[tvtimeout]

You're being done wrong other guy. Your's is a perfect example of some things that could be changed by common sense efforts to overhaul the system. Government left it's hands off the medical system for our nation's entire history, until liberals siezed an opportunity for government to gain more control of our lives by pointing out and vowing to eliminate flaws in the system. Republicans have said, hey, if the people want government to get involved there are common sense ways to do it that don't require the governmental take over of the entire medical system. That idea however, is not good enough for the liberals who have long dreamed of government provided universal health care. The only problem is that the liberal's la-la land imaginations of government provided health care, will be a joke compared to the world's leading health care community which, is presently embodied here in the US.

BTW, every time Obama gets up and starts talking about how we are the apple of the world's eye when it comes to energy, the medical field, industry, economy (or the memory of it in our case), our military might or any other glowing attributes of our great land. All those things are the vision and provision of conservative American ideals. And, certainly had nary a thing to do with the notions of social justice.

Republicans are correct that some things can be done with out government intervention but health care is not one of them. We all agree that the health care cost was/is a major concern going forward especially with the baby boomers retiring within the next 12 years, people are living longer, and people pay more in medical cost ( 3 times as much) and receive the less quality of care per dollar than places like Canada. There is the problem folks in a nut shell!

Ready, Set, Solve!!!

Now if the Republicans were correct and the private sector went totally unregulated: medical cost would be higher because everyone likes a profit, lets understand that first. If it was not the case, what would be the point of the business.

So the Republicans would say let the comsumer decide, no problem, somewhere along the line their would be a medical wal-mart, come in and take away all choices, prices would then be dictated by a certain group (monopoly) and their goes the consumer.

So lets look at what Democrats wanted to do:

Everyone pays into a health care system. People without medical insurance would be under the public option, at which rate, causes at least competition which our republican collegues would agress lowers the prices in the long run. The reason why it lowers the price because, the public option says, I am not going to pay but this much for the operation. All insurance companies see this, and so they offer the same match price. The difference is a (monopoly) could never underbid the government and put it out of business...

I like plan B better:

Is their a better plan, I would love to hear one: Wait a minute, republicans can only say the word "no", ask Mitch McConnell. They can not come up with a better idea.

[TheRealThing]

Republicans are correct that some things can be done with out government intervention but health care is not one of them. We all agree that the health care cost was/is a major concern going forward especially with the baby boomers retiring within the next 12 years, people are living longer, and people pay more in medical cost ( 3 times as much) and receive the less quality of care per dollar than places like Canada. There is the problem folks in a nut shell!

Ready, Set, Solve!!!

Now if the Republicans were correct and the private sector went totally unregulated: medical cost would be higher because everyone likes a profit, lets understand that first. If it was not the case, what would be the point of the business.

So the Republicans would say let the comsumer decide, no problem, somewhere along the line their would be a medical wal-mart, come in and take away all choices, prices would then be dictated by a certain group (monopoly) and their goes the consumer.

So lets look at what Democrats wanted to do:

Everyone pays into a health care system. People without medical insurance would be under the public option, at which rate, causes at least competition which our republican collegues would agress lowers the prices in the long run. The reason why it lowers the price because, the public option says, I am not going to pay but this much for the operation. All insurance companies see this, and so they offer the same match price. The difference is a (monopoly) could never underbid the government and put it out of business...

I like plan B better:

Is their a better plan, I would love to hear one: Wait a minute, republicans can only say the word "no", ask Mitch McConnell. They can not come up with a better idea.

Understand this is just MY opinion. Your posts about health care demonstrate an incredible detachment on your part from the real world. Parroting DNC talking points is hardly the perspective of the intellectual.

If you like what the dems are telling you, go for it. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the evidence we have to examine thus far with regard to the effects and skyrocketing costs of medical treatments and insurance premiums due to the passage of ObamaCare, completely contradicts your point of view but, you're not the only one so don't take it personal.

[TheRealThing]

Republicans are correct that some things can be done with out government intervention but health care is not one of them. We all agree that the health care cost was/is a major concern going forward especially with the baby boomers retiring within the next 12 years, people are living longer, and people pay more in medical cost ( 3 times as much) and receive the less quality of care per dollar than places like Canada. There is the problem folks in a nut shell!

Ready, Set, Solve!!!

Now if the Republicans were correct and the private sector went totally unregulated: medical cost would be higher because everyone likes a profit, lets understand that first. If it was not the case, what would be the point of the business.

So the Republicans would say let the comsumer decide, no problem, somewhere along the line their would be a medical wal-mart, come in and take away all choices, prices would then be dictated by a certain group (monopoly) and their goes the consumer.

So lets look at what Democrats wanted to do:

Everyone pays into a health care system. People without medical insurance would be under the public option, at which rate, causes at least competition which our republican collegues would agress lowers the prices in the long run. The reason why it lowers the price because, the public option says, I am not going to pay but this much for the operation. All insurance companies see this, and so they offer the same match price. The difference is a (monopoly) could never underbid the government and put it out of business...

I like plan B better:

Is their a better plan, I would love to hear one: Wait a minute, republicans can only say the word "no", ask Mitch McConnell. They can not come up with a better idea.

No they don't, and they won't. Many millions of people will pay nothing, including illegal aliens and the so-called poor.

[tvtimeout]

Understand this is just MY opinion. Your posts about health care demonstrate an incredible detachment on your part from the real world. Parroting DNC talking points is hardly the perspective of the intellectual.

If you like what the dems are telling you, go for it. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the evidence we have to examine thus far with regard to the effects and skyrocketing costs of medical treatments and insurance premiums due to the passage of ObamaCare, completely contradicts your point of view but, you're not the only one so don't take it personal.

You might be right, I put alot of faith in capitalism and the idea of competition.

Just for the record, the health care act is still being implemented. What is a fact is that health care cost before the act was rising 7 times the rate of inflation. Now, once the act is implemented, it should be determined if health care cost rise more or less than that rate. We are still two years out.

Also, I would have pushed for a public option, that is not in the current healthcare bill. So, this bill is far from perfect, but we should get there in time.

[Wildcatk23]

Still having issues with the insurance companies. There charging her for my healthcare but refusing to add me to her plan? What the hell?

[TheRealThing]

You might be right, I put alot of faith in capitalism and the idea of competition.

Just for the record, the health care act is still being implemented. What is a fact is that health care cost before the act was rising 7 times the rate of inflation. Now, once the act is implemented, it should be determined if health care cost rise more or less than that rate. We are still two years out.

Also, I would have pushed for a public option, that is not in the current healthcare bill. So, this bill is far from perfect, but we should get there in time.

LOL, well I hate to tell you but Obama wants a single payer option. And, you just said you favor the public option. In either case you do realize that the government would run both of those plans, or systems, by definition right? So, that being the case, how will capitalism prevail, when the government is in complete control of the health care system? I would challenge you to give us even one example of a government run program that is not rife with waste, redundancies and graft. Therefore, like the explorer who has lost his bearings we again find that we have come full circle and, returned to the same place we started our journey.

Our basic premise then, should be as follows; due to the fact the record clearly demonstrates that governmental attempts to control the marketplace always wind up in a state of abysmal failure, we ought to look elsewhere for 'the cure'. Therefore the way to fix any percieved flaws in the medical system would certainly preclude governmental intrusion, not encourage it. And, that is the republican message, which is somewhat different than the way you have recently characterized it. Likewise, the secular humanistic view that anybody who cannot afford health care should have it just awarded to them by government. There are two ways to earn a living in today's America. One is via the tried and true method of earning one's living. The other is just to realize that we 'pay' people to do nothing. And, for the record, the wages for nothing are not bad and include free health care which the CBO says is worth $20,000 dollars a year for the average family. Matter of fact, the average family numbers go like this----

EXCERPT---
"There are countless more federally-run and taxpayer-provided social welfare programs, but the aforementioned few give good insight into what the productive sectors of the economy provide for those unwilling to pursue the American Dream at their discretion. As you can see, those who make a lifestyle of being poor are doing quite well for themselves and are far better off than some of their middle class friends and neighbors. With minimal or no effort, they can reap the rewards that the others toil for. Accumulating the annual benefits listed above, the impoverished family with an income of $23,050 gleans another $44,554 in subsidized goods and services, courtesy of Uncle Sam and the nieces and nephews from whom he steals. That brings the actual income of a poverty-stricken family of 4 to $67,604. To achieve that market basket of goods and services, their income would, in theory, be much higher, though, as were it to be real income, that $67,604 would be the amount after federal and state taxes, which they are more than likely not paying.
END EXCERPT---
LINK--- http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/op...in-poverty


Now, anybody who takes the time to give the link above even a cursory 'once over', will see that doing nothing pays very well here in this country.

Again, and to demonstrate my perspective, here is another excepted passage from the highlighted article--- "The truth be told, there is nothing ironic or symbolic about today’s comparisons with 1965. (the great society vision of president Lydon B Johnson) Today’s poverty levels are a direct result of the War on Poverty. The federal government cannot create wealth, so in order to make good on its promises to the supposed afflicted, it has to conduct a massive wealth transfer by robbing from the productive portions of the population —"

The role of government was never meant to be one of the ultimate sugar daddy. Ben Franklin--- "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Now, if you can ever get your democrat buddies to understand this very simple concept maybe America has a ghost of a chance to avoid, "the end of the republic."

[tvtimeout]

LOL, well I hate to tell you but Obama wants a single payer option. And, you just said you favor the public option. In either case you do realize that the government would run both of those plans, or systems, by definition right? So, that being the case, how will capitalism prevail, when the government is in complete control of the health care system? I would challenge you to give us even one example of a government run program that is not rife with waste, redundancies and graft. Therefore, like the explorer who has lost his bearings we again find that we have come full circle and, returned to the same place we started our journey.

Our basic premise then, should be as follows; due to the fact the record clearly demonstrates that governmental attempts to control the marketplace always wind up in a state of abysmal failure, we ought to look elsewhere for 'the cure'. Therefore the way to fix any percieved flaws in the medical system would certainly preclude governmental intrusion, not encourage it. And, that is the republican message, which is somewhat different than the way you have recently characterized it. Likewise, the secular humanistic view that anybody who cannot afford health care should have it just awarded to them by government. There are two ways to earn a living in today's America. One is via the tried and true method of earning one's living. The other is just to realize that we 'pay' people to do nothing. And, for the record, the wages for nothing are not bad and include free health care which the CBO says is worth $20,000 dollars a year for the average family. Matter of fact, the average family numbers go like this----

EXCERPT---
"There are countless more federally-run and taxpayer-provided social welfare programs, but the aforementioned few give good insight into what the productive sectors of the economy provide for those unwilling to pursue the American Dream at their discretion. As you can see, those who make a lifestyle of being poor are doing quite well for themselves and are far better off than some of their middle class friends and neighbors. With minimal or no effort, they can reap the rewards that the others toil for. Accumulating the annual benefits listed above, the impoverished family with an income of $23,050 gleans another $44,554 in subsidized goods and services, courtesy of Uncle Sam and the nieces and nephews from whom he steals. That brings the actual income of a poverty-stricken family of 4 to $67,604. To achieve that market basket of goods and services, their income would, in theory, be much higher, though, as were it to be real income, that $67,604 would be the amount after federal and state taxes, which they are more than likely not paying.
END EXCERPT---
LINK--- http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/op...in-poverty


Now, anybody who takes the time to give the link above even a cursory 'once over', will see that doing nothing pays very well here in this country.

Again, and to demonstrate my perspective, here is another excepted passage from the highlighted article--- "The truth be told, there is nothing ironic or symbolic about today’s comparisons with 1965. (the great society vision of president Lydon B Johnson) Today’s poverty levels are a direct result of the War on Poverty. The federal government cannot create wealth, so in order to make good on its promises to the supposed afflicted, it has to conduct a massive wealth transfer by robbing from the productive portions of the population —"

The role of government was never meant to be one of the ultimate sugar daddy. Ben Franklin--- [B]"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." [/B]Now, if you can ever get your democrat buddies to understand this very simple concept maybe America has a ghost of a chance to avoid, "the end of the republic."

I love Ben Franklin; did you know that to fund his incitives such as fire department, library, even military he thought that the rich land owners, the Penns, should pay for these things and went to England to aruge the case. I think he was one of the first true partirots.He made the arguement for 100,000 pounds to help the local militia out, but he thought that the Penns should be taxed because they were making a profit off the colonies lands. His actions about seperation of church and state, was in a word extrodanory, you must remember he was working with the Quaker faction of the time, infact the idea of seperation of church and state could very well be credited with the quakers. Enough of the history lesson though! Have a great day

[TheRealThing]

I love Ben Franklin; did you know that to fund his incitives such as fire department, library, even military he thought that the rich land owners, the Penns, should pay for these things and went to England to aruge the case. I think he was one of the first true partirots.He made the arguement for 100,000 pounds to help the local militia out, but he thought that the Penns should be taxed because they were making a profit off the colonies lands. His actions about seperation of church and state, was in a word extrodanory, you must remember he was working with the Quaker faction of the time, infact the idea of seperation of church and state could very well be credited with the quakers. Enough of the history lesson though! Have a great day

LOL, so that was a history lesson you just laid on us huh? Thanks, The idea of separation and state was emblazened on the minds of Franklin and the other founding fathers way back in jolly old England. The Anglican Chruch and the Crown were near one in the same, as Mad King George rewarded loyal informants with high positions in the official state church. The church was rife with compromise as a result.

Sick of the hypocrisy, the founding fathers knew better than to allow government to make the same mistake twice in adoping a state church. Hence the term, 'separation of church and state'. A concept of which I am in complete agreement when interpreted correctly. Sadly, the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme in our day, the idea that the state should totally deny the existence of God is a characteristic of left-wing extremism. As I have previously mentioned, the idea that our people could adequately govern themselves aside from the recognition of God's moral authority, will just as certainly lead to ruin. Our ability to legislate and make sound judgements in our land's court system began to erode signigicantly, once we decided to divorce ourselves from God's moral precepts as the source and authority of what is right and wrong.

BTW, you completely side stepped the argument I set up in by post. I really don't blame you for trying to change the subject though. Have a great day yourself.

[tvtimeout]

Not side stepping anything;I have answered everything, just like you not responding to his ideas on taxing Thomas Penn... really!

[TheRealThing]

Not side stepping anything;I have answered everything, just like you not responding to his ideas on taxing Thomas Penn... really!

Frankly I wasn't soliciting a response or "answer" from you about any thing I have posted. None the less, in my mind you have anwered zilch. This thread is about federal the government intrusion into the private business sector and the astronomic tax burden associated with doing so. However, if you're saying a representative, like the one you cited, can prevail on Parlament or the Queen of England to settle America's health care differences, maybe you should consider the fact that we are no longer colonies of Great Britain. :biggrin:

[vundy33]

The state doesn't deny the existence of any God, lol.

[TheRealThing]

The state doesn't deny the existence of any God, lol.

No, you're right about that one Vundy, lol. Matter of fact, the more gods the merrier! Just as long as there is no suggestion that the God of Christianity is sovereign, at that point the wheels come off.

[TheRealVille]

No, you're right about that one Vundy, lol. Matter of fact, the more gods the merrier! Just as long as there is no suggestion that the God of Christianity is sovereign, at that point the wheels come off.

The state can't suggest that the christian god is sovereign. At the point that they say that the christian god is sovereign, they sponsor that as the official state religion, saying your god is the god above all other gods. As far as American law and the first amendment goes, your god is no bigger, or of higher respect, than my god.

[vundy33]

I wonder how much longer POTUS will take his Oath of office with his hand on the Bible? Anyone see that disappearing?

[TheRealThing]

The state can't suggest that the christian god is sovereign. At the point that they say that the christian god is sovereign, they sponsor that as the official state religion, saying your god is the god above all other gods. As far as American law and the first amendment goes, your god is no bigger, or of higher respect, than my god.

Is that a rhetorical comment or are you saying your god is different from The God?

[TheRealVille]

Is that a rhetorical comment or are you saying your god is different from The God?

It shouldn't be hard to understand, even for a "nail driver".

[TheRealThing]

It shouldn't be hard to understand, even for a "nail driver".

LOL, where have you been?

[TheRealVille]

Is that a rhetorical comment or are you saying your god is different from The God?

LOL, where have you been?

Usual side step?

[TheRealThing]

Usual side step?

Ok I'll explain it to you then. See, my statement to Vundy was rhetorical. This administration is very careful not to offend Allah, remember all the appologizing that went on while our own soldiers were being killed for an alledged affront to Islam? I can't remember the last time anybody appologized to the US for offending our sensitivities. And, FWIW, I've never felt the need to side step (you're stealing my material again I see) anything you've ever put up on here.

[the other guy]

Here the thing nothing really changes those who have income will be the ones to pay. I'm sure my social security benefits will be tapped to pay for my wife's insurance, she only 48. But as always those who don't have income will be given everything free.
They are people out there that need help but so many who are just riding the system. In fairness once folks start that ride it almost impossible to get off.
I know a guy that just quit a low paying job because he could not make it working. He now receives enough food stamps to feed his family. So the system needs major reform that it will never get.

So I guess I will just do the best I can and hope my grandchildren make it somehow.

"all the countries of europe, Asia and Africa combined could not bring this country to it's knees. If it dies it will die by suicide"
Abraham Lincoln

[crazytaxidriver]

^right now the country is feeling down and loading the gun. Next step is to put the barrel under the chin. It won't be long till America pulls the trigger and ends what was once greatness

[TheRealThing]

^right now the country is feeling down and loading the gun. Next step is to put the barrel under the chin. It won't be long till America pulls the trigger and ends what was once greatness

I thought America put the gun under her chin when folks voted to send (I still can't believe I have to say this) Mr Obama back to Washington for the next four years. And though I have my doubts, I am hoping the gun misfired but, it's a little too early yet to know for sure.

[vector]

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/21/so...illing-us/

in the middle of the page click on in the new issue time magazine

[WideMiddle03]

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/21/so...illing-us/

in the middle of the page click on in the new issue time magazine

http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/careers.html

in the middle of the screan click apply

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
:hilarious:

Classic

[TheRealVille]

^
:hilarious:

Classic

Most McDonald's employees can spell screen.

[crazytaxidriver]

The way I see it is we have taught and been taught that we are too good and entitles to a better job than "flipping burgers". IMO this kind of job is a huge stepping stone to learning how the world works. Sure it's no a great job and the pay sucks, but it's a starting point. Since the beginning as far as I know you have to start at the bottom and work your way up the corporate ladder. You don't start on the top.

So when you graduate from college you shouldn't expect to make 6 figures a year with an arts degree. Or even a business degree. If we as a country could learn that in or see to make a name for ourselves we have to work for it, the works would be a better place.

[TheRealThing]

The way I see it is we have taught and been taught that we are too good and entitles to a better job than "flipping burgers". IMO this kind of job is a huge stepping stone to learning how the world works. Sure it's no a great job and the pay sucks, but it's a starting point. Since the beginning as far as I know you have to start at the bottom and work your way up the corporate ladder. You don't start on the top.

So when you graduate from college you shouldn't expect to make 6 figures a year with an arts degree. Or even a business degree. If we as a country could learn that in or see to make a name for ourselves we have to work for it, the works would be a better place.

When I was getting ready to turn 16 I applied at McD's. The result? I soon learned how great it was to be able to buy a few things I wanted, on my own. Clothes and eventually a car. Then believe it or not I financed my own college education, working right there at good old McDonalds. (that was before federal aid) Working never hurt anybody, It is usually, on the contrary, a character building prerequisite to a self sufficient life style. On the other hand, if one starts off his life dodging work, sitting around killing zombies, on a diet of Mt Dew and twinkies, he will likely never rise up out of the ranks of those whose only identifying credential is their hard luck story and manage to accomplish nothing more than becoming a life long, cradle to grave, entitlement statistic. And as has been mentioned in another thread, the liberals will stay huddled in a circle singing Kum bah ya and crying, because of the plight of the poor.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Most McDonald's employees can spell screen.

Oh there both short of a few light bulbs, but even you have to admit he got him there....

[vundy33]

Oh there both short of a few light bulbs, but even you have to admit he got him there....

Ohhhhh yeah, hahahah!