Pelosi: "Quit your job, taxpayers will provide your healthcare"

[Pam]

As the resident "anal d-bag"

Careful Stosh, name calling can lead to banning.

[maxx]

maxx wrote: "And are you one of those who cry over all the Beethovens who are aborted everyday?"

This has exactly what to do in the context of this thread?

Your quote is obviously criticizing Pelosi for offering free health care to artists outside the womb. At the same time many conservatives use the argument that abortion deprives the world of geniuses and artists. You don't see the irony? Why do I ask?

[maxx]

If I were a business owner, the only job I can think of where I could possibly use someone of Pelosi's education and experience is congressional briber, I mean lobbyist. Her background and experience is just as useless to me as a taxpayer.

You know very little about getting legislation through Congress, not that many do. Without her, there would have been no health care reform at all. You weren't expecting Republicans to do more than give lip service to it, do you? As it is, insurance companies now won't be able to deny your child coverage because of a pre-existing condition. And there will have to be some choice for consumers, admittedly not a big choice. But when you elect the likes of W as president twice, you end up with the right-wing corporatist Supreme Court we now have. And that puts the whole government at the mercy of corporations including the insurance companies. Wouldn't it be nice if every business had to limit the number of lobbyists they could send to the Capitol? It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a start. Or Congress could say that any business could only lobby members once on any piece of legislation. That would level the playing field a bit, and free members up to actually educate themselves about the legislation.

[maxx]

Quote: "Now the whole premise is focused on BUYING health care."

Nice wiggle out. How does someone buy anything without a job? If one quits their job, they don't get unemployment benefits. So just how would they "buy" insurance?

They will get assistance. I would hope that there would be some policies that could be purchased by low income people. And someone has to get the courage to tell people that they shouldn't have children they can't provide for.

[maxx]

gibran: I know we would like to believe that HC isn't something we are entitled to..

maxx: The only people who are saying that health care is a privilege are the people who already have it.

gibran: People who are healthy work [[when the econonmy is "what" healthy...umm correlation?) and those who don't work due to illness or chronic conditions don't spend as much...correlation?

maxx: And those who work while sick, spread sickness, but many employers still don't provide sick days. W's administration made it abundantly clear that the corporatist class sees the rest of us as an unending supply of expendable replaceable parts. They let us think that we live in a democracy, but you'd have to have pretty thick rose-colored glasses not to recognize who's really in charge.

[maxx]

Sstashmoo: If your daughter can prove that, she has excellent grounds for a lawsuit. If she can't, then it probably didn't happen that way. In these "real life examples", I like to hear both sides. Her employer knowing the ramifications of wrongful dismissal, especially towards a female and expecting mother, it would be highly unlikely they would pursue that path. Not saying they didn't, but it sounds highly unlikely.

maxx: It's not that simple to prove harassment and the judiciary is not terribly employee friendly. That could have something to do with all the judges' positions that were not ratified by the Republican Congress under the Clinton admin. Then guess what happened when they got control of Congress? Keep voting Republican and then wonder why the corporations and the super rich get everything.

[maxx]

oladub: Here I am fantisizing and am sure this will never happen. But what if an economic enterprise zone were set up in , for instance, Detroit in which an Indian firm were allowed to build hospitals to compete with the Mayo Clinic with the stipulation that all services provided would be no more than 30% more than those same services as provided in India.

maxx: What is the standard of living in India compared to that in the U.S.? I don't think Indian doctors and nurses could have the same standard of living here at Indian wages.

[Stosh]

Sstashmoo: If your daughter can prove that, she has excellent grounds for a lawsuit. If she can't, then it probably didn't happen that way. In these "real life examples", I like to hear both sides. Her employer knowing the ramifications of wrongful dismissal, especially towards a female and expecting mother, it would be highly unlikely they would pursue that path. Not saying they didn't, but it sounds highly unlikely.

maxx: It's not that simple to prove harassment and the judiciary is not terribly employee friendly. That could have something to do with all the judges' positions that were not ratified by the Republican Congress under the Clinton admin. Then guess what happened when they got control of Congress? Keep voting Republican and then wonder why the corporations and the super rich get everything.

Maxx, thanks for being a realist. People generally don't realize that when they vote for the candidate that supports their "wedge" issue [[guns, abortion, taxes) that they often support the corporations and the rich more often than the Dems. And also the courts are also stacked in favor of the employer more often than not.

[Stosh]

Careful Stosh, name calling can lead to banning.

Thanks for restating the rules, Pam.

[oladub]

oladub: Here I am fantisizing and am sure this will never happen. But what if an economic enterprise zone were set up in , for instance, Detroit in which an Indian firm were allowed to build hospitals to compete with the Mayo Clinic with the stipulation that all services provided would be no more than 30% more than those same services as provided in India.

maxx: What is the standard of living in India compared to that in the U.S.? I don't think Indian doctors and nurses could have the same standard of living here at Indian wages.

I was brainstorming about the cost savings of the free market in response to gp's question about the high cost of operations. I did allow a fudge factor of 30%. Of course, since our government is not really all about options, nothing of the sort will be allowed. However, the growing medical tourism 'industry' could alleviate many expensive operation bills.

According to an article by the University of Delaware publication, UDaily: "The cost of surgery in India, Thailand or South Africa can be one-tenth of what it is in the United States or Western Europe, and sometimes even less. A heart-valve replacement that would cost $200,000 or more in the US, for example, goes for $10,000 in India--and that includes round-trip airfare and a brief vacation package. Similarly, a metal-free dental bridge worth $5,500 in the US costs $500 in India, a knee replacement in Thailand with six days of physical therapy costs about one-fifth of what it would in the States, and Lasik eye surgery worth $3,700 in the US is available in many other countries for only $730. Cosmetic surgery savings are even greater: A full facelift that would cost $20,000 in the US runs about $1,250 in South Africa" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical...smWorldwide-11

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Keep voting Republican and then wonder why the corporations and the super rich get everything."

No rich greedy Democrats, whoulda'thought? Our politicians right left and center are rotten to the core. There is no good side presesntly. As long as we have corporations and countries funneling millions to our "democratically" elected officials, we are going to have these problems. YOu think Obama is for the people? Wait until Obamacare is implemented, you'll see who he is for.

[ghettopalmetto]

I was brainstorming about the cost savings of the free market in response to gp's question about the high cost of operations. I did allow a fudge factor of 30%. Of course, since our government is not really all about options, nothing of the sort will be allowed. However, the growing medical tourism 'industry' could alleviate many expensive operation bills.

According to an article by the University of Delaware publication, UDaily: "The cost of surgery in India, Thailand or South Africa can be one-tenth of what it is in the United States or Western Europe, and sometimes even less. A heart-valve replacement that would cost $200,000 or more in the US, for example, goes for $10,000 in India--and that includes round-trip airfare and a brief vacation package. Similarly, a metal-free dental bridge worth $5,500 in the US costs $500 in India, a knee replacement in Thailand with six days of physical therapy costs about one-fifth of what it would in the States, and Lasik eye surgery worth $3,700 in the US is available in many other countries for only $730. Cosmetic surgery savings are even greater: A full facelift that would cost $20,000 in the US runs about $1,250 in South Africa" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical...smWorldwide-11

How does a person without insurance afford even a $10,000 heart-valve replacement? Let's not forget that people who don't have health insurance are also highly unlikely to have a passport. Are we going to have the State Department start expediting passports for poor folks who have to leave our Third World Nation in order to receive medical care?

And I, for one, am not taking vacation time to get routine dental work done.

I think your claims are made on the premise that everyone in the U.S. is flush with cash and has enormous amounts of leisure time.

[Stosh]

Quote: "Keep voting Republican and then wonder why the corporations and the super rich get everything."

No rich greedy Democrats, whoulda'thought? Our politicians right left and center are rotten to the core. There is no good side presesntly. As long as we have corporations and countries funneling millions to our "democratically" elected officials, we are going to have these problems. YOu think Obama is for the people? Wait until Obamacare is implemented, you'll see who he is for.

One trick pony, I see...

Yeah, we'll elect some tea baggers like Rand Paul. That's sure the ticket.

[firstandten]

One trick pony, I see...

Yeah, we'll elect some tea baggers like Rand Paul. That's sure the ticket.

Just wait until the teabaggers start to understand what a true libertarian stands for and we'll see just how long they stay in love with him.

[Stosh]

Just wait until the teabaggers start to understand what a true libertarian stands for and we'll see just how long they stay in love with him.

Yes, but by the time they figure that out it will be far too late. Unless someone would assemble a list of the "unneeded" and "wasteful" programming that would be cut by them. Let's start a list then...

Civil Rights Act
Minimum Wage
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Health and Human Services
Education

Fill in as needed!

[oladub]

How does a person without insurance afford even a $10,000 heart-valve replacement? Let's not forget that people who don't have health insurance are also highly unlikely to have a passport. Are we going to have the State Department start expediting passports for poor folks who have to leave our Third World Nation in order to receive medical care?

And I, for one, am not taking vacation time to get routine dental work done.

I think your claims are made on the premise that everyone in the U.S. is flush with cash and has enormous amounts of leisure time.

I wasn't presenting medical tourism as the answer to everything but as one example, among many, of how free market solutions could drastically reduce the price of health car if only the government allowed or encouraged such options.

How do people afford $10,000 cars, bad habits, courtship expenses, entertainment, homes, and other things? Same way. No, not everyone can afford $10,000 for one or more of such things and what would prevent state governments from having a health care system to pick up some $10,000 catastrophic medical expenses including the passport? It would sure make a lot more sense than Obamacare paying $200,000 of our childrens' taxes for the same thing... or are you still holding out for $50 heart valve replacements? Not everyone is flush with cash to make such payments. Collectively we aren't either as our government is technically broke. However, a combination of free market options combined with state and other charity payments would be more doable.

[Stosh]

Here's everything Ron Paul ever said on any issue. If this doesn't scare the living hell out of you nothing will. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so by inference if nothing else, Rand is just as big a nutjob as daddy.

Tell me that destroying Social Security won't be a problem for those Kentucky retirees?
http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm

And just in case SStashmoo doesnt bother to read that link, here's one for him:

Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. [[Jul 2006)

[mjs]

How does a person without insurance afford even a $10,000 heart-valve replacement?

Same way they pay for a $40,000 SUV or a $250,000 house or a $3000 TV. Besides, not everyone without insurance is without it because they can't afford it. Its the Dems that are forcing them to pay it despite not wanting it because they say it will lower premiums for the rest of us. Simple math tells us that only works if the policy costs more than the benefits they receive.

Let's not forget that people who don't have health insurance are also highly unlikely to have a passport. Are we going to have the State Department start expediting passports for poor folks who have to leave our Third World Nation in order to receive medical care?

Yes. I think a passport is about $80 and can be processed at several post offices. Poor immigrants get travel documents the world over.

And I, for one, am not taking vacation time to get routine dental work done.

Agreed. By routine, I assume you mean what dentist offices mainly do, cleanings and x-rays. About $150 a visit. Drink eight glasses of water, out of the sink, instead of three Cokes a day and 50 days saving will cover the bill. It will also dramatically lower your dental and health care bills.

I think your claims are made on the premise that everyone in the U.S. is flush with cash and has enormous amounts of leisure time.

Vacation for overnight surgery? Ever hear of FMLA? Sounds like its made on the assumption that health care in the rest of the world is as good as ours. Terrible assumption, but it is the assumption of those that think we need our system to be more like the rest of the world's.

[mjs]

Tell me that destroying Social Security won't be a problem for those Kentucky retirees?
http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm

Abolish Social Security, but not overnight. [[Jan 2008)
Let people get out of Social Security; it’s a failure. [[Jan 2008)
Never voted to spend one penny of Social Security money. [[Dec 2007)
Allow young people to get out of the system. [[Oct 2007)
Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one’s future. [[Sep 2007)
Federal government won’t keep its entitlement promises. [[Mar 2007)
Voted YES on raising 401[[k) limits & making pension plans more portable. [[May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. [[Jul 2000)
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. [[May 1999)
Create personal retirement accounts within Social Security. [[Jul 2000)
Sponsored bill to put Trust Fund into market certificates. [[Jan 2003)
Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. [[Dec 2003)

You're losing me? More options on retirement savings, less taxes on the savings, and statements of fact- the system does not have the money to meet its obligations. I see you saw the abolish social security section, but missed the not overnight part. Sounds like it won't affect any retirees. Explain what you believe the definition of a retiree is and what Kentucky has to do with this.

[Stosh]

Abolish Social Security, but not overnight. [[Jan 2008)
Let people get out of Social Security; it’s a failure. [[Jan 2008)
Never voted to spend one penny of Social Security money. [[Dec 2007)
Allow young people to get out of the system. [[Oct 2007)
Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one’s future. [[Sep 2007)
Federal government won’t keep its entitlement promises. [[Mar 2007)
Voted YES on raising 401[[k) limits & making pension plans more portable. [[May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. [[Jul 2000)
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. [[May 1999)
Create personal retirement accounts within Social Security. [[Jul 2000)
Sponsored bill to put Trust Fund into market certificates. [[Jan 2003)
Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. [[Dec 2003)

You're losing me? More options on retirement savings, less taxes on the savings, and statements of fact- the system does not have the money to meet its obligations. I see you saw the abolish social security section, but missed the not overnight part. Sounds like it won't affect any retirees. Explain what you believe the definition of a retiree is and what Kentucky has to do with this.

Look closely at each and every one of those votes and statements.
Each and every vote and comment is designed to destroy SS as we know it.
So where and how will all the non-retirees be allowed to get their cash?
That would be the biggest bailout known to man for the wall street bozos.
Profit city for those nice brokers and bankers. Boy THAT"S populism!

Overnight or not, it's still a stupid idea. Imagine the hue and cry if Gramps had lost his ass in the recent debacle on the stock market, and depending on THAT for his SS check? Like all those poor unfortunates that were depending largely on their IRA to have a affordable retirement only to have the rug ripped out from under them.

And Rand Paul's running for Senator in Kentucky. As if you didnt know.

Edit: Lets go over the points one by one...
1) You know how that one is... fail
2) Rather successful program, only problem is that Republicans never want to fully fund it.
3) Yep, THAT'S not destroying it... LOL
4) Sure helped all those retirees losing their IRA money...
5) See # 2 above
6) Is OK with me. A stopped clock is right once a day
7) Undercutting SS
8) Same as 7
9) See 4, 7, 8, and 2 if you count Bush's proposal
10) The 30% rating from the ARA shows full well how he's not good in voting concerning the elderly.

Edit 2: So never mind the father, how about the son, who was unfortunately named for a hack writer? Who would have figured him for a BP slappy, although his namesake was also just a big a fool for the "producers" of the country. What fools these libertarians be...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/us...f=weekinreview

[oladub]

Ron Paul's position on Social Security is that it is a ponzi scheme destined to fail without either raising taxes, cutting benefits, or postponing the retirement age. Those are the only choices. If your don't support those choices, Social Security will fail. Ron Paul also understands that the government has made millions of people dependent upon Social Security and has a contractual obligation to fulfill it's end of the contract. He also supports alternatives for young people who won't benefit as much from Social Security as their elders. He has stated that getting rid of Social Security is in no way his priority. First we have to end unconstitutional wars, bring our troops home, end the Fed, and end the subidies to corporations.

This year, 16 years ahead of schedule, Social Security for the first time is paying out more than it is bringing in. So Stoch, How do you want to handle this besides criticizing anyone who mentions reality? How much do you want to raise taxes, cut benefits, or postpone payouts to keep Social Security solvent?

[checkraisej]

6) Is OK with me. A stopped clock is right once a day

Twice. It's right twice a day.

[checkraisej]

I wonder when the original poster of this thread is going to 'fess up to misrepresenting Pelosi's words?

[Stosh]

Twice. It's right twice a day.

Wrong. In his case it's only right once a day. That's how far off this guy is

[Stosh]

Ron Paul's position on Social Security is that it is a ponzi scheme destined to fail without either raising taxes, cutting benefits, or postponing the retirement age. Those are the only choices. If your don't support those choices, Social Security will fail. Ron Paul also understands that the government has made millions of people dependent upon Social Security and has a contractual obligation to fulfill it's end of the contract. He also supports alternatives for young people who won't benefit as much from Social Security as their elders. He has stated that getting rid of Social Security is in no way his priority. First we have to end unconstitutional wars, bring our troops home, end the Fed, and end the subidies to corporations.

This year, 16 years ahead of schedule, Social Security for the first time is paying out more than it is bringing in. So Stoch, How do you want to handle this besides criticizing anyone who mentions reality? How much do you want to raise taxes, cut benefits, or postpone payouts to keep Social Security solvent?

How do you propose making those counting on SS now that are not yet retired whole, and at the level of benefits that are promised to them now? This guy is all theory and no substance. All the talking points you mention are just so much theoretical bull shit. There is good reason Ron Paul wasn't elected to any larger office, that any libertarian never will. It's all rhetoric and pandering to the basic anti-tax zealot.