Health Care

[pattygreen 5]

While the economy was shedding more than 4 million jobs this year, the Obama administration claims the stimulus was creating 640,329 at a cost of only $157.8 billion. But based on the administration's numbers, each alleged job cost $246,000, or about 6X the average U.S. per-capita income. If the administration had simply given the money to businesses, they could have funded 640,329 jobs for six years, and those employees actually would have produced goods or provided services that would have boosted the economy and federal tax receipts.

[tdslf1 0]

So, your point is you care more about the money than healthcare for all or most?

[pattygreen 5]

So, your point is you care more about the money than healthcare for all or most?

No. I care about everyone. Jesus said," The poor you will have with you always." This is just life.

It's not like the government can get into the business of saving the world.

It's not the money that's the problem, although it is a serious problem , it's the government control of the HC decision making that bothers most people. It's the government taking on yet another fraction, a large one at that, of control over society.

If you are soooo concerned over these 15,000 people who have no insurance, (yet have not rallied your support to end the 440,000 deaths annually from cigarette smoking) then it would be enormously cheaper to just purchase ins. for them, or allow them to get on medicaid or medicare, which is a gov. run insurance that's already instated. 85% of Americans are satisfied with their insurance plan. Why wreck or transform an already good thing we have going here for the sake of a fraction of the country. Do something for the fraction if they want, but leave the rest of us alone.

[tdslf1 0]

It's not like the government can get into the business of saving the world.

No, but they must be in the business of taking care of all its citizens and that means healthcare for all. If they can't find a way to provide for their citizens then they should be voted out.

It's not the money that's the problem, although it is a serious problem , it's the government control of the HC decision making that bothers most people. It's the government taking on yet another fraction, a large one at that, of control over society.

Oh?, that seems to be all you are tooting your horn about on this board. What exactly are you talking about? Ohhhh, so you prefer being told what you can and cannot have by the big insurance industy? By your insurance company. You have that now. Doesn't the insurance company tell you what surgery you can and cannot have now? Ohhhhh, but since it might be the government, and I am not saying it is, then it's bad? Because it's the big bad, government. Pleeeease. Don't they control your life and many aspects of it now?

If you are soooo concerned over these 15,000 people who have no insurance, (yet have not rallied your support to end the 440,000 deaths annually from cigarette smoking) then it would be enormously cheaper to just purchase ins. for them, or allow them to get on medicaid or medicare, which is a gov. run insurance that's already instated. 85% of Americans are satisfied with their insurance plan. Why wreck or transform an already good thing we have going here for the sake of a fraction of the country. Do something for the fraction if they want, but leave the rest of us alone.

You make it sound like people without insurance smoke. Has nothing to do with the option of having insurance. Apples and oranges. Adding people 55 and older would wreck it even though its already up and running? How would this wreck it?

[BJean 16]

patty: "440,000 people die annually from cigarette smoking, and the solution to it is very easy. Outlaw it like they do other things. That is 9X more than those without health insurance, yet noone gives a crap about those people who die. Absolutely NOTHING is being done about it. They force us to wear our seatbelts in the car, but they can't take away the cigs? And what about alcohol related deaths annually? There are so many people who die in the country from all sorts of things, that doesn't mean that the national government needs to make sure that these deaths don't happen. It doesn't mean that the feds need to take on the problem. To take on all that responsibility would be impossible. The national government was not created for these reasons."

So what are you saying, patty? You WANT the Feds to control everything (taking away their cigarettes and your twinkies to save lives) or NOT ("all that responsibility would be impossible"). Can't you make up your mind? Or are you having a giant argument with yourself?

patty: "I care about everyone. Jesus said,

'The poor you will have with you always.' This is just life."

Sounds like you've interpreted that Jesus quote to mean that we shouldn't bother with the poor. They're here to stay and we can't be saving them all. Shucks, it's just too bad about them, but they don't work like everybody else so they deserve what they get.

Jesus didn't mean that. You've taken something out of context to make your point. Jesus cared deeply about the poor. Far more than the rich people.

You suggested that we give all the money that would be spent to the corporations. That's a telling statement, to be sure! At least you're open about your non-charitable views.

[pattygreen 5]

Oh?, that seems to be all you are tooting your horn about on this board. What exactly are you talking about? Ohhhh, so you prefer being told what you can and cannot have by the big insurance industy? By your insurance company. You have that now. Doesn't the insurance company tell you what surgery you can and cannot have now? Ohhhhh, but since it might be the government, and I am not saying it is, then it's bad? Because it's the big bad, government. Pleeeease. Don't they control your life and many aspects of it now?

And if I don't like my policy with my ins. co., I can go somewhere else. With the public option plan, the gov. will end up being my ONLY option. How is that for choice? They DO control many aspects of our lives right now, you're correct. I, and many others, are seeing it more and more and don't want them to have any more control. With them overseeing our health care, they assume a much greater control than many of the things they already do now.

[pattygreen 5]

You make it sound like people without insurance smoke. Has nothing to do with the option of having insurance. Apples and oranges. Adding people 55 and older would wreck it even though its already up and running? How would this wreck it?

That wasn't my point at all. My point with the death rates of people who smoke was that there are many things that people in this world are dying from (besides not having insurance for themselves) and the government ignores it and does nothing about it. Like smoking, which kills 9X more people annually than a lack of insurance does. Or how about alcohol related deaths annually. There are many more who die from consuming alcohol annually than those without Health Ins., yet the government does nothing about that. All I'm saying is that it's because these are not the things the government should be getting involved in, and to say that the reason they are is because "people are dying" is bogus.

[pattygreen 5]

patty: "440,000 people die annually from cigarette smoking, and the solution to it is very easy. Outlaw it like they do other things. That is 9X more than those without health insurance, yet noone gives a crap about those people who die. Absolutely NOTHING is being done about it. They force us to wear our seatbelts in the car, but they can't take away the cigs? And what about alcohol related deaths annually? There are so many people who die in the country from all sorts of things, that doesn't mean that the national government needs to make sure that these deaths don't happen. It doesn't mean that the feds need to take on the problem. To take on all that responsibility would be impossible. The national government was not created for these reasons."

So what are you saying, patty? You WANT the Feds to control everything (taking away their cigarettes and your twinkies to save lives) or NOT ("all that responsibility would be impossible"). Can't you make up your mind? Or are you having a giant argument with yourself?

No. I don't want the government to control any of those things. I believe that people should figure it out for themselves. If they want to invest in insurance in case they get sick so someone else will take over their bills, then they should be able to choose the ins. company they want and the doctor they want and so on. The ins. companies should be able to sell their plan, and if you are not comfortable with the one they offer, you have a choice to shop elsewhere or to not have insurance at all. The gov. should allow people the right to smoke or drink if they see fit to destroy their bodies in that way. Hey, my belief is that it is sinful to get drunk and to drink in excess to the point that you harm your mind and body and that it is sinful to destroy your heart with inhaled smoke of any kind. All I'm saying is that we are at the point of too much control now. There has to be a middle ground, and I believe the gov. has crossed it and is heading too far BIG.

patty: "I care about everyone. Jesus said,

'The poor you will have with you always.' This is just life."

Sounds like you've interpreted that Jesus quote to mean that we shouldn't bother with the poor. They're here to stay and we can't be saving them all. Shucks, it's just too bad about them, but they don't work like everybody else so they deserve what they get.

That's not my interpretation of that verse. That's what you think is my interpretation. He was telling us that we will always have differing economical degrees of people in the world. And yes, we can't help them all. But that does not mean that we should help none, either. Each person needs to help the poor where they are. I have a local charity group that I give gently used clothing to. I also have a food pantry that I provide food to. I also give to the Teen Challenge center near me. They help drug abusers rehabilitate,and I give to many other good causes when I can. The government is not for this reason. You and I are for this reason.

Jesus didn't mean that. You've taken something out of context to make your point. Jesus cared deeply about the poor. Far more than the rich people.

You suggested that we give all the money that would be spent to the corporations. That's a telling statement, to be sure! At least you're open about your non-charitable views.

................................................................................................

[tdslf1 0]

So, government has no responsibility to help the poor, thats our responsibility? Us, who may be just above poverty ourselves. It's our responsibility. Let's not drag the government in at any point to help otherwise its corrupted or will be corrupted if they get involved? WOW

[Cleo's Mom 257]

So, government has no responsibility to help the poor, thats our responsibility? Us, who may be just above poverty ourselves. It's our responsibility. Let's not drag the government in at any point to help otherwise its corrupted or will be corrupted if they get involved? WOW

Here's my opinion. I WANT the government to take over healthcare. They spend 92 cents of every dollar on healthcare whereas the greedy private insurance companies only spend 73 cents of every dollar on healthcare.

The government does a better job of delivering healthcare or the vast majority of medicare receipients wouldn't be happy with it. It's a bargain and they know it.

With the government involved in healthcare, I have direct representation if I am unhappy. Vote them out. Right now, with private insurance that I can't change (employer provided) I have no say in what they cover or what procedures they will approve. And I can't change my company.

We need to take the profit motive out of healthcare, it doesn't belong in something that is a fundamental right like healthcare.

And I don't care if all the private healthcare insurance companies go out of business. They are seldom just in one area of insurance anyway. And if not, well they can branch out into life, disability, car, etc.. insurance and come up with new ways to cheat people there.

So all the arguments about the government expanding too much into healthcare - well I think that's a good thing, so that argument sure doesn't work for me.

[BJean 16]

patty: "The ins. companies should be able to sell their plan, and if you are not comfortable with the one they offer, you have a choice to shop elsewhere or to not have insurance at all."

That's downright hysterical. What part of monopoly do you not get? The rates do not differ that much nor does the coverage - unless you are quite wealthy and you can afford to pay out the nose for a decent policy.

What most of us have is about the same across the board: extremely expensive health insurance that doesn't cover everything, has a cap on it, tells us which doctors we can see, which hospitals are acceptable, which medications we can buy (usually the generic, unless it's not being manufactured) and the negative list goes on.

You can thank the insurance lobbyists for this indirectly and our government certainly has played a role. But we are to blame for allowing ourselves to be sucked into this scheme that started way back when it made sense to have some insurance coverage for catatrophic medical events. We jumped on that bandwagon and it later evolved into HAVING to have medical insurance to be seen by a doctor or admitted to a hospital.

The insurance companies saw an opportunity for untold wealth and seized it. They're no different than the tobacco industry that got smart and made cigarettes more addictive. It's all about making money. And we the people have been sucked in by it all. And we had absolutely no protection from the government from the beginning.

Now the people are making demands about our health care system, like they did with the tobacco industry, because it is so out of control. We are insisting that the government become involved because as individuals we have no chance of making a difference.

If only it were as simple as just changing health care insurance companies! While that may have been the case in 1950, it is certainly not the case today.

[pattygreen 5]

I found this on line. After reading it and having a good chuckle, I realized that some of these are much truer than most people realize. It sort of defines the core differences of the conservative being independent and the liberal being dependent – mostly on the Gov’t.

I guess it comes down to liberals feeling inadequate and wanting someone to provide for them or someone to make their life easier. Or maybe they are feeling sorry for some other person (guilty about their own success maybe?) and wanting someone to help that person instead of extending their own hand in assistance.

Anyway, if you are liberal, are you offended by the comparison below? Do you see any truth in it?

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.

If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.< /span>

If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.

A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.

Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.

A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.

Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.

A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.

If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he’ll have a good laugh.

A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

[pattygreen 5]

A History Lesson (just a joke, liberals, don't get too upset)

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals; and

2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girliemen.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled Water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more Enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I found this on line. After reading it and having a good chuckle, I realized that some of these are much truer than most people realize. It sort of defines the core differences of the conservative being independent and the liberal being dependent – mostly on the Gov’t.

I guess it comes down to liberals feeling inadequate and wanting someone to provide for them or someone to make their life easier. Or maybe they are feeling sorry for some other person (guilty about their own success maybe?) and wanting someone to help that person instead of extending their own hand in assistance.

Anyway, if you are liberal, are you offended by the comparison below? Do you see any truth in it?

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.

But if he DOES like guns (and he does) he wants no guns laws, wants to be able to be armed up the wazoo with assault guns and the use of hollow point bullets.

If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

I haven't heard anyone advocate for outlawing all guns.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.< /span>

If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

I have never heard anyone advocate for banning all meat products, just for the humane treatment of animals which might require not eating meat.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.

Yeah, and any country not like ours is the enemy (the whole commie behind every rock syndrome)

A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

I have not seen anyone say the US should surrender, nor have we ever.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

I don't know of any homosexual who doesn't want equality under the law.

If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

You don't legislate respect - you legislate equality.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.

So, if they're a minority conservative they are naturally successful?

Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If conservatives believe minorities are already treated fairly then why be threatened by laws protecting equality?

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.

Yes, I'm sure all those homeless people living under bridges are conservatives wondering how they can better their situation.

A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

It's not a liberal who wonders this. It is a citizen of America, the richest country in the world, who asks "how will you care for the least among you?"

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.

Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

I have heard of no one asking for a station to be shut down, and I never turn those channels on, so I don't have to switch!!!

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.

A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

I don't know what a "foreign religion" is. I guess that is any religion you don't believe in. Americans, not liberals, do NOT want religion in their government.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

Well, let's hope this conservative has a big pile of cash, or more likely is the CEO or some greedy corporation.

A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

A lot of liberals pay for their own healthcare. It's just that they are not just concerned about themselves. They actually have a heart and are concerned for their fellow man.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.

What a joke! Only liberals sue for injuries? LMAO

If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he’ll have a good laugh.

A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

I didn't delete, I rebutted.

And I offer this:

If a conservative is a believer, he wants to enact laws to make everyone abide by his beliefs.

If a conservative doesn't like certain types of music or literature, he forms a group to censor it.

If a conservative doesn't like drugs, he passes laws prohibiting what you can and cannot put in your body.

If a conservative is a homosexual, he must hide his identity lest he shunned by his peers.

If a conservative thinks he knows what is best for a womans reproduction, he will fight for laws to control it.

If a conservative wants to bring pork home to his state, he does, just to a slightly lesser degree than his democrat counterparts.

[tdslf1 0]

Pattygreen,

Do you believe everything you read on the Internet? I also looked at what you posted and laughed because you never post about real humans and are only capable of coming up with tidbits of which you read about. Nothing about those are facts just observations based on a person who likes to bash liberals. I don't bash any conservative except you since you seem to be misguided in how to tackle problems of American complexity. I am a liberal and proud of it, but I would never paint people with a broad brush as that. Some are offended. I makes me sad that such idiocy exist and being a conservative are not above it.