the 9/11 myth fucked up the 00s- the health care myth will do the same to the 10s - Page 7

zerodown · 07-29-2009, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ego Tripping

So get interested and do something, don't pass the buck to them. There's local rallies wherever you live, just need to look them up.

That is assuming I don't already support my local rallies, right?

Ego Tripping · 07-29-2009, 12:09 PM

This entire discussion is an assumption.

scottishbastard · 07-29-2009, 02:10 PM

There is only one underlying question here. Do you believe that wealth must be shared equally among everyone? If so, then it's a socialist point of view, if not then it falls more in line with capitalism. Capitalism is not about greed, it's about fairness (whether or not it's been fair in this country or not is up to debate). If you think that those who earn a lot of money deserve to be punished for their success then I can see how this program would work. But morally I think that if you happen to become rich, good for you. It's not your fault I'm poor.

ANd don't you think people will take advantage of this system? I mean, why work 40 hours a week for benefit if you can work 20 at two different jobs and get free healthcare?

Being · 07-29-2009, 03:26 PM

once again... definition of selfish.

Its about caring for common man, caring enough about anyone other than yourself to not let people who may not have had the means to become wealthy die by the wayside. Its not about sharing wealth, you don't have to buy them things, just help them live.

stoneric · 07-29-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottishbastard

ANd don't you think people will take advantage of this system? I mean, why work 40 hours a week for benefit if you can work 20 at two different jobs and get free healthcare?

Yeah. I mean the idea of working two part time jobs is so appealing it would be hard not to "take advantage" of that. Jesus.

Ego Tripping · 07-29-2009, 06:16 PM

My girlfriend recently did some research and found some stuff that I find quite compelling, including an amazing interview with Maggie Mahar on NPR, who actually is one person who took the time to read the 1000 page bill! Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

I invite you to take a listen to the near 20 minute discussion that Terry Gross of Fresh Air had with Maggie Mahar, a Century Foundation fellow and author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Healthcare Costs So Much, as well as former financial journalist for Institutional Investor, The New York Times, Barron’s and Bloomberg, writer of the Healthbeat blog, a Century Foundation project, and contributor to Dartmouth Medicine, covering Medicare spending and the possibility of reform. Here is a link to the npr interview: The Costs Of Health Care, Political And Financial : NPR

I’ve included a few key points from the interview that I found worth sharing. The most prominent of which was Ms. Mahar’s response to why, in her opinion, health care doesn’t work when left up to free market capitalism, as most of our society here in the U.S. is. She says,

“In health care, market forces don’t bring prices down. We’ve seen that everything becomes more expensive every year: drugs, hospital stays. In other markets, the consumer has the power to bring prices down as producers compete with each because the consumer can say, you know, that laptop is a little expensive. I’m going to wait until a competitor, a rival, comes out with a less-expensive laptop that will meet my needs.

When you’re sick, you can’t say I’ll wait until a less-expensive cancer drug comes out. Eighty percent of our health care dollars are spent on patients who are seriously ill, suffering from chronic diseases like cancer. They don’t have the choice to wait.

They need what they need at that moment, and so they can’t help bring prices down by comparison shopping, by putting off the purchase, by any of those things. They essentially have to take whatever it is that the doctor or the hospital tells them that they need at that time.”

Ms. Mahar, also stressed that we need a shift from quantity of care (which is the current system, because it determines how much income doctors, hospitals and drug companies make) to one that emphasizes quality which she defines as “ good outcomes.” She says that in the quantity model tests and treatments are ordered that “provide no benefit” but expose patients to risks. She reminds us that “Up until now, insurers have largely focused on keeping their costs down, and not so much on encouraging the highest-quality care from their providers. But that is going to have to be their focus if they want to compete with the public sector option and survive.”

I didn't know it included Dental and Vision, did anyone else? Listen to the interview, I'm sure it will help many understand a) how this is a legitimate problem (not a distraction like j-wonder tries to make it out to be) and b) the proposed bill is not as bad as some media outlets are making it.

Being · 07-30-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottishbastard

There is only one underlying question here. Do you believe that wealth must be shared equally among everyone? If so, then it's a socialist point of view, if not then it falls more in line with capitalism. Capitalism is not about greed, it's about fairness (whether or not it's been fair in this country or not is up to debate). If you think that those who earn a lot of money deserve to be punished for their success then I can see how this program would work. But morally I think that if you happen to become rich, good for you. It's not your fault I'm poor.

ANd don't you think people will take advantage of this system? I mean, why work 40 hours a week for benefit if you can work 20 at two different jobs and get free healthcare?

because the wealthiest have earned it so well without the rest of the country's help....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/bu...wt&twt=nytimes

Quote:

738 bankers and traders at Citigroup took home bonuses of $1 million or more in 2008 even as the bank posted a $27.7 billion loss. In all, Citigroup paid $5.33 billion in bonuses; it received $45 billion in bailout funds.

Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, whose merger brought the combined company to the brink of collapse, paid 868 employees bonuses worth at least $1 million. Both banks, whose compensation packages are being reviewed by a federal pay czar, turned to the government twice for bailouts, receiving a total of $45 billion.

Merrill’s bonuses totaled $3.6 billion in a year that it lost $27.6 billion, the report said, while Bank of America paid $3.3 billion in bonuses on $4 billion in earnings.

Wall Street’s more profitable firms were more generous, even though they also received government support. At Goldman Sachs, 953 bankers and traders took home bonuses worth at least $1 million last year, including 212 employees who received more than $3 million. The investment bank paid a total of $4.8 billion in bonuses last year, the report said, more than twice its earnings of $2.3 billion. The bank got $10 billion in bailout funds.

Morgan Stanley paid nearly 428 employees bonuses of at least $1 million, including 290 who received more than $2 million. Morgan Stanley, which earned $1.7 billion last year and received $10 billion in federal aid, paid $4.5 billion in bonuses.

JPMorgan Chase paid 1,626 employees bonuses of more than $1 million in 2008 and received $25 billion in federal assistance. The bank earned $5.6 billion, while its bonuses totaled $8.69 billion.

07-29-2009, 12:09 PM	#122 (permalink)
Ego Tripping Are you in? Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 13,468 Thanks: 229 Thanked 665 Times in 443 Posts	This entire discussion is an assumption. __________________ God appears, and God is light, To those poor souls who dwell in night; But does a human form display To those who dwell in realms of day.

07-29-2009, 02:10 PM	#123 (permalink)
scottishbastard ARGH! FUCK! KILL! Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Castaic/Los Angeles California BITCHES! Posts: 1,954 Thanks: 32 Thanked 69 Times in 60 Posts	There is only one underlying question here. Do you believe that wealth must be shared equally among everyone? If so, then it's a socialist point of view, if not then it falls more in line with capitalism. Capitalism is not about greed, it's about fairness (whether or not it's been fair in this country or not is up to debate). If you think that those who earn a lot of money deserve to be punished for their success then I can see how this program would work. But morally I think that if you happen to become rich, good for you. It's not your fault I'm poor. ANd don't you think people will take advantage of this system? I mean, why work 40 hours a week for benefit if you can work 20 at two different jobs and get free healthcare? __________________ Yeah but you're going to do what you wanna do No matter what I ask of you You think you hold the high hand I've got my doubts I come from Chino where the asphalt sprouts ..... And even if I have to go to Claremont Well I guess I'll just have to go to Claremont Let me go Let me lie low Yeah but you're going to do what you wanna do No matter what I ask of you And you send your dark messengers to tempt me I come from Chino so all your threats are empty - the mountain goats

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)