From: Jack Hollis on 24 Jan 2010 14:15
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:40:01 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net>
>On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:42:25 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
>>> I suspect a lot of people are against this plan because they don't
>>> want to acknowledge that they are paying for the poor.
>>People are against it because they perceive it will do nothing to reduce
>>their own premiums.
>Sure, it's a lousy excuse for a health care bill that doesn't do much.
>But people are against it because their premiums won't change?
Most Americans are quite happy with their health care and why not,
it's the best in the world. What they're are not happy with is the
cost. If Congress actually passed some legislation that would reduce
costs then people would support it. It also would allow more poor
people to be able to afford insurance.
Tort reform is one easy way to reduce cost. Of course, the Democrats
are owned by the trial lawyers so that's not on the table. Then you
could allow people to buy insurance in any state they want. This
would also reduce costs because people could only buy the insurance
coverage they want.
Neither of these proposals would cost the government a dime.
From: assimilate on 24 Jan 2010 14:24
On 24-Jan-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > People are against it because they perceive it will do nothing to
> > reduce their own premiums.
> It's more complicated than that, tied in with Americans' fear and
> suspicion of each other (racism) and how expertly those biases are
> manipulated by big healthcare for its own benefit.
you know carbs, the only thing more lame than blaming everything on racism,
is blaming everything on Bush. The healthcare lobby was able to manipulate
the bill because the Democrats were easily bought.
From: assimilate on 24 Jan 2010 14:25
On 24-Jan-2010, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
> > Are you paying for your children's education? Oh, yes, by taxes.
> I'm not paying yet. I am saving and I am saving quite a bit. I figure I
> will need about $30,000 a year saved up for each kid and then there will
> be about $1,500 a month out of pocket costs to me. Damn kids want to go
> to Ivy league schools.
Hope you are going to require they have a little skin in the game!
From: assimilate on 24 Jan 2010 14:27
On 24-Jan-2010, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Nonsense. Hospitals at public institutions, such as those attached to
> > > major universities, have no such funds. Nor do the hospitals in the
> > > big
> > > corporate hospital chains. They simply absorb those costs by what they
> > > charge the fully insured.
> > You are just ig-nant then.
all hospitals have such funds, how they are booked is just an accounting
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 24 Jan 2010 14:50
On Jan 24, 9:51 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:55:11 -0800, dene wrote:
> > You snipped the part about the 12% Harmony tax. It's relevent to this
> > discussion. If your government needs to do this to finance the needs of
> > 35 million, think what our bloated, inefficient gov't would require.
> > I respect your country and it's system. It just will not work here.
> > Part of it is culture. The US was born out of rebellion and immigrants
> > risking all to make a better life. Canadians have a different history,
> > which makes them more agreeable to cradle to grave socialism and the
> > accompanying taxes. Case in point...in Oregon one cannot pump your own
> > gas. A gas station must pay somebody to do it for you. There has been
> > attempts to repeal this silly law but it goes down in flames every time..
> > Why? It's part of our state culture. Same is true about our employer
> > based health insurance system.
> I haven't been in BC since 1999. I left the harmony tax out because I've
> never heard of it. If it's a regular sales tax that pays for higher
> quality healthcare and better schools, it is possible that a majority of
> Canadians will be in favor of it. The difference, I think, is there is
> more trust that tax revenue will be spent on the things the government
> says they will be spent on.
> There is a fundamentally different culture in the US, a willingness to
> say "you can't have it!" to fellow citizens. To an outsider, it's
> surprising. I don't understand it. I think there is absolutely a racist
> component that is deliberately exploited by the far right media and its
> sponsors. Watch enough Fox and you can practically see an endless wave
> of syphilitic, leprous Mexicans jumping the fences to join all the lazy,
> illiterate Blacks lounging around collecting welfare.
In Canada, the govt says "you can't have it". In the US, you can earn
it, regardless (in Canada, you cannot earn it, the govt decision is