-
Make it like cafepharma, but for different industries. Learn more about CompanyUnderground
Public Option Bill
- Thread starter Rocknwolf
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
You say Liberal pipe dream. LBJ raced Medicare through Congress in 1965 with little Republican support. Do you know of any elderly Republicans who want Medicare abolished?
PO never came to a vote because only about 100-150 House Dems supported it while the rest were paid by HI companies to oppose it. Also, pussy Obama rarely talked about the PO.
---Dude from Orange County, CA
You don't get it, do ya, sapphire?
When politicians and corporations collude and walk hand in hand you get FASCISM!
So why do you think we're in the middle of an economic meltdown, genius??
THINK for christ sakes! THINK!
Of course elderly republicans wouldn't want it abolished.They are dependent, which proves my point "dude." Government wants us dependent so we increase their power.
You have oversimplified our problems. Fascism is bandied about these days without even knowing what it means.
When politicians bail out the very ones who intentionally detonated the economy with TRILLIONS of US taxdollars - and turned a blind eye to the dastardly deeds of Wall Street while the crimes were in process - THAT'S FASCISM ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT!!!
Go look up the definition. And don't spin it. If you try I'll do a cramjob on ya.
Again, I don't disagree, but keep in mind, neither the government or the corporations have any interest in changing the status quo. This includes both parties.
Ok. Now that you have agreed that we are living in a quasi fascist state - I will agree with you that our two-party system is rigged in favor of the elite and powerful at the expense of the worker bees (middle class) and that there is really very little difference between the dems and pubs in the final analysis. Obongo = Boooosh, in other words. And that has been established in the last 18 months without scintilla of doubt.
Of course anyone who has paid Medicare taxes for years does not want the rug pulled out from under them now that they rely on the program. As another poster pointed out - they are now dependent on the government. If they had been given the choice at the time, many would have opted out. But the government is afraid to give people the choice on Social Security, on Medicare, and now on health insurance.
If you are fortunate to have enough money to self-insure yourself, why should you be forced to buy health insurance. The mandate will be struck down by the states - like Missouri and Virginia have already done. The Supreme Court will back them up.
Note - we already have a "public option" on the books. It starts in 2014 (unless it is repealed or ruled unconstitutional) when the government will control the health insurance industry - telling them what they must offer and at what price they can charge.
You don’t believe seniors should rely on Medicare that they paid taxes for. Do you believe DICK CHENEY should be denied govt. coverage and forced to apply for coverage in the free market? Fair is fair. Without Medicare many seniors would file medical bankruptcy.
I know you are skeptical of proposed govt. programs like the PO. However, a Republican like Eisenhauer started the gasoline tax to support interstate highways and economist say this program expanded the economy.
The Public Option was never included in the bill starting in 2014.
The current bill will send tax subsidies to the abusive insurance monopoly, which is a bad idea. .
You don’t believe seniors should rely on Medicare that they paid taxes for. Do you believe DICK CHENEY should be denied govt. coverage and forced to apply for coverage in the free market? Fair is fair. Without Medicare many seniors would file medical bankruptcy.
I know you are skeptical of proposed govt. programs like the PO. However, a Republican like Eisenhauer started the gasoline tax to support interstate highways and economist say this program expanded the economy.
The Public Option was never included in the bill starting in 2014.
The current bill will send tax subsidies to the abusive insurance monopoly, which is a bad idea.
--Dude from Orange County, CA
This isn't a republican vs. democrat issue. It is an issue of what you see the role of government as. I know it is hard to believe, but most Americans DO NOT want a cradle grave dependency program. Even if they did, we can't afford it.
"Without medicare" argument is lame. Perhaps if we lived in a more "survival of the fittest" world, if you didn't properly save your money, social darwinism would take over. At that point, people would learn to save more, not smoke, not eat fatty foods, etc. And if they did all of that stuff, and died as a result of no coverage or no adequate means to protect themselves, cest le vie. Life isn't fair. People die. And if they died and lived a healthy life (say they got cancer) shit happens.
So Medicare ends up paying for horrible lifestyle choices that people make, from smoking to eat poorly to not exercising.
You know what, people die. It is a fact of life. I just lost my 57 year old father to an aggressive cancer, and it is the circle of life.
So only irresponsible people have medical emergencies? Cyclist Lance Armstrong delt with cancer. He may have been able to pay for treatments out of pocket, but most Americans can't. With private insurers denying coverage to millions an alternative like the PO is needed.
I respect your belief that govt. should not be in health care but consider the cost of our current system:
>self employed filing medical bankruptcy because their policies were canceled by the
HMO due to "application fraud"
>businesses sending jobs to Canada because they are
getting gouged by the health insurance monopoly. (Book: Outsourcing America)
A PO would relieve businesses of HC costs that force them to send jobs overseas. Keep in mind tax payer run highways relieve businesses of toll road costs. That saves you $ at the store.
---Dude in Orange County, CA
If you don't want the risks of being self employed, don't be self employed.
Jobs going to Canada, don't get a job that is likely to go to Canada.
Jobs going to Canada, don't get a job that is likely to go to Canada.
You have to admit the current system hurts the free enterprise spirit that made this country great. Middle age workers acquire knowledge for starting businesses, but many can't leave jobs that provide the health insurance they need. The public option would end this dillema.
If enough jobs go to Canada fewer people will be able to buy drugs from the industry that employs YOU!!
---Dude from Orange County, CA
I am in medical device, so it doesn't matter.
2) Health insurance is just one thing that screws over small startups and self employed. Also try things like crippling taxes, ADA compliance, environmental compliance, lawsuits, disability insurance they must cover, energy costs, etc.
We are already over regulated in this country because of do-gooders like you. Every interest group wants their piece, which equals more regulation for small businesses and startups.
You have to build handicap ramps and bathrooms then,
you have to do an environmental study to make sure you won't harm the tit-mouse (personal experience on that one)
OSHA compliancy
I am so glad the PO is a dead deal. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and say the signed this bill today, in 20 years when it is broke and mismanaged, it will always be said by people like you "But it was designed to do so much good and we can't stop the program now, people depend on it."
Stop the dependency. I remember talking to my great grandmother (long since dead) about 20 years ago what it was like living through the great depression. She was born in 1905 so would have been about 25 when it started. She was a dustbowler living in OK at the time and stated that food was scarce. She lived in one of those tar paper houses that are so iconic of the time. She stated that the community and churches banded together to help feed eachother, clothe eachother and take care of one another. And surprisingly, she said that system worked pretty damn well. I asked her where the help from the government was and she looked at me very puzzled and said frankly "We didn't need the government to provide for us, we either did it ourselves or we died."
Fast forward to today where so many are dependent. Look at Hurricane Katrina, idiots stuck on rooftops despite warnings days in advance to get out. The interviews of those people that were stuck said over again that the government was supposed to help them. You could tell those people had been forced onto dependency of the government.
From welfare recipients to that lady who seems to be so indicitive of the time saying "I am here for Obama money" this country is losing out on the greatness which you speak about of dependency on the government. It cripples iniative and individual thought.
The very fact of the matter that so many were against the PO on both sides shows there is still some of that "fuck you Government" spirit left in the American people. Sadly though, it is being squashed and will probably die off in the next generation as generation after generation gets used to unemployment benefits, mandatory health care, disability benefits, medicare, etc.
Thanks for your reply.
You know what Republican President Eisenhauer said about Social Security, Unempoyment Insurance, and Labor Laws? Rachael Maddow read his letter which said:
"Those who oppose these programs are very few and stupid"
This warhawk Republican instituted the gas tax to fund the interstate highway system, and economists say it stimulated the economy. He is big govt. program relieves businesses of toll road expenses which saves you money at the store. Is every govt. program destructive?
--Dude from Orange County, CA
Thanks for your reply.
You know what Republican President Eisenhauer said about Social Security, Unempoyment Insurance, and Labor Laws? Rachael Maddow read his letter which said:
"Those who oppose these programs are very few and stupid"
This warhawk Republican instituted the gas tax to fund the interstate highway system, and economists say it stimulated the economy. His big govt. program relieves businesses of toll road expenses which saves you $ at the store. Is every govt. program destructive to the economy?
I actually support Government doing infrastructure programs, that is about all they do well. Your argument that toll roads would cost me more money at the store is a fallacy. It can't be proven. Currently, an American business already spends around 40 cents a gallon on taxes to "pay" for these highways which Eisenhower created. Not to mention highway funds are often diverted to pay for things the general funds should go for.
It can't be proven that a system of toll roads versus gasoline taxes would save me money at the store. Either way, I have to pay.
Most government programs are destrcutive to the economy. Politicians don't understand business. Most politicians are career people that never had a real job, so they don't understand the basic thinking of a business.
Look at the "successes" here of government programs: (think about them 30+ years from now)
Social Security *cough*
Medicare *cough*
The current housing issue (you know giving mortgages to idiots who shouldn't have them by the government basically demanding they offer such loans) *cough*
Infrastructre projects (old electrical grids, no nuclear energy. This is an issue where too many interest groups get involved, from big energy to environmentalists).
*Apparently we as taxpayers own a few mediocre car companies. I consider those two companies now to be "government programs." Which is why I drive foreign.
*Pet projects like bridges to nowhere, etc. Pork pork pork.
Allow me to invest my money outside of social security. I might risk it and lose it, but SS will be insolvent when I am ready to get my "Big check" and they will either turn to more taxes to make up the difference, push my retirement age well past 70 or run up more deficits. When I retire, quintillion will actully be understood as a real number, you know, deficits of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. So SS is just as risky.
You think toll roads may be more economical?. I read that the gasoline tax of 40 cents/gallon has not kept up with inflation from the original tax of 16/cents a gallon in the 1950s, but I noticed that tolls on private roads meet or exceed inflation. I would rather pay tax for a service if the alternative is getting gouged by a corporate profiteer!
I can't speek for SS, but you have to admit some govt. programs have been beneficial.
Economist say the GI bill in the 1940s fueled the post war economic expansion because it increased the % of Americans going to college.
I agree govt. is not the answer to everything. However, if the profit motive conflicts with the common good then the service should be run by the govt. If fire depts. were run for profit llike HMOs would fire trucks go to every home? I believe HC should be avaliable to all taxpayers like fire protection.
Thanks for your replys. I will read one more email and acknowledge that I read it. Let me have it.
------Dude from Orange County, CA