DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Let's talk DEEE-Fense & Health Care :-)
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 283, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/09/2014 04:01:24 PM · #76
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:

Whatever, though, perhaps you're being honest... Who knows.

Cory, impunging the honesty of other members here is not a good idea ...

Now, suppose on one of your escapades with that 300lb camera of yours you had had an accident and become paraplegic ... just how much would that $200/mo policy have done for you, for the rest of your life? Be honest now ...


Judith is well known for 'spin'.. I can't honestly say that I trust her position on anything political.

As for your question, how the hell am I supposed to know that? It was the best coverage offered by Humana at the time in my state, so I would suspect that it should have covered me at least as well as anything else would have.
03/09/2014 04:07:58 PM · #77
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Since we're talking about the Heritage Foundation, it is interesting to note that many of the components of the demonized (by the Right, anyway) Affordable Care Act are ideas proposed by the Heritage Foundation in the first place.


Yes, you're exactly right on that, though it's the Right who refuse to acknowledge that fact. The ACA isn't a great idea. While it does help out those that have been denied coverage, it's lining the pockets of the insurance companies.


The Right refuses to acknowledge it because they'd rather see Americans boiled in oil than admit the current president did something right.

I won't say the ACA is perfect, but anything that moves the US away from the outdated notion that health coverage is only for those with jobs that provide it is a good thing.


Previously: Those who held jobs were able to pay for their own health insurance, if they wanted it.

Today: Those who hold jobs are expected to pay for their own health insurance, and for the health insurance of others who don't have jobs.

..

Personally, I do not see that as any sort of improvement.


You have it wrong.

Previously, those who had jobs were the only ones with access to healthcare at reasonable rates, assuming their employers provided it. You still paid for the healthcare of those who didn't have coverage, whether you know it or not. If someone didn't have coverage and were unable to pay full freight, they were still treated and that cost was recovered by charging everyone who did have coverage more.

When I got laid off in 2009, I went to get insurance coverage for my two sons and myself. Several companies simply refused coverage. Of the ones who offered coverage, the cheapest was a policy with a $2k monthly premium and $12k deductible.

I looked up what it would cost under the ACA and while it's more than what I pay now through my employer, it is far less than what I saw in 2009.
03/09/2014 04:15:29 PM · #78
Originally posted by Cory:

Previously: Those who held jobs were able to pay for their own health insurance, if they wanted it.

Today: Those who hold jobs are expected to pay for their own health insurance, and for the health insurance of others who don't have jobs.

..

Personally, I do not see that as any sort of improvement.


Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I don't understand what you're saying here. Previously, my husband and I, both self-employed, could not afford $15,000 a year for health insurance (the cheapest policy we could find in New York State, and not very good coverage at that). Today, the most expensive coverage is 50 percent cheaper than before the ACA, and since we're not buying the most expensive policy, and we're eligible for some subsidy, it's quite affordable. And we don't have to worry about lifetime caps in the event of long-term illness, or worry that our coverage will be cut off due to illness (a pre-existing condition). A very much improved situation for me personally.


Originally posted by Cory:

Hmm. Strange to me that you could be getting cheaper insurance, when it has to cover more, and cover more people who aren't paying in..

Whatever, though, perhaps you're being honest... Who knows.

What I DO know is that my coverage has done the following:

Originally: Self-paid, $200 or so a month for amazing coverage, like it cost me NOTHING when I lit myself on fire last Feb. (ER, 3rd degree on hand and leg) (Officially deductible was 1k/year)
Today: My insurance company (Humana) left the state and stopped coverage. The exchange wants just over 2x as much for a plan that covers significantly less, and has a deductible 5x as high. Interestingly Humana has still been billing me, so I need to figure that out.

Now, I'm uninsured, and angry about it. Tell me whatever you want, but I got fucked in this deal. And I'm going to be taxed now for being fucked. Yeah, I'm super happy.


Well, for one thing, we're buying our insurance from the only non-profit company operating in the county in which I reside that's on the exchange. It's 30 percent cheaper than all the other companies, in all tiers of coverage. And as I said, we're eligible for some subsidy, so that helps a lot. But addressing your situation, the exchanges are variable from state to state, and even within states. There are only six companies to choose from in the county where I reside, but downstate, for example, there are 22 companies in the New York metropolitan area, and if we lived down there we'd have even better coverage at a better price.

But the thing you don't realize is that being a young person and generally healthy, your previous cheap coverage was probably fine for the occasional mishap. But had you developed a long-term illness, Humana was free to cut you off if your care became too expensive. You didn't have any protections before, but now, yes, that protection is priced into the coverage.
03/09/2014 04:19:47 PM · #79
Originally posted by Cory:

Whatever, though, perhaps you're being honest... Who knows.


Originally posted by GeneralE:

Cory, impunging the honesty of other members here is not a good idea ...


Originally posted by Cory:

Judith is well known for 'spin'.. I can't honestly say that I trust her position on anything political.


Hey man, if you don't believe me, go look for yourself. You can get on the federal website or individual states' exchange websites and look at the policies and prices. It ain't rocket science.
03/09/2014 04:25:08 PM · #80
Originally posted by Spork99:

You have it wrong.

Previously, those who had jobs were the only ones with access to healthcare at reasonable rates, assuming their employers provided it. You still paid for the healthcare of those who didn't have coverage, whether you know it or not. If someone didn't have coverage and were unable to pay full freight, they were still treated and that cost was recovered by charging everyone who did have coverage more.

When I got laid off in 2009, I went to get insurance coverage for my two sons and myself. Several companies simply refused coverage. Of the ones who offered coverage, the cheapest was a policy with a $2k monthly premium and $12k deductible.

I looked up what it would cost under the ACA and while it's more than what I pay now through my employer, it is far less than what I saw in 2009.


Correct. I have a friend who is self-employed, single mom with one 10-year-old, lives in the next county. She's now paying 75 percent less for her coverage than before the ACA.

The ACA may not be perfect, there are certainly ways it could be improved upon, but it's a step in the right direction for a lot of folks.
03/09/2014 04:56:26 PM · #81
Should the thread title be changed to "Let's talk HELLL-thcare" ?

I'll just say this - ACA was a huge improvement for some and a huge shaft for others. The ones who benefit will champion and defend it and the ones who got shafted will denounce and condemn it. It's essentially a redistribution. Also, some (not just referring to this thread) are debating on principle and some are debating from a position of their personal reality. The main problem I have with it is that it was sold on outright lies and deceit. That said, if they were honest, it never would have passed. Of course it seems that everyone has acquiesced to the idea that our government runs on lies and deceit and they're ok with it when it goes their way, yet outraged by it when it doesn't.
03/09/2014 05:47:22 PM · #82
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Should the thread title be changed to "Let's talk HELLL-thcare" ?



Maybe.

However, my opinion is that innovation is tied to defense and innovation is done best by small companies or individuals. Big companies and the government generally suck at innovation. The government knows that, hence they (especially the DOD) utilize the SBIR program to drive innovation by small companies.

I have long considered starting my own engineering company and have gone to many seminars, conferences and workshops centered around doing so, particularly as a means to pursue SBIR DOD grants. Without fail, the number one concern of everyone I've talked to at these events when starting out is "How do I provide healthcare for my family?" and not "How do I develop the most kick-ass solution to the problem the DOD has posed?"

So you have lots of people with great ideas and innovative minds who are stuck toiling away in a mundane job, instead of developing solutions for the DOD.

Lack of access to healthcare is a HUGE impediment to true innovation and that is a barrier to improvements in defense along with many other areas.
03/09/2014 06:04:53 PM · #83
Points taken, Spork, but this thread was premised on OVERSPENDING on defense, not on innovation or "solving DoD's problems". In terms of healthcare's effect on jobs (related or unrelated to DoD), what I have seen is my friends with small businesses that have employees have given up, laid off their employees and just become freelance contractors - less work, more money to keep rather than pay in taxes, salaries and benefits for employees and much less stress. Some even jumped on the healthcare subsidies for themselves. Their former employees are now unemployed, but sure - they can likely get cheap or free healthcare under ACA, but two questions: are they better off? Is that sustainable for the country?

Back to DEEE-Fense: What are the "problems" the DoD is trying to solve that requires the amount of money they are spending? Maybe your point was that innovation could potentially reduce spending? Fat chance. The government will always spend what they can get away with and more - it's not their money, after all.
03/09/2014 06:12:32 PM · #84
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:



Back to DEEE-Fense: What are the "problems" the DoD is trying to solve that requires the amount of money they are spending? Maybe your point was that innovation could potentially reduce spending? Fat chance. The government will always spend what they can get away with and more - it's not their money, after all.


While it is true that governments are known for spending money, perhaps the crux of the argument in this instance is WHY is so much money spent on Defence.

When one considers that size, status, might and overwhelming amount of military equipment that the USA has at its'disposal, surely there is some room for transferring some of those funds to other programs.

Ray
03/09/2014 06:19:50 PM · #85
Originally posted by RayEthier:

When one considers that size, status, might and overwhelming amount of military equipment that the USA has at its'disposal, surely there is some room for transferring some of those funds to other programs.

I'd be more inclined to having them give the money back to it's rightful owners or not collecting it in the first place.
03/09/2014 06:31:39 PM · #86
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

When one considers that size, status, might and overwhelming amount of military equipment that the USA has at its'disposal, surely there is some room for transferring some of those funds to other programs.

I'd be more inclined to having them give the money back to it's rightful owners or not collecting it in the first place.


...and if we did that and got rid of corporate welfare everything would be much cheaper for the individual. We must also remember that without the financial input from the collective, there would be no such things as roads, railways, canals, tunnels and a bevy of other things. There are things that we pay for because it benefits everyone.

I pay school taxes and the services of firefighters, police, paramedics, ambulances and other services which I have never had a need to use. I would love to get that money back but I won't.

Funny thing is that I also pay long term disability insurance and employment insurance and will never be able to collect either of them... but I do understand that it is for the good of the collective.

I do however remember that not that long ago I was convalescing at home for almost 3 full months and had nurses visiting me on a daily basis to change dressing on my wounds... all of this at no costs to me. I also had things like visits to the Infectious Disease Center, XRays, doctor's visits, medication and other services covered.

Just call me one happy camper.

Ray
03/09/2014 06:31:53 PM · #87
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Points taken, Spork, but this thread was premised on OVERSPENDING on defense, not on innovation or "solving DoD's problems". In terms of healthcare's effect on jobs (related or unrelated to DoD), what I have seen is my friends with small businesses that have employees have given up, laid off their employees and just become freelance contractors - less work, more money to keep rather than pay in taxes, salaries and benefits for employees and much less stress. Some even jumped on the healthcare subsidies for themselves. Their former employees are now unemployed, but sure - they can likely get cheap or free healthcare under ACA, but two questions: are they better off? Is that sustainable for the country?

Back to DEEE-Fense: What are the "problems" the DoD is trying to solve that requires the amount of money they are spending? Maybe your point was that innovation could potentially reduce spending? Fat chance. The government will always spend what they can get away with and more - it's not their money, after all.


You do know that small businesses are exempt from the ACA, yes? And businesses with 51-99 employees are exempt until 2016.

It seems your friends were either ill-informed about the ACA or dissolved their businesses for other reasons.
03/09/2014 06:51:10 PM · #88
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Points taken, Spork, but this thread was premised on OVERSPENDING on defense, not on innovation or "solving DoD's problems". In terms of healthcare's effect on jobs (related or unrelated to DoD), what I have seen is my friends with small businesses that have employees have given up, laid off their employees and just become freelance contractors - less work, more money to keep rather than pay in taxes, salaries and benefits for employees and much less stress. Some even jumped on the healthcare subsidies for themselves. Their former employees are now unemployed, but sure - they can likely get cheap or free healthcare under ACA, but two questions: are they better off? Is that sustainable for the country?

Back to DEEE-Fense: What are the "problems" the DoD is trying to solve that requires the amount of money they are spending? Maybe your point was that innovation could potentially reduce spending? Fat chance. The government will always spend what they can get away with and more - it's not their money, after all.


You do know that small businesses are exempt from the ACA, yes? And businesses with 51-99 employees are exempt until 2016.

It seems your friends were either ill-informed about the ACA or dissolved their businesses for other reasons.

The effect of the ACA has been to drive the cost of insurance they were already providing way up - it has nothing to do with being exempt or required to provide insurance - it has to do with the cost of voluntarily providing health insurance.
03/09/2014 06:54:36 PM · #89
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Points taken, Spork, but this thread was premised on OVERSPENDING on defense, not on innovation or "solving DoD's problems". In terms of healthcare's effect on jobs (related or unrelated to DoD), what I have seen is my friends with small businesses that have employees have given up, laid off their employees and just become freelance contractors - less work, more money to keep rather than pay in taxes, salaries and benefits for employees and much less stress. Some even jumped on the healthcare subsidies for themselves. Their former employees are now unemployed, but sure - they can likely get cheap or free healthcare under ACA, but two questions: are they better off? Is that sustainable for the country?

Back to DEEE-Fense: What are the "problems" the DoD is trying to solve that requires the amount of money they are spending? Maybe your point was that innovation could potentially reduce spending? Fat chance. The government will always spend what they can get away with and more - it's not their money, after all.


You do know that small businesses are exempt from the ACA, yes? And businesses with 51-99 employees are exempt until 2016.

It seems your friends were either ill-informed about the ACA or dissolved their businesses for other reasons.

The effect of the ACA has been to drive the cost of insurance they were already providing way up - it has nothing to do with being exempt or required to provide insurance - it has to do with the cost of voluntarily providing health insurance.


Well, they didn't need to dissolve their businesses. They could have dropped the insurance for their employees, if they were truly small businesses, and their employees could have purchased insurance on the exchange. I fail to see why they would close their doors because of the ACA.
03/09/2014 07:15:12 PM · #90
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Points taken, Spork, but this thread was premised on OVERSPENDING on defense, not on innovation or "solving DoD's problems". In terms of healthcare's effect on jobs (related or unrelated to DoD), what I have seen is my friends with small businesses that have employees have given up, laid off their employees and just become freelance contractors - less work, more money to keep rather than pay in taxes, salaries and benefits for employees and much less stress. Some even jumped on the healthcare subsidies for themselves. Their former employees are now unemployed, but sure - they can likely get cheap or free healthcare under ACA, but two questions: are they better off? Is that sustainable for the country?

Back to DEEE-Fense: What are the "problems" the DoD is trying to solve that requires the amount of money they are spending? Maybe your point was that innovation could potentially reduce spending? Fat chance. The government will always spend what they can get away with and more - it's not their money, after all.


You do know that small businesses are exempt from the ACA, yes? And businesses with 51-99 employees are exempt until 2016.

It seems your friends were either ill-informed about the ACA or dissolved their businesses for other reasons.

The effect of the ACA has been to drive the cost of insurance they were already providing way up - it has nothing to do with being exempt or required to provide insurance - it has to do with the cost of voluntarily providing health insurance.


Well, they didn't need to dissolve their businesses. They could have dropped the insurance for their employees, if they were truly small businesses, and their employees could have purchased insurance on the exchange. I fail to see why they would close their doors because of the ACA.

Not just the ACA. Taxes, regulation and other issues - the healthcare increases were just the last straw for some. Like I said earlier, the ACA has benefits for some, while gouging others in one form or another. I'm not one to condemn it out of hand - it will take a long time to find out whether it will save us or destroy us or neither. It's most likely that the credit and/or blame will be misplaced anyway. I am just conveying the effects I encounter in my little corner of the country, as are you.
03/09/2014 07:30:53 PM · #91
"Nations have recently been led to borrow billions for war; no nation has ever borrowed largely for education. Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both."

Abraham Flexner (1866 - 1959), Universities, part 3, 1930
03/09/2014 08:02:09 PM · #92
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Points taken, Spork, but this thread was premised on OVERSPENDING on defense, not on innovation or "solving DoD's problems". In terms of healthcare's effect on jobs (related or unrelated to DoD), what I have seen is my friends with small businesses that have employees have given up, laid off their employees and just become freelance contractors - less work, more money to keep rather than pay in taxes, salaries and benefits for employees and much less stress. Some even jumped on the healthcare subsidies for themselves. Their former employees are now unemployed, but sure - they can likely get cheap or free healthcare under ACA, but two questions: are they better off? Is that sustainable for the country?

Back to DEEE-Fense: What are the "problems" the DoD is trying to solve that requires the amount of money they are spending? Maybe your point was that innovation could potentially reduce spending? Fat chance. The government will always spend what they can get away with and more - it's not their money, after all.


You do know that small businesses are exempt from the ACA, yes? And businesses with 51-99 employees are exempt until 2016.

It seems your friends were either ill-informed about the ACA or dissolved their businesses for other reasons.

The effect of the ACA has been to drive the cost of insurance they were already providing way up - it has nothing to do with being exempt or required to provide insurance - it has to do with the cost of voluntarily providing health insurance.


Well, they didn't need to dissolve their businesses. They could have dropped the insurance for their employees, if they were truly small businesses, and their employees could have purchased insurance on the exchange. I fail to see why they would close their doors because of the ACA.

Not just the ACA. Taxes, regulation and other issues - the healthcare increases were just the last straw for some. Like I said earlier, the ACA has benefits for some, while gouging others in one form or another. I'm not one to condemn it out of hand - it will take a long time to find out whether it will save us or destroy us or neither. It's most likely that the credit and/or blame will be misplaced anyway. I am just conveying the effects I encounter in my little corner of the country, as are you.


For your information and if you care to pass this along to your friends who are former small business owners, there are two ways the ACA might have helped them:

The Small Business Health Options Program

and the

Small Business Health Care Tax Credit

03/09/2014 08:42:06 PM · #93
I know many people who are were unable to even consider starting our own business due to the prohibitive cost of health insurance for their families. Those with families that have taken the risk have all had a spouse that had access to healthcare through their employer. For people with families to consider, health care is the biggest obstacle to becoming an entrepreneur.

Of course those people who are now leaving their jobs and striking out on their own because they can are the same people the Right is using to call the ACA a "job killer"
03/09/2014 10:19:14 PM · #94
I can simplify this for everyone. I was talking to a friend "who is about as liberal as I am conservative" about the healthcare act and how we were going to pay for it. He answered with heavy progressive taxes. He's an economist. He is correct. The ACA has both benefits and downsides. If you have read the 800 pages of the ACA you will see both. I like parts of it but do not think it should be forced on the American Tax payer. We truly need medical reform to lower the cost. Another subject for another debate. Now as for spending I did have the privilege of studying under Glen Browderwhile in college. He did something some of you may remember years back. He dressed a pig up in a dress and took it to the capital in DC. I don't remember the exact quote but he said to paraphrase you can dress a pig up in a dress but it is still a pig. Referring to all the pork project spending our government has done in all sectors for well ever. Get rid of the pork. Lower spending to at least equal the national GDP Export more than you import and if you have too and I don't like this idea, raise taxes to cover things such as education, national defense, or and education. Wait did I say that twice?
03/09/2014 10:35:04 PM · #95
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Points taken, Spork, but this thread was premised on OVERSPENDING on defense, not on innovation or "solving DoD's problems". In terms of healthcare's effect on jobs (related or unrelated to DoD), what I have seen is my friends with small businesses that have employees have given up, laid off their employees and just become freelance contractors - less work, more money to keep rather than pay in taxes, salaries and benefits for employees and much less stress. Some even jumped on the healthcare subsidies for themselves. Their former employees are now unemployed, but sure - they can likely get cheap or free healthcare under ACA, but two questions: are they better off? Is that sustainable for the country?

Back to DEEE-Fense: What are the "problems" the DoD is trying to solve that requires the amount of money they are spending? Maybe your point was that innovation could potentially reduce spending? Fat chance. The government will always spend what they can get away with and more - it's not their money, after all.


You do know that small businesses are exempt from the ACA, yes? And businesses with 51-99 employees are exempt until 2016.

It seems your friends were either ill-informed about the ACA or dissolved their businesses for other reasons.

The effect of the ACA has been to drive the cost of insurance they were already providing way up - it has nothing to do with being exempt or required to provide insurance - it has to do with the cost of voluntarily providing health insurance.


Well, they didn't need to dissolve their businesses. They could have dropped the insurance for their employees, if they were truly small businesses, and their employees could have purchased insurance on the exchange. I fail to see why they would close their doors because of the ACA.

Not just the ACA. Taxes, regulation and other issues - the healthcare increases were just the last straw for some. Like I said earlier, the ACA has benefits for some, while gouging others in one form or another. I'm not one to condemn it out of hand - it will take a long time to find out whether it will save us or destroy us or neither. It's most likely that the credit and/or blame will be misplaced anyway. I am just conveying the effects I encounter in my little corner of the country, as are you.


For your information and if you care to pass this along to your friends who are former small business owners, there are two ways the ACA might have helped them:

The Small Business Health Options Program

and the

Small Business Health Care Tax Credit


The problem with the ACA is if you can qualify for the free healthcare you get Medicaid. Guess what, many doctors are now refusing any new Medicaid patients. I Took the most expensive plan through BCBSAL because the deductible on the cheaper plans, if you go to the doctor more than 4 times a year would drive the cost over what the most expensive plan cost. You pay one way or the other if you use it. $377.15 a month Platinum $20 copay $100 yearly deductible 100 percent prescription and medical coverage after the Deductible is met. No caps. Gold plan one step lower cost $255 has a $2500 yearly deductible. $40 copay and has a step plan or prescriptions. Silver Well it just gets crazy. Now if you do not think you need it and just want the basic you can get out cheap, but if you use it once you will be paying for everything. Until you reach the $6500-$10,000 deductible. Never buy an insurance policy thinking you will not use it. Always have some money set back for emergency's. Oh and make sure you do pretax on all healthcare cost.
03/09/2014 10:48:19 PM · #96
F-ing hell. Single payer, PLEASE. This crap is convoluted horribly inefficient.

Can't everyone see how wrong headed this whole thing is? I suspect it's being done just to get assholes like myself to approve of single payer, and guess what - it's working... ANYTHING is superior to this.

In any case, can we please just stop half-assing everything and compromising everything? Design a system that works, and then implement - stop designing something that will work, then hacking it apart and then reassembling it into something that is a jumble of mis-matched parts.

Really, it's like designing a Lamborghini and then disassembling it with a chop-saw and welding it back together to look more like a VW Bug, and then putting the engine from a Kawasaki dirtbike in it. I'm tired of driving around in a country car that's built like this.. Socrates had it right ya know.
03/10/2014 12:09:29 AM · #97
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Should the thread title be changed to "Let's talk HELLL-thcare" ?

I'll just say this - ACA was a huge improvement for some and a huge shaft for others. The ones who benefit will champion and defend it and the ones who got shafted will denounce and condemn it. It's essentially a redistribution. Also, some (not just referring to this thread) are debating on principle and some are debating from a position of their personal reality. The main problem I have with it is that it was sold on outright lies and deceit. That said, if they were honest, it never would have passed. Of course it seems that everyone has acquiesced to the idea that our government runs on lies and deceit and they're ok with it when it goes their way, yet outraged by it when it doesn't.


Man. I just gotta +1 this. Gold. Pure gold.

Message edited by author 2014-03-10 00:09:54.
03/10/2014 10:05:20 AM · #98
You know, personally I support a single-payer, non-profit healthcare system -- in principle. In reality, however, I can't see this country ever coming around to it in a rational way, if we ever get there at all. If it does happen, it's going to be a "convoluted horribly inefficient" process that will take generations, because, in part, we're always going to have a significant minority shouting things like "our government runs on lies and deceit" and "it's essentially a redistribution", people who don't give a shit that 50 million people have no access to healthcare and who don't have any ideas about how to improve the situation anyway. So if you don't compromise and piecemeal your way toward a solution, you never make any progress... 'cause that's how we roll in the good ol' U.S. of A.
03/10/2014 01:40:30 PM · #99
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

You know, personally I support a single-payer, non-profit healthcare system -- in principle. In reality, however, I can't see this country ever coming around to it in a rational way, if we ever get there at all. If it does happen, it's going to be a "convoluted horribly inefficient" process that will take generations, because, in part, we're always going to have a significant minority shouting things like "our government runs on lies and deceit" and "it's essentially a redistribution", people who don't give a shit that 50 million people have no access to healthcare and who don't have any ideas about how to improve the situation anyway. So if you don't compromise and piecemeal your way toward a solution, you never make any progress... 'cause that's how we roll in the good ol' U.S. of A.


Because God forbid that our taxes go to help those lazy-good-for-nothing leeches on the system that are also your fellow Americans.
03/10/2014 02:16:48 PM · #100
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has introduced a single-payer healthcare bill, S. 1782. You can ask your senators to co-sponsor.

By the way, it looks like Sanders is going to run for president in 2016.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/21/2019 05:37:45 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/21/2019 05:37:45 PM EDT.