I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: paul.karen on August 06, 2009, 06:58:37 AM
-
Depending on what news channel's you watch you will get a variety of ways people are looking at the debates on healthcare, cap and trade ect ect.
It seems it is ok for Obama and his PLANNED community activists to plan weeks ahead of time to go out and protest. Groups like Acorn who have professionally made signs and intimidate people and are called community activists are ok.
But if a grass roots movement of people with hand made signs goes to protest's like the tea parties or recently people at town hall meetings try to express there opinions it has to be that they were forced to do so and are only doing so out of hatred.
They (many democrats and the President) say it is FAKE and Manufactured and it isn't real people but puppets ect ect. They are to well dressed to be real people, maybe people on there way to work? Maybe if they all had on red shirts that said acorn it would be a different news story.
So i wanted to see a vote to get opinions from REAL people like us.
Are people who disagree with the president Bad people? Are we fake? Should we not be heard? Is he not our president or just the president to those who agree with him?
-
He is just the president to those who agree with him. I think the notion that there are are a lot of plants is ludicrous.
-
The bottom line is that most Americans are satisfied with their health care. Other nations still envy our ready access to the latest technologies. It is quite difficult to criticize a plan that is not even a plan when you consider the competing plans in the Democratic party alone.
We are already paying for those that do not have health insurance with our increased costs that take this into account Was that really a $500 bandaide? No, it is diverting the costs of those that never pay for their health costs. Further, the government makes it illegal to turn anyone away at the door, which is good. But they pass that expense onto the hospitals without a government subsidy for those patients. Once again, for decades, the hospitals have been passing that on to the paying customer already.
What is truly frightening is the possibilty of completely ruining the private sector health industry and supplant it with a government controlled health system for all. Is that where we all want to go.
Lastly, I heard an opinion on the amount of money that American's spend on health care compared to all other nations. It is because we can afford to spend it that we do spend it. Is our government interested in health care reform or instead is it a health care take over? So far, all that I have heard out of Washington does not give me any confidence that they will really give those of us with renal disease access to the best that can be offered. Further, you need to understand that we are no longer looking at individuals and maximizing their care. Take a look around the literature and you will find that we have entered into population based medicine that in reality is nothing more that "herd" medicine. This excepts the sacrifices of some of the individuals for that of the total herd. I truly do not believe that most Americans understand this fundamental shift in health care policy. It is indeed to most Americans, a very unAmerican idea where we have long held the asperations of the individual as the greatest public good.
For instance, take a look at Ezekiel Emmanuels writings over the last two decades and then ask where the man in charge of health care reform wants to take us.
No, not mobs, just concerned Americans, Democrats, Independents, and yes Virginia, Republicans as well. I don't recalll anywhere in the constitution that the minority party loses it's rights when they lose an election. I understand that there is even an email address to turn in "fishy" comments against the health care reform. Well so be it. But I am not at all comfortable with the events happening that could radically alter the US health system as imperfect as it is.
-
Can I chose two options? Personally, I think it's part plants and part upset people. But honestly, does it matter if they are "planted" if they are saying what regular people are thinking? Oh, I realize we're all pretty cynical about anyone who stands up in a crowd these days - too much crap going on behind the scenes to take anyone at face value anymore - but that doesn't mean the message the plants are passing on is not a real one.
I voted for him, but I think he ought to remember that his "sweeping" victory was still just barely over half of the US. Nearly half voted against him, and don't agree with what he stands for. So why be surprised that people are standing up in public to disagree with him?
It's a democracy - we're supposed to debate things!
-
Most democrats in Congress are out of touch with the American People on this issue.
Its almost comical how these people in Congress are try to keep people from speaking out at these events.
Might be a good time to invest in tar and feathers as to remind the politicians just what the American People will do if they do not listen.
-
Most democrats in Congress are out of touch with the American People on this issue.
Its almost comical how these people in Congress are try to keep people from speaking out at these events.
Might be a good time to invest in tar and feathers as to remind the politicians just what the American People will do if they do not listen.
BigSky, as an ultra liberal democrat, I am amused that I agree with you totally. I think I need to stock up on the tar and feathers. I want a change in health care, but I want to hear every opinion. I want lively debate. The more we talk things out and debate the important issues of the day, the better the solutions will be.
-
We can't have Health Care Reform without COST reform. We need to put a cap on prices. We need prices! HELL you never know what a procedure will cost until it is over. Where else do you go where you get something without know what it costs?
Grocery Store? NO
Gas Station? NO
Dentist? NO
Eye Doctor? NO
Insurance? NO
There would be more out rage if everyone knew it was $10,000 a day to be hospitalized just waiting around for surgery!! But, by the time it is over and you get the bill there is nothing you can do about it.
Again, I have Medicare and Blue X, but I still see the costs as they come through the mail and it is unbelievable!
-
I agree with you Rerun. These danged insurance companies are ridiculous. But, mostly, the hospitals and such just charge you outrageously for tests and such. I know there are costs and the machines are expensive, but how many times are we supposed to pay for a machine. Doesn't it ever get paid for?
-
No, not mobs, just concerned Americans, Democrats, Independents, and yes Virginia, Republicans as well. I don't recalll anywhere in the constitution that the minority party loses it's rights when they lose an election. I understand that there is even an email address to turn in "fishy" comments against the health care reform. Well so be it. But I am not at all comfortable with the events happening that could radically alter the US health system as imperfect as it is.
Non constituents coming to town hall meetings and shouting down constituents is some kind of Constitutional right?
How is screaming "Just say no" helpful in any way?
What is truly frightening is the possibilty of completely ruining the private sector health industry and supplant it with a government controlled health system for all. Is that where we all want to go.
Come on. Most of us have Medicare. Do they choose your doc? Does Medicare run dialysis clinics? There are three bills in the House and 1 (and half) Bills in the Senate. They all pretty much do the same thing - reform health Insurance. This fear of "Government Control" is not based on the legislation.
There are two examples of government run healthcare in the US - in other words examples where the federal government owns the hospitals and pays everyone from the docs to the custodians - the DOD and the VA. Both of those provide the best healthcare in the world, at least they're meant to ... there isn't a single member of Congress that doesn't support medical care for the troops.
The example of government provided health INSURANCE is Medicare. Are those who shout Just Say NO in favor of ending Medicare? Would the nation's elderly, disabled and dialyzors be better off without Medicare? I don't think so.
As a pure political commentary I don't think the American voters are persuaded by people shouting "Just Say NO" when they know friends, family and neighbors that have been driven into bankruptcy because of routine medical care. I think this is another example of the frenzy of the 24 hour news cycle.
-
Non constituents coming to town hall meetings and shouting down constituents is some kind of Constitutional right?
Could you provide actual proof that these people at all these various meetings around the country were non constituents.
How is screaming "Just say no" helpful in any way?
It drives the point home. These politicians ramble on with their propaganda point by point but do not want anyone to address each and every bs point and think the public should only get to make a short comment in the end.
This pisses people off when they try it and the People have had enough of it. If Congress cannot read the damn bills they shouldnt be passing them.
Come on. Most of us have Medicare. Do they choose your doc? Does Medicare run dialysis clinics? There are three bills in the House and 1 (and half) Bills in the Senate. They all pretty much do the same thing - reform health Insurance. This fear of "Government Control" is not based on the legislation.
There are two examples of government run healthcare in the US - in other words examples where the federal government owns the hospitals and pays everyone from the docs to the custodians - the DOD and the VA. Both of those provide the best healthcare in the world, at least they're meant to ... there isn't a single member of Congress that doesn't support medical care for the troops.
The example of government provided health INSURANCE is Medicare. Are those who shout Just Say NO in favor of ending Medicare? Would the nation's elderly, disabled and dialyzors be better off without Medicare? I don't think so.
As a pure political commentary I don't think the American voters are persuaded by people shouting "Just Say NO" when they know friends, family and neighbors that have been driven into bankruptcy because of routine medical care. I think this is another example of the frenzy of the 24 hour news cycle.
Medicare micromanages clinics, hospitals and dialysis centers. Also lets not forget only 40 million people are using medicare services. Sure Medicare is good, but lets face it, they do not even pay actual cost for dialysis services but make the providers eat that cost.
The VA is incompetent and thousands of vets refuse to use it or have problems with service they do receive.
I speak of personal experience. I wouldnt trust those c***suckers to treat my dog.
-
How is screaming "Just say no" helpful in any way?
It drives the point home. These politicians ramble on with their propaganda point by point but do not want anyone to address each and every bs point and think the public should only get to make a short comment in the end.
This pisses people off when they try it and the People have had enough of it. If Congress cannot read the damn bills they shouldnt be passing them.
The video I've seen have included people shouting down people asking questions. It's intimidating for most people to ask a question at a town meeting add in the likelihood that they're going to heckled and booed and people aren't going to put themselves in that position. That's not useful from society's point of view and I have to say from just a pure political point of view, looking at how this games out, have the shouters persuaded anyone? Have Representatives reconsidered their positions after having their events disrupted? More likely the effect has been to marginalize people with concerns - there are elements that do raise concerns, many of the amendments that have been included in the various Bills resulted from constituent concerns but now everyone with concerns has less access to the process. This is a tactic that looks to be self defeating. This is looking like the start of a Republican pattern and from a pure political analysis this will hurt in the 2010 Congressional elections.
If the VA is so bad why aren't the shouters suggesting we simply buy our vets health insurance through the local HMO? The vets have a lot of pull in Congress, they seem to be able to work well within the existing system given that no one any where has instantaneous access to healthcare in every situation (except those on active duty)
Let's remember though that the VA's relevance to this discussion is only to illustrate what it means to have socialized healthcare which should then allow anyone interested in the issue know that there is no bill in Congress that is proposing Socialized Healthcare. The main debate is around how to and/or whether to, subsidize private insurance for the working poor. That's the $1 trillion over ten year cost you've no doubt heard about. The problem for people who want to cover the working poor is how to pay for it. Healthcare is expensive so subsidizing people's healthcare is expensive.
The Public Option enters the debate as a way to make healthcare less expensive, the comparative effectiveness research that has been a part of Medicare since 2002 is an attempt at checking increasing healthcare costs. If the schemes to make healthcare less expensive can't or won't work then you have to pay for it through increasing revenue ie increase taxes. Where does just say no enter into this?
Keeping things as they are is not a good idea. Do we really want to leave things as they are for another generation? I and I think a majority of voters say no to that.
Nothing in any of these bills in Congress is substantially different from what Obama put forward in the campaign. John McCain's healthcare plan was to just say no. I don't see anything that has increased the number of people who want more of the same. It may be that 40% of the electorate wants to keep things as they are and 40 million people can certianly make a lot of noise but it still doesn't win any elections. As the Republican party continues to contract passing legislation gets easier. Conservative tactics are coming up short against Progressive strategy.
-
Bill, obviously I am in complete support of optimal renal care for all. The issue of universal access and universal coverage is a goal that I believe both of us share and advocate on a daily basis with in the confines of the renal program. We don't disagree on the goals, only the manner in which to get there.
I believe underlying the protests is the real concern that the private health care sector could in time succumb to the public sector. If we did not have the example of the takeovers of the banking and auto industry already this year, those fears would be greatly mitigated.
The comparative effectiveness research is also a potentially troublesome part of the package in my mind since it takes us one step further away from the long standing doctor-patient relationship where decision making has traditionally taken place. We are heading into an era where the government will now be making bedside decisions for us. Many like myself legitimately distrust that new relationship. I believe this is in part what is really behind the protests.
Unfortunately, I have yet to be reassured that these fears will not come to pass. I am quite fortunate to have lifetime medical for myself and my wife which I readily understand is a luxury that many do not have. It is with an HMO that I know how to operate within its confines and restrictions. My doctors have the freedom to offer me the best care available. In the new system, population based outcomes guided by the comparative effectiveness research will become the bedside decision maker.
I must confess that I would rather be in the hands of my doctor who is open to my requests and reasoning for care options than to have to take these decisions into the realm of the political world where politicians are making my medical care plan. For myself, that is the place of disagreement, not in the goals of universal health coverage and access, but in the methods.
It would be most interesting to see a true poll of the political spread among democrats, republicans and independents on this issue. I believe it is more than just a one sided shouting match as many are portraying. Getting the truth on these political issues is not easy today.
Lastly, aside from the potential of losing more control over health care decisions, the issue of the projected costs of the various bills circulating is another real source of this protest. I believe that these issues cross political parties especially for the majority of people that already have good health insurance no matter what their political affiliation. I don't believe that it is simply conservative vs progressive and Republican vs Democrat. The real issue is whether these protests cross these divides. If so, then before Congress puts a package together that will not ultimately meet the goals of improving care for all, then taking time to do true reform is a realistic request.
Once again, I am a strong advocate of optimal health for all people as I am sure you will attest by my strong dialysis advocacy. I am just not certain at all that the current political process we see unfolding before us will give us what we all agree is the goal of health care reform. It simply may not be what we wish and hope it will be. That uncertainty and distrust of all these politicians is in my mind what the protests are all about.
As always Bill, I appreciate your views and your heart for improving care for all. In this we are both in full agreement.
-
The video I've seen have included people shouting down people asking questions.
Post it.
As to the VA most people do not know how it works so why would they even bring it up? They wouldnt!
-
...The comparative effectiveness research is also a potentially troublesome part of the package in my mind since it takes us one step further away from the long standing doctor-patient relationship where decision making has traditionally taken place. We are heading into an era where the government will now be making bedside decisions for us. Many like myself legitimately distrust that new relationship. I believe this is in part what is really behind the protests.
... In the new system, population based outcomes guided by the comparative effectiveness research will become the bedside decision maker.
My father had end stage kidney failure years ago at a time when dialysis treatment was effective but was not readily available. I remember his evaluation for acceptance as a continuing dialysis patient by a committee who task it was to decide if his life had sufficient value (comparative effectiveness perhaps?) to provide him the treatments given the shortage. He underwent several treatments with great success while being evaluated. He was 48 years old with no other health problems except for PKD.
One of the evaluation criteria that was used was a review of how much he was actually needed to support his family. I was the youngest of his three children and at age 17 and graduating from high school, he was deemed expendable by the evaluating committee. He was denied continued dialysis and sent home to die after one last treatment. I vividly remember the last days of his life from appearing very healthy to the time kidney failure finally took its toll. It all seemed so unfair to me but it happened.
Could something like this happen again in the name of reducing health care costs? Will dialysis patients will be offered the "blue" pill and undergo end of life counseling to help balance the budget? After all the plan being considered includes making big "cost savings (cuts)" in Medicare.
-
In a perfect world there would be no illness. The best we can expect in this context is that all would have equal access to life saving treatments. What a lasting impact your father's death must of had on all in your family. Your post hits home even harder for me since I was likewise 48 at the time I started dialysis. The impact upon my family in all that I would have missed and the growth in our relationships in the last 3 years is immeasurable.
I obviously support the concept and the rationale for universal access and universal coverage. Will our current political process reach that goal? Only time will tell since it appears most probable that universal health coverage will soon be the reality of this nation whether I agree or disagree with it. I am simply fearful that the dynamics of population based outcomes will place dialysis patients especially at the top of the list for close scrutiny of care when compared to other "more worthy" populations such as children with a longer life expectancy. Done properly, it is a great concept. It is not the goal, but the methodology that is bothersome to me at present.
Nevertheless, it does appear that we shall all enter into this brave new world soon and it is my prayer that we would never again hear of tragic stories as happened to you and your father ever again. I believe no matter what our political disagreements are, no one would disagree with this sentiment.
-
...The comparative effectiveness research is also a potentially troublesome part of the package in my mind since it takes us one step further away from the long standing doctor-patient relationship where decision making has traditionally taken place. We are heading into an era where the government will now be making bedside decisions for us. Many like myself legitimately distrust that new relationship. I believe this is in part what is really behind the protests.
... In the new system, population based outcomes guided by the comparative effectiveness research will become the bedside decision maker.
My father had end stage kidney failure years ago at a time when dialysis treatment was effective but was not readily available. I remember his evaluation for acceptance as a continuing dialysis patient by a committee who task it was to decide if his life had sufficient value (comparative effectiveness perhaps?) to provide him the treatments given the shortage. He underwent several treatments with great success while being evaluated. He was 48 years old with no other health problems except for PKD.
One of the evaluation criteria that was used was a review of how much he was actually needed to support his family. I was the youngest of his three children and at age 17 and graduating from high school, he was deemed expendable by the evaluating committee. He was denied continued dialysis and sent home to die after one last treatment. I vividly remember the last days of his life from appearing very healthy to the time kidney failure finally took its toll. It all seemed so unfair to me but it happened.
Could something like this happen again in the name of reducing health care costs? Will dialysis patients will be offered the "blue" pill and undergo end of life counseling to help balance the budget? After all the plan being considered includes making big "cost savings (cuts)" in Medicare.
Really? You are concerned that the Democratic Party would reimplement the life and death committees as a way to save money on dialysis. I am surprised that this seems plausible, or that health insurance reform will lead to compelling people to kill themselves as a cost savings measure. Where is this coming from?
The US spends more money on healthcare, per person, than any other country in the world. If other countries, that spend considerably less per person, can manage to avoid kill off their elderly why would we be forced to kill people who are sick? Why wouldn't we just pay less for pharmaceuticals? Why wouldn't we use the federal government's market power to cut Part D spending by 50% and Part A and Part B drug spending by significant margins. Would an elected body - Congress - choose to kill voters instead of cutting pharmaceutical spending? I really don't think so.
Sure cutting pharmaceutical spending would have consequences but having to find a another way to fund research is a minor inconvenience compared to killing off dialyzors. All the current Bills reflect the agreement Obama made with pharmaceutical manufacturers - that cost saving measure isn't even on the table. Taxing employee health insurance benefits is off the table. How about malpractice insurance relief - that's not on the table either. Increasing Medicare premiums isn't even on the table. Means testing Medicare Premiums isn't on the table. All these ways to pay for Medicare's current benefits are available yet off the table and yet there is still a concern that in the name of saving costs lets start killing people.
Amazing.
-
inadvertent post
-
This comment about an article in the NY Times expresses much of how I feel and cannot understand about the current health care debate.
"I have lived in Europe, the USA (NYC and FLA) and currently live in Canada. I am a reasonably well-informed financial executive. I make my living as a capitalist.
I wouldn’t know where to begin re: the health care debate but I will make a couple of observations:
1. The USA has the finest health care in the world — bar none — provided that you have a no-limit gilt-edged money is no object health plan. Or you are rich. In my experience the 2 go hand in hand.
Failing such insurance or such boundless wealth how any rational human being with an IQ over 75 and an income below, say, $250k (forget the social compassion argument) could defend the existing system is beyond comprehension.
2. The outright lies — yes lies — that critics of health care reform spew is disturbing. The intentional misrepresentation of the Canadian and European models is outrageous. The Canadian model is flawed. There needs to be greater access to ‘private-delivery’ alternatives (which currently exist in some fields.) Having said that, since I returned to the province of Ontario in the late 1990’s until now the improvement in standards and care is staggering and in most cases matches anything I witnessed or experienced in NYC. Yes, health care is rationed here (hence a need for ancillary private care) but it is rationed everywhere — including the US. The exception being as per point #1 above. Per capita Ontario spends approximately 65% of what the consumers/taxpayers of the US/NY spend. However Ontario delivers 90% — or more — of the US standard. That is one very big financial/efficiency/productivity gap. That money gap goes to the US insurance companies, doctors, malpractice lawyers and lobbyists. The common canard about Canada etc is that “faceless bureaucrats make life or death decisions” (as opposed to, say, faceless HMO clerks). The truth is that in Canada the ‘gatekeepers’ who allocate critical care are the physicians themselves — the specialists.
3. Aside from private-payment plastic surgeons it is true you will not see many doctors in Canada driving a Rolls Royce. But you will see an awful lot driving a Benz or a Jag. Doctors here work hard and are well compensated. What we lack here is the concept that a medical degree should be attributed Venture Capitalist returns.
4. Lastly, a general observation/question (again, I really am a capitalist). Why is it that in the USA (a country I genuinely love) millions of people who barely make a living or are working class and/or just holding on to the ‘middle class’ are the most vocal — hysterical wouldn’t be an exaggeration — in defending the privileges of the rich and the corporate? Against their own self-interest I might add. Anywhere else in the western world the existing US health care tyranny would have people in the streets demanding reform — not ‘debating’ it."
— jon c
-
i Dint think you could find anyone who would say we dint need reform. It has been said over and over for years buy all Americans.
Recent polls show 52% oppose obamas health plan 39% approve of it.
I find it hard to think there are five bills for healthcare floating around and no one has read any of them yet are debating them.
I find it funny that the dems cry that republicans are busing people in, when this is what they did to Bush many times over.
I find it funny that yes many REAL Americans went to town hall meetings and expressed themself vs which is a RIGHT and yes some may have been rather vocal but again it is thee right. Same was done to Bush over and over. I hate to reference Bush but he was bashed here many times at IHD. And as much as i want change if Obama can stop using Bush as a scapegoat Bush should be used to show he had class when people rallied against his ideas. He never sent out a open invitation to report anyone who went against his ideas to a internet Czar in controll of controlling Americans who dint agree with him.
I find it funny that in reality it is OBAMA who is busing in again people to intimidate anyone who disagrees with his agenda. The town hall meetings were as usual nonviolent when the repubs were attending them. Loud maybe but not violent. until Obama sent out his SEIU Union thugs to intimade anyone against him. They even beat a person up who went to speak at a rally. He was an out of work EMT if I'm correct.
The dems say this is manufactured yet they send out ACORN with premed signs and CHANTS of intimidation at rallies that dint suit there agenda yet this is OK.
We allwant change we dint want the government running it.
Medicare is broke social security is broke we are giving people money to buy cars now that our children's children will be paying for.
Obama is on record and has been since he was a junior senator that he WANTS a single payer system in place, socialized healthcare.
Barney frank is on record saying the best way to get a single payer system is to have an open markey that can be slowly drowned out by government.
Again 52% oppose obamas plan or all five of them.
He wants to blame firstly the republicans. Then the Americans that dint agree with him then the insurance companies but he wont admit they have the votes needed and the reason they rant moving forward the REAL reason is that many Democrats dint even want his plan or plan.
-
People want reform but not this reform when it comes down that is has to be rammed through without the People knowing whats in it and being able to debate it at length.
Could we at least have more time to look and it than he gave to getting a dog for his family? Or is that too much to ask.
If he wants to fix something why not fix medicare instead of wanting to embezzle money from medicare?
Dems control Congress and could easily remove the cap on wages (106,800) that are taxed for medicare. Tax all of those multimillion dollar wages of CEO's
-
This comment about an article in the NY Times expresses much of how I feel and cannot understand about the current health care debate.
"I have lived in Europe, the USA (NYC and FLA) and currently live in Canada. I am a reasonably well-informed financial executive. I make my living as a capitalist.
I wouldn’t know where to begin re: the health care debate but I will make a couple of observations:
1. The USA has the finest health care in the world — bar none — provided that you have a no-limit gilt-edged money is no object health plan. Or you are rich. In my experience the 2 go hand in hand.
Failing such insurance or such boundless wealth how any rational human being with an IQ over 75 and an income below, say, $250k (forget the social compassion argument) could defend the existing system is beyond comprehension.
2. The outright lies — yes lies — that critics of health care reform spew is disturbing. The intentional misrepresentation of the Canadian and European models is outrageous. The Canadian model is flawed. There needs to be greater access to ‘private-delivery’ alternatives (which currently exist in some fields.) Having said that, since I returned to the province of Ontario in the late 1990’s until now the improvement in standards and care is staggering and in most cases matches anything I witnessed or experienced in NYC. Yes, health care is rationed here (hence a need for ancillary private care) but it is rationed everywhere — including the US. The exception being as per point #1 above. Per capita Ontario spends approximately 65% of what the consumers/taxpayers of the US/NY spend. However Ontario delivers 90% — or more — of the US standard. That is one very big financial/efficiency/productivity gap. That money gap goes to the US insurance companies, doctors, malpractice lawyers and lobbyists. The common canard about Canada etc is that “faceless bureaucrats make life or death decisions” (as opposed to, say, faceless HMO clerks). The truth is that in Canada the ‘gatekeepers’ who allocate critical care are the physicians themselves — the specialists.
3. Aside from private-payment plastic surgeons it is true you will not see many doctors in Canada driving a Rolls Royce. But you will see an awful lot driving a Benz or a Jag. Doctors here work hard and are well compensated. What we lack here is the concept that a medical degree should be attributed Venture Capitalist returns.
4. Lastly, a general observation/question (again, I really am a capitalist). Why is it that in the USA (a country I genuinely love) millions of people who barely make a living or are working class and/or just holding on to the ‘middle class’ are the most vocal — hysterical wouldn’t be an exaggeration — in defending the privileges of the rich and the corporate? Against their own self-interest I might add. Anywhere else in the western world the existing US health care tyranny would have people in the streets demanding reform — not ‘debating’ it."
— jon c
It is getting harder and harder to hear what is being said over the spittle. I think though when you look back at historic legislation there has always been this sort of blind rage that is ginned up and fanned. This sort of rage was used to bash the unions from the turn of the last century to today. On the other side of the coin from the rage is the cheering e.g for anti-sedition laws, the Patriot Act. John Rockefeller Jr. was burned in effigy for proposing the Grand Tetons National Park. I think this rage will be just as hard to understand 100 years from now.
Teddy Roosevelt was driven out of the Republican Party. To this day they'll tell you Franklin Roosevelt was a communist. Civil rights legislation, the clean air act, water quality legislation - it all was said to be a threat to the world as we know it.
Medicare was said to mark the end of freedom in America. It has always been crazy talk. Now is no different.
The worry is when people believe this talk and then violently act on it. We're only six months in, the spittle will get thicker. This is a strain of America that will always be and has always been with us. We're just entering a period when it's very close to the surface.
-
Dems control Congress and could easily remove the cap on wages (106,800) that are taxed for medicare. Tax all of those multimillion dollar wages of CEO's
Actually, there is no cap on wages when it comes to the Medicare payroll tax.
It's the Social Security tax which has the wage cap, but that's another story.
From AllLaw.com
"The Medicare tax rate is 2.9% for the employee and the employer. You will withhold 1.45% of an employee's wages and pay a matching amount for Medicare tax. There is no wage base for the Medicare portion of the FICA tax. Both the employer and the employee continue to pay Medicare tax, no matter how much is earned."
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/tax/article5.asp
A little more info:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series
8)
-
Dems control Congress and could easily remove the cap on wages (106,800) that are taxed for medicare. Tax all of those multimillion dollar wages of CEO's
Actually, there is no cap on wages when it comes to the Medicare payroll tax.
It's the Social Security tax which has the wage cap, but that's another story.
From AllLaw.com
"The Medicare tax rate is 2.9% for the employee and the employer. You will withhold 1.45% of an employee's wages and pay a matching amount for Medicare tax. There is no wage base for the Medicare portion of the FICA tax. Both the employer and the employee continue to pay Medicare tax, no matter how much is earned."
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/tax/article5.asp
A little more info:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series
8)
Thanks Zach I didn't know that ... there goes my motivation to ever earn over $100,000.
My point stands though - there are a lot of ways to cut Medicare costs or increase Medicare revenues besides hastening people's deaths.
-
Means testing Medicare Premiums isn't on the table.
Actually, there is means testing for Medicare Part B premiums.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=3272
CMS ANNOUNCES MEDICARE PREMIUMS, DEDUCTIBLES FOR 2009
... As required in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, beginning in 2007 the Part B premium a beneficiary pays each month is based on his or her annual income. Specifically, if a beneficiary’s “modified adjusted gross income” is greater than the legislated threshold amounts ($85,000 in 2009 for a beneficiary filing an individual income tax return or married and filing a separate return, and $170,000 for a beneficiary filing a joint tax return) the beneficiary is responsible for a larger portion of the estimated total cost of Part B benefit coverage.
In addition to the standard 25 percent premium, such beneficiaries now have to pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount. These income-related Part B premiums have been phased-in over three years, beginning in 2007. 2009 is the first year in which affected Part B enrollees will pay the full amount of the income-related premiums. About 5 percent of current Part B enrollees are expected to be subject to the higher premium amounts...
~~~~~~~~~~
Monthly premiums range from $96.40 to $308.30 depending on your yearly income.
8)
-
Means testing Medicare Premiums isn't on the table.
Actually, there is means testing for Medicare Part B premiums.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=3272
CMS ANNOUNCES MEDICARE PREMIUMS, DEDUCTIBLES FOR 2009
... As required in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, beginning in 2007 the Part B premium a beneficiary pays each month is based on his or her annual income. Specifically, if a beneficiary’s “modified adjusted gross income” is greater than the legislated threshold amounts ($85,000 in 2009 for a beneficiary filing an individual income tax return or married and filing a separate return, and $170,000 for a beneficiary filing a joint tax return) the beneficiary is responsible for a larger portion of the estimated total cost of Part B benefit coverage.
In addition to the standard 25 percent premium, such beneficiaries now have to pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount. These income-related Part B premiums have been phased-in over three years, beginning in 2007. 2009 is the first year in which affected Part B enrollees will pay the full amount of the income-related premiums. About 5 percent of current Part B enrollees are expected to be subject to the higher premium amounts...
~~~~~~~~~~
Monthly premiums range from $96.40 to $308.30 depending on your yearly income.
8)
Thanks Zach, that should have been means test Medicare Part D which is being floated around http://www.aishealth.com/Bnow/hbd062209.html
It's Part D that currently represents the bulk of Medicare's unfunded obligations.
-
It is getting harder and harder to hear what is being said over the spittle. I think though when you look back at historic legislation there has always been this sort of blind rage that is ginned up and fanned. This sort of rage was used to bash the unions from the turn of the last century to today. On the other side of the coin from the rage is the cheering e.g for anti-sedition laws, the Patriot Act. John Rockefeller Jr. was burned in effigy for proposing the Grand Tetons National Park. I think this rage will be just as hard to understand 100 years from now.
It will be well understood. The majority of people in the country are against this but yet this Administration wants to trample right over the people on it
Teddy Roosevelt was driven out of the Republican Party. To this day they'll tell you Franklin Roosevelt was a communist. Civil rights legislation, the clean air act, water quality legislation - it all was said to be a threat to the world as we know it.
Medicare was said to mark the end of freedom in America. It has always been crazy talk. Now is no different.
The worry is when people believe this talk and then violently act on it. We're only six months in, the spittle will get thicker. This is a strain of America that will always be and has always been with us. We're just entering a period when it's very close to the surface.
Franklin Roosevelt was one of the worst if not the worst presidents in history.
He set in motion the gigantic government bureaucracy we unfortunately live with today. In the process he hurt this Republic beyond measure and its effects are still felt.
Among his worst Constitutional violations was his putting of Germans and Japanese in Concentration Camps.
-
It is getting harder and harder to hear what is being said over the spittle. I think though when you look back at historic legislation there has always been this sort of blind rage that is ginned up and fanned. This sort of rage was used to bash the unions from the turn of the last century to today. On the other side of the coin from the rage is the cheering e.g for anti-sedition laws, the Patriot Act. John Rockefeller Jr. was burned in effigy for proposing the Grand Tetons National Park. I think this rage will be just as hard to understand 100 years from now.
It will be well understood. The majority of people in the country are against this but yet this Administration wants to trample right over the people on it
Teddy Roosevelt was driven out of the Republican Party. To this day they'll tell you Franklin Roosevelt was a communist. Civil rights legislation, the clean air act, water quality legislation - it all was said to be a threat to the world as we know it.
Medicare was said to mark the end of freedom in America. It has always been crazy talk. Now is no different.
The worry is when people believe this talk and then violently act on it. We're only six months in, the spittle will get thicker. This is a strain of America that will always be and has always been with us. We're just entering a period when it's very close to the surface.
Franklin Roosevelt was one of the worst if not the worst presidents in history.
He set in motion the gigantic government bureaucracy we unfortunately live with today. In the process he hurt this Republic beyond measure and its effects are still felt.
Among his worst Constitutional violations was his putting of Germans and Japanese in Concentration Camps.
Yes. For example.
-
People want reform but not this reform when it comes down that is has to be rammed through without the People knowing whats in it and being able to debate it at length.
Could we at least have more time to look and it than he gave to getting a dog for his family? Or is that too much to ask.
If he wants to fix something why not fix medicare instead of wanting to embezzle money from medicare?
Dems control Congress and could easily remove the cap on wages (106,800) that are taxed for medicare. Tax all of those multimillion dollar wages of CEO's
OMG! I agree with BigSky <THUD> ;D
-
Example?
Pure and simple ,the expanded role government has since taken on from the "New Deal".
Which I might add prolonged the depression and in fact when the Supreme Court struck down several key parts of the New Deal he turned around and violated the Spirit and Integrity of the Constitution when he pushed to pack the SC to get a court that would rubber stamp what he wanted even if it was in violation of our Constitution. He openly and deliberately tried to destroy our system of Separation of Powers and violate and destroy the Supreme Courts judicial independence.
-
Without the "New Deal", there was probably no medicare to cover dialysis, and a lot of ESRD patients were probably ending up death without the financial means to do dialysis.
-
Dialysis wasnt covered by Medicare until 1973.
Just a little blast from the very past, well last August anyway.
In a town hall meeting in Virginia Obama said the following about healthcare.
"People say, 'Well, you have this great health care plan, but how are you going to pass it? You know, it failed in '93,' And what I've said is, I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."
My my my how he forgets things.
-
Dialysis wasnt covered by Medicare until 1973.
Just a little blast from the very past, well last August anyway.
In a town hall meeting in Virginia Obama said the following about healthcare.
"People say, 'Well, you have this great health care plan, but how are you going to pass it? You know, it failed in '93,' And what I've said is, I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."
My my my how he forgets things.
But if Medicare wasn't passed in 1964 there wouldn't have been a program to cover ESRD in 1973.
The health insurance reform bills have been going through the committee process - which is on C-SPAN. The big table approach (kinda like Clinton's in '93/'94) doesn't get actual legislation produced. There is a health insurance reform bill in the House http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text) which should go to the floor in September. And eventually there will be a bill brought to the Senate floor. Both of those processes will unfold on C-SPAN.
Not that anyone watches C-SPAN.
-
Except that is not what Obama said.
-
Except that is not what Obama said.
Stop the presses - a politician isn't following every detail of what he said during a campaign.
The election was less than a year ago. Healthcare reform was a major topic. The House bill and what sounds to be coming out of Senate Finance is pretty much what Obama proposed during the campaign. He was elected to get reform through and enacted into law. As others have said supposedly all politicians of both parties are in favor of fixing/reforming/improving healthcare - no President since LBJ has succeeded. What stopped the Rs from 2001 to 2007?
I think the voters who supported Obama want legislation introduced and passed. It looks like legislation will come to a vote in both Houses of Congress; that is more than anyone else has been able to accomplish. I have a feeling this is going to be like the Stimulus bill, the Sotomayor confirmation, cash for clunkers - there is all this fury on the right and in the end two thirds of the country's Senator's vote for passage and the angry 30% gets another grievance to add to their growing list of ways the whole world is now wrecked.
The only question is can the Democrats whip 60 or more votes in the Senate or does the bill just go through reconciliation. They'll get a bill to the floor and if Kennedy and Byrd make dramatic appearances you could see 66 to 70 votes in favor. Look what happened last year in the Senate on HR6331 which passed with a veto proof majority because, it is said, Kennedy made a dramatic entrance.
Back to the seeming point of this thread - after the bill is passed and signed into law the angry 30% will still be angry. I don't think there is a single thing anyone can do about it. Electorally they're impotent which means they might devolve into something like code pink and make asses of themselves at hearings, speeches and town halls or ... ? What do you think will be next for the angry 30% after they loose this legislative battle?
-
Hmm but yet who was the politician who touted "change".
As to your fictitious 30% claim, in reality more people are against this than are for it.
Its very clear from the town hall meetings that the people in Congress are not listening to the concerns of the People.
One example, In our State 58% opposed the Sotomayor confirmation yet the two asshats we have in Congress who are suppose to Represent the people of this State (well at least they claim that is their job) voted for her to be confirmed. They chose to ignore the will of the people in this State and follow like lemmings what the National Party told them to do.
I will admit bill, you might be right that it will go like the stimulus bill, sotomayor confirmation or the cash for clunkers.
Only 37% of the People supported the stimulus bill-----Rasmussen
Only 47% of the People supported Sotomayor confirmation----CNN
Only 35% of the People supported the cash for clunkers program.------Rasmussen
Hmm and according to the WSJ only 36% said Obamas health care plan was a good idea.
Seems to be quit the pattern of lack of support by the people.
-
Dems are the ones who originally held up the bill from passing. The blue dogs.
But the obama administration is at odds with each other yet again.
Boxer and pelosi say one thing Obama says another ect ect ect.
Remember Pelosi saying we will vote for this before the summer recess over and over and over.
Yes they wanted to push this healthcare reform through the house and senate yet again UNREAD just to pass it and then let the chips fall where they may.
The people even many DEMS are against this fast approach. I am glad not everyone just follows Obama lock step.
Now they want to raise the debt ceiling from if i recall 13.7 TRILLION to a much higher number. This from tim giether on friday at the end of the day.
Do people who support all of obamas agenda not understand this is not free money. It has to be paid back and as it is we will be paying this money back for the next twenty years with interest. Not to mention we still have to live and survive before them 20 years are up.
The angry 30% you say bill?
Why when the dems do a rally it is a community event when repubs do it it is an angry mob. This is laughable. Short term memory for so many democrats. It was ok to bash Bush but dont tread on Oboma for it is a sin and he is taking names making threats and sending out the unions to bully people. This is the TRUE democratic way and sadly enough Obama supports these tactics instead of trying to calm the fire.
Remember the conventions. The republicans had nice rallied opposing obama peaceful protests if you will.
Then when the democrats went to the Republican convention they lit fires threatened people (regular people like you and me with there children at there sides) saying you better vote obama. They smashed windows caused general havoc ect ect.
Yet dems are community leaders and civil while republicans are mobs.
And to say only 30% are against obama care just shows how one sided some truly are. Read any poll other then the leftsided polls your reading and see the real numbers.
Lets keep facts facts. The ONLY reasn this bil hasnt passed is due to the BLUEDOG Democrats not any other reason. Pelosi and reid had fits of rage due to these democrats not following there agenda.
But obama and pelosi are doing there best to blame MOBS of angry republicans for the failure of this bill passing UNREAD and before summer recess. They did there best to keep this out of the hands of american people to debate.
-
The reason they wanted to get bills out of committee before the Aug recess was so you could read them. Pelosi is in charge of the House - their bill is sitting right there on the internet for anyone to read. If you want to be disappointed with someone how about Baucus who didn't get a bill out of the Senate Finance Committee. This is the legislative process. I think for a lot of people this is the first time they have really watched as a major bill comes to a vote.
If you want to use polling to support your position please feel free (but I seem to remember oh about ten months ago and for eight years before that polling was suppose to be meaningless) but please link to the full poll so we can see how the question was asked. The result of opinion surveys depends entirely on how you ask the question - if you ask:
q49Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?" 2/3 say Yes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/ju...th_care-AM.pdf
Two thirds is a substantial majority in American Politics.
The other thing that I would remind you of is that in our system it is not enough to be against policy or a political party, you also have to have a politically viable party that could get into office and enact different policies. Look at the polling on the Republican Party right now:
q38 Regardless of how you usually vote, who do you think has better ideas about reforming the health care system -- Barack Obama, or the Republicans in Congress?
Total Rep Dem Ind
Barack Obama 55 27 81 48
Republicans 26 52 10 26
Both (vol.) 1 2 2 1
Neither (vol.) 7 9 2 9
DK/NA 11 10 5 16
27% of Republicans think Obama would do a better job (FYI: in polling (vol) means the respondent offered an answer that was not given - they volunteered either both or neither)
-
I dont think i ever said polls were meaningless, with that said i dont rely on them and i agree it is all about how they are worded.
But again i say that it is the BLUEDOG DEMS that have held up any attempt to pass a bill. Not mad mobs, not astroturf not republicans. If not for your own party this bill would have been passed like the others without anyone reading them.
You do realize it is the federal government who runs medicare and social security. And both these operations are gonna be gone in the next few years gone as in broke. You being a big suppoerter of Obama would you agree or disagree with this assertion. Im just curious.
-
:puke; If you watched arlen specter on tv this a.m. at his town hall mtg. in Penn. and if you really listened and thought about his responses to the questions you will know that he is one slick politician and unfortunetly will bam bozzle the people of penn again. One good example of his slickness was his answer to the question about the health care plan providing tax payer money for abortion. His answer (which went unchallenged) "You will be given the option to have your insurance coverage that will not allow payment for abortion and Mabel or Sue or whoever may elect to have abortion coverage but will be charged extra premium for it........................ EXCUSE MEEE. Isnt't the taxpayer paying for this plan Period??????? Several other questions were answered with "very good question ,I will take that back to D.C. with me. And his answer for term limits???? "Well don't the voters have that right now?" If so why did the senate put in term limits for the pres???? The answer is that you can fool some of the people all the time: ergo Penn re-electing specter again and again.
-
You do realize it is the federal government who runs medicare and social security. And both these operations are gonna be gone in the next few years gone as in broke. You being a big suppoerter of Obama would you agree or disagree with this assertion. Im just curious.
I will categorically assert that this is false. I am prepared to say without any hedging that Social Security and Medicare are in no danger of being "gone in the next few years".
But again i say that it is the BLUEDOG DEMS that have held up any attempt to pass a bill. Not mad mobs, not astroturf not republicans. If not for your own party this bill would have been passed like the others without anyone reading them.
I think you are misreading the politics. The Blue Dog coalition is about 50 members strong in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Right now the US House of Representatives has 79 more people in the Democratic caucus compared to the Republican caucus. Do you see the flaw in your analysis?
All the action is in the Senate and again the Senate is an emotional body and they can be swayed if Byrd and Kennedy make appearances. Watch the Senate, the Blue Dogs in the House are not much of a factor. The Blue Dogs can vote in mass against for their own electoral reasons and no one will care.
-
Correct thx for pointing out that the democrats have the MAJORITY not the republicans. Thus they should be able to pass ANY BILL THEY CHOOSE to without much hassle. Thus you can blame whoever you want to the fact is the bluedogs are the MAIN factor for the healthcare bill not being passed already.
And WOW you think Social security and medicare are doing fine and in no danger. I think you are the only person i have heard say this. Even Obama as well as almost every democrat and republican i have heard disagrees with you.
You can also put the US postal service in the group of Government run companies about to go bankrupt if not out of business.
But i ques you will say the Post Offices are doing just fine and are also in no danger.
And our very unofficial poll here seems to disagree along with the majority of Americans with obamacare. As well as the fact the people who are not happy are just ordinary people like you and me.
-
If you want to use polling to support your position please feel free (but I seem to remember oh about ten months ago and for eight years before that polling was suppose to be meaningless) but please link to the full poll so we can see how the question was asked. The result of opinion surveys depends entirely on how you ask the question - if you ask:
q49Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?" 2/3 say Yes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/ju...th_care-AM.pdf
Two thirds is a substantial majority in American Politics.
Two thirds is a substantial majority, but that question is not indicate any support of Obamas plan.
How the question is asked? You are grasping at straws. Its a straight forward question when they ask if its a good idea or bad idea.
As of a couple days ago as per Rasmussen, only 32% favor a single payer system and 57% oppose it.
This thing of passing the bill an they letting the chips fall where they may and their claim they can come back and address stuff is nothing but bull. Government rarely ever goes back and does the right thing and when it does it often takes decades to do it.
If they cannot do the job right the first time, then shouldnt be doing anything.
-
... Government rarely ever goes back and does the right thing and when it does it often takes decades to do it...
Passed:
1988: The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, the largest expansion of the program since the enactment of Medicare, included an outpatient prescription drug benefit and a cap on beneficiaries' out-of-pocket expenses, and expanded hospital and skilled nursing facility benefits. Medicaid began coverage of Medicare premiums and cost-sharing for Medicare beneficiaries with incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level, known as Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMB). The U.S. Bipartisan Commission on Comprehensive Health Care (which became known as "Pepper" Commission after the late Congressman Claude Pepper of Florida) was established to assess the feasibility of a long-term care benefit under Medicare.
Repealed:
1989: The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989 retracted the major provisions of the 1988 Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, including both the outpatient drug benefit and the out-of-pocket limit. QMB benefits were retained.
Lots more information about Medicare legislation at:
http://www.kff.org/medicare/timeline/pf_entire.htm
8)
-
That would be one of those "rare" occasions I mentioned. ;)
-
That would be one of those "rare" occasions I mentioned. ;)
Most major legislation is revisited and "fixed". The civil rights acts of the 50s were strengthened in the 60s. All the clean air and water acts didn't get us to where we needed to be when they were first passed but over the years they've been strengthened. Welfare reform in the '90s had to be revisited. Medicare is revisited yearly. The legislative process is never finished.
For all that's been talked about here there are three parts to the current discussion. The core of the health insurance reform bills are these eight points that will go a long way towards ending the ponzi scheme insurance companies currently run.
The White House lays it out http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/):
- No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history. - No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses. - No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics. - No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill. - No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender. - No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive. - Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26. - Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won’t be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
That would be a lot of very needed reform. That's the insurance reform piece.
Then there is the question of the 40+ million people without insurance.
And third there is the question of how to decrease Medicare/healthcare spending.
The goal is to do all three but I think most people acknowledge that the legislation is not going to be perfect but good legislation will be good enough. Then we'll see legislation building on what is passed.
I think you summed up the Republican point of view exactly right "If they cannot do the job right the first time, then shouldnt be doing anything."
This is why nothing has been done. It's why Kennedy didn't compromise in 1972 with the Nixon administration. It's why insurance companies have been allowed to mine human misery for profits. The goal of immaculate legislation is nothing more than a way to continue without change.
I think, and an electoral majority of the country thinks, keeping things the same is not an acceptable strategy. We had an election about this - the system is working the way it is suppose to work. The legislation doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to be better. ANd that is a very low bar when we're talking about the US system of healthcare finance and access.
-
I for one have private insurance (Kaiser ) and I am not on dialysis yet…. I do worry about losing my insurance, because my insurance company may find some way to drop our plan…. We are a small business and our plan in thru our business…… If I was to lose my insurance now I may have to sell my assets, possible get a divorce and make myself broke... Scares me to death….. And with the Discrimination for pre-existing conditions I would not be able to get other private insurance… I have not cost my insurance company much money…. Yet…..! But I am sure I will once I go on dialysis or get a transplant…… I don’t like rationing but that is the real world... I think there is a fine line between cutting cost and rationing... I know that my insurance company rations ( or whatever you want to call it ) all the time… they set standards for certain things and if you don’t meet those standards well you don’t or won’t receive the treatment or medication.. even if you feel that you need something. I do not follow politics a lot as it can be very confusing for a reason…. What Bill wrote here, laying out some of the health insurance consumer protections to me is exactly what I would need and like to see…. I believe we do need to do something. I don’t like big gov and there certainly has always been problems but there have been many benefits from government actions that have been very positive. We often over look those…. Change is scary but without change we will never move in another direction….. I certainly hope that we do move into this direction with the health insurance consumer protections portion of the bill…..
-
Nothing is "laid" out on that page bill,
That is nothing more than vague statements of which no solid details. Another one of those trust me, I am with the government and know better deals.
We all see how well the government is running the Post Office, how well they are running SS/Medicare. The only thing they are doing is running them into the ground. They are failed business models and the government refuses to act accordingly.
Its pretty clear by the lack of support for these 5 various bills in Congress that the people do not think its "good enough" as you put it.
Otherwise if it was there would be no need to try to ram this through in 3 weeks, no need for top democrats to lie about those who are at these town hall meetings and no need for the President to falsly claim that AARP was behind his bill when it has not come out for any bill yet.
I might add that the no cost measure for preventive care statement is a joke. That insurance has to fully cover all such costs? This will send premiums through the roof.
Its like saying that your car insurance should cover preventive care like oil changes.
-
Really the post office? It's been around two hundred years. Because of reliable postal service our economy has reaped huge benefits over the CENTURIES. And yes we are witnessing an age of email and online bill payer and skype and everything else that is the reason I haven't bought stamps in a long time. Of course the post office is going to have to change. They have far less volume, most if it is business bulk mail, closing on Saturdays or Wednesdays is probably a smart way to begin the process of scaling back our mail delivery infrastructure. Is that the post office's fault or should they feel like they failed?
I don't think so.
It is interesting though to look at postal services and think about healthcare. The post office provides a range of mail delivery services. They do not however do anything you might want as far as shipping, etc. Right? They have a menu of services. We don't say shipping services are rationed. It's an opportunity for private companies to provide services beyond what the government provides. Fed Ex isn't going to deliver to you a birthday card from your great Aunt for less than a buck, and the postal service doesn't do all UPS and the rest do. Why is that a problem?
It's a good example of a public private system that provides the public with a diverse range of services. Home delivery for a nominal per letter fee and if you want to get a package to Hong Kong in 24 hours you can do that through any number of private carriers.
And as far as the politics - most people I know like their local post office and mail carrier. The post office is important to people even while we've stopped relying on them for the majority of our communication.
-
Really the post office? It's been around two hundred years. Because of reliable postal service our economy has reaped huge benefits over the CENTURIES. And yes we are witnessing an age of email and online bill payer and skype and everything else that is the reason I haven't bought stamps in a long time. Of course the post office is going to have to change. They have far less volume, most if it is business bulk mail, closing on Saturdays or Wednesdays is probably a smart way to begin the process of scaling back our mail delivery infrastructure. Is that the post office's fault or should they feel like they failed?
I don't think so.
I am not sure length of time is a bragging point for them. In that whole time they have a legally protected monopoly on mail delivery.
Even with having this monopoly they routinely lose money.
Over 5.1 billion in 2007 and 2.8 billion in 2008. Every few years they are having such losses.
They are a failed government business model. They refuse to change. Instead of change they just try to charge more to make up the bulk of the money they spend in excess.
Which you might ask yourself this question bill. If the Post Office has been around for 200 years, why are they renting locations instead of owning them? Everyone knows owning is cheaper than renting, especially long term.
It is interesting though to look at postal services and think about healthcare. The post office provides a range of mail delivery services. They do not however do anything you might want as far as shipping, etc. Right? They have a menu of services. We don't say shipping services are rationed. It's an opportunity for private companies to provide services beyond what the government provides. Fed Ex isn't going to deliver to you a birthday card from your great Aunt for less than a buck, and the postal service doesn't do all UPS and the rest do. Why is that a problem?
The reason Fed Ex and UPS do not deliver that birthday card for less than a buck is because they are prohibited by the legal monopoly that the Postal Service has on mail. Hence you want to mail that card through Fed Ex or UPS you have to mail it at box shipping rates or by express mail.
-
Dear Tyefly, all the time that I worked at Kaiser, I never saw rationing. I was not prohibited from doing what was right for my patients. Sure, there were roadblocks occassionally but any system you must learn how to get around them and play the system. In fact, you have access to both NxStage and in center nocturnal dialysis. Kaiser is certainly not a perfect system, but it is the system that let me dialyze at an FMC unit with an exclusive agreement with Kaiser that achieved a 7% mortality rate in 2008.
I understand the issues of losing insurance which hopefully you will never experience. Most of what you need at Kaiser is to find a doctor who will put up with the administrations harranging and simply do what is right. I simply developed thick skin and plodded on trying to do what was right for all of my patients to the best of my ability. In a system with out right rationing, I would never have been able to do what I did. Kaiser is quite sly to not have prior approval for most tests or treatments done with in the system but only after the fact discusses with the doctor how they compare to their colleagues. It is a very powerful tool, but nevertheless, it is after the fact not before.
So, I do take issue with saying that Kaiser rations care. I feel confident that at the present time, there are no treatments that I could not get somewhere with in my system. I have seen that happen with many of my patients to know it is true. In fact, here in California, there are state laws placing the HMO at great risk for denying state of the art care. If it is not done within Kaiser, then by law, Kaiser must contract to a source outside to obtain the needed treatments or testing.
The only area that gets gray are those that are deemed experimental. Kaiser has a very conservative process in adopting new technologies. Sometimes that is for good and others in my opinion not. Once again, I really can't agree with the statement that Kaiser rations care. There are many Kaiser guidelines which many times are exceeded on the judgement of the treating physician. As I have stated before, it is my fear in the current house bill that as a physician, if I was still practicing, I don't believe that I could have delivered the same amount of care that I have because it appears to me that my authority to supercede the guidelines would be eliminated. If I am not correct on this assertion, then let me stand corrected.
-
Bill republicans dont say if they cant do it right the first time dont do anything.
They are saying lets fix the system we have in place now.
lets cut costs for all private insurance, pharmaceuticals and cut costs for medicare.
This sounds good right?
With the money we save from these costs why not start a private plan for people who are not coverd. The BIG problem is that people are generally happy with the coverage they have.
And lets not forget all these millions that supposedly dont have coverage well many of them just dont want it.
Many YOUNG people can get insurance from where they work. But they are healthy and dont want to spend 30 or so dollars a week to be coverd.
There is the SCHIP that many parents haven't signed up for coverage for there children but it is there for the taking.
We cant MAKE people take coverage, well not yet anyhows.
As well many seniors who are eligible for medicare have chosen not to sign up for it.
I think it is easy to see we all want change.
We just dont want the government to RUN the healthcare system. It isnt there job. But i would like to see them help get it sorted out and lower costs and keep costs down. This is there job.
Ps. can you show me where SS & medicare are doing fine and are far from going under?
-
I think you are not being told the truth about the NHS in England; it is OK; I dread the idea of a US system.
And I have horrible pictures of what goes on in the US, which may not be true: for EG: what would be happening to me now? No insurance (I didn't have any with my job; but but even if I did, I got ill just after being made redundant), dialysis three times a week; various drugs, and income (Incapacity Benefit) of £90 a week. I have a feeling that I'd be stuffed.
(By the way: there is no age limit on Dialysis on the NHS; most people in the unit I'm in are over 50 - actually, most are over 70. I'm 50, and there's a couple who are the same age or younger.)
-
Aubrey,
If you lived here with no job and were a dialysis patient you would qualify for Meidicare at ANY age. If on medicare you qualify for disability monies since alot of dialysis patients dont work.
-
Bill republicans dont say if they cant do it right the first time dont do anything.
They are saying lets fix the system we have in place now.
lets cut costs for all private insurance, pharmaceuticals and cut costs for medicare.
This sounds good right?
With the money we save from these costs why not start a private plan for people who are not coverd. The BIG problem is that people are generally happy with the coverage they have.
And lets not forget all these millions that supposedly dont have coverage well many of them just dont want it.
Many YOUNG people can get insurance from where they work. But they are healthy and dont want to spend 30 or so dollars a week to be coverd.
There is the SCHIP that many parents haven't signed up for coverage for there children but it is there for the taking.
We cant MAKE people take coverage, well not yet anyhows.
As well many seniors who are eligible for medicare have chosen not to sign up for it.
I think it is easy to see we all want change.
We just dont want the government to RUN the healthcare system. It isnt there job. But i would like to see them help get it sorted out and lower costs and keep costs down. This is there job.
Ps. can you show me where SS & medicare are doing fine and are far from going under?
The Republican's had their chance, their big piece of healthcare legislation was that they passed Medicare Part D (without funding, BTW) and that didn't do any of the things that could make insurance less of a scam. For the last eight years it has gotten worse - more people dropped, more people denied, more people in bankruptcy.
People who don't want insurance won't buy into a public option either. That was the "big difference" between Clinton and Obama during the primaries - Obama didn't say everyone would have health insurance under his plan, he wasn't trying for 100%, But people who are sick, and people who have families, people who work for themselves or in small business who do want insurance should be able to get it at a community risk price.
Obama won the primary and then he talked about the same things that had to be fixed in the general election. McCain had his approach of no employer tax credit, and instead we have health savings accounts ... or something like that. Obama won. And now he is following through on what he said he would do.
Bush said he'd get immigration and Social Security done and that didn't work out too well. So I think the temptation is to think that the same thing can happen to Obama and it could. Time will tell.
I think you are not being told the truth about the NHS in England; it is OK; I dread the idea of a US system.
And I have horrible pictures of what goes on in the US, which may not be true: for EG: what would be happening to me now? No insurance (I didn't have any with my job; but but even if I did, I got ill just after being made redundant), dialysis three times a week; various drugs, and income (Incapacity Benefit) of £90 a week. I have a feeling that I'd be stuffed.
(By the way: there is no age limit on Dialysis on the NHS; most people in the unit I'm in are over 50 - actually, most are over 70. I'm 50, and there's a couple who are the same age or younger.)
The way the Republicans have demonized the health systems of our friends and allies is another of their tactics that relies on misinformation. It's a bit like having a drunken relative show up at the block party and insult all the neighbors. Sorry about that but at least you're in good company Stephen Hawking (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-defends-care-in-the-uk/) was dragged into it too.
-
Dear Bill,
I have been looking at the Canadian system a little closer. There are some aspects of this single payer system that are intriguing to me even a die hard conservative. The interesting aspect is that it is really a universal insurance group with private practice MDs that submit their charges to the single payer system. My sister actually lives in Canada and is a Canadian and American citizen. I asked her about the system which she seems to be happy with.
I would really like to talk directly with some of the doctors to see what it is like to practice and how they are able to deliver their health care services.
On the other hand, what we are seeing put together in Washington would be nothing like the Canadian system. What they are doing in Washington is still a great concern to me. Especially the sweetheart deal with pharma.
About 10 years ago, pharmaceutical costs outpaced inpatient medical costs for the first time with Kaiser. If Obama is making sweetheart deals with these folks, there will be no cost containment or real reform.
I am also not happy seeing all of the doctors demonized by our president over and over again. I understand that there are some greedy docs out there and I did encounter them from time to time, but the average hardworking doc just wants to do the best job that they can. The facts that President Obama used in his I believe Portsmouth town hall meeting are absurdly incorrect. Claiming that an ortho doc makes $50,000 for amputating a foot when it is in the range of $1000 does not help this debate.
As always your comments are greatly appreciated.
-
People who don't want insurance won't buy into a public option either. That was the "big difference" between Clinton and Obama during the primaries - Obama didn't say everyone would have health insurance under his plan, he wasn't trying for 100%, But people who are sick, and people who have families, people who work for themselves or in small business who do want insurance should be able to get it at a community risk price.
He didnt have say it.
It says it in the boondoggle of bills.
Either have it or be singled out for extra taxes against your income.
-
Peter I agree that overpaying for drugs is a luxury we can no longer afford. They say negotiating the price of drugs would stifle innovation but I think we shouldn't pay for research by over paying for pharmaceuticals. We can fund research separately and to better effect, than by handing sacks of money to Amgen et al. Alas, that's not on the table, it has been kept off the table since the Part D legislation passed so to reverse it I think you'd have to repeal the previous law which makes the politics harder.
Generally I would say we'd be better off paying for things directly. Rather than over paying in the name of some good. Over paying hospital fees so they can provide charity care is another example. Better to get people covered under their own insurance at a community rate.
I don't think the President is demonizing doctors by pointing out the difference practice patterns make in cost of care. He wants more Mayos and Kaisers, and fewer McAllens. I think a system that standardized insurance would allow doctors to be doctors. Isn't that what Kaiser does?
-
Bill, thank you for the input, Perhaps the two of us are actually closer in agreement on health care reform than we may of thought at the outset.
Kaiser did offer me the authority to manage all of my patients according to the dictates of my ethics. It is certainly not a perfect system, but while I was practicing, I came to the understanding that the patient outcomes were my responsibility and depending on guidelines did not offer a defense in the event of a bad outcome. Some doctors may not understand this situation as well as they should. Having the doctor in control ultimately even with retrospective review that does indeed place pressure to reduce overall expenditures, but not specific expenditures review is the only system that will allow continued patient based ethics to prevail. Any plan that takes away the authority of the individual doctor to treat to their best ability an individual patient I would always stand opposed. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues are businessmen and not defenders of a profession any more. I was taught that being a doctor is a privilege. I readily admit that many do not treat it in that manner any more.
I do find it irresponsible on President Obama's part to use false examples which many will never understand are false. So likewise did the American Board of Surgeons take umbrage with his comments. There is already enough polarization of the issues in the media that we don't need that kind of rhetoric from the person who is supposed to be taking the high ground of leadership on these issues. It will only lead to more mistrust on the part of those the distrust the entire process in Washington who oppose health care reform. It is just not helpful to his cause in my mind.
Perhaps there is a system that could be ideal, but I don't know if the current process in Washington will come anywhere near that goal. Taking pharma off the block is just not going to get us where we need to be. Placing a disproportionate share on dubious claims against doctors will not get us there either.
-
Peter
The rationing that I was referring to was due to my personal experience with a doctor who told me that they could only write 12 prescriptions of a certain medication per year… And if she was to give me that particular prescription than someone else may not be able to get that prescription. That was difficult for me to believe and she made me feel guilty when I had requested the prescription.. This prescription was expensive. Now this was done 10 years ago but I never forgot… I am a member of Kaiser, an outsider who can only develop my opinion based on my own experiences and a few from others (that have Kaiser) who have had some difficulties at times. I do believe that you have the inside story and I am confident that you do know much more than I will ever know about how Kaiser works. It’s just two different views. I think the word rationing is in itself a word or concept that can have different meaning to many of us, and that may be the problem with a lot of people. I chose Kaiser as my insurance company and I have had Kaiser most of my life. I would not choose another insurance group because of my experience with Kaiser which has been more positive than negative experiences. I think that when it comes to the whole health care reform most people don’t really understand everything that is before us. There are certain key concepts that we don’t understand and then we worry about them and that becomes the main focus. I want the best health care I can buy and I want to be able to use it when I really need it ….. Like now….. All these years of payments to the system and yet I worry about losing my health care….. I never did until I became sick… I believe the Kaiser system is better now than in years past. I remember when we use to have to wait for months before we could get an appointment. Now I can get my labs online and email my doctor any day of the week….Have telephone conversations ….. I love it….and I want to keep it….
So I do agree with you about one thing (many things in reality ) having doctors that care about their patients and those that can work within the system to help the members achieve our goals in health is a very valuable tool. I just wish we had more like yourself who do care about the system and the people..
Thanks again for your insight….. Kathy
-
Dear Tyefly. The physician that told you she could only give so many prescriptions is expressing the wishes of the administration not through direct prohibition to you specifically, but within the confines of population management that we are now rated on. The perverse nature of this relationship is that there is never an overt denial of any procedure/treatment by the administrator. Instead, they play a word game of saying you can order whatever is needed for any patient. Thus, the doctor is still the final arbiter of responsibility and not some administrator. There are obviously exceptions to this. She most likely got the figure of 12/year from statistics comparing the doctors average usage of different medications. What happens is that each time the figures come out, the old standard now becomes the high range. In this sense, over time, it becomes a very powerful tool to reduce usage of expensive medications throughout an entire clinic.
I know some of the old time docs near to retirement completely ignored these data sets and simply kept practicing on an individual basis. Yes, there are many pressures placed on doctors to comply, but at Kaiser it is almost always retroactive.
I simply developed thick skin and did what I thought was best for my patients. I had many opportunities to hear about things that I had ordered after the fact. Bottom line, the doctor is still in charge and responsible for the health care that they deliver no matter what the pressures exerted. Once a doctor is partner, at the time I practiced, only overt acts of failure were disciplined.
How do you make the choice on which 12 people get the medicine you were seeking? I simply tried to give what I thought was the best medicine for the situation, no matter what I had given to other patients. It is simply the difference between individual patient based outcomes vs population based outcomes. You had an explicit example of a doctor that was putting the population before you. That is not unique to Kaiser. It is the new medical ethic that is already entrenched. It is not a Republican thing or a Democratic thing. It is the new reality of medicine.
This is even more insidious than outright rationing. I believe that the ethics of medicine in the medical schools has indoctrinated a new generation of doctors who actually think in this light. I have been fighting it for over ten years as have many of other colleagues who practice by the old fashioned ethics. It seems to be rationing in a sense, but I suspect that it has an even deeper level of philosophical attachment. I stand in opposition to this new medical ethics as I did recently in a post on DSEN.
As I said above, this new medical ethics goes beyond political boundaries since both Republicans and Democrats adhere to them. I believe patients have sensed something different about medical practice but did not understand how entrenched it is already. For those of us in the trenches, we noticed it coming to a forefront in the mid 1990's. It is now the standard of practice.
So another long round about answer, it is not rationing since there are no actual overt admonitions on any specific patient, it is left completely at the discretion of the doctor. Yet, the doctors are very aware of population management issues as well as their own utilization profiles. The heat in the kitchen is being turned up high on all of the doctors. Full responsibility for the patient and full responsibility for their population they manage. It is a perverse conflict thrown at the feet of the doctor based on a new medical ethic. The administrator thus do not set actual goals, nor rationing guidelines. They instead use the simple bell curve and showing each doctor where they are on that curve.
There are ways for the doctors to counter these stats, but it takes quite a bit of thought and documentation practices. One of the ways is to make sure you always document the denominator to give you a larger numerator and still maintain an in range percentage compared to your colleagues. In any case, that is the way the game is played. Not fun in any manner at all. But it is not rationing in the same sense as Oregon did in its public health coverage. Similar, but different.
http://www.billpeckham.com/from_the_sharp_end_of_the/2009/08/the-new-medical-ethics-population-based-outcomes.html
-
Depending on what news channel's you watch you will get a variety of ways people are looking at the debates on healthcare, cap and trade ect ect.
It seems it is ok for Obama and his PLANNED community activists to plan weeks ahead of time to go out and protest. Groups like Acorn who have professionally made signs and intimidate people and are called community activists are ok.
But if a grass roots movement of people with hand made signs goes to protest's like the tea parties or recently people at town hall meetings try to express there opinions it has to be that they were forced to do so and are only doing so out of hatred.
They (many democrats and the President) say it is FAKE and Manufactured and it isn't real people but puppets ect ect. They are to well dressed to be real people, maybe people on there way to work? Maybe if they all had on red shirts that said acorn it would be a different news story.
So i wanted to see a vote to get opinions from REAL people like us.
Are people who disagree with the president Bad people? Are we fake? Should we not be heard? Is he not our president or just the president to those who agree with him?
Do you believe that brandishing a firearm in proximity of the president (or any elected official) is an acceptable way of expressing opposition to their politics?
-
Do you believe that brandishing a firearm in proximity of the president (or any elected official) is an acceptable way of expressing opposition to their politics?
Tsk tsk, the old fear and hate you have against "the People" using their Constitutional Rights is showing.
-
??
Bill where did this come from 12 days later?
I own guns i am for gun rights i am for responsable gun owners i am for the right to protect myself and my family, i am for the constitution.
Would i bring a gun to where a politician is at NO.
Would i bring a gun to a state park NO (unless there was a shooting range there.
Would i bring a gun to a school NO.
Would i bring a gun when i go to Trenton or camden or philly for business or pleasure YES. (that is the protection thing).
-
Dear Bigsky and Bill. I grew up in Alaska and my father provided for our family by hunting. As a minister, his meager salary only covered the basics. We had caribou, moose, rabbit and sometimes bear, but always a freezer full of salmon we caught ourself. For anyone that has lived in Alaska, this is the common and usual manner in which most people provide for their families up there.
I have since given up hunting myself, but I still own guns and I completely believe in the right to own and bear arms.
However, it is really stupid in my opinion for nut jobs to show up at a presidential rally with rifles. What are they trying to prove? It only hurts the defense of gun ownership in the long run. Just as anarchists don't represent the average democrat looking for political reforms, nor likewise do people like this represent the majority of us law abiding citizens that wish to have the right to protect our families when in wilderness settings or even in large cities with other predators stalking the people. I have lived side by side with North America's largest predators and I would always prefer to have a big stick to deal with them if they should ever present that situation.
So, I really can't see any justification for defending people that are provoking an issue that does not need to be provoked by bringing rifles to a political meeting. It is just plain stupid in my mind and only hurts the cause of people like myself that defend the right to have these rifles in the first place. Just my opinion.
-
The Secret Service were asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president and the spokesman for the US Secret Service, Ed Donovan, said "Of course not."
-
Do you believe that brandishing a firearm in proximity of the president (or any elected official) is an acceptable way of expressing opposition to their politics?
Tsk tsk, the old fear and hate you have against "the People" using their Constitutional Rights is showing.
I don't think asking a question evinces hate. I think Pk and Hemodoc answered as I would - I wouldn't bring my gun to any sort of political rally. That doesn't mean I can't, it means I think it is not an acceptable way of expressing opposition to someone's politics. We have a bloody history of political violence in this country, referencing it to make a political point is wrong and unAmerican.
-
Do you believe that brandishing a firearm in proximity of the president (or any elected official) is an acceptable way of expressing opposition to their politics?
Tsk tsk, the old fear and hate you have against "the People" using their Constitutional Rights is showing.
I don't think asking a question evinces hate. I think Pk and Hemodoc answered as I would - I wouldn't bring my gun to any sort of political rally. That doesn't mean I can't, it means I think it is not an acceptable way of expressing opposition to someone's politics. We have a bloody history of political violence in this country, referencing it to make a political point is wrong and unAmerican.
Carrying a gun makes no reference to any political violence and in fact the guy was not brandishing it as you tried to claim. It was strapped into his holster.
In fact the guy was on private property and down the road from where Obama was, was he not?
In fact he passed a background check by the FBI did he not?
As to opposition to politics. You might well note the guy did nothing but use his Constitutional Rights which cannot be said about those who support Obamas politics who have recently committed assault and battery on someone opposed to Obamas politics.
-
There were at least 12 people with guns outside the VFW event in Phoenix.
http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1200460
You are deluding yourself if you believe carrying guns at political rallies makes no reference to political violence.
-
There were at least 12 people with guns outside the VFW event in Phoenix.
http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1200460
You are deluding yourself if you believe carrying guns at political rallies makes no reference to political violence.
Keep it up with that fear of firearms and people using their Constitutional Rights bill. :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
From the guy who actually was carrying the Rifle and at no point did he reference political violence.
http://www.breitbart.tv/exercising-my-rights-man-explains-why-he-carried-rifle-near-obama-event/
Notice the article you posted no armed individuals showed up in Montana, well except for those brought by Obama which btw violated our State Constitution,not a big deal, but not throwing a fit about that are you.
I might add where was your outrage when the Black Panther members marched on the 2000 Republican Convention in Texas with AK-47's.
-
Bigsk, just because someone has the "right" to do something does not make it a smart thing to do. It creates a polarizing effect that over time could lead to the exact opposite effect of what the man intended.
I agree with Bill, guns and political rallys just don't mix. Keep your right to bear arms by doing it in a responsible manner. The protest was over health care, not guns. Just not appropriate in my view. It is hard to defend people when they act in a stupid manner.
Mind you, I and my wife are both members of the NRA. I truly appreciate being able to have guns for my personal protection as well as for defense against predators in the woods. Nevertheless, actions like bringing a weapon to a political rally are just going to provoke a backlash and lead to unintended effects. Just plain stupid way of exercising your rights. A whole lot more of such actions will lead to more ammunition (sorry for the pun) to restrict these rights. Just plain stupid way to protest in my opinion. Bill has you on this one Bigsky. Sorry, but it is just a dumb, dumb thing to do.
-
Oh I am quite sure those who hate the Constitution and those who exercise their Rights will try to restrict it. Those against guns will use any excuse to try to disarm the citizens and turn them into subjects.
It is when people do not exercise their Rights that they lose them.
This issue bears that out. In those States that have it, very few people exercise their Right to Open Carry. As such you get hysteria over those exercising their Right as demonstrated on this board.
The guy in NH was not brandishing his firearm as was falsely and deliberately suggested on this board.
These people in AZ as the Police had said were peaceful and broke no laws. They were law abiding citizens.
That is how the system is suppose to work. People exercise their Rights and break no laws.
-
I don't understand this gun thing at all.
I live in Lambeth (London), about two miles away from Brixton and Peckham, which are the two big gang places round here (though there are more), and the idea of having a gun - for any reason - is so alien to me that I don't know how to express it. I would not even know how to get one.
By the way, the people demonstrating against Obama might be regular people, but they are wrong. They have been lied to about the British Health Service, and for some reason they believe the lies.
I really object to the things that some people have been saying about the NHS (inc some dozy Conservative, who has probably never even used it - you don't have to, you know).
Last week I might have had to go into hospital (though I didn't). I was a bit annoyed about this, but not worried about how I'd pay. People do not worry about paying for treatment here. We don't have to claim for it, either. No one goes bankrupt through having to pay for treatment. No one even thinks about payment, or of whether the insurance company will accept a claim. It is not something that bothers us.
If you want to stick to what you have, fine (though for God's sake, why?) but do not tell lies about our system.
-
I don't understand this gun thing at all.
I live in Lambeth (London), about two miles away from Brixton and Peckham, which are the two big gang places round here (though there are more), and the idea of having a gun - for any reason - is so alien to me that I don't know how to express it. I would not even know how to get one
Owning a firearm is a right in the USA - thankfully. :usaflag;
AS for healthcare- I have come around to thinking it should be a right- I didn't used to think that way- but after hearing the struggle of so many people here- who have lost virtually everything because of medical bills, it isn't a fair system. People should not have to lose everything they have worked for because of illness. I will gladly pay more taxes so everyone can have healthcare. But the thought of our wasteful government/greedy politicians being in charge is scary.
-
We do pay for it in the long run - but you have to accept higher taxes for it. It's not uncommon here to be paying over 50% of what you earn in tax. There's 40% you pay straight off (if you earn over $70k), then we have 12.5% goods and services tax on top for everyone. What's the taxes on your incomes in America? Ours is less if you earn less of course.
-
What's the taxes on your incomes in America?
It's a very complicated issue, because there are allowances and deductibles, but to make it simple:
Federal Income Tax
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/151.html
Single Filing Status
10% on income between $0 and $8,350
15% on the income between $8,350 and $33,950
25% on the income between $33,950 and $82,250
28% on the income between $82,250 and $171,550
33% on the income between $171,550 and $372,950
35% on the income over $372,950
Then individual States may have an additional income tax, ranging from 1 % up to 11 %
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/228.html
In addition ...
Social Security is 12.4%, half of that amount is paid by the individual and the other half by the employer. (Up to incomes of $106,800.)
Medicare is 2.9%, half of that amount is paid by the individual and the other half by the employer.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/24682.html
8)
-
So we are paying - we're just paying differently. A person here on $70 is paying 40% - in the use would still only be paying 25%. That's a huge difference.
-
So we are paying - we're just paying differently. A person here on $70 is paying 40% - in the use would still only be paying 25%. That's a huge difference.
its 25% for federal taxes
then dont forget state taxes from 1% to 11%
then 6.2% for Social Security
1.45 % for Medicare
that puts the tax on 70000 at between 32.65% and 43.65% depending on what state you live in.
Do you guys have sales taxes and gas taxes, luxury taxes, cigg taxes, capital gains taxes? I am just curious .... Its a wonder how any of us can pay the mortgage- Do you guys pay alot for energy? Like electricity? I know you pay triple what we do for gas- so I guess they must tax that too over there?
Do they tax food? and do they tax soda and candy? ( I heard some talk about that recently here) just curious.
-
Yes we have one tax called gst which is on absolutely everything. Every good, and every service gets 12.5% added onto it. Our energy is expensive too - we pay 18 -20c per kw. But it's really pretty here ha ha.
-
But it's really pretty here ha ha.
Gotta love a gal who always finds the silver lining!!! :2thumbsup;
-
Yes we have one tax called gst which is on absolutely everything. Every good, and every service gets 12.5% added onto it. Our energy is expensive too - we pay 18 -20c per kw. But it's really pretty here ha ha.
so it comes out about 60% in taxes- holy crap- how on earth do you live?
-
I think our general food etc is cheaper - it certainly felt that way when I was in the US...although that's mainly cos our $ is only worth about 67c US. I guess we just get used to it. And then think of our education and health care as free. lol.