Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Seriously | Americans Aren’t The Only People Next »
How can our health care be cheaper than yours and still be better than yours?
Simple. You Yanks spend half the money on lawyers and insurance companies.
(Jean Chrétien)
To be fair, we haven’t been kind to you guys.
Picture by: dunno source Caption by: EWAdams via Advanced Lol Builder
 | froofrou on Giggity Giggity |
 | Pleasant Troll on And then the nasty ol… |
 | Chandu The Neopolita… on Giggity Giggity |
 | The Amazing Rando on Mr. Yang Was Just Asked |
| The Amazing Rando on Giggity Giggity |
| The Amazing Rando on Giggity Giggity |
 | wickets ebil twin on Giggity Giggity |
 | Bix Nood on Mr. Yang Was Just Asked |
 | suicide_blonde on Mr. Yang Was Just Asked |
| suicide_blonde on Giggity Giggity |
Cheezburger Network Blog
Win.
I gotta agree with you there.
Unfortunately each side only wants to fix half the problem. The Republicans only want to fix the lawsuits, and the Democrats only want to fix the insurance companies. And neither will fix the rising cost of healthCARE.
Simple fix. Put the Democrats and the Republicans in a blender together and the result will work at fixing both halves!
Ground up poop is still poop.
That may be, but ground up politicians are dead politicians. When they’re dead they stop bickering!
Right now, the mood for dead politicians in this country is high, on both sides of the isle.
Ground up politicians would make for good fertilizer. Use it on vegetable fields, improve the diet of all Americans–health care!!
—
OK, I tried!
Soylent wheat FTW?
SOYLENT WHEAT IS MADE OF PEOPLE!!! IT’S MADE OF PEEEEOOOOPPPLLLEEEE!!!
Also, it’s loaded with gluten, so those with allergies should avoid it.
Are you sure they stop?
Well, I’m sure there’s plenty of time in hell to continue their bickering since they have an eternity and all.
that would make a pinkish orange protein shake that would be good for everyone!
Both sides should just address the fact that Americans are SO NOT getting your money’s worth. Poor sods.
Sorry, but it isn’t better. Look at colon cancer. Canada has a 47% five year mortality rate, the U.S. has 38% five year mortality rate. That 9% difference is thousands of lives a year.
Yeah, but the overall life expectancy in Canada is years more than the US. I guess we will just have to cross our fingers we don’t get colon cancer. But overall, it’s still better.
The reason for this is that Americans are getting more colonics, thus keeping their bowels sane, whereas the canadians never think of flushing out all that maplesyrup.
that visual just ruined my appetite
You’ve just ruined my pancakes for the next year!
… which is most likely due to lifestyle issues, especially diet.
I’ll give you that it might be partly the case, as I haven’t seen what Canada’s overall lifestyle is like compared to the US. That doesn’t change the fact that health care here is only the best in the world if you’ve got the dough to pay for the best in the world. For the rest of us, it’s a little hit or miss.
Here’s the thing though – there’s no obvious link I’ve heard of between quality of actual care and outcomes that shows a relative negative for US healthcare. On the other hand, the US is well know for it’s plentiful herds of obese people…
Yeah, those abyss people suck your statistics down.
It’s a hole separate issue!
I can certainly dig that. Sounds dirty.
How can you joke about such a grave topic?
Tomb many people ignore it’s importance. Don’t want it to get buried on page 8 so to speak.
This thread is killing me.
*pours the tea*
Cream, mate?
Canada, on the other hand, is known for its svelte swimsuit models.
Do you have ANY idea how much coffee hurts when it’s blown out of your nose? Well DO YOU?
I’ve got screen protectors on sale today…..
A screen protector won’t help the scalded interior of my nasal cavities. *sniff*
Ah, but in Canada, you could just pop down to the doctor’s office and get that nose fixed for free!
In Soviet Canada, nose fixes YOU!
All that damn maple syrup and Molson…c’mon, they’ve gotta look just like us! Except for the hockey players of course.
Could be because healthy foods are so much more expensive, or because it takes time to prepare healthy foods and many middle to lower income families have to have two wage slaves in the family to meet the bills, or it could be because of the lack of time for exercise because of the problem listed above, or it could be because so many people of lost hope in thier situation that they give up hope on climbing the social ladder as well as health.
There are so many reasons why we have overweight people, and I can spin them all to show how they were caused by bourgeoisie elitism.
Or it could be because they eat too much!
I am sure that contributes to some of the cases, but like i said, I can spin em all!
They eat too much because they give up hope?
Hmmm.
I’ve seen it happen. Lose that promotion, lose that gf, lose that career path, get that lay off…. its Miller time or Baskin Robbins time
It’s Jack & Coke time. Or it’s Ben & Jerry’s time. I’m an elitist, you know. *smirk*
pats blue ribbon and a white box labled “ice cream, vanilla flavorish”
“It’s not vanilla ice cream! It’s just frozen cottage cheese! EWWW!!!”
I’m happier with one scoop of Ben & Jerry’s or other really good ice cream than a whole damn bowl of sad storebrand crap ice cream that tastes vaguely of freezer. I think the savings on cheap ice cream is illusory.
Life’s too short to eat ice milk.
Actually, I was being a smart-ass. My favorite ice cream in the whole world is Publix Premium (store brand) Bear Claw. But I’m sticking to my guns on that Jack & Coke thing!
wait your ice cream has flavors????
I prefer my Jack straight up. I’ll take a Coke float with Vanilla Bean Ice Cream.
Bein’ from down South, I feel I must elucidate you on the wonders of Blue Bell Ice Cream.
It’s goooooooooooooooood.
And I eat cause I like the taste of food. Food is happy, not sad! Unless it’s a lie… or a spy…
Agreed.. one of the biggest problems in the U.S. are the All-You-Can-Eat places. The only one I can think of that might be worth a damn is Soup or Salad which would be fairly healthy. I can put the food away when I want to, but I learned a long time ago that the AYCE restaraunts are not my friend. I have actually left feeling depressed.
Great idea Eds! I’m having the AYCE salad bar at Ruby Tuesday’s tonight!
Might be all the Kool-Aid you’re drinking…
Man, eating healty is NOT expensive. I eat very healthy (tons of vegetables) with a god damn 35 bucks a week. Try to beat that with junk food.
Probably because in the US it’s easier to get diagnosed if you’re rich and relatively healthy. The poor die without their diseases diagnosed and thus they don’t get into the statistics. It takes health care to get a diagnosis. It takes health care to have your cancer detected. But dying of an undetected cancer is free.
Have to say… 1. We dont say YANKS up there… 2. Lets talk “death panels”. I’ve lived in canada, worked there, been insured there and been a nurse there. Nobody was refused care. No one declared bankruptcy secondary to medical treatment costs. Yeah.. you waited for your knee replacement… but .. i’m betting most folks didn’t die of a bad knee. IN the US… your insurance company has the right to tell you ( and me since I live there now) that they are not going to cover specific treatment for X, Y or Z… which, for some people, constitutes a death sentence. It may take weeks or a couple of years but they will die. Neither is perfect but I still think the one in Canada is more .. .humane.
people from canada love the canadian healthcare system. why don’t people in the U.S. actually listen to the opinions of canadian people before they form their own opinion of universal healthcare.
It’s three years more. They can’t really thank their health care system for that. Look at the obesity rates of Canadians compared to the U.S. 23% of Canadians are obese versus 30% of Americans. The only reason we are even close to Canada for life expectancy is that our health care is so good. Americans smoke, drink, and eat what they want and are still able to live to a ripe old age.
I didn’t get those from Glenn Beck by the way!
Glenn Beck says yes you did.
Did Diane Reams tell you that?
No, apparently Glenn Beck is in my head. Which sucks because he just keeps. fvcking. whining!
Oberman will cure you of that.
Where do you think I learned how to rant?
But shouldn’t a healthcare system focus on keeping people well, rather than pumping them full of prescription drugs to survive? If we’re first in spending, shouldn’t we also be first in overall health?
It’s mostly up to us to keep us well. The choices we make are our own and in the U.S. we are free to eat, drink, and smoke what we want. Well, we can’t legally smoke anything we want…but you get the point. If we want to sit around and do nothing but eat all day and go out drinking and partying at night no one is going to tell us not to. We have a responsiblity to make healthy choices for ourselves if we want to live a long life.
I see your point. Conversely, there was a physician on NPR the other day who said that under the current healthcare system he didn’t feel he had enough time to counsel patients on preventative care…in the end it’s a personal choice whether you want to take care of yourself or not, but people can be influenced by outside factors, such as a personal physician.
It’s also good to keep in mind how our choices affect others…not taking care of one’s self puts a burden on your family, on the health care system, etc.
I agree. America’s got the technology, but our insurance system is all fvked up.
Their rate of colon cancer mortality may be higher than ours, but our newborn mortality rates and pregnancy mortality rates are both higher, as are our mortality rates from accidents, chronic diseases (diabetes, etc.) and communicable diseases (Flu, TB, Hepatitis).
And, despite spending more than any other country on health care, the United States continues to slip further behind other countries.
In 1997, the U.S. ranked 15th. Since then, Finland, Portugal, United Kingdom and Ireland have reduced their mortality rate from disease amenable to care more rapidly than the United States. All now have better rates than the U.S.
Results from a UNICEF study of child well-being, list the U.S. ranked second to last when compared to 21 comparably “rich” countries based on 40 different measures.
So, I guess for those that get colon cancer, they’d be 9% better off to live in the USA.
All newborns, pregnant women, people with chronic or communicable diseases and those with any type of injury would be better off in 20 other places… (for half the cost)
Yup. 1 in 4 pregnancies ends in a loss. That’s a frightening statistic.
That includes miscarriages, stillborns, and I think neonatal death as well. It’s really unfortunate, and why the March of Dimes (my favorite charity) exists.
Cite please.
I’m having trouble finding the actual cite for that, but the statistic comes from the March of Dimes. Funny, I didn’t know that wasn’t common knowledge.
Oh, and I was mistaken above, that’s just miscarriages. That doesn’t include stillborns, premature birth (like my daughter was), or neonatal death.
Well, to be perfectly blunt, doesn’t the Earth already have too many humans on it? Anyways, I believe the high miscarriage rate in the US is more related to pollution standards than our healthcare. Those pesticides and industrial toxins don’t just magically disappear once they’re dumped into the river ya know.
Dude, just shut up now.
I knew that would tick you off, that’s why I kept it brief. I apologize,
You would’ve been fine without the “doesn’t the earth have too many humans on it.” Why even say that?
*remains silent*
Well, a higher rate of early pregnancy detection = a higher reported/perceived miscarriage rate.
My understanding is that it is an “assumed” estimated 25 percent of conceptions don’t “stick” – they don’t properly embed in the uterine wall, or they embed but are lost very early, usually before the woman is aware of it. It’s also referred to as a “chemical pregnancy.” Significantly more of these early losses are male.
OK, my field of teaching, so here is the miscarriage data. If you test for HCG (the early pregnancy hormone), which exists even before most women know they are pregnant, as was done in a scientific study, the miscarriage rate is about 37%. If you go by pregnancies that women do know about, the miscarriage rate drops to 17-18%. And some of those miscarriages occur as late as 4 months.
Yeah, anything up to 20 weeks is considered miscarriage. 20 weeks and after is stillbirth (or premature birth if the baby is born alive. I think that’s right.) That puts the number around 1 in 5. It depends on who you get your statistic from, but either way, those aren’t very good numbers.
How is this relavant to the state of healthcare? Is the lack of or quality of healthcare causing most of the miscarages or is it just a natural part of life? I am curious.
Some of it is a natural part of life. Others are when something goes horribly wrong with the pregnancy. Improper prenatal care can result in miscarriage very easily. Why would women be getting improper prenatal care? Maybe they can’t afford to go to the doctor.
What do you mean by that, Rando? Our definitions of “improper prenatal care” might differ, but I don’t ever recall hearing that improper nutrition, lack of prenatal vitamins, etc. contribute to miscarriage risk.
Here’s a quick link that lists common causes of miscarriage; I don’t see anything there that I’d classify as improper prenatal care.
Good luck with that.
If people had to back up what they say/write with actual unbiased fact or risk being paddled in the genitals the internet and world in general would be for the most part silent…though I can’t really back that up
I was not trying to be an ass or anything. It is just that 1 in 4 or 25% seemed way high and I was wondering what was considered in those statistics. I can see how it could be high if miscarrages where included.
Does that also include abortions?
No, it does not.
That statistic has been stable over the past 50 years. That stat also includes elective abortion, for the record.
Funny, I’ve never heard that.
Check your facts gunny. The newborn mortality rate is self reported and many of the countries use different measures as to if the newborn was reported alive at birth or not. The US reports all newborn mortality births regardless of size, weight, or lenght of pregnancy before birth. Where as other countries do not count those deaths if they are under a certain weight, lenghth or gestation period. But as we live in a free county you are free to move to Cuba if you feel you will get better healthcare there.
Semperfi
Hoo-rah.
Cuba, meh. I get free healthcare here
My point was that the phrase “best healthcare in the world” is false in many ways, and, considering that the phrase “most expensive healthcare in the world” is true, it seems like we should be interested in how EVERY other industrialized country provides better medical care for less money, don’t you think? Just because I ask a question doesn’t mean my 21 years of service to the United States don’t count, so I’d appreciate it if you could refrain from implying that I am unwelcome here. And, incidentally, according to the WHO, they use 40 different types of classifications to come up with their median numbers… But as you seem to have so much more data and information than they do, I will defer to you on the infant mortality rate. That leaves us with pregnancy mortality, accident mortality and illness mortality rates…
I never claimed to have more information than you, I just looked it up on the internet. If you read above someone stated the infant mortality rate in the US is 1 in 5. That counts miscarrages in the first trimester which is probably just a natural thing (I dont have the time nor fortitude to look it up). As for WHO, the study is slanted to favor government run systems.
“For example, there are two sets of rankings. As the Cato report explains: “One ranking claims to measure “overall attainment” (OA) while another claims to measure “overall performance” (OP). These two indices are constructed from the same underlying data, but the OP index is adjusted to reflect a country’s performance relative to how well it theoretically could have performed.”
Using the OP rankings, the United States is number 37. But using the OA rankings, the United States is 15.
As far as most expensive healthcare in the world, a large chunck of the money spent on healthcare that makes up that number is Medicare and Medicaid, both government run entities. Do you really think that the governement can run overall healthcare well when they can’t even run Medicare and Medicaid well?
Yes we have a higher accident mortality rate. How does that equate to bad healthcare? It would seem more directly related to people having more liberty and prosperity. Give everyone in China or India a car and I bet their accident mortality rate would rise.
In short, no our system isnt perfect but dont quote slanted studies to make a point that the whole system needs to be scrapped.
And for the record I never implied that you were unwelcome here. And thank you for your service.
Could be due to the difference in exposure to sunlight. A lack of vitamin D has been strongly associated with an increased risk of colon cancer and multiple sclerosis.
The above post was related to colon cancer rates in Canada vs USA.
Canada counts all kinds of colon cancer in it’s figures. The US chooses the most survivable kinds of cancers, which strangely enough more people survive, and counts them, ignoring the less survivable ones.
The figures are skewed.
Not to mention the fact that some Americans can’t get treated for cancer at all because their insurers say that because cancer can’t be cured on a consistent basis, all cancer treatment is experimental and therefore not covered.
yep, Canada is better than USA, and always will be
i wouldn’t go that far. we got hollywood, vegas and all kinds of happy sinful places.
Yeah, and we got Krispy Kreme donuts!
And we have Ontario, where women can go topless and not be arrested.
But it’s so cold their boobs snap right off.
That mental image has scarred me for life.
Only for six months out of the year…
I’d assume that’s like a nude beach.
In my head it’s AWESOME.
When you get there. NOT so much.
-points- there is NELL CARTER!!
Barbra Streisand! Ewwwwww!!!
WILLIE NELSON!
atleast he is really funny
ahhhhhhhhhhhhh but look AROUND Hollywood. 99.99% of the actors are Canadians. They all go home, all you’ve got is, well, Arnie.
ZOMG EPIC WIN! I never thought of that! +45!
“99.99% of the actors are Canadians”
Is that some “new math” you’re using there?
Internets DEMANDS accurate percentages!
P.S. William Shatner is from Canada. Your argument is invalid!
but captain kirk is from iowa!
shaq is holding a panda?
It’s a Canadian panda.
Go easy…they are Canadian.
Don’t be an ass. How do you know I’m not Canadian?
As a canadian and american whos experienced both health care experiences. Id rather have health care through my job and an insurance company than free healthcare.
At least in the states, when I showed up to a walk in clinic, I may have had to wait, but I was NEVER EVER turned away. Meanwhile – now back up in canada I could have a heel spur, or planar fasciitis and I was TURNED AWAY from 3 seperate clinics. So medicare can kiss my pale white ass.
True. My malpractice insurance is through the roof. Plus the cost of keeping up licenses, and taxes on employees is ridiculous.
You should practice more, then you could get a wellpractice insurance.
For more information, ask a magical elf and/or unicorn.
Don’t be retarded. Unicorns don’t talk.
They do to!
Or I let the cough syrup go bad again…
That wasn’t a unicorn. It was a donkey with an ice cream cone glued to his head. You’ve gotta lay off the cough syrup, yo.
You’re thinking of Ron Paul’s Ice Cream Horse
or of Sean Paul’s I scream whores
I LOL’d.
But it’s so lovely to see all the colors. So vivid. So pretty. So sparkly. Oh, n/m that’s just a vamp from Twilight.
mmmm sparkly
KILL IT!!! KILL IT NOW!!!!!!!!!1
You are thinking of regular unicorns; *magical* ones do.
Besides, even regular unicorns can **point** you to wellpractice insurance; that’s what heir horns are for.
Moran.
You misspelled “moron.” HA!
Apparently they don’t have the magical unicorns here. I bet California has them all. Bastards.
Tisk. Cultural refernce fail.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg
OMG I’ve been internet memed! Why does he have to be wearing a Cardinals shirt? I think I have that shirt actually…
It was a drive by memeing! I got his tag number!
Actually, I made one for you just over a week ago.
)http://cheezburger.com/View.aspx?aid=2721084928(
I favorited it since it’s the only LOL to mention me by name. I want to get mad at it, except it’s so darn accurate.
Ahem. There ARE some other funny ones there. Not all of them are political.
In yours? No, I meant it’s the only LOL ever to refer to me specifically (usually LOLs about specific people are pretty harsh though, not that one though, it was funny). I wasn’t commenting on your other LOLs.
Well, please do! Rate them high, favorite all of them. Get busy. Seriously, you might enjoy some of them.
Tisk. Reference spelling fail.
LOL I just had to say that because Rando pointed out the moran thing.
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
*jumps on back of magical unicorn, rides off into the sunset*
What kind of mileage does that thing get?
two badgers to the click
It’s powered by rainbows!
free range, rainbow fed badgers. it’s the only thing i feed my magical unicorn.
I asked a unicorn and she told me that my human problems were not on her priority list. I don’t have clearence to get into the Keebler factory, so I can’t ask an elf. Got any other suggestions?
File a lawsuit!
I demand restitution! I was told that unicorn would assist me and it refused aid!
*meets with defendent’s attny… Settles for undisclosed amount*
Nevermind. It’s all good.
-grabs his bitter axe- unicorns is tastey!
And why do they call it a practice? I would rather be seeing a doctor that isn’t practicing but knows what they hell they are doing!
Ba-dum-bump!
It comes from some Latin word I never bothered to remember because it doesn’t matter to me. You have to pick you battles – I picked remembering the medical stuff so I would be a good Dr.
Praxis, for doing in the real world. As opposed to just thinking/researching about it…
Geek.
And proud of it!
-offers VG a lambda lambda lambda sweater-
Like the Klingon moon?
Geek..
I prefer the term dork.
And I don’t have Star Trek tattoos for no reason you know..
Personally I would never like a Klingon to moon me, but maybe that’s just me…
As long as you don’t mind waiting for weeks or months. Many Canadians come here to get a procedure done quickly and with better equipment.
I am all for tort reform. It has worked in Texas.
Yes, tort reform is the entire problem with health care. If we do tort reform, then everyone gets affordable health care. It’s like magic!!
*puts on the riot gear* This is gonna get ugly, kids. I recommend a shottie and flamethrower.
Yeah… we should avoid an obvious, relatively simple, understandable reform that would actually reduce cost. After all if it isn’t a complete panacea, it’s worthless.
My problem is that people act like that’s the entire issue, and it’s not. And I do have some concerns about tort reform, specifically figuring out who gets to decide what lawsuits are “frivolous” or not.
Well, that’s no worse than the people that act as though “public option” was the whole issue (as if that even addressed cost, which is supposed to be the “crisis” that Obama wants us to panic over)…
Still, it’s a little scary that tort reform is totally off the table because trial lawyers donate heavily Democratic. (Same thing with the drug companies — collective drug price negotiation could save a lot of people a lot of money, but after Obama’s shady back-room deal with PhRMA, it’s off the table.)
Are you honestly trying to say that it’s only Dems in the Big Pharma pocket? With a straight face??
No, I’m trying to say exactly what I said — in this round of health care reform, effective changes are unfortunately taking a back seat to politics and campaign finances.
With a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, why are you even worried about the Republicans right now?
Actually, it’s not the Dems I’m worried about, per se. It’s the BLUE DOG Dems.
Crap, I messed up my own thought. Let me rephrase;
Actually, it’s not the Republicans or the Democrats I’m worried about, per se. It’s the BLUE DOG Dems.
The ones who will sabotage the Democrats efforts by voting against the party line.
I can’t help but respect anyone who stands up to Rahm and the machine, especially a Democrat.
Rahm. Because every administration needs a designated sleazeball.
…and not everyone can borrow Cheney.
Or Rove.
Or … OH NOES here come the nightmares again.
*goes to bed and cries*
That’s true. Rahm is a mere amateur compared to Cheney & Rove.
Trade you a Maverick for a blue dog….
Oooh, does it have the V8 engine? *dyes her dog blue*
I know where there is one with a 460 cubic inch engine in it. Yellow with a black stripe and BIG honking tires under the back end. (factory engine, 200 cid, V8 302 cid)
*WANTS*
It’s street legal too. In most states, that is. It also has a long hose hanging out the back in for in flight refueling.
If you people really think that ParMHA, drug companies, doctors and lawyers have The Democratic Party in their pockets, why were you all saying the same the thing about the Republicans the past eight years, before O’Bama? And all those decades that Senator Ted Kennedy worked for national health care.
hey guest – know what’s funny? i had skin cancer, you see, and not only am i now no longer able to get health insurance (you know, pre-existing condition and all that) but for the initial treatment of said skin cancer… can you guess? i had to wait almost 4 months. that was for melanoma.
oo oo, here’s another one, i got an infection from a cat scratch, swelled up a lymph node and almost got blood poisoning because, guess what again.. it took them 3 weeks to see me. This incident happened in Hawaii with Kaiser Permanente. The second incident (the skin cancer) was with Aetna and occured in Florida.
I fail to see what’s worse about their system than ours, please do explain because i seriously must be missing something.
But but but Glenn Beck told him Canadian health care was bad! It takes 5 years to be seen for the common cold and everyone dies at age 29 because of socialized medicine! Canada is a 3rd world country now!! /extreme sarcasm
heh… It’s sad when you think the mere invocation of “Glen Beck” means you’ve made some kind of point.
Glenn Beck said to shut up.
I prefer Glenn Fiddich.
Mmmm. Yum!
Um…. when you hear Glenn Beck’s voice… does he tell you to do things? I’m thinking you shouldn’t have stopped your meds…
That’s absolutely nonsense. I never stopped the meds.
DRH’s Law is now in effect…
It is like Goodwin’s Law but with Glenn Beck instead of Hitler.
*snerk*
There are cities in Canada completely without doctors, and others where there is a waiting list to simply be assigned a primary care physician that can take years to finally get off of. Survival rates for most cancers are higher in the U.S. than in Canada despite the insurance problems. Tort reform is the the key to most of the improvements we need, but there is insurance reform needed, too. But the wholesale restructuring envisioned in the Democratic plans are disasters in the making.
There are cities in the US with plenty of doctors, but many patients that cannot be seen by them because they do not have the means.
And I for one voted for the Democratic overhaul. Cheers!
Yay, overhaul! Tort reform would be okay I suppose, but it’s hardly a solution. That’s an oversimplification of the issue. Health care is BROKEN. Shattered. Must be overhauled. Tinkering with it won’t make any major headway in this problem.
Leave those poor torts alone, they don’t need a reform, they got a shell.
There are towns and counties in the US which are seriously under-supplied with physicians. Rural communities are in rough shape.
No, it is a solution to costs, it’s just not a *sole* solution. It’s low-hanging fruit…
And like I’ve said before, too many people are acting like that will fix everything. Or it’s the only thing worth fixing.
no need to say it twice to the same person
But it’s fun! Oh, did you know some people act like tort reform will fix everything?
I hear you brother, but did you also know that some people are saying tort reform will fix everything?
Well, yeah, but that’s not a German flag. It’s a Belgian flag.
Ok, but Einstein was a Socialist, not a Marxist or a Fascist.
Einstein was a MURDERER!!!!!!
You know what, Einstein was a socialist who though tort reform was gonna fix everything, and he owned a Belgian flag.
…a Belgian flag, which he burned in protest of Freedom, and Waffles.
*head asplodes*
There are plenty of cities in the US with no doctors! There are entire counties in many more rural areas that have zero ob-gyns, sometimes forcing people to cross state lines to give birth… And even where there are doctors you will NEVER be put on a waiting list for a primary care physician if you don’t have a good insurance plan.
I don’t have an insurance plan at all, but I have a primary care physician, and he isn’t being paid by the government. I pay him, and I’m far from wealthy. So, yes, you can get a primary care physician without insurance. What’s your next agrument?
If you show up at any emergency room in the U.S., you will get treatment, regardless of your ability to pay. It’s the law. The problem with that is the expense of providing primary care through emergency rooms. It is NOT that you can’t get treatment.
One of the major reasons so many rural areas have few or no doctors is, again, cost. In many cases, the deciding factor in cost is malpractice insurance. If a doctor can’t make enough income to pay for his malpractice insurance AND have a home, food on the table, etc., that doctor must go elsewhere. This is particularly true of OB/GYN specialists, where the malpractice insurance premiums can be outrageous.
Fix the problems with tort law, and you fix a major distortion in the medical market-place. Then, the problems that remain will be easier to identify. Reforming any system to correct problems has to be approached SYSTEMATICALLY, starting with the external distortions and working inward … or tossed and built from scratch. We can’t afford the “toss and re-build” approach, so … start with tort reform and work inward.
If you show up at an emergency room, you will get stabilized, and probably treated (that depends on hospital and state policy). But if treatment would prevent you from having an emergency (and some emergencies are too late…the damage is done), you are S.O.L if you can’t afford treatment.
One of the many reasons that so many rural areas are lacking in health care is 1) the doctors don’t want to live in the sticks, 2) the doctors don’t want to be the ONLY doctor available to take care of too many people, 3) most doctors want access to a full-service hospital…which might not be available in that area.
I agree with you that the malpractice costs for OB/GYN are totally insane. Most of those severe birth defects are a combination of bad luck and weird genetics. However, if the parents are faced with a multiply special-needs kid, who has already ‘maxed out his lifetime health insurance’ at a young age, and they want to give the kid the medical care and education that he will need for a decent life… Well, do you have a decent alternative? Like maybe national healthcare plus good quality special education? And maybe respite care so that the parents can get some sleep while someone else monitors the kid’s breathing monitor for a few hours?
The Social Security system has programs for dealing with the permanently disabled. They aren’t properly funded, and they are, like many Federal programs, rife with fraud. But, they exist. They need to be fixed and extended, so as to provide adequate care of those who need that help. That doesn’t require a restructuring of the entire medical industry.
Medicaid provides not unreasonable care for those who truly can’t afford medical care. Again, it is rife with fraud, like the SSA programs. Local studies have found that many who SHOULD be on Medicaid either aren’t or don’t use it properly. As with the SSA systems, there is a great deal of work required to make the program what it should be … and it isn’t getting done. But, no radical restructuring of the entire medical industry is required to accomplish this.
An effective Medicaid program would significantly help with the emergency care crisis. Part of the problem set that Medicaid can’t address directly is the reluctance of people who should be on it, or who are on it but don’t seek primary medical care as they should. In some cases, people simply fear what they will find in the medical system, and so avoid it until they are in the ER, and, as you said, the damage is done.
But, a tale from where I used to live was a man who showed up at the ER with a heart attack, and no insurance. The hospital treated him as a in-patient for nearly a month before releasing him … as was required by local and state laws. State programs helped with the expenses, but there was no way the man could pay the bills. There is a real need for catastrophic health care coverage of some form to deal with situations like this. I’d just rather deal with the external distortions to the system, including both tort reform and better Federal and state fraud investigation/enforcement. Then we’ll have a better idea what can be affordably accomplished in cases like this. Otherwise, we’re risking breaking the bank, in which case we’ll have far worse problems that an ailing health care system.
A more personal story: My brother was a small town doctor, and traded help with the doctor in a nearby town, so that they both didn’t have the problem you describe. Unfortunately, he couldn’t make a living there, despite loving the town and the people. And, it was a 40 minute drive to a city of roughly half a million, so lack of access to major medical resources wasn’t a problem. The primary problem was malpractice insurance. When he decided to leave, he said he’d calculated that he could stay if the insurance cost were reduced 60 percent. A year later, the doctor he’d tag-teamed with also left.
It ends up being a feed-back loop. As the problems reach critical levels for some doctors, and they leave the rural areas, the strain on those that remain increases. Tipping points are reached in increasing rapidity for each successive practitioner, and soon the rural areas are “abandoned.”
First, you implied earlier that you live in Canada and have first hand knowledge of waiting years to see a primary care physician? If you live in America, where are you getting your information? Second, I am curious to know of a doctor that accepts patients without insurance (unless you can pay for services in advance). People who can do this would not need to buy public medical insurance… Obviously, if you can afford to pay all medical costs in advance, you could also afford pretty good insurance. Unless, of course, you have a pre-existing condition that makes you un-insurable. (Many of these people are the ones forced to use the Emergency Room as their primary care physician). Third, there are a great many things that need to be fixed in the medical industry. Some of the bills going through congress are addressing multiple issues (computerizing medical records to avoid duplicating expensive tests and procedures, using clinical study information to determine which tests and procedures are the most effective, etc. — the public insurance option is but one small part of the equation). I agree that malpractice insurance is ridiculously high for many specialties, but this is due to several things: mainly, doctors refusing to police their peers (doctors absolutely know who the quacks are, who the drug addicts are and who the just plain bad doctors are), and idiot juries who love to ’stick it to the man’ and award money to the little guy (even if the amount is completely unwarranted) – the ‘hot coffee is hot’ award comes immediately to mind.
What cities in Canada have no doctors??
Aaah, always those details.
I have it on good authority that there are no doctors in Montreal. Only médecins.
Windsor, Ontario has no cardiologists that specialize in Congenital heart defects. Only acquired heart defects. We have to travel 2-4 hours to see one. (we can’t just go across the river to Detroit, or we’d have to pay out of pocket.)
However, if I lived in the US, I’d be in serious trouble. I’m waiting for a heart transplant, and I would not even be listed, because I can’t pay $175,000 up front in order to be assessed for transplant. In the US, ability to pay is a criteria. Here I get to live, and get a heart transplant, even though I have to travel to do so.
Hmmm… choice is obvious to me!
Yeah, in Newfoundland we occasionally have to travel for a specialist too (I had to for a cardiologist).
Our immediate reaction?
WOOT! Shopping trip!
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhh, that thing about some cities in Canada not having doctors, that’s actually not true. Some towns, yes.
And there are plenty of towns in the US without doctors. And Canada has lots of cities & towns in it. If you’re in a town with no doctors…go to the next town and find a doctor. The bigger towns here in the STL have plenty of doctors, but out in the boonies, not so much. Hell, it’s hard to find a hospital in Jefferson County, and impossible to find a GOOD one.
Wait wait wait —
There are CITIES in Canada without doctors? Which CITIES would those be? I’ve lived in several Canadian CITIES, and there seem to be plenty of doctors, everywhere. Big CITIES, even smaller CITIES! Now with DOCTORS!
Is it possible that there are SMALL TOWNS in Canada that don’t have doctors? I think that’s possible, very possible.
I was seeing that as a magazine ad for Canada from the 50’s; “Big CITIES, even smaller CITIES! Now with DOCTORS! Wow!” I LOL’d.
“…and in Ontario, TOPLESS DOCTORS!”
Nonono…. no topless doctors… bodily fluid splaces ya know.. ICK.
damnit… “splashes not splaces” *sighs and looks deep into the empty mojito glass*
non of bitter trolls doctors have been hawt doctors like on tv either
May I inquire discreetly, when are you free to take some tea with me?
Let me know if you take her home and nearly make it.
Our system is better because we have better equipment, better facilities, and more doctors. I would have to put an asterisk here that says: Except Hawaii. They are one of the closest states to socialized medicine after all.
If you have a condition that is lifethreatening then we have a little thing called an emergency room. From there you will be admitted into the hospital if the problem is serious enough.
I had my appendix almost rupture and I went to the emergency room at night. The next day they performed laproscopic surgery and saved my life because the care I received was timely.
I never said that tort reform was the only answer. But it is a major problem here.
I would be for a plan that is government subsidized, not government run, that insures people with pre-existing conditions and they can pay in based on how much they earn. I don’t have a problem with that.
Another option would be to force all insurance companies to insure pre-existing conditions, but that would drive up the cost of insurance for everyone.
There are already government programs in place for people who can’t afford insurance, many people who qualify just choose not to have it.
Many expenses that seem outrageous in medicine are to cover the cost of research and developement. Without R&D we wouldn’t have made all the advances in medicine that we have made over the past 100 years. Like it or not, the U.S. is still a leader in the world for developing medical technology, just like we are in military technology. There is a price to be paid for having the best and newest equipment available.
As a conservative, I do think with my brain. I am not, however, without a heart. My niece was diagnosed with a rare cancer a few winters ago and by the next summer she had died at the age of 2. It wasn’t because she was refused treatment or didn’t get it soon enough. She got some of the best care available, but had a very aggressive cancer. I wouldn’t want anyone to be refused care because they couldn’t afford to pay for it or had a pre-existing condition.
I also don’t think that the whole system is broken and needs to be replaced by an ineffecient government-run system. Just fix the problems and keep the system going that is working for 85% of Americans.
The juxtaposition of these two items makes me wonder — if, when you went to the emergency room, they had carelessly misdiagnosed you and sent you home, causing you to suffer a ruptured appendix and peritonitis (and possibly death), would you feel justified in filing a malpractice suit? (Assuming, of course, that you were alive.)
My concern about tort reform is hurting people’s abilities to file necessary lawsuits for malpractice. The definition of “frivolous lawsuits” sounds rather subjective to me. From what I’ve heard, malpractice insurance is even more out of control than health insurance. Maybe they should get THAT under control too. And then we’ll see if doctors and hospitals actually cut prices, because I wonder if that would actually happen.
Well, I think most doctors define “frivolous lawsuits” as “any lawsuit filed against ME or somebody in my practice.”
That’s the legal definition
The trouble is the disconnect between how the public sees medicine and how it actually works — e.g. a doctor can do everything right and still watch the patient die. Couple that with people who think that any misstep, however defensible, equals payday — whether on their own, or prodded that way by slimeball lawyers — and the whole process needs some sanity.
Actually, as the lawyer in my firm that most often ends up dealing with cold calls from “potential clients”, I’m going to have to agree with you on that one. There’s an awful lot of people out there who think anything unpleasant happening to them should = Payday. One of my favorites from a few years back involved a guy who wanted to sue his supervisor because they got in an argument at work and the guy shoved him. Not “beat the crap out of him and put him in the hospital,” not “ran over him with a truck” or “shot him” or anything…just shoved him in the shoulder, causing him to take a step back. After explaining to him that while technically that fell under the definition of assault, there were no damages and he didn’t have a real case (and thinking “Shouldn’t a guy be deeply embarrassed to be considering filing suit over just being shoved?”), he whined “But what about my pain and suffering?” That was about the point where I had to hit “mute” on the phone because I was actually cracking up.
I suspect most of the lawyers taking arguably frivolous cases are either a) not particularly good at evaluating cases b) got rushed and took on a case without properly evaluating it, or c) just trying to churn out cheap nuisance settlements, because actually processing a med mal case all the way through is a very expensive proposition for an attorney, and not one you want to take on with a bad case (since “bad case” generally = “you’re losing and not getting paid.”)
I thought the majority of cases (though perhaps not the majority of payouts) were in the form of out-of-court settlements, though I could be wrong about that.
The majority of all civil suits now end in settlement, often after mediation. It’s not a bad thing.
Doesn’t change the general principle — if it’s a crap case, you won’t get a big settlement. You might, as I noted, get a nuisance-value settlement. If your case sucks so badly you can’t get a nuisance-value settlement, it’s almost certainly flawed enough that it’s getting dismissed long before it goes to court.
I had a case (not med mal, but one that depended on medical proof) once that I recommended we NOT take but was overruled by a boss….once we got into it, it became clear that there was NO way to prove causation. We nonsuited it and got out, informing the client that we would not be interested in refiling. Heard recently they conned some other lawyer into taking the case. Boy, is he going to regret that…. (aside from the “no way to win this case” issue, the client’s a major whiner.)
Sounds like it was a BI liability case. I see those all day long and trust me, the majority of Home/Auto Ins companies will settle, sometimes up to policy limits just to make things go away. 9 times out of 10 (that I’ve observed) are settled just to save the insured a headache.
Product liability, actually, but close!
BI secret: When you get hit by an insured driver and it’s not your fault, you better hope you get at least a little bit hurt, because you’re going to get screwed on the value of your totaled vehicle. (Mina, you know you guys lowball the blue book! Always! Lol….)
Been there, done that. Me and my “I am going to be 100% honest” got me a car that was several different shades of red. They even wanted to argue with me about replacing a tire, when the drunk that hit me did so at angle, from the right front door all the way to the bumper. Big knot in the tire wasn’t proof enough to them. At least at first.
“That was about the point where I had to hit “mute” on the phone because I was actually cracking up.”
You have a lot more patience than most.
I understand that, I do. And I’m all for getting rid of the truly frivolous suits where idiots say “your medicine gave me a rash, gimme $100,000!!!” My concern is who decides where the line between frivolous and legitimate suits is. I think we can all agree that if a doctor really does screw up and there is real damage done then he deserves to pay for that mistake.
Well, in our current system…
1) patient or family wonder if they should sue.
2) lawyer and/or paralegal speak with them and hopefully evaluate the medical records in the case (a lot stop right there…)
If a lawsuit is filed, next determination generally made by:
3) a judge, on a motion to dismiss or on a motion for summary judgment after both sides have developed evidence (depositions, etc.)
If the case hasn’t been dismissed, then the determination is made by:
4) a jury
The system is set up to screen out the frivolous cases at some point in the process.
So at what step does the system break down? Step 2 or step 3? Because if it’s frivolous, it should’ve stopped by 2 and DEFINITELY by 3.
I absolutely agree. Which is interesting, because I always hear people saying we need tort reform because of All Those Frivolous Lawsuits, but for some reason they never back that up with actual citations to any frivolous cases that WON.
Frivolous lawsuits don’t have to be won to cost money. I know someone who bought a piece of property that was undelevoped. They put in a water well, road, and split it up into ten lots. After they sold 9 of the 10 lots the neighbor tried to sue saying that their family had always used the land so it was rightfully theirs. There were deeds to the land going back for more than a hundred years, but it still went to court and spent ten years there. Everyone who was named in the suit had to hire an attorney and pay them for the better part of that ten years. The case was finally dismissed, but they lost a lot of money just in attorneys’ fees.
Oh, absolutely true (hell, I made a big chunk of my billable hours last month defending a completely frivolous lawsuit!) but what do you propose we DO about it? (The one I’m defending against you can’t blame lawyers, either, lol….he’s representing himself. Vigorously and very, very badly.)
Isn’t there an old saying that goes “The man who represents himself has a fool for a client”?
Lol…froo, in this case it’s definitely true. Although you could replace “fool” with “batshirt crazy” and it would also be true in this case.
I agree with that. Maybe it should be a tiered system — it’s easy to get a judgment that requires the doctor to refund your money for the initial treatment and pay for any subsequent care needed, but it’s much harder to get punitive damages or a pain and suffering award.
Then again, I’ve seen multiple studies (at least I think they weren’t just the same study quoted multiple times) saying that there’s a stronger correlation between bedside manner and malpractice suits than there is between actual quality of care, so there’s something else at play here, too.
Yeah, that’s kind of what I was talking about earlier with the apology decreasing the chance of getting sued — here’s an interesting New York Times article from last year that’s on point.
I read that article when it came out. Fascinating part of human behavior. Folks just hate to admit that they screwed up. But when you do, people respect you for the honesty–we all do know that we make mistakes too!
That wouldn’t surprise me. I’m sure some doctors turn on the douchebagginess in an attempt to protect themselves. Can’t admit they’re wrong, that’ll lead to a suit. But that douchieness could very well just fuel the fire. I know when someone screws me over and then either denies it or acts like a jerk about it, I want some freaking revenge. How many suits are about revenge and not damages they really feel they deserve? Responsible reform to keep the idiots out of the courts would be fine. Just as long as it doesn’t go too far. And that’s a fine line.
It’s funny that you ask that. In the same hospital where I had my appendix removed my grandfather had an elective knee surgery. He loved working outside, but his knee was getting to be a problem. The doctors assured him they could replace the knee and he would be able to continue working outside without his knee bothering him. After the surgery, he became very ill. After the doctors scratched their collective heads for a month he ended up in intensive care and almost died. My grandma made the decision to transfer him to a better hospital. Within 30 minutes of arriving they diagnosed him with pneumonia. The problem was that it went untreated for so long at the other hospital that it had already deteriorated his lungs. He lost one lung and only had half his lung capacity in the other. The doctors told him he only had six months to live. He spent the next six YEARS of his life on oxygen and mostly bed-ridden and was never able to work outside again.
I think those doctors were grossly negligent in their care for my grandfather. My grandmother and grandfather had every right to sue them for what those doctors did to them. Tort reform isn’t designed to eliminate all law suits. It merely helps reduce the number of frivolous suits and limits the amounts that doctors have to pay out if they lose a suit.
By the way, my grandmother never tried to file a suit against the doctors who destroyed my grandfathers life and ultimately killed him.
That’s just horrifying. Your poor grandfather.
The thing that concerns me (more as a consumer of medical care than as a lawyer, as I’m not in med mal anyway…) is that — we hear horror stories like this now. I know of a lady in my city who went into a hospital for a minor surgery and ended up with one of those MRSA staph infections which ended up killing her. Stuff like that. And this is WITH the current full threat of malpractice actions hanging over the hospitals/doctors. If we decrease the likelihood that they’ll be sued for massive fvckups, or cap the amounts they’d be liable for, are we taking the chance of increasing the likelihood that they’ll proceed with even less caution?
(Yes, I’m well aware that the majority of medical professionals actually WANT to do a good job. I suspect most lawyers do, too, but we always get attacked on the basis of the bottomfeeders and incompetents, so fair’s fair.)
Interesting study I read once — I’ll see if I can find it — found that the incidence of lawsuits after medical errors was greatly decreased by one thing — an actual apology from the person making the mistake.
Funny thing–hospital-acquired infections started to increase around the time that the hospitals started to stint on having their own in-house professionally trained cleaning staff. After all, antibiotics will take care of all of the infections, right? Right?
*crickets*
Well, lets talk MRSA. As a health care practitioner I wash, I gel, i scrub and I do it all over again all in attempt to stop any form of infection from moving from one of my rooms to the other. I CAN”T stop the lady who brings her little ole shopping bag from grandpa’s nursing home ( where he’ has MRSA and she’s been putting it on his bed, his chair touching his face etc) then she comes in and lays it on my patient’s bed and grabs his or her face in her two unwashed hands and gives her a big ole smoocher with the same lips that just kissed grandpa. See the transmission potential here? Just think about the person in the grocery store you see palping your fruit next time. MRSA bites. It weakens the weak. Many Many folks in the community are carrying it and don’t even know it. Just wash yer hands fer gawd’s sake.
This is actually an interesting case study (as long as it’s not one’s own grandfather, probably).
Was the original hospital negligent, or simply not as good as the second hospital? IANAL, so maybe there’s no legal distinction there, but it seems that there is at least an ethical one.
I’m generally not in favor of tort reform as I suspect the pill is worse than the disease, but neither am I carte blanche against it. If a reasonable compromise can be drawn up, I’m willing to listen.
The hospital was negligent. It is ranked in the top 10 in the country for most deaths from pnuemonia. It was no fluke. Also not a top 10 that you want your local hospital to be in.
What I don’t get is why people still go to such hospitals. I’m guessing insurance reasons. Someone literally DIED while waiting forever in the ER (nobody noticed either, i don’t think), and people still f’ing go there! I’d rather take my chances bleeding to death in the street.
1) a lot of people don’t know about those statistics, and it is the one that their doctor recommends.
2) the ambulance brought you there.
3) it was the closest, and my kid was bleeding…
4) Well, we went to the other emergency room but they were really crowded so we figured this one would be faster.
For us it’s because it is the only hospital in town. There is a better one about an hour away and an even better one two hours away.
IANAL? I’m not sure what that one means. And I keep reading it as “I ANAL.” Which you might not want to broadcast on the Internet.
“IANAL” means “I am an Analrapist”. It’s a professional term.
I didn’t know analrapists were professionals. Have they unionized?
So many Tobias lines in my head… *shudder*
Just in case you were serious – I Am Not A Lawyer.
That doesn’t mean I’m not anal, though.
Actually, I was serious, I didn’t know what it meant. It’s one of the funniest web acronyms I’ve seen.
And that goes back to my question of where that line is. Clearly your grandfather’s case was awful. I’m guessing your grandmother would have had a hell of a time filing suit though, as many lawyers won’t take cases of the elderly as apparently the courts don’t think their lives are worth as much in lawsuits. Sad, really. My wife’s grandmother was sent home from the ER with hardly any tests done to her saying she was fine. Tests would have revealed a major injury to her head (don’t remember exactly what) that eventually led to her death. When my wife’s grandpa talked to lawyers, they said a woman that old wouldn’t really be worth their time in a malpractice suit.
Has to do with the way damages are calculated. It’s not that their lives are “worth less” but that, for example, loss of future income, future pain, cost of future medical care — all are going to be much lower for an elderly person given the same medical situation as, say, somebody your age.
She’s calling you old!
Lol…no, I’m saying he’s NOT old yet!
In the flower of his youth. And all that.
Rando’s a mere child.
Yeah, I wish. LOL
To maybe explain it better, a lot of the potential damages in a tort case like a med mal are forward-looking (and necessarily estimates). If, for example, your injury caused you to be unable to continue your job making $50k per year, then the damages for somebody with another 30 years of estimated work will be damaged more than somebody who’d be retiring the following year. Like that.
It’s sad, but once the patient dies, it’s harder to win a court case.
Dunno why, just what my malpractice lawyer mother told me.
Just because someone has insurance does not mean everything is okay. Far too many people are underinsured because they can’t afford a decent insurance plan. Yes, that’s partially employer related, but there’s a laundry list of problems that leads up to that as well. Health care should be affordable for everyone. That’s what the new plan is supposed to do. Picking out one or two problems and saying “this is the problem with health care” is ignoring the bigger issue: health care is all about greed and not about people anymore. The outrageous prices in health care are not nearly this outrageous in many other countries, and yes, the quality is comparable.
As for the emergency room, yeah, they’ll treat you if it’s life threatening. If you don’t have insurance, unless you’ve got money to burn, then you’ve got next to no chance of ever affording that ER bill. And when people can’t pay their ER bill, the hospital raises prices on the rest of us. Then suddenly I end up having to pay $1700 for my daughter’s last hospital stay even with insurance.
The whole health insurance thing has got me a bit riled up the last couple days as I found out my insurance deductions will be going up over $100 a month next year. That will put my insurance about about 40% of my gross earnings. Seriously, that’s ridiculous.
And I’m sorry about your niece. That is very sad.
Yes to tort reform: Drastically reduce possibilities to file malpractice lawsuits.
Yes to insurance reform: Get rid of private insurance companies, coz all they do is seek profit.
After that, you’ll see that things will improve.
No to 1, Yes to 2. That’s my opinion anyways.
No1askedyou
If profit was inherently evil as you seem to be saying, then everyone in Congress would be dirt poor and only out for the common good. And yet, just about every member of Congress is independently wealthy and able to do without a government paycheck, yet takes one anyway. Even our president, who is getting paid WAY more than the office should be paid, considering it’s a public office, is taking book deals and other such money-making ventures. Also, every ex prez has either book deals or speaking engagements that bring in gross sums of money.
Your argument is invalid, as profit is not evil. Also, if you look at the numbers, insurance companies aren’t making any more of a profit than any other company. I believe the number I heard last is about 4%.
I think you replied to the wrong post. I don’t see anything about profit near here.
See Keith’s post just above.
I still don’t see it. All he said is that corporations are only interested in their own profits. That’s the truth.
The second verse to what he’s saying is an implication. Corporations are only interested in their own profits (, even when it causes the early deaths of those who pay the bills and create that profit.) The implication here is that profit is a bad thing. It’s not. It’s how it’s used, much like the old chestnut about the LOVE of money being the root of all evil, not the money itself.
I never said profit was always evil. You misread me. My argument is not invalid, because when it comes to people’s health, there is no room for profitmaking. I guess you’d agree with me that there’s some situations where profit is indeed evil, or do you condone with profitmaking when it comes to the mortgage crisis for example?
I agree that you can’t pick one or two issues and say that is the whole problem, but I think instead of trying to make a fix-all solution they should identify individual problems with the system and address them one at a time. That way everyone knows what the issue is, what the fix is, who’s going to pay for it, and who supports what issue. What they are doing now is kind of like what they did with the bail-outs, under Bush and Obama, by trying to get a lot of things taken care of in one big bill. The problem is they were both loaded with wasteful spending that was added in on both sides of the isle that had nothing to do with helping the economy. Hey, if you vote for this bill we will let you stick something in there that gives a lot of money to your constituents so everyone is happy.
That’s the only way anything seems to get done in Washington anymore. My biggest fear about the health care reform bill, to be honest, is that it will be watered down to the point of being expensive without actually having any teeth. Like pretty much all major reform out of Washington is. My problem with taking our time and doing it a little at a time is that the problems aren’t going to go on hold while we do it a little at a time. These are problems that need to be addressed this second if not sooner.
Welcome to US politics. Things kinda suck here.
What’s worse?
*drumroll*
It’s….. SOCIALIST!
Yes, that’s all that’s worse about it. But according to the rabid right you have to be scared of it and it has to be worse because it’s SOCIALIST.
It doesn’t matter that you’d actually receive treatment regardless of “pre-existing conditions” like, oh, say rape or domestic violence. It’s SOCIALISM and everyone has to fear that…
“I am all for tort reform. It has worked in Texas.”
No, it hasn’t worked in Texas. Look it up. There are more doctors practicing in Texas because of the tort reform but healthcare costs have not gone down one bit. The costs are exactly the same as before tort reform:
“But a review by the Dallas Morning News found no evidence that the malpractice savings had been passed on to consumers. And parts of Texas still have some of the nation’s highest medical bills. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that fear of liability is only one reason doctors sometimes perform unnecessary procedures”
We do have some damn good doctors in Texas, though. One of the best heart specialists in the world practices here, along with a bunch of really good cancer doctors.
And I know this is completely anecdotal, but my second family has been going through hard times for a while (parents not working, living off retirement funds and meager savings), and several doctors in this town are giving insulin and other necessary diabetic supplies to their daughter free of charge because they are able to. I’d like to think they’re doing it because they’re compensated enough by insurance and others to be able to shuttle supplies to those who really need it.
Froo, a client of mine lost her job several months ago, and unfortunately she has cancer. Her doctor has continued to treat her free of charge. Physicians/facilities can do this (at their own discretion) and they write it off as part of their uninsured costs. The insurance carrier doesn’t compensate them for it, but it is a tax write off.
You can’t measure success of a program by one factor. You have to look at the overall picture. We had doctors who were leaving Texas until we passed tort reform. Now we have doctors coming in. We have no shortage of doctors here because they are more willing to practice in a state that protects the doctors who are trying to do the right thing. The parts of Texas you are referring to are in South Texas on the border. I believe it is restricted to one county there. I would guess that the higher cost there are related to the number of illegal immigrants who get emergency care with no insurance and no way to pay. The cost has to be spread around to the rest of the community.
In Austin they did a study that showed that almost half of the unpaid emergency room bills there came from about 10 people. My aunt is one of those types of people. They will go to the emergency room 3 to 4 times a week because they are addicted to pain pills and will injure themselves intentionally if they have to, just to get a new prescription. If we could do something about those people we could bring down the cost of health care significantly.
I keep hearing this nonsense and yet, as a Canadian, I have yet to witness it. My MRI? Three day wait. My co-worker’s breast cancer survery? One week. My brother-in-law’s knee replacement surgery? Three months. Granted that took longer than they MRI and the surgery, but it wasn’t critical and he didn’t have to sell his house to pay for it.
The longest anyone I know has had to wait for a more “regular meeting” with a doctor was THREE WHOLE WEEKS (for a check up of moles and similar – preventing skin cancer and all that, you know), but that was because he insisted on seeing one particular doctor and none of the others working at our “primary care” facility.
The longest I personally have had to wait in a more “emergency style”-room was five hours. I had a sprained ankle and basically just needed to get a receipt for those hoppityhoppy things. Crutches?
Socialised, national health care (which will never ever drive anyone into personal bankruptcy because they’ve been stacking up health bills due to being silly enough to go and get sick), is a terrible, horrible, useless thing.
The United States health care system spends 10x as much on adminstration.
wassup wit dat?
Private is always more efficient than gubmint no matter in what sector, no matter what the market conditions, always without exception.
Lots of times the private sector claims to be more efficient, but what they really mean is the private sector makes a mess, and then doesn’t have to pay to fix it. The government has to step in to clean up the mess. So the government is spending money cleaning up after the private sector while the private sector is bragging about how much more efficient they are. It’s not the government’s fault, its cause by the private sector. And that private sector that is purely motivated by capital gain should be removed from the equation.
Government Housing Projects. No profit, still poorly run and worse than any private owned apartment complex.
That’s because our government gives very low priority to the poor. If those who needed government housing were given priority as opposed to say…. CEOs, then it would be much different.
If they give low priority to housing the poor will they do any better with the insurance?
Proly not, but having sucky insurance available is better than no insurance at all.
Arguably, there’s some privately owned apartment complexes in my city that are even worse than the projects. Of course, they’ll occasionally get shut down as a public nuisance, which the projects don’t…
Not taking sides, but when private places go bad, they get shut down. How often do you see Govt housing shut down, no matter how bad?
Actually….they’ve been doing a lot of that around here.
Recent news article that notes all but two of our big “projects” have been demolished. Some of the people that lived there have gone to Section 8, some of the projects are being rebuilt in ways that hope to minimize the problems inherent; and this one used to be projects, but was totally gutted and renovated and is now upscale apartments. Go figure.
*Actually glad to see that*
So were we…
I’m really hoping the newer mixed-income developments will be more resistant to the entrenched culture of poverty and crime that was such an issue in the old projects.
Look at the latest 60 Minutes; gov’t run heathcare is rife with fraud… there is a direct trade-off between fraud and admin. Merely making believe that admin is all waste is not a serious position.
And they do such a great job running the VA.
That really depends on your definition of “efficient”, Sqwirk.
Efficient, to the private sector, is getting the job done at maximum profit for minimum cost. Much of the wastage in the healthcare sector is due to lack of regulation for items related to conditions that are automatically treated.
Take mobility scooters for example. If you have certain conditions your medicare automatically entitles you to a scooter. For those conditions, scooters are priced by the private sector up to 60% MORE than for other conditions. Why? Because payment is automatic. So the private company shafts the government, and you the taxpayer, by ramping up the price because it knows that price is going to be paid regardless.
Is that more efficient? Maybe for the private companies profits it is… but I’d prefer to pay for the scooter at the NORMAL price out of my tax dollars, no matter how inefficient that is.
Medicare will be bankrupt in the next decade and is hemorrhaging waste and fraud at $500 billion, Social Security will be bankrupt within the next two decades. The United States cannot run the two entitlements it currently has and it wants a third one? If the libs pass this healthcare “reform” for their mythical $800 billion dollar tab which they are scrimping and scraping to pay for now how are they going to pay for it again in 10 years when the tab is 10 times as much? You think they can cover that bill by just taxing the rich? Got news for you people everyone is going to feel this, maybe not by something as overt as income tax but how about a Value Added Tax, let’s see what this does to inflation. How about a federal tax on that Coke you had with lunch today? How about jacking up fees and taxes on businesses across the board that will be passed on to the consumer?
Starve the beast !!!!!!!!!!!
Yes!!!!
There’s still 40% of the national wealth left that isn’t in the hands of the top 1%.
Amen!!!
Down with socialism!!!
Sqwirk, did you forget to take your meds today?
The Yankees play the Meds.
They’re aspirin to win the series.
Glenn Beck stole them
Here, have some of mine. You might still talk to yourself, but you’ll see lovely things.
Ron Paul’s ice cream horse keeps talking to me…
Is it telling you how to fix the healthcare system?
No, it keeps saying “don’t pour the caramel and nuts on me you jackass!!” What? I wanted some ice cream.
Why yes. Yes they can pay for it by taxing the rich. I just don’t think you realize how much the rich have accumulated.
And you know what? When they’re done taxing the rich, they’ll still be rich. Amazing isn’t it?
It blows my mind every time i do the math….
Let’s say the top 1% of Americans make $1 million per year. I’m sure it’s way more than that, but just for discussion purposes. Let’s say we tax them, oh, 10% more than usual. That’s $100,000 per year. 1 percent of the American population is in the general vicinity of 3 million people. Again, these are approximate numbers. 3 million people paying $100,000 per year is about $300 trillion dollars. And yes, they’re still filthy rich. Yeah, I think the rich can pay for this.
*mind once again blown*
Oops. That did seem a little high. Well, $300 billion is still a pretty hefty chunk of change.
Enough to make some heavy dents in the ol deficit I’d wager.
And I even lowballed a couple of the numbers on there.
SHHHH! You’re making sense! The Republicans don’t like it when you do that!
Neither do Democrats. Just be honest, people will like you more.
True. I revise my statement: SHHHH! You’re making sense! Politicians don’t like it when you do that!
Except the amount of money the top 1% makes. Any house hold making over $335,000 or so is in the top 1%. That is about 60% lower than your previously stated 1 million dollars. The top 1.5% are those that make over $250,000. Lets not forget that the government and state take about 40% of that so those numbers would be $201,000 and $150,000. Now after you take $100,000 of their money you are down to $101,000 and $50,000. Sounds fair right? I know I sure would be incentivized to work a whole lot less if the government and people like you end up taking 70% of my yearly income. I know…how about we get the bottom 50% of americans to pay some taxes?
Well, that would be nice…if they had any money.
Oh, and cite please.
Wikipedia
Even I don’t trust wikipedia on its own merits. Never since I made the mistake of using it on a history report back in high school.
Then range it so that those ONLY making 350,00 (poor babies) get taxed a bit less, and those making about 4,000,000 get taxed a whole lot more.
First of all, you’re describing a progressive tax rate system, which we already have.
Second of all, $350,000 a year isn’t a hell of a lot of money in some parts of the country. I know it is where I live, but in, say, California or downtown New York that doesn’t go very far. Not when a nice 650 square foot condo retails at close to $500,000.
The thing I don’t understand is that we’re supposed to believe that we need the majority of Americans afraid of losing the basics of life (healthcare included) to keep them ‘motivated’.
As if the desire for consumer goods, vacations etc aren’t enough to create a flourishing free market.
While at the exact same time we’re supposed to believe in trickledown economics. Which says that those same desires are what drive the whole economy… when they’re experienced by the wealthiest in society.
It just speaks of enormous hypocrisy. One morality is correct for many and another for the few.
Great points!
Just when you think Sqwirk has eaten too many paint chips, he comes back with a gem like this!
So only the wealthiest in society experience vacations and consumer goods?
I know for a fact that many “poor people” used the money they recieved from FEMA, after Katrina hit to take vacations and buy nonessential consumer goods.
That is most likely a case of figuring that they will always be poor, but they will never have the money in hand for a vacation ever again in their lifetime. No, this is not how I think. But I have known a couple folks with that sort of ‘vision’ problem.
And of course this 10% is on top of the 45 to 60% they already pay in taxes depending on what state they live in. Let me ask you, if you new that 55 to 70% of your income was going to go into the pocket of a wasteful entity like the federal government and you could lessen this tax bite by A: lowering your income or B: not working as much, which would you do? We do not work for the federal government, we work for ourselves, for our families and for our children’s future and that future is in jeopardy if the government does not realize that $2 trillion in deficit spending and $13 trillion in national debt is unsustainable.
The top 1% do not pay 45 to 60% tax.
They pay on average 10% of their net income (if they’re choosing to look ‘respectable’).
The top 1% in terms of *income* absolutely do — go look up the tax charts. The top 1% in terms of *wealth* don’t.
There’s a big gap in your understanding, and papering it over by waving your hands and saying “rich people cheat” isn’t doing anyone any favors.
Guess its time to start taxing wealth then isn’t it? Great call!
Tax the rich to feed the poor, ’til there are no rich no more. Then what? Do you have no desire to become wealthy? Do you not wish to enjoy the fruits of your labor?
I have no desire to become one of them. They are enjoying the fruits of other people’s labor. My desire is to live in a safe place that I can grow and learn as a person while raising a family. I hardly think that makes a person “wealthy”. Unless you mean spiritually wealthy, in which case, I am already rich.
Psst, VNV. I’ve got a label you can use that has a better reputation that “socialist” if you’d like. Ready? Here it is:
Hippie
*headdesk*
The second “that” = than. Whoops!
People always seem to want to put me in that category. I have studied the hippie movement and some of the commune movements in the 60’s and 70’s….. I don’t really think I am a hippie. Honestly, I don’t even think I am a socialist. All of my views have been my views for as long as I can remember. History and Sociology just confirmed a lot of my beliefs. Its just so happens when I say them out loud I get labeled socialist more often than not. That is why I adopted the title. It works because I, in so many ways, agree with Lenin, Marx, and Engels, but I intend on adding my name to that list one day. And hopefully as a bridge between socialism, and real world application. Who knows where the river may lead me, but I will always stay true to myself.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with either category in general. That might have something to do with the fact that I’m labeled a hippie so often that, like you with socialism, I’ve just adopted the title. Even though it doesn’t really apply anymore, certain people still call me that because they think it makes them look smart or that I find it insulting. Usually I just LOL.
VNV, if you could find practical applications of a socialist society, you’d be my hero. I’ve always felt that socialism would be sweet, but it just always seems to impractical for real life application on a national level.
@ 6ToedCatsRule
It’s really really sad that you have trouble believing that, for some people, there’s more to life than making money.
[I think the board ate my last attempt...let me try this again.]
I’ve been thinking about that since you said it, Rando, and I wonder if the problem isn’t more the agenda of the person coming up with the plan than the concept of “light socialism” itself.
Not to pick on VNV specifically, but he’s actually a great example. At a high level, he talks about wanting to create a nice society and help people, but when you get down to the details, it’s all about tearing down and hurting people — hurting high earnings, hurting the wealthy, hurting companies and CEOs — basically, not evolving our existing system into something better, but instead using the mandate of socialism to stick it to people and institutions who he feels are wronging him. In my experience, this seems to be a common pattern among the “yay socialism!” crowd — they’re angry, often bitterly so, at something in particular, and they want to use socialism as a weapon to destroy it. (Hugo Chavez, who I’d argue is the most active socialist today, certainly follows this pattern.)
It sounds simple, but the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that, if you understand that wealth creation is a non-zero-sum game and commit to a strictly evolutionary approach, you’ll end up with a radically different implementation of socialism.
OM NOM NOM!
Well, I definitely think it would be impossible to change, say, America, to socialism without hurting people first. In the long run, yeah, it should work out okay, but there’d be fierce resistance to something different that could radically change people’s lives. Which is why I think it’s impractical on a national scale and why even in countries that have claimed to be socialist, there hasn’t been real socialism.
In other words, tearing down the rich and the CEOs isn’t necessarily a revenge move, but the only way we can think of to do it. Which is again why it isn’t practical. Nobody is going to consent to that. And socialism by force will fail unequivocally. The people have to be on board for such a radical change to work.
(On a personal note, yeah, I’d like to tear down a few CEO’s, but that isn’t a part of my political philosophy. You’re right, it’s bitterness because my hard work and education hasn’t been rewarded. That’s not why I like socialism, though.)
They don’t seem to understand how a system that forcibly deprives others of their liberty and their property could *possibly* have any negative ramifications for them.
Oh, well. It’s easier than figuring out how to make an ethical living, I suppose.
But the wealthy have been depriving people of liberty and property for so long, we really just didn’t think anyone would notice.
I make a perfectly ethical living working for people who do not make an ethical living, but that’s retail for you. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for them?
How is a retailer automatically unethical? (Unless you’re working at Rent-A-Center or a pawn shop, in which case you have bigger fish to fry.)
My point is that we should be scared of the precedent we set when we empower government to start going after socially “unacceptable” minority groups.
Automatically? No, not automatically. But the company I work for has done plenty to screw over both its employees and its customers. What I wonder is what happened where the only way to make a profit in a retail chain is by selling people overpriced scams of protection agreements and credit cards with insane interest rates. Don’t get me started on the fact that they always promote the hand tools being “made in the USA” while all of the new ones coming out are “made in China.” It’s a company that is obsessed with saving a buck instead of trying to find better ways to make a buck. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. They have a wonderful tendency to dump on employees as well, to the point where I actually miss working for Wal-Mart.
The “Made in the USA” thing is sketchy, but unless there are other details, it doesn’t sound like they’re necessarily unethical, just horribly managed and circling the drain.
And yes, I know the company, and some details about their situation. I actually ran into their former CEO in an airport club a little while back.
(cue VNV showing up to scream that I must be a demon for being within half a mile of an evil CEO…)
Well, as you circle the drain, ethics tend to take a back seat. I guess we disagree a bit on what we consider ethical. It’s one reason I’ve avoided being in position to sell these “products,” as I think they’re done to fleece the customer without really giving them anything. Don’t get me wrong, they’re hardly the only company doing it. I could go into more details of sleazy things I think they do, but I don’t want to bore anyone.
Demon =/= Douche.
Dhoti = Douche.
I know they all start with “D”, but maybe you can grow on that to whole words!
Getting VNV so frothed up he follows me around really makes me smile. And that’s twice so far today.
At least he is not an alien penis….
Hey, you two, we’re having a perfectly reasonable conversation here without insults. Do it elsewhere. Because it’s fun to read.
For the record, I wasn’t following Dhoti around. I was reading and noticed him dropping my name. If anything, it seems he can’t get enough of me.
Lots of people drop your name. You are the standard reference around here for deep off the left end, world dominating crazy. But we love you anyways, and only make the rudest jokes behind your back. Most of the time.
So, the choices are:
(a) I was following Dhoti around obsessively
(b) I wasn’t following Dhoti around obsessively, but I was refreshing and searching for myself, also obsessively
Which is worse, really?
Sometimes I just refresh and read all the threads. That’s how I saw meh name!
It’s a certain kind of fool who likes to hear the sound of his own name…(+10 internets to whoever gets that ref first)
(And I wasn’t trying to insult VNV with that, it just reminded me of that…)
BUT THATZ SOSHULIZM! AND SOSHULIZM IS TEH EBIL!!!11!1
Maybe the government should take 50% or more of your income. You seem to have alot of faith that they know how to spend it better that private citizens.
If the government takes 50% of my income, I’ll have about 10-20% of my income left. Which would be about $60 a week. Somehow it just doesn’t compare to me.
You’re counting “income” as taxable income.
Which of course it isn’t because… they’re avoidng paying tax on it!
Here’s the first problem I spotted with your argument: most of their income doesn’t come from working.
Gonna have to disagree with you on that one. Most of my wealth does come from working and I have less and less every year to save for my families future becasue of the taxes I pay. Working very hard, I might add, to grow my business and keep my employees employed. But all this becomes more difficult with every new tax or fee that Washington comes up with to pay for some social welfare program. Every dollar they tax away from business is one dollar less spent on employment, health benefits, retirement accounts and reinvestment within the market to further grow business which in turn leads to more employment and round and round it goes.
I see, and what percentage of the top 1% do you think you make up?
I also work for most of my wealth, and I’m willing to keep on working even if the government taxes me more. Of course, I’m not in the top 1%, either.
Most people in the top 1% have a large amount of money invested in various revenue-generating vehicles that have little to do with how hard they work. You might be an exception, but that doesn’t disprove the rule.
And those investments are taxed heavily ; Capital Gains tax, Inheritance tax yada yada. The point here is that being wealthy does not make you a bad person, “rich” should not be viewed as a four letter word. Working hard and being rewarded for that work is what I view as the American way and I am not content to sit back and allow the government, a corrupt, wastefull entity, to tax it away so they can throw money at problems and HOPE they goes away. Hope, is not a business plan.
“Working hard and being rewarded for that work is what I view as the American way”
Nothing more than a pipe dream, sadly.
My Grandad would have to disagree.
His dad died when he was two, in the early twenties. Grew up dirt poor. Served on a ship in WWII then got an entry position in AT&T. Over the years, he rose through the ranks and accumulated stock as well as making shrewd investment decisions.
When he died, he had a million in liquid assets and even more elsewhere.
Capital gains tax is lower than income tax, and capital gains is not included as part of your income. So, I wouldn’t exactly consider that “taxing heavily”. As for inheritance tax, I’m not too concerned about how much tax I’m going to pay after I’m dead. (Inheritance tax mainly affects two groups of people – the dead and those who didn’t work for the money.)
Being born wealthy doesn’t make you evil, but neither does not it equate with “working hard” in my book. Sure, some people are born poor and become wealthy through hard work and/or luck, but they’re exceptions, not the rule.
You know who is hit hardest by the inheritance tax? Farmers. Land aint cheap and the government does not care who owns it, they want their piece and they most assuredly did not work for it.
Farmland is actually quite cheap. After a couple of years of heavy farming, the land is so destroyed you need to bring in new topsoil from other places. Farmland is mostly useless nowadays thanks to over-farming, tilling, and herbicide use.
The last half of that may be correct, but you are (insert a nice way to say insane) if you honestly think farm land is cheap.
It’s incredibly cheap compared to urban land. Of course, you tend to buy a lot more farm land than you do urban land, so it depends on your measurement criteria, but by most standard measures it’s hard to argue that it’s not relatively cheap.
Also, as someone who has seen this farm story first hand (my grandparents were farmers), it’s a nice story, but very far from the truth that they’re the ones hit hardest by the inheritance tax. Most farms are corporate run these days.
He said “farmers”, not “farms”. So he was technically excluding corporate farms.
Is individual monetary reward the only, the best, or even a particularly good reward for working hard?
Yes.
Capital gains are taxed at the LOWEST income rate tax. A flat 15%. This is the tax bracket for families with net income of $67,900 or less (and Single people with net income of $33,950 or less). This means that someone who nets $67,000,901 in Capital Gains still pays 15%, but a family who earns $67,901 gets bumped into the 25% bracket. Also, there is no “Inheritance Tax” – the is an Estate Tax for Estates that has increased tremendously over the years, the tax BEGAN on Estates totaling more than $1.5 million (in 2005) and currently kicks in only on Estates totaling more than $3.5 million… And you are still allowed to give away $12,000 a year to as many friends, relatives, charities, or strangers as you wish, each year, to make sure your Estate falls under the $3.5 million level (or you can put you money into trusts, which bypass the Estate. So, I have to agree with the previous posters… the wealthy (truly wealthy, not upper middle class, as I suspect you may be) do not pay anywhere near as much in taxes as your average working family or small business owner.
Here is the first problem I spotted with your response. Most of the top 1.5%’s income does come from working. The top 1.5% starts at $250,000. The top 15% starts at $100,000 per household, which could be two teachers salaries. Hell yes..tax those damn teachers and all those rich people. You people have no idea who the “rich” people in the U.S. really are. They are not all Bill Gates. Quit being so damn jealous, get off your asses and STFU. If you are so concerned about not enough money going to the government donate more of your own damn salaries and quit cashing your tax refunds and stimulus payments.
But, in theory, we are the government? So isn’t giving money to the government like giving money to ourselves? I would much rather give it to someone at least pretending to represent me than give it to someone who I know is only serving their own interest.
Someone who, in other words, gives you a significant enough gift from the public treasury. Good to know.
No, actually. I don’t know how you managed to get that at all. Must be your babeldouche tanslator again.
I liked your first one, but the repeat fell a little flat.
Sometimes its just so that whoever is chasing my posts with insults will just go away. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t.
You can look up any poll you like but on average 75% of Americans feel we could pick a more effective Congress at random from the phone book. Are we the government? Do they represent us?
Oh heck no. The government is composed of elites and they only act to serve the interest of their elite masters. So in essence, we can’t trust the government or the private sector. Guess we will have to tear them both down.
I’ve got the torch, I am just looking for a good pitch fork.
Oh trust me, I got the pitch fork, and I am ready to move!
Anarchy frightens me. *locks the door & boards up the windows*
Anarchy and Revolution frightens me too. But I will do it if that’s what must be done. For future generations to not have to live like their ancestors did, it will be well worth it.
*knocks on door*
Helloooo. Anarchy calling. We have some lovely new samples of chaos and disorder for you to try. And there’s a free gift with every purchase.
Oooh, chaos! I’m all out of chaos. Can you come in and show me the samples, or are you just leaving a catalog?
I’m all stocked up on chaos and disorder. The 6-year-old is chaos and the 8-year-old is disorder.
@ Rando: You mean I’m not the only person who referred to their kids’ play area as the mosh pit?
I kinda miss that.
And by kids’ play area, I mean the living room. *sigh* I remember when our place was always CLEAN.
No we give it to China in the form of more debt.
The top 1% of Americans do NOT come here to respond on boards like this, so please don’t lump yourself in with them. They are too busy buying companies to carve up and sell, managing their stock portfolios and deciding what color to paint their walls on their house in Milan. The top 1% of Americans are the problem. Hell, the top 5% probably are. These are the people that have so much money they can afford to hire a team of accountants and lawyers to basically let them get away with paying the same amount of taxes as someone on welfare. I am not talking the same percentage, I am talking the same dollar value. Those are the people you need to tax even harder. Find all the little loopholes their layers and accountants use and remove the ability for them to use them. Rework things so that they can’t get away with it. Get the money from them, and they will still be stinking rich. And the system will have the infusion it needs.
And as for trickle down economics….that is a joke. The uber-rich take what is coming down from the government, but I can assure you, it’s not money or savings that is trickling down on the people below, it is liquid and yellow.
*high five*
*terrorist fist bumps*
I’ve never seen trickle down economics actually tried. Just talked about.
And I’m for taxing the people you talk about. If and ONLY if that is all.
I suppose you slept through the golden years of Reagan/Bush I, then? It was great, let me tell you. Poverty was completely eliminated. Then Bill Clinton took office raised tax rates back to 60% and we had the worst economy ever.
Trickle Down Economics hasn’t been tried any more than socialism or communism has been tried.
But it worked far better. Far far better. Hell, it turned the quagmire after the Carter years into a working, prosperous system.
Ah, but for who? That’s the real question. The middle class didn’t thrive off of Reagonomics. Neither did the lower class.
I hear yah. I have a cite for the foaming jealous in here. My dad served 23 years in the Air Force, including 3 tours in Vietnam. Retired as a highly decorated E8. A real pain in the butt neat freak workaholic. He has driven a truck for a national company since 1983, till he is THE senior driver at that company. Worked 12= hour days all his life. Got close to retiring again, and the retirement age bumped up so that he has to work another 18 months.
He does make 150,000 plus a year. He HAS earned it. The taxes he pays yearly is almost MY income.
He also did the honest thing when my mother came down with cancer. He let the military insurance pay what it would, and when certain treatments were not on the list, he made arrangements to finance them, in a fruitless effort to save her life. I spent my Jr and Sr High school years getting 3 pair of pants, 4 shirts and 1 pair of shoes a year. But we overcame all that.
Disasters and all, this is still America. Not everyone is going to make it, nowhere on earth is that realistic. But you STILL have the best chance in the world here.
You’re confused.
The people in the top 5% bracket for federal income tax are not the same as the actual 5% of incomes (obviously). And they are not living in the same world as the top 1%.
The top 1% have incomes of 2 million dollars on average. You’re imagining America has 3 million people being ‘paid’ like fortune 500 CEOS?
Actually, the reply button is nor your friend today. I said no such thing.
For the record, I’m all for a national sales tax, as long as it removes the IRS and ANY other federal income taxes. You pay based on what you spend.
Sorry, I was being rude.
I just mean everyone has friends, family or ppl they went to school with who have professional careers, are in business or are movie stars etc.
That’s not the kind of wealth I’m talking about.
Your numbers are ludicrously inflated.
According to the US Census, in 2006, the top 1% of households was defined as earning over $365K. The average is more like $450-500K. *Far* less than $2M.
Those are taxable incomes.
And yes you’re right of course it doesn’t make sense that there are millions drawing incomes of 2 million dollars.
That’s the point.
Here’s a hint, chief: if you have to fall back on a vast, multi-million-person conspiracy to reconcile your point with the basic facts, maybe the facts aren’t what’s wrong. Just sayin’.
According to the US Census (2007) 1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000. 12.3% fell below the federal poverty threshold and the bottom 20% earned less than $19,178. The aggregate income distribution is highly concentrated towards the top, with the top 6.37% earning roughly one third of all income.
My cousins in Denmark pay around 50% taxes. And funny thing, yes, they DO work harder for that extra bit of money. Because you CAN set things up to reward hard work, without letting other folks’ kids starve, go without healthcare, or be denied decent preschool, etc.
They do have professional class, working class and all that, but no one has to decide between healthcare and rent. Or bankruptcy.
Actually, it’s only $300 billion dollars. Of course, a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
Also, your assumption is that the top 1% make an average of $1 million, which, as you say, must be a gross underestimate.
It’s 2 million.
You could look it like the top 1% avoid (the difference between the percentage of their income they pay in tax and 40% for the middle class) 1.8 trillion per year in taxation.
And the top 1% don’t even pay more tax overall (despite having 60% of the national wealth) as a quick back of an envelope calculation will show.
I think you mean $300 billion, but still a good point
. While we are at it, I hear Goldman Sachs paid about $14 million in taxes in 2008. Pitchfork anyone?
And yet they gave out $6 Billion in ‘performance’ bonuses…
It was reported that the average total compensation per employee at Goldman Sachs in 2006 was $622,000. However, this number represents the arithmetic mean of total compensation and is highly skewed upwards as several hundred of the top earners command the majority of the Bonus Pools, leaving the median that most employees earn well below this number. This included 212 employees each receiving $3 million in bonuses, 391 receiving $2 million bonuses, and 953 receiving $1 million in bonuses. The current Chief Executive Officer is Lloyd C. Blankfein. Blankfein earned a $67.9 million bonus in his first year.
In 2007 the top 1% was an adjusted gross income of $410,096 or more. If you want to talk about the top.1% it is much higher. The average income for the top .1% is $7.4 million. The top .1% only pay about 21% of their income to income tax. That is because those people make most of their money through investments, not paychecks. They also pay corporate income tax usually and that isn’t included in the regular income tax figures.
The top 1% pay almost 40% of the tax burden while making less than 20% of the income.
You may want to pick on the top .1% instead of the top 1%. They are already paying more than their fair share.
But they could move to China and live like emperors!
Or other planets or sumfin.
Or they could invent an invisibilty cloak and live in a canyon.
That’s what many of the multinational corporate CEOs have done. They literally have an escape plan for when the people of the US try to recapture their money that has been swindled from them.
Cite, please.
I’m good thanks.
Of *course* you’re above defending your wild assertions. Why should I have expected any more from you?
What a clown.
Oh right. I am at work, and you think the easy way to dismiss a point it by saying “cite, please” as opposed to a counter point. You are such a douche-nozzle that its not even funny.
You’re absolutely right — if you make a wild assertion that you’re totally unable to support, then yes, I’m going to dismiss it as noise.
I’m sorry that offends you, but grow a pair and at least admit what you’re doing, instead of throwing this petulant little temper tantrum.
^
QQ. What a whiny bitch.
Oh, come on, you giant prick! Even the most ignorant Troofer (I hope that doesn’t hit too close to home) won’t cry and run away — they’ll blather on about the melting point of steel or the meeting between Bush and the bin Laden family or something.
You can’t even do *that*? What kind of mentally unbalanced nutjob *are* you, anyway?
-munchs some popcorn and watches- bitter troll will throw them giant q-tips and make them fight like american gladiators
And he keeps on crying.
But don’t you know that Q-Tips ™ are made by the EVIL John$on and John$on corporation? The cotton tip is actually made from the peach fuzz of dead babies! And each one you buy gives the CEO an extra million dollars, tax-free!
You monster!
I am not gonna fight him. I am just gonna call him a whiner. And watch him get progressively crazier as I do. It’s good fun.
Delusions of grandeur — yet another reason to get your head examined.
Of course you’re not going to fight me, because you can’t. You’re intellectually incapable of defending yourself, even if you had the testicular fortitude to do so in the first place. (I suppose that’s my problem too, right?)
See what I mean? What a whiner!
you call bitter troll a mobster?
bitter troll not italian!
Watch your language, bitter — we don’t use the “I” word around here.
what eye word?
“Italian”
I agree that Dhoti sometimes beats up on people when they quit, but seriously after being here for awhile I’ve noticed that conservatives get called out for cites a lot more then liberals. (most on here are liberal so they all just agree. No big mystery there). It even happened to me once a few months ago. I heard about something then had trouble finding the link. Got called out by several people.
Point here is that it isn’t too much to ask of you.
PS I don’t actually doubt that they do have a plan.
For you ay dios mio:
I think the book was called Social Problems. It was one of several dealing with topics like this I had in an upper level sociology class called Social Problems. I don’t know the exact source because as I stated before I am at work.
Is anyone else surprised by the revelation that VNV’s entire world-view sprung fully formed from a college textbook, like a particularly retarded version of Athena?
That’s right Dhoti! Books written by PHDs in the field should never be considered a real source. I am sorry I didn’t have a cartoon strip, or a comic book source for you. I am sure that would have been much more on your reading level. Go whine to someone else.
VNV: Don’t knock cartoon books as sources. The Cartoon Guide to Physics is pretty awesome. (Seriously.)
Sorry about that Nebton. Maybe I should have said Little Golden Books instead.
You flatter yourself, VNV; all you do is memorize. (And apparently not even that, given your utter inability to regurgitate the book when asked.)
It’s sad that you managed to leave high school and college so intellectually deficient — No Child Left Behind, indeed. It’s downright tragic that you managed to become an office drone.
Nice translation for Dhoti:
Could you try to give us something that isn’t obviously partisan please, sir or madam?
Here is goes with the whining again. It would take more cheese and crackers than Wisconsin goes through in a year to get rid of all that whine.
VNV, you are the pot calling the kettle black. You are the biggest whiny bitch on here, when you don’t get your way. So much so the other liberals on here don’t defend you. Sometimes you actually make the Rocky Horror Picture Show seem manly.
-jumps to the left-
-then steps to the riii-iiii-iight-
-bitter hands on his hips-
-knees in tiii-iight-
I was wondering how long it would take Justa to slither out from under his rock. Justa, and I am sure you have noticed, the name calling always starts with one of you. And I don’t whine. I debate, I discuss, and only when your side stoops to insults do i do anything that seems like whining. Notice how you didn’t add anything to the conversation? You just popped up and immediately called me a whiny bitch. And it wasn’t even a thread you were involved in. So… maybe you should think about what you write before you write it.
And one more thing. As bittertroll so aptly described me earlier as the uber mega liberal, and I do not expect those on the left to back me up. Some of them might as well be right wingers compared to me. But I do notice its usually the same 3 or 4 people that like to jump on my case. Sure, I cross the line. The line was drawn for someone to cross. But if you and Dhoti’s only line of defense is calling me every word your thesaurus can find for “stupid” then you really haven’t made any progress.
Hah, go back and read. You started the name calling. And as you have pointed out before, this an open post, with every one free to chime in.
So are you Janet or Brad?
That’s the thing about drawing a line. You’re just setting up a trap for someone to cross so that you can tell them how evil they are for crossing the line YOU set up. You were playing nice for awhile so I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you’re doing everything you accuse justa and dhoti of doing.
I’m not even trying to get on your case, I’m just calling you out in case you honestly didn’t realize you were doing it.
Hmm… *looks up* It appears I was right. I was called a clown first. And then the insult exchange began. Looks like you are having reading issues as well.
And by the way, I am more like Dr Frankenfurter.
I agree ay dios. I do stoop to their level when I banter like this. I really should act bigger than that.
Ok, then I missed it. But you crossed the line. And you do so often, as it seems to be standard operating procedure for you. I was more commenting on how you handle things, than name calling.
BRAD
JANET
BRAD
JANET
riiiight. you made an accusation. you were wrong. i crossed the line. thanks jac
What, that you are the pot calling the kettle black? That shot couldn’t have hit the bullseye better if God himself fired it.
Such selective memory, vnv! Funny how you skip over the part where you deign to refuse to back yourself up. In light of that little omission, me calling you a clown wasn’t an insult, it was a simple statement of fact.
By your flurry of posting and following me around today, I must have really gotten under your skin – you really make it too easy, you know. And if you weren’t lying about being at work, you must have gotten no wage slaving done today – a bonus.
Hmmm….this is relevant to my interests.
Lol…I’m with you on that, ADM. When I read the start of the argument, my main thought was “Well, I don’t know that the multinational CEO’s have escape plans….but I know I sure as hell would!”
Odd little nesting fail…was supposed to be a reply to this post.
The invention of the guillotine should have taught them something; those that refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
“Sir, it’s the employees…they’ve got a tumbrel and they mentioned taking you for a haircut or something? A little off the top?”
I just flashed to the scene in “History of the World Part I”:
Madame LeFarge (?) – We are zo poor we don’t even ‘ave a language, joost a stoopid accent.
Okay, I can’t tell what the avatar is. What is it?
Need to fix it or change it, too small. It’s the “Roller Derby Ruined My Life” logo & mascot of the Minnesota Roller Girls.
You don’t really *get* how taxation works do you?
I’ll break it down (yo).
Doctor (or nurse or researcher or therapist) is paid with money from taxes.
Doctor spends tax money on, lets say, a car.
Doctor pays road tax, mandatory insurance, fuel taxes.
The car dealer pays sales tax and business tax.
Government gets the doctor’s money back.
Nurse (or nurse or researcher or therapist) is paid with money from taxes.
Ever heard of Sales Tax?
There are so many things wrong with what you said I don’t even know where to begin. You don’t need to ever comment on anything again because you are officially the dumbest person I have ever heard.
Go ahead and correct me.
Doctors, nurses etc are paid by local goverment, right?
These people then pay taxes, right?
These taxes pay their wages, right?
Same goes for all the bureaucrats and cleaners and so forth.
Doctors and nurses are hardly ever paid by local government unless they work for a government hospital. Most hospitals are privately run and many doctors have private practices. Even doctors who work for a government hospital are paid mostly by the premiums earned from the hospital more than tax money.
Also the doctor would pay the sales tax on his/her car, not the dealership.
The doctors pay all kinds of taxes including income tax. That is how the government gets the majority of their money from doctors.
Like I said you have no idea what you are talking about.
I’m talking about how it works in the public option. Read the post I was responding to.
Also depending on how you look at it, you could say the retailer pays sale tax as a cut of his profits.
I hate to burst your bubble, but it sounds like you got your facts from Glenn Beck. Here’s the real scoop, if you care enough to put down your Faux News Koolade and read it.
{http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/going-out-of-business/}
While I agree that there IS a certain crowd that gets it’s facts from Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh, isn’t there just as big a crowd that gets it’s info from Oberman and the likes?
Hey! You hold on there. That’s just what Fox News told you.
Until all the whining the other day, I have never watched Fox News. And I still haven’t watched the editorial shows. Other than a high rate of blondes, I really didn’t notice a difference.
I think most of us liberals know that Olbermann is an insanely biased pundit, and what he presents as facts should be thoroughly researched. Not to say he’s entirely inaccurate, but he is clearly over the top. I’m not saying there aren’t those who follow him religiously like Beck & Limbaugh, but any liberal with half a brain knows he’s a guilty pleasure primarily for entertainment value.
Great, now reverse that, and you have how MOST on the right see Limbaugh. But the media whines about him, and never says a thing about the lefto whackos.
Because they don’t get the kind of audience and following that Limbaugh gets. I’ll agree that the good conservatives take him as entertainment value (the previously mentioned Olbermann calls him comedian Rush Limbaugh), but the sheep treat him like a god. Olbermann doesn’t have NEARLY that big an audience.
Size of audience doesn’t make him less of a God to certain people. And I am inclined to think it’s a larger portion of his audience than Limbaugh.
Now Walter E Williams, I can listen to him all day. Love his humor.
And I do get a kick out of the parodies, not any difference than the average SNL skit making fun of the right.
*starts singing “In a Yugo*
“…a liberal guy and a liberal gal buy a Yugo…..
(buy a Yugo!)
And they drove with pride…..
50 miles to the gallon and their knees on their chest,
Gonna save the fuel up for all the rest,
In a Yugo……
(in a Yugo!)”
I just saw Barney Fwank on the news. Now Banking Queen is stuck in my head.
DAMN YOU, JAC.
*searches for bleach q-tips for the earwig*
Alabama Obomba……
Have you heard the new one to the tune of RUbberBand Man?
No I haven’t.
Olbermann, however, doesn’t present his show as a news show. It’s a commentary show. Thus, he doesn’t expect it to be given the same weight as some of the Fox shows seem to expect, because it never CLAIMS to be anything but opinion.
This is the difference not understood by so many! Fox is screaming about silencing the ‘free press’ when all President Obama did was mention the fact that they are an ‘opinion’ channel, not a news channel. If the shoe fits, and all that… But then again, Obama is a Muslim, radical Christian, Zionist, Socialist, Facist, Marxist, Communist, illegal alien, so, why should he get to have an opinion???
They are not an opinion channel any more than the whole of MSNBC is an opinion channel. They have news anchors, news programs, pundits and opinion programs, and regular shows just like every other news station out there.
What is it with people mixing up news and opinion?
Also, the White House very much did call out a couple of people that it’s waging a personal war with, what with Gibb’s comments about “let’s watch Fox at 5 and 9.” Clearly, that’s a slam against Beck and Hannity, who make no bones about the fact that they aren’t journalists.
Shepard Smith and the other anchors, on the other hand, are journalists, and behave as such.
Many here claim the states health care is better. Well, if you are willing to fork out a sh*tload of money for healthcare, then yes, it better be the best. However, the problem with the US healthcare is there is a large fraction of the population without healthcare, and even more with poor healthcare. On top of that, your government pays several times more (per person) for a healthcare system that is only marginally better (in terms of fatality rates, which for some posters here, think is a reasonable way to compare, which is not), AND people STILL have to pay for their own healthcare.
Go Chretien! well, Tommy Douglas actually, Go Tommy Douglas!
Hawaii tried this experiment in June 2007 with their Keiki Care program. By Nov 2008 the plan was cancelled because of a massive “unforseen” movement from private healthcare to the public system for one very simple reason: It Was Cheaper!! I cannot believe for one moment those knuckleheads in Washington think that the private health insurance sector with it’s 2.2% profit margin can compete with a public entity that is not subject to free market economies and believes it’s income coffers (your taxes) is bottomless. The onloy inevitable outcome of this mess is the bankruptcy of private health care providers and insurers, a decrease in the quality of care becasue of cutbacks in Medicare Reimbursement, a single payer system, the government, deeper deficits and more national debt. Your grandkids may not be born yet but they better already have a job to pay for all this.
Because things are great the way they are, right?
No, because this burocratic, incompetent mish mash of a government cannot be trusted to run the damn thing!!
Blame it on David Palmer.
From Steeley Dan?
So let’s leave it to the free market who never ever fvcks over anyone. Look, I have my concerns about the government running health care too, but I don’t think it will be worse than this nonsense we have now.
Nice response Rando. You always make that dumb azz response. Just because things are not perfect doesn’t mean they need to be made much worse. Not one person on here that I know of has said that the current system is perfect and that it doesnt need any reform. So why don’t you drop your liberal talking points and actually contribute to the discussion.
Wow, who pissed in your Wheaties? And if you’re gonna call me a dumb ass, please, at least show me the respect of calling me an ass and not an azz.
Okay, here goes. First of all, the fact that all the other developed countries have successfully created universal health care makes me wonder why we can’t do it here. I don’t really see their governments as being any more effective than ours, especially considering what nastiness I hear about the likes of Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Stephen Harper. I know, they’re all just the PMs or presidents, but still, their governments aren’t any better than ours. All the negativity I hear about how awful the health care is in countries that have universal health care sounds like propaganda from those opposed to changes in this country. In other words, our government may be screwed up very often, but if other countries can do universal health care, so can we.
For the most part, I hear about tort reform. I’ve already expressed my concerns over tort reform, but would be for it IF done well and IF it doesn’t screw people over who really deserve to file suit against a doctor. That being said, it’s not a solution. Hell, it might not even help for all we know. HelOnWheels mentioned that health care costs haven’t gone down in Texas following tort reform.
I also hear some utter nonsense about letting the health care industry have a free market. You don’t trust the government to run health care. Well, I don’t trust for-profit companies with no rules to run ANYTHING. Without proper regulation (and at this point, it’d better be a pretty heavy hand from the government), health care is going to continue to let prices skyrocket. And they won’t compete with each other. There might be some pseudo-competition, but costs won’t come into play. It’s so easy to keep prices high on stuff that people need, like gasoline, health care, electricity, etc. That is unless someone makes them bring prices down.
Now for the post I responded to like a dumb azz, yes, private companies will be able to compete with the public option. A lot of people aren’t going to want the public option. People will still go for the private insurance. I’m sure private insurance will overall still be better than the public option. But that’s the point, isn’t it? The public option will be there for those that either can’t afford or are unhappy with their private insurance. Just being cheaper isn’t gonna convince people. Hell, I could switch to a cheaper insurance plan through my work, but I won’t. The coverage is absolutely awful on the basic plan. I’d rather pay more for the better plan as it’ll cost me less in the long run. Honestly, I don’t think the public option will be the threat that you guys seem to think it is.
THERE. NOW have I contributed to the discussion, smart azz???
Appoligies for being an azz. Even though we do not see eye to eye on many things I do enjoy your input. My bad I was out of line. I was pissed about the tax the rich without people really realizing who the claim the rich to be.
The current healthcare system is already somewhat regulated by the state government as you cannot cross state lines to get insured. I am sure there are some federal guidlines as well but have not looked into it.
I agree with you on tort reform.
No one that I have read on here is advocating to let the healthcare insurance industry regulate itself. That would be like the government regulating itself…never mind it does that. Rules and guidlines must be in place.
Private companies will not be able to compete with the public option over the long haul. What do you thing would happen to Walmart etc if the government opened a competing store and sold the same thing for much less because they didn’t care if they made a profit or not. Further, lets say that if you did not have a “Walmart” card after one year then you had to shop at the government store. This very simplified example does not even account for companies dumping their already offered private insurance for a government option.
“Hell, I could switch to a cheaper insurance plan through my work, but I won’t. The coverage is absolutely awful on the basic plan”
What happens if you lose your job and are forced to take the cheaper insurance forever? Even if you get a new job. That is how the bill was last written.
Yes you contributed to the discussion and again I appoligize for being an azz.
And apology accepted.
Who cares if “healthcare providers” and health insurers go bankrupt?
As for decrease in quality of care, that’s something to have a reasoned debate about.
All those wealthy insurance execs can get jobs sweeping up and cleaning out the public hospitals. Then maybe they will know what a working man’s wage feels like!
I sign that. People’s health is just not something that should be ruled by free market economies.
Be careful. I try to better my points with every conversation I have.
You seem to succeed.
Markets are a useful mechanism.
It’s sad that the right them as synonymous with rent collection by corporations.
I beg your pardon?… i never promised you a rose garden.
Karate monkey death car!!
Ah, ok, now it’s all crystal.
Meth?
No thanks, I’m good.
Ok, just lemme know.
I dunno, dude. I can just go to pretty much any apartment complex in Jefferson County, MO here and get my local resident discount. Those prices are hard to beat. (We have lots of meth labs here.)
Oh, well I was just going to hit up charro…
You’ve missed out, Keith Hackney for President. The Vengeance guy has come into his own as of late and is far less trollish than in his younger days.
Yeah, i was absent a couple o’ weeks, and here I am agreeing with him.
I find the best way to meet people online it to get them all pissed at me at once. This way I know what they expect and can begin working my way into their hearts!
You missed that whole part about going through a man’s stomach.
I’ll expect my pizza here within the hour.
Pizza? Where?!
I had pizza for dinner. St. Louis style. Ham & sausage on one pizza and full strips of bacon on the other. It’s porkerrific!
*jealous*
That’s too much pork for just one fork!!!
Great strategy. Fire the 200 or 300 “execs” and create tens of thousands of unemployed. Got that one all figured out dont ya.
So you think the VA healthcare is a good system right? And you think the government runs that well. I just want to make sure that I understand where you are coming from.
There’s nothing that can’t be improved, but without free healthcare from the government, who would insure disabled Veterans? Private Insurance????? Really??? As some have said, it may not be the best money can buy, but it’s certainly better than nothing… Speaking of which, since you keep knocking the VA, may I ask if you use their services? Besides medical care, they also offer disability pay and benefits, vocational rehabilitation programs, education assistance (GI Bill) life insurance, burial benefits and mortgage guarantee insurance (through Freddie Mac). They also help Veterans and widows/widowers with referrals to numerous other services and frankly, do a lot for Veterans. So, yeah, I think it’s a pretty good program.
I’m all for more health-care debate but WHERE IS DA FUNNEH???!! Oh, it’s an EWAdams post. Never mind. What was I thinking expecting a funny.
Understandable, because it was my understanding that Wednesday was sappy and/or preachy-lol day. Seeing this one disoriented me for a minute, but it is, in fact, only Tuesday.
It’s apparently “make a political statement about health care day” as ROFLrazzi also has a health care related LOL up today. That’s more fun. I don’t feel the need to play nice over there like I do here.
Rando, you are definitely nicer to people on PK! lol!
I have to admit. Going off on the morons over there was a great way to vent some steam.
Talmud Tuesdays?
Just how many fake accounts does EWAdams have? And how much time does he have to keep voting his garbage up?
The part I love is that he’s on here enough that I *know* he’s reading us all bashing him. Hi, EW! This one isn’t funny, either!
Ewwwww, I just stepped in some EWAdams. Now I am required by law to throw these shoes away.
Man, not only are those shoes messy, they’re not funny either. Bummer. EWAdams=Sir Buzz Killington.
But I find Sir Buzz Killington to be the most droll character on Family Guy!
Touche’ Costmart…
What happened to lols being funny? Head to the OpEd page with this one.
GET EWADAMS OFF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE COMEDY SITE!!! HE IS NOT FUNNY!!!
I second that notion! And I third and fourth it too!
fifth. This has to be a guy from their office. Has to be.
I ELEBENTYth this motion!
Qu’in toé!
OP forgot Big Pharmaceutical companies, which have spent millions of dollars on pro-Obamacare ads.
Why?
They see a government which is perfectly willing to pay $500 for a hammer, as long as the right palms are greased.
They multiply that by 500 billion pills, and… Ka-CHING!
Obamacare is less socialist than it is SUPER-Capitalist. At least, for Pfizer and Johnson& Johnson and Bayer and so forth.
That’s why I’m moving my money into Big Pharma. You should too. Own them… because soon, they’re going to own YOU.
Their profit margin (average 16.4%) is WAY above what the insurance companies get (averaging a paltry 3.4%).
I like this. People seem to forget that the people in Washington DO NOT care anymore about us then the companies. Somebody will make money off you. My problem is that once you make it the government you cannot overthrow them (or won’t) whereas we as a people could at least make a company fail.
People could choose to stop fighting wars, too. To paraphrase Churchill, I think putting government in charge of healthcare insurance (so many people conflate that with healthcare itself) is the worst idea out there – except for every other idea floated so far.
Yeah because we diplomatically elect all our bosses.
Do you really see we as a people uniting to make a company fail? I don’t.
Fail, maybe not. Change?
Remember when tuna became “dolphin-safe?”
Now, compare that to how long it took to get rid of that long-distance phone tax that was created to pay for the Spanish-American War… in 1898… and finally went off the books in 2006.
The funny thing about “dolphin safe” tuna is that it’s a lie. It’s fished the exact same way, they just slapped “Dolphin Safe” on the can. There’s no government standard to use the term “Dolphin Safe”, so it’s utterly meaningless. To the fisheries it’s just another marketing gimmick.
Really, I watched a documentary on the History Channel the other day all about how fishing nets have changed. And I seem to recall an episode of Deadliest Catch where Stig was fishing in the off crab season, talking about the changes in the nets.
They’ve change, but they aren’t really any safer. Current variations use hooks rather than tight netting. This way dolphins don’t get caught in the nets, but that only meants they’re being filleted by the hooks. :\
I’m not for unnecessary killing of any animal. You kill it, eat it. Unless it’s in self defense. And even then some things can still be eaten.
That said, the documentary went in to serious detail on how the nets worked, and made a big issue of it. But then again, not all documentaries tell the truth.
*cough* *cough* *Micheal* *cough* *cough* *Moore*
Not a documentary. I learned this in an environmental studies class last week.
I was referring to the one I watched. And to be honest, info gets skewed both in documentaries and classrooms lately.
Oh. Well, there’s no denying that, but I trust a textbook more than a documentary. Like you said, there’s people like Micheal Moore.
P.S. That book better be correct. I paid $115 for that thing!
I’ve found a few mistakes in textbooks. The most amusing one was allegedly about the biology of human sexuality (1980), and it somehow completely ignored the clitoris and the internal female erectile tissue. Perhaps it was relevant that the authors were all male? Those idiots probably never managed to get lucky a second time with any of their dates!
I don’t trust much of anything a textbook tells me. I trust what the experienced researcher tells me.
“Women can have orgasms? You’re full of it. No…I, uh, I haven’t given a woman one…it’s biologically impossible, you ass! There, now it’s a fact!”
Reminds me of this:
)http://xkcd.com/641/(
I agree that this is also a major issue that needs to be addressed. There’s no reason for medication to be so outrageously overpriced.
Yeah, every so often I have a good idea.
But I don’t think anyone’s goingt to do this.
In fact, I think they’re going to do the exact opposite. The British Journal of Medicine reported that there’s language in the US healthcare bills that will actually further enrich drug companies, by giving them more ways to extend their “copyrights” on drugs, and keep cheaper generics off the market.
It seems logical to conclude that this is likely “payback” for the drug companies’ supportive ads and position. Things aren’t like they were for the drug companies back when they opposed Hillarycare.
If this is true (I haven’t heard about this until now), then I’m pretty pissed since medication is a massive monthly drain on so many Americans. Even with insurance my family is now paying around $100 a month for prescriptions. My wife’s grandpa is paying $150 per prescription. How are people supposed to afford that? And if they’re going to extend copyrights on new drugs, I’m not cool with that either. There are very few name brand drugs that my insurance ever wants to cover.
The purpose for copyrights was to allow some reasonable profit for work done. The reason for having copyright expiration dates was to allow further creativity to build upon what was already there. Congress blew through that idea, and extended copyright expiration times to allow people’s grandchildren to make a profit on the grandparents’ work…which was NOT the original intention.
/rant
Wow–where did all of that steam come from? Did I blow a hose or something?
That seems to be going around tonight. :rolls:
Dang. Try again.
Glad to know I’m not the only one with roll-eyes deficiency syndrome!
Ok, now you have to explain the blush one.
Okay, I linked to the abstract of the article, over in that “Hell freezes over” thread.
I haven’t found full-text yet.
But yes, everything points to this being real and true… at least for what they’re calling “biological” drugs. (Vaccines, hormones, anti-cancer antibodies, Humira for rheumatoid arthritis, anything that’s been “engineered,” and so on.)
Whuos, just stumbled across this… (link in sig)
{http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html}
Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma
Why Chretien? He hasnt been PM for years now. Is it just because he looks funny? I know our current PM is a douche, but still.
lol I’m not the only one who noticed. xD
Chretien fits, because I can see him actually SAYING this to the media, but *snerk* you know nobody in the US pays attention to who’s running Canada anyway. More than a few probably think it’s some guy named Tim Horton.
I thought it was Guy Lafleur.
You DO realize that Chretien hasn’t been our Prime Minister since 2003, right?
This! is! PK! Your “facts” have no place here!
Actually, now that I think about it, this whole thread has no place here, because this “LOL” is severely funny-deficient.
Pfft. This is PK. Using current photos is amateur stuff.
Well “not current” would be a photo from 2006. Using Chretien is just… proving Canada right.
Right that Chrétien’s name is pronounced like “cretin”?
wait wait wait wait…wait
someone LEADS cananda?
I think it’s more like kinda-of-leads. They’re all sitting around in Parliament and smoking that legal pot. How much “leadership” can there really be.
Pfft. They’re not sitting around in Parliament. They’re watching TV! The Leafs-Canadiens game is on!
How could I forget that??!!
Yeah canadian health care is better thats why whole lot of countries sick people go there for surgery and other necessary treatment oh wait im sorry did i say canada i meant america silly me i just forgot who had better health care
Learn to spell. Learn some grammar. You make me embarrassed that I have to admit I am from the same country as you.
That wasn’t me. Someone is trying to steal my unique identification.
cheaper, yeah. If u r not in a such a hurry, 8 months is just like tomorrow
Do you reside in Canada?
I think it’s interesting that a bunch of Americans who don’t really know anything about Canada are storming in and saying how awful Canadian health care is…while actual Canadians are coming in and telling the truth.
Those anti-reform commercials are powerful. Those are “real” Canadians, doncha know. How can that not be the truth???!!!
Wow. The captioner gave Chretien WAY to much credit on the clarity of his english. His speech is honestly closer to an LOLcat.
Overall message is win, though
HAHAH THIS. It should have said
‘Ow can our ‘eald care be cheaper dan yours and ’till be bedder dan yours?
Simple. You Yanks spend ‘alf de moneee on lawyers and enshurance companies.
With lots of weird French Canadian inflection, natch.
“Howz can er helt care beez cheaper den yourzes’ en stillz better den yourzes’?” sounds a bit more realistic I think.
The second half would be totally incomprehensible. That man spoke neither English nor French.
Awww…I loved Chretien.
I never had anYYY trouBLLLE unDERstanDING his FRANglais.
Dental floss has more personality than our current PM. And more good ideas too.
Does anyone here know that the healthcare organization with the most denied claims per year is Medicare?
Well, now you do.
AND KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!!!11!! *sarcasm*
Knowing is half the battle.
(Porkchop sandwiches!)
Canadian “Health Care” is in NO WAY superior to the free market one here. Example one: you will wait 2-3 years for a yearly checkup. European health care is the same…extreme wait times for simple procedures. Once people reach a certain age, you cannot receive any kind of health care, not even if you pay for it, as you are deemed a weight on society. This kind of typical socialist rhetoric is absolutely infuriating….”IT’S THE EEEVIL GREEDY COMPANIES’ FAULT. IF ONLY THEY WEREN’T EEEVIL PEOPLE WOULD GET THE HEALTH CARE THEY NEED.” I’m going to skip an in-depth dissertation on the problems of the socialist economic system and simply state the obvious: you, sir, are an idiot.
“European health care is the same…extreme wait times for simple procedures. Once people reach a certain age, you cannot receive any kind of health care, not even if you pay for it, as you are deemed a weight on society.”
Sources on this, please? Sounds interesting.
Guest can’t back these “claims” he/she/it is making. Why? Because they’ve been fed to him by those that are just as ignorant as he is. It’s easy to spot these American ignoramuses a mile away.
I would like to state that I am in no way associated with Guest. Please don’t confuse us.
Thing #1 and Thing # 2
As a Canadian who gets her annual check-up every year without fail, I’ll have to tell my GP that we’re doing it wrong. You are incorrect about seniors as well. They are never refused treatment because of their age. Where are you getting this “information” and why are you swallowing it?
Hmmm…Beauty & the Beast was wrong. Please, DON’T be our Guest. I’d call you an idiot in return for this nonsense, but even idiots stand a chance of being right once in a while. You couldn’t find your ass with two hands and a flashlight. Turn off the Hannity, lay off the Kool-Aid, and find out the less psychotic truth.
Are we going to have to come up with a Godwin’s law for Hannity? Or an ordinal post rule about Dolberman?
obviously you morons aren’t from Canada. Canadian health care is terrible. You pay for nothing. Don’t get sick after June, there isn’t any money left for you to see a doctor.
Obviously neither are you. Idiot.
I also heard that Canada eats babies and that hockey pucks are made from the souls of Americans. /sarcasm
If their health care is so much better, how come so many of their citizens come to the States for medical treatment? For that matter, some of the world’s most wealthy and/or powerful people who are citizens of other countries come here for surgeries instead of staying in their own countries. That ought to tell you something.
You’re an idiot. Get a clue before you go repeating the crap you heard on Fox News and making a fool of yourself.
You’re not answering the question.
Seriously, I hate it when people tell you how ignorant you are and how you need to learn the truth but don’t even answer the question.
Even if I disagree with the answer or even if it’s just plain wrong, at least it’s an answer.
And many of our most powerful, wealthy people go get procedures done in other countries as well… If you have money falling out of your butt, you can go to any physician you want for any reason… I have heard of a few people with VERY specialized diagnoses traveling here to see a world renowned specialist. I doubt your average Canadians are streaming across the border for expensive, less effective medical care.
And FTR, everyone, Dr. House is a fictional character.
Google On The Fence Films.
Win.
Which would be WIN if it were actually true. Unfortunately, the Canadian health care system isn’t exactly “better” unless the only treatment you require is routine health care, not seeing specialists, getting a date for surgery, or any of that other good stuff. Which is why a lot of Canadians who have to wait months for a referral to a specialists or months and months to get a surgery date are coming to the US to see doctors here and get these procedures done within a reasonable time frame. When your child has a brain tumor, it should not take months to get a referral for an MRI. And that’s exactly the kind of thing Canadians have to struggle with.
Do you reside in Canada? Do you have family in Canada? Do you have any personal experience with the Canadian health care system? If you don’t then you shouldn’t repeat what all of the anti-reform screechers are telling you.
Hmmm, that argument goes both ways.
I live in the U.S. so I have every right to make judgments about the healthcare system here. I have family in Canada from whom I get first-hand, personal accounts about their healthcare system. I have lived in Europe so I am intimate with how their health systems functions. Anything else?
If Americans only knew how much of a shambles the Canadian healthcare system is in.
Then why do they come to America for health care? because our system works and is what our country is based on, Capitalism. Capitalism works, look at China, as soon as they allowed free market to exist their economy skyrocketed. Try educating yourselves before making stupid comments and embarrassing yourselves
“Try educating yourselves before making stupid comments and embarrassing yourselves”
The same could be said for you. Just sayin.
Because the US has better medical technology available, and the Canadians have insurance to pay for it. In the US, our citizens cannot get any treatment without insurance, which a lot of people do not have. Next dumb question please!
If capitalism works, why did the last administration have to bail out all those capitalist banks?
And yes, our health care is great … if you have the money. If not, wait until you’re REALLY ill, go to the ER and we ALL end up paying for your care.
I miss Jean Chretien…Canadian satirical news has gone downhill since he left Parliament.
Canadians don’t use the term yanks when talking to americans, sheesh. They use the word “idiot”.
Nice post – kitchen pictures ..Keep Posting– Tip: Keep your post active- commenting helps it – Ron kitchen pictures
Except that its NOT cheaper in Canada – they’re taxes amount to well over 50% of their income…and its absolutely not better…..look at all the American doctors with practices near border crossings that are absolutely INUNDATED with Canadians coming here for medical procedures.