There goes your job ....

[GerryG]

What a BS quote, Most folks that have this kind of money are not FORTUNATE!!!!! They damn well earned it!

Really? By my count one quarter of the richest 400 Americans got their money through inheritance. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/54/400list08_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

The sad part is they've tricked you into defending them.

"Since the hoi-polloi are carrying water for us, Cricket and I will be cock tailing on the terrace. Of course we'll be dining al fresco this evening." "Very good sir."

 

[pilot772]

My doctor supports it as well as his Medical Association, I guess that he is not worried about the government getting between us.











American Medical Association Supports H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009″

Released July 16, 2009
House bill expands access to high quality, affordable health care for Americans
Today, the American Medical Association sent a letter to House leaders supporting H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.”
“This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform,” said J. James Rohack, MD, AMA president.
“We urge the House committees of jurisdiction to pass the bill for consideration by the full House.” H.R. 3200 includes provisions key to effective, comprehensive health reform, including:

• Coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms
• A choice of plans through a health insurance exchange
• An end to coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions
• Fundamental Medicare reform, including repeal of the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula
• Additional funding for primary care services, without reductions on specialty care
• Individual responsibility for health insurance, including premium assistance to those who need it
• Prevention and wellness initiatives to help keep Americans healthy
• Initiatives to address physician workforce concerns

“The status quo is unacceptable,” Dr. Rohack said. “We support passage of H.R. 3200, and we look forward to additional constructive dialogue as the long process of passing a health reform bill continues. This is an important step, but one of many steps in the process. The AMA is actively engaged with Congress and the administration to achieve health reform that best meets the needs of patients and physicians. We are committed to passing health reform this year consistent withprinciples of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients.”
MEDIA CONTACT:
Brenda Craine, 202-789-7447
Director, AMA Media

http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/th...vant-is-the-american-medical-association.html

The AMA does now support this bill but don't think for a moment that they speak for a large number of doctors. In fact only around 25%-30% of doctors are members. That number is shrinking on a yearly basis as well. My wife is close to being finished with medical school, her and most of her friends and colleagues in her class think the AMA is a joke. You should see how much crap they send her in a given week trying to get her to join. It all goes straight to the shredder. As with the current legislslation most doc's that my wife speaks with or listens to speak are for reform. Hell everybody is for some sort of reform, but most Doc's fear the legislation in the current form will make things worse (more bureaucracy, less freedom for patient care, longer waits for certain procedures, and perhaps less covered procedures under the new insurance plans.) So the AMA DOES NOT represent even a majority of doctors, and their endorsement seems more so as a "we don't want to get left behind on this matter" than it is a real endorsement. This administration is very good at bullying and threating large organizations to get what they want. Just as they did with the hospitals a few weeks ago, it was a lauded as a successful joint decision. For the hospitals to take less money on Medicare and Medicaid payments to help pay for the new legislation. When in reality the hospitals were bullied into accepting the terms of the deal and did so reluctantly.

 

[ned plimpton]

Who pays for the health insurance of those who can't afford it???

The government ? Or do the insurance companies give it away for free?

First off, it's interesting that you would highlight how absurd and illogical it would be for private insurance companies to be FORCED "to give it away for free"!!! Hmmmmmmm....... It almost sounds like deep down you may actually understand the immorality and short-comings of welfare-systems after all.

Anyway...

Remember that we are discussing "OPTIONS" here. You have shifted the argument away from that a little. The fact is that if you lived in Switzerland with the job you have now, you would be required by law to buy health insurance. The only OPTIONS available for you to choose from would be PRIVATE. There is NO government option.

Now, if you lost your job in Switzerland, yes, the government would subsidize a portion of your health-insurance costs, but this is in no way an option. Unless you consider it an option to dump your job and the rest of your income and security just to be able to free-load a portion of your heath-care costs.

Anyway, I think it's good to take an HONEST look at other systems. It's far from perfect. And laws requiring insurance are repulsive. But, if you're going to take anything away from Switzerland's example, I think it should be the way that their system encourages people into the self-discipline of actually having to plan and save their OWN money. It's amazing how much more responsible people will become when deciding if something is necessary or paying attention to how much something costs when they ACTUALLY have a personal stake in it. But, then again, self-discipline hardly sounds like an easy-sell in this country these days.

 

[rigger]

Really? By my count one quarter of the richest 400 Americans got their money through inheritance. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/54/400list08_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

The sad part is they've tricked you into defending them.

"Since the hoi-polloi are carrying water for us, Cricket and I will be cock tailing on the terrace. Of course we'll be dining al fresco this evening." "Very good sir."

Why I said MOST....of course some folks got their money through inheritance, As some got it through the lottery....but the vast majority got it through hard work and smarts.......there have been more millionaires MADE in the last 10 years then any other time in history.....Some always get lucky....but most EARN it....Something to which MOST libs believe cannot happen....after all it's not faaaaaaiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrr.

Christ get over it and bust you butt....Perhaps you and others can break out of the way you have always been doing things and realize that is what is keeping you always having the same outcome. Change your own outcome!!!! If by chance you (or others) are not talented enough, smart enough, FORTUNATE enough, or just plain not good enough thats ok we are not all the same and never ever will be! THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE MORE WELL OFF AND LESS WELL OFF........wishing and hoping for CHANGE has never and will never work.......HARD WORK GOOD DESCIONS AND FORTITUDE WILL (something not everyone aspires too)

 

[400pilot]

Really? By my count one quarter of the richest 400 Americans got their money through inheritance.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but that would mean that 75%, a vast majority, did not. So I would answer; Yes....really. Besides, this is only 400 out of how many who make more than $250,000 or $1 million, depending on who is talking and what day it is.

It seems that some forget that "wealth" and income is relative. The average American makes more money, has more wealth and lives far better than the most people on this planet. My section 8 welfare tenant lives better than most people on this planet. Between 60%-70% of people (non-americans) make the equivalent of about $2 US a day. Would you consider it fair for a government to take about 50% of what you make right now and give it to all those people who don't make sh1t? I'm sure they would consider it fair (those who receive the redistribution.) After all, they get by on $2 a day. Surely you can "give up" some of your income to "spread the wealth."


"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

"Greed is a word leftists use to describe what conservatives call ambition. Ambition and reward are what fuel prosperity in a market economy. When you impose penalties and restrict rewards on economic activity - such as by excessive taxation - however noble your motives, there are consequences. You get less work, savings, investment and output. If that weren't the case, we could tax ourselves rich. The fatal shortcoming of socialist economies is that they don't sufficiently reward excellence, so, predictably, they get less of it. It's that fundamental conflict with human nature that seals socialism's ultimate doom." Mark Rosen

 

[jetwash]

Remember that we are discussing "OPTIONS" here. You have shifted the argument away from that a little.

While the use of the word "Options" to describe the basic medical insurance that they are require to have may be wrong, but it is an Option to buy extra private medical insurance which is not required.

In the end it comes down to should the government set a minimum standard of medical care all citizens should have.

I believe that it should.

 

[Heavy Set]

I don't trust Obama one bit. He will say ANYTHING to get elected and now re-elected. He can always claim that "he has changed his mind based on new information." Well, he is now contradicting some of his big views expressed during the campaign. This guy is very slick and as a great speaker, he can talk his way through any messy situation.

I didn't vote for him either. I can sleep at night knowing that at least I didn't contribute to the slow downfall of capitalism...

 

[GerryG]

They Myth of Horatio Alger

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but that would mean that 75%, a vast majority, did not. So I would answer; Yes....really. Besides, this is only 400 out of how many who make more than $250,000 or $1 million, depending on who is talking and what day it is.

It seems that some forget that "wealth" and income is relative. The average American makes more money, has more wealth and lives far better than the most people on this planet. My section 8 welfare tenant lives better than most people on this planet. Between 60%-70% of people (non-americans) make the equivalent of about $2 US a day. Would you consider it fair for a government to take about 50% of what you make right now and give it to all those people who don't make sh1t? I'm sure they would consider it fair (those who receive the redistribution.) After all, they get by on $2 a day. Surely you can "give up" some of your income to "spread the wealth."


"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

"Greed is a word leftists use to describe what conservatives call ambition. Ambition and reward are what fuel prosperity in a market economy. When you impose penalties and restrict rewards on economic activity - such as by excessive taxation - however noble your motives, there are consequences. You get less work, savings, investment and output. If that weren't the case, we could tax ourselves rich. The fatal shortcoming of socialist economies is that they don't sufficiently reward excellence, so, predictably, they get less of it. It's that fundamental conflict with human nature that seals socialism's ultimate doom." Mark Rosen

From Wikipedia

Harlon L. Dalton, Professor of Law at Yale University, not only objects to the Horatio Alger myth, but also maintains that it is socially destructive. Dalton explains that the Horatio Alger myth conveys three basic messages, “(1) each of us is judged solely on her or his own merits; (2) we each have a fair opportunity to develop those merits; and (3) Each of them is, to be charitable, problematic. The first message is a variant on the rugged individualism ethos…In this form, the Horatio Alger myth suggests that success in life has nothing to do with pedigree, race, class background, gender, national origin, sexual orientation—in short, with anything beyond our individual control. Those variables may exist, but they play no appreciable role in how our actions are appraised."[9]


Dalton also believes that the deep appeal of the Horatio Alger myth is that it allows and even pulls people in the direction they want to go. Psychologically, the Horatio Alger myth opens many doors. When the odds are stacked against you, one often has to convince himself that “there is a reason to get up in the morning.”[9]




The erroneous concept of the Horatio Alger myth is apparent in the non-corporate realm as well, with specific contradiction seen in education.
Education is a means of maintaining class boundaries. Employers use education to determine who to hire, as education is used to select persons who have been socialized into the dominant status culture. Differential achievement in school occurs because of different expectations of administrators, teachers, and parents for students of different socio-economic backgrounds. Instead of mobility, childhood education merely reproduces the current social system. The wage gap between those with college degrees and others is growing. College tuition has increased dramatically and many can no longer afford college, and financial aid options have not kept up with increases in tuition.


Despite Sowell’s insistence that tax brackets tell the real story of income distribution and economic mobility, the increasing wealth disparities between upper-class and working-class Americans confirm that indeed, the rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of the U.S. population.
The real median income on has increased steadily since 1947, from $22,000 to just over $50,000 in 2003. Since 1979 then incredibly divergent income patterns have developed between the rich and the poor. There has been an almost negligible growth for the median and 20th percentile, with explosive growth at the top 95th percentile. The increase in income inequality since the 1970s can be described as the middle class squeeze, with the greatest changes in the bottom third and the top third. In the bottom third, income is generally as it was almost 30 years ago. The top 1% of the population have seen their incomes more than double. Among the poorest people, income grew during 1995 and 2004 due to the increase in annual hours worked, but the increase was very small. The opposite is true for the elite. According to Gregory Mantsios, director of Working Education at CUNY, “the wealthiest 20 percent of the American population holds 85 percent of the total household wealth in the country,” a statistic that does not offer much hope for the remaining percentage of the population.[10]
The poor are becoming poorer and owing more money. In 1985, the average working-class citizen owed $500, compared to $8,000 today. For the top 5%, wealth (income and assets) has increased from about $500,000 to about $1,000,000. In 2005, the average family had a net worth of $80,000. The poverty level is also much too low for the Horatio Alger myth to be applied in modern society: “a total of 14 percent of the American population – that is, one of every seven – live below the government’s official poverty line (calculated in 1996 at $7,992 for an individual and $16,209 for a family of four)”.[11]

 

[rigger]

From Wikipedia

Harlon L. Dalton, Professor of Law at Yale University, not only objects to the Horatio Alger myth, but also maintains that it is socially destructive. Dalton explains that the Horatio Alger myth conveys three basic messages, “(1) each of us is judged solely on her or his own merits; (2) we each have a fair opportunity to develop those merits; and (3) Each of them is, to be charitable, problematic. The first message is a variant on the rugged individualism ethos…In this form, the Horatio Alger myth suggests that success in life has nothing to do with pedigree, race, class background, gender, national origin, sexual orientation—in short, with anything beyond our individual control. Those variables may exist, but they play no appreciable role in how our actions are appraised."[9]


Dalton also believes that the deep appeal of the Horatio Alger myth is that it allows and even pulls people in the direction they want to go. Psychologically, the Horatio Alger myth opens many doors. When the odds are stacked against you, one often has to convince himself that “there is a reason to get up in the morning.”[9]




The erroneous concept of the Horatio Alger myth is apparent in the non-corporate realm as well, with specific contradiction seen in education.
Education is a means of maintaining class boundaries. Employers use education to determine who to hire, as education is used to select persons who have been socialized into the dominant status culture. Differential achievement in school occurs because of different expectations of administrators, teachers, and parents for students of different socio-economic backgrounds. Instead of mobility, childhood education merely reproduces the current social system. The wage gap between those with college degrees and others is growing. College tuition has increased dramatically and many can no longer afford college, and financial aid options have not kept up with increases in tuition.


Despite Sowell’s insistence that tax brackets tell the real story of income distribution and economic mobility, the increasing wealth disparities between upper-class and working-class Americans confirm that indeed, the rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of the U.S. population.
The real median income on has increased steadily since 1947, from $22,000 to just over $50,000 in 2003. Since 1979 then incredibly divergent income patterns have developed between the rich and the poor. There has been an almost negligible growth for the median and 20th percentile, with explosive growth at the top 95th percentile. The increase in income inequality since the 1970s can be described as the middle class squeeze, with the greatest changes in the bottom third and the top third. In the bottom third, income is generally as it was almost 30 years ago. The top 1% of the population have seen their incomes more than double. Among the poorest people, income grew during 1995 and 2004 due to the increase in annual hours worked, but the increase was very small. The opposite is true for the elite. According to Gregory Mantsios, director of Working Education at CUNY, “the wealthiest 20 percent of the American population holds 85 percent of the total household wealth in the country,” a statistic that does not offer much hope for the remaining percentage of the population.[10]
The poor are becoming poorer and owing more money. In 1985, the average working-class citizen owed $500, compared to $8,000 today. For the top 5%, wealth (income and assets) has increased from about $500,000 to about $1,000,000. In 2005, the average family had a net worth of $80,000. The poverty level is also much too low for the Horatio Alger myth to be applied in modern society: “a total of 14 percent of the American population – that is, one of every seven – live below the government’s official poverty line (calculated in 1996 at $7,992 for an individual and $16,209 for a family of four)”.[11]

Classic Liberal blah blah blah

They owe more because they refuse to live within their means. They want the car the house, the cell phone the steak....sorry not all people can have all the wonderful stuff in life....But heck they are learning from the government that is stealing from me and giving it to someone else

As for the poverty line give me a break typical 3rd world country would give you anything to have 1/2 this amount....not to say one is better then the other.....But the opportunity exists for these folks to get off their (typically) lazy butts and go get the free education that I got and work hard to earn more.

You also prove my point that "people are in the position they are in because they continue to do the things that got them there" The rich got richer (cause they worked harder) the poor got poorer cause they choose not to work at all! How could they do that???? the government took more of the wealthier folks money and gave it away to allow the poor to not have to better themselves.....course thats how you get re-elected....got to have the "needy" class to vote me into office!

As for paying for "it" how much is enough for a person to pay in federal tax 30-40-50-60-70% What is the number that tells the person to just stay home and not pay anymore to the lazy class? When the bottom 48% of the US population pay almost ZERO in tax you have a real problem, When you call welfare payments a tax rebate you are doomed! How can you have a rebate when YOU PAY NOTHING?????

400's quote says it all

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

We are almost here!!!!!

 

[ned plimpton]

While the use of the word "Options" to describe the basic medical insurance that they are require to have may be wrong, but it is an Option to buy extra private medical insurance which is not required.

Huh?

Let me see if I have this straight. You go from mistakenly holding up Switzerland as a shining example of how government health insurance options "work"........ to condescending to someone for pointing out the FACT that such a thing DOESN'T EVEN EXIST in that country....... to then throwing in some irrelevant jibberish about "extra insurance" when you finally realize your error??????

Is that your idea of manning up and admitting you were wrong?

Wow.... Definitely an interesting glimpse into the mindset and character of the kind of person who is so trusting of power and so willing to trade in their FREEDOM for this illusion of security.

Have a good weekend.