What Entertainment- U.S.A. Democrats vs Republicans- Health care

I was watching CNN, MSNBC and Fox News(Fair and balanced 95% Republican and 5% Democrat)last night. Pretty good entertainment!
It is so sad to think about the money the USA spends in Iraq and Afghanistan and then the dumb ass Republicans say that the country cannot afford health care plans right now, for the poor and the sick 32 million uninsured!
Obama wins epic health-care battle


March 22, 2010
Mitch Potte SELECTED FEATURES OF OBAMA'S HEALTH-CARE OVERHAUL BILL
TAXES: Dramatically scales back tax on high-cost insurance plans that was opposed by House Democrats and labour unions. The tax would be delayed until 2018. It is imposed at $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families.
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: Closes the gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors who have spent $2,830. Beginning in 2011, those seniors receive a discount on brand-name drugs, initially 50 per cent off. When the gap is eliminated in 2020, seniors will still be responsible for 25 per cent of the cost of medications until catastrophic coverage kicks in.
EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY: Businesses are not required to offer coverage. Instead, employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the firm's workforce, minus an allowance.
Why is health care reform...






WASHINGTON–A watershed moment for America, a defining victory for its president. The core element of change upon which Barack Obama was elected came to pass Sunday night in the form of sweeping health-care reform.
But the final gavel dropped as divisively as ever, with Washington lawmakers breaking along bitterly partisan lines, leaving Democrats alone to bear the glory – and the blame – for the most substantive expansion of the American social safety net in generations.
Obama's bold but risk-fraught drive to deliver on his signature campaign promise in the face of severe economic

Heh.
Love the republican speech... Did you understnad blah blah blah.
a bunch of people shout NO!!... he says no you did not.
did you talk to your people about blah blah blah?
a bunch of people shout NO!!... he says no you did not
Did you read the conellitory docuemtn.
A bunch of people shout YES! ( in a very angry voice) .. he says.. NO you did not.

wait.. whut?

Yeah and the Repubs going on and on with the same tired and misinformed rant of socialism etc etc etc.....when they have nothing substantive to say they trot out the old McCarthy call to arms and resort to the yelling hysteria.

Such a shame that the GOP has become a sideshow in some aspects.

I was speaking with a friend of mine this morning, he lives and works in Philadelphia. His biggest concern regarding this health care bill is being taxed to death to pay for those who may not be residing in the US legally (or as he calls them "river jumpers"). He says alot of those he works with are very nervous about this new bill. Only time will tell. I welcomed him to a system that'll keep ya waiting and waiting and waiting...

For a country that is supposedly very strong on homeland security, they have an awful lot of "river jumpers" working in jobs that Americans won't do. Their economy relies on these non-citizens, some of whom are staying, raising families, driving cars, etc. I take it its in the best interest of the employers to have cheap labour who have health care. Who knows?
Calls to send 'em all back to Mexico aren't working. Again, cheap labour is just too attractive to some employers.

I'm afraid I've been avoiding this topic - both discussing and watching the news.

I said when Obama was elected, that he'll bury the USA financially...trying to "save the people".

But...here...among some friends and some good discussion, I'll address some things (being the token American).

1) Rosie...a war eventually ends (or it's supposed to), and the money put into that war will be replaced by the influx of returning soldiers to a workforce, and the production of materials FOR that war. A socialized healthcare system NEVER ends, and will become more expensive as time goes on.

2) MizP - yeah...they rant about it...but only because that's part of their structure. Democrats represent socialism, in they believe everyone should have certain "rights"...healthcare being one of them. Republicans generally believe healthcare is a privilege for most. The few exceptions being those who CAN'T work and support themselves (children, certain disabled, some seniors)...but those who CAN work and provide should be required to pay their own way. By implementing a socialized healthcare system where everyone gets benefits whether they are working or not...creates a drain on the public, and unduly punishes those who are working by raising their taxes to cover for those who don't deserve it.

3) Trini - I think (from your other posts) that you're basically libertarian...which of course means tell the government to get out of people's lives. You are correct about the 'river jumpers'. If they were to deport every Mexican illegal immigrant in California, Arizona and Texas...those states would basically close. The service those immigrants perform in the produce industry are what keeps oranges and watermelons at low prices rather than $10/bag or $20/melon. That said...the best way the US could implement a health-care change, would be to put it on the employers 100%. Insurance is supposed to be a "backup"...which is why you might pay $500/year for insurance which, if used, covers a bill of $10k. The gamble is having people NOT use the healthcare system, so the insurance companies can make money.

What the US SHOULD do, is make every business who has more than a certain number of employees (say 10) to provide health-care for those workers at an 80/20 split for the insurance costs.
The government can underwrite the insurance companies in case of huge outbreaks or disasters.
The government can mandate healthcare costs and even insurance premiums so companies aren't be gouged.
Insurance should cover all REQUIRED healthcare issues (ie. not plastic surgery, or elective procedures).
Insurance should cover most prescriptions (again, required, not elective ones)

The healthcare system should be there to cover those things which are NEEDED.

Anyone NOT working who is able to work, would not receive any healthcare benefits unless...
they were collecting some sort of Public Assistance, which they would have to meet certain eligibility requirements...but should still have to pay a portion of their income IF they want coverage.

The payments should all be made from the company level.

Self-employed people should be able to join "co-op" insurance groups so the rates would end up being lower than if they were a full company with employees.

YES, there would be a slight rise in costs for some things...because of the additional costs incurred by companies...but that would level off after a couple of years, and everyone who is entitled to insurance would then have some.

The problem in the US right now, is that so many companies run without ANY benefits for their workers. Unfortunately...those are typically lower-paid positions...and statistically, lower-income families use the health-care system more often.

Triniman wrote:For a country that is supposedly very strong on homeland security, they have an awful lot of "river jumpers" working in jobs that Americans won't do. Their economy relies on these non-citizens, some of whom are staying, raising families, driving cars, etc. I take it its in the best interest of the employers to have cheap labour who have health care. Who knows?
Calls to send 'em all back to Mexico aren't working. Again, cheap labour is just too attractive to some employers.

Very true. My hubby has a friend who lives in California and one day they were discussing car insurance and how much cheaper it is in California compared to Manitoba, the American went on to tell us that cheap insurance is great until you get into an accident with an illegal who has no drivers license or insurance (which he said happens alot). Illegals are definitely a problem in the US and yes Triniman cheap labour is very attractive to some. From what I understand, my friends who reside in the US aren't exactly thrilled about paying more taxes to treat those who are not legally residing in the US.

Goth_chic wrote:

Triniman wrote:For a country that is supposedly very strong on homeland security, they have an awful lot of "river jumpers" working in jobs that Americans won't do. Their economy relies on these non-citizens, some of whom are staying, raising families, driving cars, etc. I take it its in the best interest of the employers to have cheap labour who have health care. Who knows?
Calls to send 'em all back to Mexico aren't working. Again, cheap labour is just too attractive to some employers.

Very true. My hubby has a friend who lives in California and one day they were discussing car insurance and how much cheaper it is in California compared to Manitoba, the American went on to tell us that cheap insurance is great until you get into an accident with an illegal who has no drivers license or insurance (which he said happens alot). Illegals are definitely a problem in the US and yes Triniman cheap labour is very attractive to some. From what I understand, my friends who reside in the US aren't exactly thrilled about paying more taxes to treat those who are not legally residing in the US.

I say if they can't be kicked out, then legalize them so that they pay taxes. Make them citizens so that they are responsible to contribute (other than through low wages which helps to maximize profits.)

I agree Triniman, make em legal.

Triniman wrote:I say if they can't be kicked out, then legalize them so that they pay taxes. Make them citizens so that they are responsible to contribute (other than through low wages which helps to maximize profits.)

You don't understand though...they CAN'T be legalized either.

If they become "legalized", then they have to be paid minimum wage, OSHA requirements come into effect, minimum standards for living are applied.

apply all of those to that large of a labour force...and the cost of production becomes so high, the products outprice their saleability.

AGEsAces wrote:

Triniman wrote:I say if they can't be kicked out, then legalize them so that they pay taxes. Make them citizens so that they are responsible to contribute (other than through low wages which helps to maximize profits.)

You don't understand though...they CAN'T be legalized either.

If they become "legalized", then they have to be paid minimum wage, OSHA requirements come into effect, minimum standards for living are applied.

apply all of those to that large of a labour force...and the cost of production becomes so high, the products outprice their saleability.

What is the solution then?

There is no real solution that makes everyone happy...because the bleeding-hearts believe everyone should be allowed to have a 3-bedroom house and a 2-car garage and 2 cars, and cable, and internet, and, and, and...

they can't accept the fact that SOME people are resigned to living in a 1-room shack, picking strawberries 10-months a year.

The problem in the US system is that it is a for PROFIT system. Everything in the USA is double or triple the cost for the same procedure??
There was a quote that the system made an additional $12 Billion dollars in profit , last year? That the companies drop clients who get sick, and generally are quite nasty to deal with.
32,000,000 Americans without health insurance is unbelievable. People going bankrupt when they or a family member get sick is horrible. The republican comment that "we cannot afford it" is just plain bullcrap. Since 1910 almost every President has tried to bring in health care for all, as every other Democratic country has. Shame on those who cut Mrs. clinton down in 1992?
The Democrats said yesterday that there were over 220 amendments in this bill that the Republicans had asked for.
The US has had billions of dollars , all not accounted for to go to war against Iraq. No mention of how are we going to pay for it. It is a war thing so no one would dare to challenge any expenses. Billions of dollars in cash, not accounted for.
Bush vetoed an $84 Billion dollar expense that was to cover health care for kids. Lots of guns, no money for butter!!
Way to go DEMOCRATS!

AGEsAces wrote:There is no real solution that makes everyone happy...because the bleeding-hearts believe everyone should be allowed to have a 3-bedroom house and a 2-car garage and 2 cars, and cable, and internet, and, and, and...

they can't accept the fact that SOME people are resigned to living in a 1-room shack, picking strawberries 10-months a year.

Someone is a "bleeding heart" because they don't agree with an economic system that depends on the exploitation of other human beings so that some can be "allowed to have a 3-bedroom house and a 2-car garage....."?

WTF kind of BS arrogance is that?

I'd rather be a bleeding heart, left-wing, commie bastard than a right-wing nutjob that could actually agree with your statement.

Problem with the right-wing is they fail to remember that at every point in human history once a certain level of inequality is reached revolution becomse inevitable.

grumpyrom wrote:I'd rather be a bleeding heart, left-wing, commie bastard...

You must be very happy then because I believe you are succeeding in spades...

grumpyrom wrote:

AGEsAces wrote:There is no real solution that makes everyone happy...because the bleeding-hearts believe everyone should be allowed to have a 3-bedroom house and a 2-car garage and 2 cars, and cable, and internet, and, and, and...

they can't accept the fact that SOME people are resigned to living in a 1-room shack, picking strawberries 10-months a year.

Someone is a "bleeding heart" because they don't agree with an economic system that depends on the exploitation of other human beings so that some can be "allowed to have a 3-bedroom house and a 2-car garage....."?

WTF kind of BS arrogance is that?

I think you need to read this again. Read carefully grumpyrom. Nowhere does it say the right wing nutjobs want to starve the unfortunate nor kick them to the curb.

We all have to stop defaulting to extremes when we don't agree with someone's position.

What I find offensive about comments like the "exploitation of other human beings" is that there is the insinuation that some people can not stick up for themselves and are therefore the subject of exploitation. Who makes that decision?

Society doe's and their is plenty of it in our society. Exploitation

So, I guess if you maintain that sort of attitude, it easy to find people to consider "lesser" than yourself, and puts you in a position to be able to "rescue" them, rather than help them.

When I say "you", I'm speaking in generalities, not personal.

Help is usually not to hard just show them what is wrong with the situation . For many do not know that it is happening , others are more complicated .

Pavolo wrote:Help is usually not to hard just show them what is wrong with the situation . For many do not know that it is happening , others are more complicated .

Got to admit that I don't understand what you're saying. Clarifty please.

Those of simple mind and those of not , the first step in Explotation, Control.

I always have trouble making that kind of judgement on people. Maybe they aren't as bright, educated, whatver, but with some effort, they can be like all of us. If you perceive someone as "lesser", then who has the problem?

No need to see them as less .

Then how can you judge them as exploited? Can't they take care of themselves?