/year for coverage that isn't quite as good and will mean more out of pocket co-pay charges and higher deductibles. But I adjusted my budget to compensate.....made cuts elsewhere in my budget ... because health care coverage is important to me. So, yes, I am one of those Americans that say people should make insurance a top priority instead of just thinking the government will step in and pay for everything.

That is the worst part.

That's why I wish the government would skip all the bullshit and write those people who need help a check. No foodstamps, no this, no that, no cell phones, no free medical , just if you need and qualify for help then you get a check BUT there's a catch - if you're able to at all you must WORK for that check, even if it's just picking trash up off the side of the street every day. That's fine, at least you give Sassy the satisfaction of knowing you are willing to give SOMETHING (and really who could begrudge helping people then?)

We could honestly probably remove 30% of the cost of running the welfare programs AND maintain benefits to those who need them AND get some work that needs done out of them. And that's before we even have a discussion about fraud.

[OCA]

So, instead of everyone being responsible for their own health insurance, you are advocating those that pay taxes be the people that pay for the health care of those that don't pay taxes?

You already do and did before Obamacare, if you were bright you would have known that.

Glad I could help you out, don't send me a thank you note though.

[Kathianne]

I mentioned on the first page, I think, that we may see fewer people leaving the profession. And a study was posted showing it, right?

Law school bubble:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/pop-goes-the-law-school-bubble/254792/


Pop! Goes the Law School Bubble By Jordan Weissmann
The era of twenty-somethings blindly stampeding their way towards law school seems to be finally, mercifully drawing to a close.
This past admissions cycle, amid a constant (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html?pagewanted=all) drumbeat (http://www.tnr.com/article/87251/law-school-employment-harvard-yale-georgetown) of bad (http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202489565842&slreturn=1) news (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904823804576500694179259396.html) about the health of the legal industry, it appears that fewer students sat down to take the LSAT than at any time in the past decade. In the last two years, the number of tests administered has dropped 24 percent, down to 129,925, from a peak of 171,514 in 2009-2010, according to the Law School Admission Council. (Graph courtesy of the LSAT Blog (http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/fewest-lsats-administered-over-10-years.html).)
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2012/03/LSATs_Administered-thumb-615x387-82286.png (http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2012/03/LSATs_Administered-82286.php)
As I've written before (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/what-do-lawyers-and-bankers-have-in-common-they-lost-jobs-in-2011/251130/), the legal industry is stagnating, and suffers from a severe overabundance of young graduates, many of whom applied to law schools under the false pretenses (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/could-a-college-scorecard-backfire-it-did-for-law-students/252517/)that their degree would be an express ticket to a six figure salary. Instead, many graduates are now contending with six figures of crushing debt and murky career prospects...

As for doctors, it's mostly anecdotal:

http://www.physicianspractice.com/blog/content/article/1462168/2037196


The Uncertain Future of American Medicine
By David Mokotoff, MD | February 25, 2012





“This is the beginning of the end of the private practice of medicine in America.”
If you guessed that someone famous in March 2010 made this statement, after President Barack Obama signed into law “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” you would be wrong. An everyday doctor, my father, said this to his family after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare into law in July 1965.
(MORE: One Physician’s Exam Room Epiphany (http://www.physicianspractice.com/blog/content/article/1462168/1956965?cid=intraarticle))


<noscript>http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/cmpm.physicianspractice/blog;pos=sky1;tile=11;sz=160x600,120x600;page=http %3A%2F%2Fwww.physicianspractice.com%2Fblog%2Fconte nt%2Farticle%2F1462168%2F2037196;ord=123456789? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/cmpm.physicianspractice/blog;pos=sky1;tile=11;sz=160x600,120x600;ord=12345 6789?)</noscript> My father was not correct. Far from being the beginning of the end of the private practice of American medicine, this law ushered in what we old-timers now longingly refer to as the “Golden Age” of medicine. In the beginning, (of Medicare law) doctors could charge whatever they wanted for their services, no matter how absurdly high the price, and as often as they wanted. Not only were they often reimbursed at this level, but the more you charged, the more you would get the following year under an economically illogical system, known as “usual and customary.”


Decades later, as the costs to administer Medicare Part B escalated, the payment system morphed into a more fixed methodology and continues to evolve today. However, as with any monopoly, which Medicare certainly is, costs to consumers are dictated and non-negotiable. However, unlike other monopolies, like a cable company, Medicare pays the providers — doctors and hospitals — rather than the end user: the patient. Private insurers pay doctors and hospitals largely based upon what Medicare pays, no matter how arbitrary it might be. Cataract and open-heart surgery are reimbursed differently if you live in Miami, than if you live in Fargo, N.D.


No matter how many IOU’s Congress writes to cover the burgeoning cost of Medicare Part A, B, D, etc., we all assume that this program is never going to go away. It will be tweaked, like higher deductibles, co-pays for Medicare Advantage programs, raising the eligibility age, and so forth. But the essential facts are that the typical Medicare beneficiary will receive many times in benefits whatever he paid in during his working life. When Medicare was first passed into law, there were about six workers for every person over the age of 65. In 2012 that ratio is now down to 4:1 and falling. People are living longer and demanding ever more sophisticated and costly procedures. The current system is not financially sustainable.


And now entering the scene is The Affordable Care Act. Passed under presidential duress, this massive overhaul of the American healthcare system has yet to be fully functional. It is still unknown if the very linchpin of the law, the individual mandate, will survive a constitutional challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court this year. However, I will argue that this ruling may be irrelevant. Much like a poison or virus is injected into the blood stream, the long-term effects of “Obamacare” will continue to ripple through our society for years to come.


From the moment I heard President Obama say, “If you like your insurance and doctor, then you can keep it,” I knew his intent was opposite of this statement. The end game here is a single-payer system based upon a Canadian or British health system. Rules, regulations, and costs to private insurers will become prohibitively high to the point that they will simple stop their medical insurance business.


I plan to retire in two years, so this latest scheme to “reform” American healthcare, won’t directly affect me. However, I fear for the effects on patients and future doctors. I support true competition as the way to drive down health care costs, not less. For example, in 2000 when I had Lasik surgery, it cost $2,500 per eye. In 2005, when I had to have an idea redone, it was only $1,200. And that is because insurance did not cover it. The cost of the procedure was simply responding to the increasing supply of Lasik surgeons to the demand, which became level.


I do not profess to know if the next few years will birth the “beginning of the end” of medicine, as we know it. I am however, certain that the more centralized the payment and delivery of healthcare becomes, and the less competitive, the more the costs will be and the less access to it we will all have. I hope that I am wrong.




http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/04/30/bisb0430.htm


...“I think most of the physicians I talk to are optimistic about the future of health and medicine, but not at all about health care system,” he said. “The relationship I can have with my patient about their individual health, the uses of technology are making that an even more beneficial interaction on both sides. But the way the health care system is designed right now, there are many barriers between that physician and that patient.”


Many young physicians see the government as responsible for that barrier. The survey asked what made them feel negatively about the future, leaving the answer open rather than offering multiple choices. The Physicians Foundation then grouped those answers into categories. Government was by far the most commonly cited reason for negative feelings, with 34% of the pessimistic respondents citing “the new health care law or regulations.” Meanwhile, 4% said they did not trust government to “do the right thing,” 4% said “patient care may suffer due to government intervention,” and 2% said “Medicare is a mess.”...

[Kathianne]

That is the worst part.

That's why I wish the government would skip all the bullshit and write those people who need help a check. No foodstamps, no this, no that, no cell phones, no free medical , just if you need and qualify for help then you get a check BUT there's a catch - if you're able to at all you must WORK for that check, even if it's just picking trash up off the side of the street every day. That's fine, at least you give Sassy the satisfaction of knowing you are willing to give SOMETHING (and really who could begrudge helping people then?)

We could honestly probably remove 30% of the cost of running the welfare programs AND maintain benefits to those who need them AND get some work that needs done out of them. And that's before we even have a discussion about fraud.

So you are for socialism. "Pretend to work and get paid."

[OCA]

People should be responsible for themselves in the sense that they shouldn't smoke or get fat, because smokers and the obese are huge drains on the public purse.

If I am sick, I go to the doctor, and I pay for my visit. But if I need to visit the hospital, my treatment here is free. Everyone here pays a little more tax to cover the public system. My taxes go toward paying for everyone else's healthcare, and their taxes go toward paying for mine. Everyone helps out each other, and the rich are not treated better than the poor, and no one is stuck with a massive bill that sends them bankrupt. The system works well for us.

You see here Repubs would rather their taxes go to cover corporate welfare, they see no reason and maybe are blind to the major drain that the uninsured put on the economy. I mean its not like here in America anybody is denied healthcare whether they are insured or not, the uninsured get taken care of and we all pay.

The Repubs do not want to insure everybody because that would infringe upon the profits of their constituents in the corporate world.

Repubs here have been advocating a "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" philosophy for decades now only they keep cutting off your straps and setting fire to your boots....kind of a sick bunch really.

[Missileman]

The Repubs do not want to insure everybody because that would infringe upon the profits of their constituents in the corporate world.



So, just to be clear, the DEMs forcing everyone to buy insurance, even if it gets paid for with taxpayer dollars, doesn't benefit and won't increase the profits of insurance corporations?

[Kathianne]

You see here Repubs would rather their taxes go to cover corporate welfare, they see no reason and maybe are blind to the major drain that the uninsured put on the economy. I mean its not like here in America anybody is denied healthcare whether they are insured or not, the uninsured get taken care of and we all pay.

The Repubs do not want to insure everybody because that would infringe upon the profits of their constituents in the corporate world.

Repubs here have been advocating a "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" philosophy for decades now only they keep cutting off your straps and setting fire to your boots....kind of a sick bunch really.

So pontificates the one that thinks Greece is the epitome of culture in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/sunday-review/the-failing-state-of-greece.html?pagewanted=all


February 25, 2012
The Failing State of Greece By RACHEL DONADIO (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/d/rachel_donadio/index.html?inline=nyt-per) Athens


THE first time I visited Athens, the city was in flames. It was December 2008, and riots, set off after a policeman’s bullet killed a teenager, engulfed the city. For several terrifying days, the rule of law was tenuous at best.


On my second trip, for the national elections in October 2009 when the Socialists won, I went to the movies one night. As I sat in the elegant, neo-Classical-style theater, an usher checked to make sure I was in the correct assigned spot. The jarring contrast made me laugh. In that cinema, at least, the rules were rules.


Last week, I stood outside that theater — the Attikon, it was called — and reeled at the sight of its burned-out shell. It had been gutted by fire on Feb. 12, a wild night when marauding bands of arsonists with Molotov cocktails targeted shops and buildings, most of them historic, while just blocks away the Greek Parliament approved the latest package of austerity measures demanded by Greece’s troika of foreign lenders.

The troika — the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund — won’t give 130 billion euros in new loans without pain. The Greeks won’t accept the pain without anger.


As more than 6,000 policemen stood guard, these roving bands — several dozen criminals, by official estimates — infiltrated a vast, largely peaceful demonstration of more than 80,000 people and pushed the city into mayhem. Once again, Athens burned. Once again, the rule of law had foundered. But how badly? And how long before it would again?..

[OCA]

Over here, I have never had to wait for a scan. It does depend on where you live, though. In regional areas, you can have your scans pretty much straight away, but in the city, where there is a larger population, you may have to wait. If your case is deemed urgent, you will get your treatment sooner. There is no reason why a person with a minor ailment should have their CT scan before someone who is in immense pain. Those who need it more come first, and everyone else must wait. I have no issue with this.

I do not know about the healthcare system in Finland, so I cannot comment on this.

Yes, you are correct that people go to the hospital for a runny nose because its free, but, while this may piss you off, these people won't get seen by a doctor for hours and hours. The triage nurse will know if they simply have a cold, and they will be waiting in that waiting room for hours and hours while the genuine sick people get seen to. So it doesn't matter who wants free treatment, they are made to wait for it, and most end up going home, anyway.

Let me tell you how well our healthcare system works: Three years ago, my sister became very ill. She was first diagnosed with meningitis, but this wasn't correct. Sh suffered a stroke at home and was rushed to hospital in Melbourne. There, she had multiple tests, xrays, and CT scans, MRI's, the works. It was found that she had lesions on her heart. The doctors were going to operate on her on the Monday (they said this on Friday) but they did some more tests the next day and found that the lesions had grown. The doctors told us they needed to operate immediately, at 11.15 in the morning. Exactly two hours later, she was in the OR, having major open heart surgery.

Over a month in hospital (one of the best public hospitals in the country) countless tests and surgery that would have totaled at least half a million dollars if she had to pay for it. ALL FREE. All taxpayer funded. My sister is alive today because of our public health care system, so how can I say anything bad about it?

Also, our private doctors work at public hospitals as well, because our public hospitals are second to none. They are not perfect, but we provide a brilliant level of care, without the worry and stress of a huge medical bill to come home to.

In America the priorities are skewed, sounds like the Aussie have them straight though.

[OCA]

:laugh:



Why should we be forced to pay for others?

You already are.

[OCA]

So pontificates the one that thinks Greece is the epitome of culture in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/sunday-review/the-failing-state-of-greece.html?pagewanted=all

Thats economic honey, simple case of borrowing too much. The people don't like the austerity measures being put into place, truth be told our debt both domestic and foriegn id astronomically higher than theirs, maybe we should have some austerity measures placed upon the citizens here, think you'd riot if that happened?

Greece is still a cultural paradise, beautiful scenery, islands, oceans etc. etc. etc.

#1 vacation travel destination for the rest of the world year in and year out.

[Kathianne]

Thats economic honey, simple case of borrowing too much. The people don't like the austerity measures being put into place, truth be told our debt both domestic and foriegn id astronomically higher than theirs, maybe we should have some austerity measures placed upon the citizens here, think you'd riot if that happened?

Greece is still a cultural paradise, beautiful scenery, islands, oceans etc. etc. etc.

#1 vacation travel destination for the rest of the world year in and year out.

or not:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0198352.html

http://i48.tinypic.com/mvt7yx.png

[Missileman]

or not:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0198352.html

http://i48.tinypic.com/mvt7yx.png

It really is a shame that the birthplace of civilization has turned into the birthplace of a liberal shit-pit.

[OCA]

or not:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0198352.html

http://i48.tinypic.com/mvt7yx.png

Sorry, go there 1 time, let me know if you find a spot at the beach, any beach.

I tend to base my opinions on personal observations, you would be well advised to do the same.

[Missileman]

Thats economic honey, simple case of borrowing too much. The people don't like the austerity measures being put into place, truth be told our debt both domestic and foriegn id astronomically higher than theirs, maybe we should have some austerity measures placed upon the citizens here, think you'd riot if that happened?

Greece is still a cultural paradise, beautiful scenery, islands, oceans etc. etc. etc.

#1 vacation travel destination for the rest of the world year in and year out.

Give them all sombreros and teach them to say "Meester" and they can start advertising Athens as the Matamoros of the Med.

[OCA]

Give them all sombreros and teach them to say "Meester" and they can start advertising Athens as the Matamoros of the Med.

Or if we start eating each other we can be the Florida of the Med!

Or if we start having college sport coaches who form youth programs so they can rape little boys we could be the Pennsylvania of the Med!

Or if we start having an uncontrollable drug culture of junkies and homeless we could actually be the U.S.A. of the Med!

[Kathianne]

Or if we start eating each other we can be the Florida of the Med!

Or if we start having college sport coaches who form youth programs so they can rape little boys we could be the Pennsylvania of the Med!

Or if we start having an uncontrollable drug culture of junkies and homeless we could actually be the U.S.A. of the Med!

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/myths/tp/080707Cannibalism.htm


Boorish cannibals contrast with civilized Greeks in mythology except when it's the Greeks who prepare the ineffable dinners. Medea (http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_medea.htm) was a horrible mother because she killed her children, but at least she didn't kill them secretly and then serve them to their father at a "reconciliation" feast, as Atreus did. The cursed House of Atreus (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/houseofatreus/a/houseofatreus.htm) actually contains two instances of cannibalism. A story from Ovid's Metamorphoses that is singularly nasty involves rape, disfigurement, and imprisonment, with cannibalism as revenge.



Greeks of course get special attention from the gay community:

http://www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-customs/greek-homosexuality/greek-male-love-boys.html

Even 'married' men were intrigued:


...The education of the youths took place in the gymnasium. Far more than a modern gym, such a complex was situated in the centre of every Greek town. There boys and men spent a large part of their day engaged in physical and intellectual exercise. Its architecture was described by the Roman architect Vitruvius: First, it contained a large peristyle, i.e. a square with a perimeter of two stadia (or 90 m [270 ft] per side). It was surrounded on three sides by single arcades, and on the southern side by a double arcade that enclosed the Ephebeion, the training ground for the epheboi, young men past the age of majority, that is eighteen to twenty or so. At the sides were baths, halls and other rooms, where philosophers, rhetoricians, poets and all the many friends of male beauty would come together. Behind the peristyle were further arcades, one of them the xystos, apparently mainly for the training of adult men, and connected to it the palestra (http://www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-customs/greek-homosexuality/palestra.htm), the main training ground for the youths. The rooms were decorated with all kinds of artwork, above all with statues of gods and heroes such as Hermes (http://www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-customs/greek-homosexuality/Hermes.htm), Apollo (http://www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-customs/greek-homosexuality/Apollo.htm) and the Muses, Herakles (http://www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-customs/greek-homosexuality/Herakles.htm) and especially Eros (http://www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-customs/greek-homosexuality/Eros.htm). Such daily exposure to the many wondrous works of art and to the beauty of young bodies harmoniously developed by regular exercises goes a long way towards explaining the Greeks’ enthusiasm for beauty and male eros.

The word gymnasium derives from gymnos, (http://www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-customs/greek-homosexuality/discobolus.htm) naked, reflecting the fact that all sports were performed unclothed. Not surprisingly, the gymnasium was an epicentre of erotic energy. The cult of male nudity was a widespread phenomenon of Greek life, and was viewed as one of the cardinal differences between the cultured Greeks and their barbarian neighbours. Nudity was practised not only in the gymnasia but also at the great national competitions in Olympia, Nemea, Delphi and on the Isthmus, at religious ceremonies, at public festivals and at private feasts where the young cupbearers went usually in the nude. The Gymnopaidiai was an important yearly festival in Sparta, celebrated with dances and presentations of naked boys. Paradoxically, the Spartan authorities tried to use the dances as reward for those fighting the decrease in population that their state was stricken with: only married men were allowed as spectators...

Escapism wasn't a miss for the Greeks, just like all civilizations:

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/psychopharm.html


The Ancient Worldhttp://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/Field_of_opium.jpg
Drugs and medicines have always been with us. Where there were plants with psychoactive properties, there were people willing to use them, for pleasure or relief, or to kill.
Recorded history is filled with descriptions of potent psychopharmaceuticals, but some have been outstanding. Alcohol has been nearly universal in use, and was already presenting itself as a problem among ancient Greeks and Romans. There are records of cannabis use in the ancient Middle East. Opium was known to the ancients, but seems to have been restricted to medicinal use. Hemlock was certainly known -- Socrates met his death with a cup of hemlock.
More exotic substances were also available. An extract of the nightshade or belladonna plant called atropine was used everywhere from Rome to India as a poison -- and as a cosmetic device: women sometimes put a drop of weak solution in their eyes to dilate their pupils! It is still used for the same reason today by eye doctors.
Another favorite was the extract of the foxglove plant, called digitalis. A powerful poison, it was also used to treat various ailments.
And mushrooms provided many of our ancestors with interesting hallucinogenic experiences (and serious illnesses!). Some believe that the holy drink of the ancient Aryans mentioned in the Vedas -- soma -- was a concoction involving mushrooms.

[OCA]

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/myths/tp/080707Cannibalism.htm



Greeks of course get special attention from the gay community:

http://www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-customs/greek-homosexuality/greek-male-love-boys.html

Even 'married' men were intrigued:



Escapism wasn't a miss for the Greeks, just like all civilizations:

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/psychopharm.html

First two, BC, don't count.

Escapism? Really, is that how you describe America's probs today, escapism?

I've given you too much credit it seems.

[Kathianne]

First two, BC, don't count.

Escapism? Really, is that how you describe America's probs today, escapism?

I've given you too much credit it seems.

Of course, on all counts. I've never looked for credit from you.

[OCA]

I've never looked for credit from you.

Of all the false statements, thats the mother lode!

[fj1200]

You already are.

That wasn't the question.

[ConHog]

Of all the false statements, thats the mother lode!

So, you'll be looking to swallow it then? :fu:

[OCA]

That wasn't the question.

Yes it was, read again.

[fj1200]

Yes it was, read again.

Take your own advice, it was, why should we? not, are we?

[OCA]

Take your own advice, it was, why should we? not, are we?

Ask yourself this, what kind of society do you want to live in?

[fj1200]

Ask yourself this, what kind of society do you want to live in?

Why should we be forced?

[OCA]

Why should we be forced?

Because most Americans are too stupid to see the big picture, they need cattle prods shoved up their asses.

[fj1200]

Because most Americans are too stupid to see the big picture, they need cattle prods shoved up their asses.

The ones that are responsible for their own welfare or the ones that aren't?

[Dilloduck]

Because most Americans are too stupid to see the big picture, they need cattle prods shoved up their asses.

:popcorn: I forgot how good of a show this is.

[OCA]

The ones that are responsible for their own welfare or the ones that aren't?

Responsible for your own welfare? Let me know when the middle and poor classes don't have the cards being stacked against them by the powers that be then we can talk about that.

[fj1200]

Responsible for your own welfare? Let me know when the middle and poor classes don't have the cards being stacked against them by the powers that be then we can talk about that.

You're right, damn Democrats.

[OCA]

You're right, damn Democrats.

Nope...both parties.

[ConHog]

You're right, damn Democrats.

As usual OCA is all over the place, this is the idiot who claims that the rich should pay MORE taxes while at the same time being okay with the "poor" collecting refunds that are more than they paid in.

[fj1200]

Nope...both parties.

You're right again, :eek: some damn Republicans DO vote to restrict freedoms with the damn Democrats.

[OCA]

You're right again, :eek: some damn Republicans DO vote to restrict freedoms with the damn Democrats.

Nope...they all do...both parties.

[fj1200]

Nope...they all do...both parties.

I'll wait for the proof of that one.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

With the cost estimates rising doesn't that mean BO should repeal his own bill that he only signed if it wouldn't raise the deficit "one dime"?

If the bambustard truly thought that it would not raise the deficit "one dime" he would have never signed it into law!
He has no intention of helping the nation...
He only does enough to get by until after the second election.
If he wins that he will make sure all hell breaks loose here. :salute:--Tyr