Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Too Late To Stop Obama Care?  
User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8180 times:

Obama care is set to implement next year. Is there any way to stop it and keep health care private? This plan will destroy this country economically and somewhat socially. We have no need for a socialized health care program (not to mention it violates the constitution-forcing someone to buy it). There must be some way to stop it.

307 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8169 times:

Unfortunately we blew our best chance last fall with the election.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4465 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8166 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
We have no need for a socialized health care program (not to mention it violates the constitution-forcing someone to buy it).

                           HAHAHAHAHA   

Wait, you are serious?


I think there are parts of it I would like to change, but there is no way I want to go back to what we had before. What we had before was the folks paying the premiums were getting higher and higher bills due to the lack of folks that could afford private healthcare.


The current GOP plan of complete repeal is not thought out and not valid. in 4 years they have voted 40 + times for repeal. Not once have they put something in place as an alternative, and we definitely need an alternative.

Uninsurables, pre existing conditions, and paying for a service we all use or will use by death , is needed. No one should have to shoulder the outrageous hospital bills that are charged just due to misfortune at the wrong time in life.

The bill is not perfect, but in 4 years, the GOP has nothing better but to threaten the shutdown of Government?
Sorry but it the epitome of stupidity.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19374 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8148 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
Obama care is set to implement next year. Is there any way to stop it and keep health care private?

Healthcare will remain private. You should actually read facts and not what you are fed by the GOP.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
This plan will destroy this country economically and somewhat socially.

No it won't. It's already in effect and no destruction has occurred that cannot be readily attributed to other things.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
We have no need for a socialized health care program (not to mention it violates the constitution-forcing someone to buy it)

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, and on Constitutional questions they are the authority, not you.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
There must be some way to stop it.

Yes, elect a completely GOP Congress and President. Of course, by that time the law will be in effect and Americans will have benefited from lower insurance rates, the end of pre-existing conditions restrictions, and expanded coverage. Insurers and healthcare providers (like me) have already expended a lot of time and resources into complying with and preparing for Obamacare, so its repeal would be at least as costly.

Those of us who actually know what's in the law and work in the industry are mostly happy with it. The only physicians I know of who hate it outright are GOP blowhards who think Obama is a Muslim Atheist Communist Fascist. Most of us have found our day-to-day practices blissfully unaffected.


User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8131 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 2):
What we had before was the folks paying the premiums were getting higher and higher bills due to the lack of folks that could afford private healthcare.

You think its expensive now??? Just wait... Private premiums will sky rocket. Heath care quality will plummet. Look to the north, it takes up to 6 months just to get an appointment for a check up in Canada.

Once Obama care is implemented you will have government deciding your fate and health care.


User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8123 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Healthcare will remain private. You should actually read facts and not what you are fed by the GOP.

To be fair Doc I don't think anybody actually knows what to expect with this law besides health care providers such as yourself. It would be nice to see some PSAs or information on what to expect, because up to this point I just know it was a couple thousand pages long, the republicans hate it, and Nancy Pelosi didn't read it.


The healthcare law is set in stone and not going away. Whether that is a good or bad thing I don't know. I would have liked to know exactly what to expect prior to it's passing, but we didn't know what the Patriot Act entailed either. I guess we just have to wait and see what we will get.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19374 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8114 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
You think its expensive now??? Just wait... Private premiums will sky rocket. Heath care quality will plummet. Look to the north, it takes up to 6 months just to get an appointment for a check up in Canada.

Initial quotes on state insurance exchanges have been low. They are only going "up" if you use very selective comparisons that basically amoutn to lying. Healthcare quality in the USA is already crappy. I'm hoping that some of the measures improve it.

And I'd like our Canadian members to chime in on your last statement. I think you'll find it's not true.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 5):
To be fair Doc I don't think anybody actually knows what to expect with this law besides health care providers such as yourself.

If you actually read legal summaries of the law and do the research, you can find out for yourself.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8099 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
Obama care is set to implement next year. Is there any way to stop it and keep health care private?

Why would you want to?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 2):
pre existing conditions

This is a massive con.

I read an interesting story in the International Herald Tribune last week about hip replacements. A 60 something year old male needed a hip replacement, it wasn't covered by his insurance provider as a pre existing condition possibly caused by a sporting injury from his 20's, he had some friends in the one of the companies making replacement hips and got a deal to purchase a replacement hip for 13k, when he went to his local hospital to do the job they were going to 68,000 for the surgery, this didn't include physio. He was then advised by friends to check out Europe, in the end he had the surgery done in Belgium for 13k, the 13k also included his airfares. The new hip cost 350 USD, this is the same brand of hip he was going to buy on a special deal for 13k in the US.

From everything I haver read Americans get the short end of the stick when it comes to healthcare, I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a better system.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8098 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Healthcare will remain private.

Thank God for someone who is both knowledgeable in the subject and rational in its interpretation. Anyone would think from some of the reactions that people had been instructed to report to the nearest collective farm with a sickle at the ready.....



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8092 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Look to the north, it takes up to 6 months just to get an appointment for a check up in Canada.

I'd like to see proof of that.

From living in the NZ, UK and now Norway all countries with socialised medicine whenever I have needed an appointment with my GP I've got it same day.

My father was diagnosed with bowl cancer a few years ago, he had some blood in his stool on Sunday night, went to see his GP on Monday, was referred to a specialist which he saw on Thursday, was operated on the following week, that's socialised medicine in action. I wonder if it would be any quicker in the US?


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2978 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8086 times:

So even when the SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional, people are still complaining...Welcome to 'Merica.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Private premiums will sky rocket. Heath care quality will plummet.
Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Once Obama care is implemented you will have government deciding your fate and health care.

Any sources to back that up?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
Unfortunately we blew our best chance last fall with the election.

Even if the GOP had been voted in, you can bet that by now (assuming the law was repealed) the GOP would be facing a dismal approval rating and ever increasing sense that come 2014 dozens of seats will be returned to Democrats.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineskyservice_330 From Canada, joined Sep 2000, 1411 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8077 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Look to the north, it takes up to 6 months just to get an appointment for a check up in Canada.

Source? I live here, I use the publicly funded system - I have never waited 6 months for anything.

The Canadian system is not perfect - there is always room for improvement - most Canadians will tell you that. But the habit of some people south of the 49th to try and discredit and malign the Canadian system as a way to express their unhappiness about Obamacare is not needed. You can express your unhappiness about Obamacare without spreading half truths and false stats about the Canadian system.


User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8078 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
Any sources to back that up?

It has been stated countless times on Fox news. Bottom line, we do not need social medical care. Our private system has been and will continue to work just fine. In fact if more of medicine were deregulated, and also laws passed to make it harder to sue for medical malpractice, costs will come down. Let the market decide how it will work.


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20362 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8073 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
Let the market decide how it will work.

There's always the choice to go without. One person I know is seriously considering getting only catastrophic insurance due to Obamacare allowing for a 50% penalty for smokers, then paying the fines. He thinks it might work out cheaper than premiums + deductible for full coverage.

[Edited 2013-08-09 13:19:56]


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8068 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skyservice_330 (Reply 11):

Source? I live here, I use the publicly funded system - I have never waited 6 months for anything.

Likewise here in the UK. If I want an appointment at the time of my choosing, I might wait a week. If it's urgent, I can turn up and wait in the morning and be guaranteed to be seen. Actually, I don't even have to stay and wait - I can come back at the estimated time and go home for a bit having registered my need.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19374 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8046 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 8):
Thank God for someone who is both knowledgeable in the subject and rational in its interpretation. Anyone would think from some of the reactions that people had been instructed to report to the nearest collective farm with a sickle at the ready.....

There are people claiming that the Obamacare implantable microchips are here. No joke.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
It has been stated countless times on Fox news

   Yes, that bastion of balanced and fair truth.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
Bottom line, we do not need social medical care

And we will not have it. Nowhere in Obamacare is it socialized. Regulated differently, yes. Not socialized.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 13):
There's always the choice to go without. One person I know is seriously considering getting only catastrophic insurance due to Obamacare allowing for a 50% penalty for smokers, then paying the fines. He thinks it might work out cheaper than premiums + deductible for full coverage.

Until he gets a hangnail and gets shafted with a $3k bill for having it fixed.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
Let the market decide how it will work.

It did that. Some hospitals are charging $70 for an alcohol pad that you can buy at the store.

Let's make it clear: healthcare isn't a free market. You choose when you buy a plane ticket; you don't choose when you need a doctor. You often CAN'T choose which hospital you wind up at in an emergency. There is no free market.


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20362 posts, RR: 62
Reply 16, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8037 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
Until he gets a hangnail and gets shafted with a $3k bill for having it fixed.

I asked about that. He said "problem solved, my doctor has a $99 basic office visit fee for the uninsured."



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2294 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8030 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
It has been stated countless times on Fox news

Well, there you go.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
Bottom line, we do not need social medical care.

The thing is, with Obamacare, most people will continue to have the same medical insurance and care that they have now. If your employer offers a plan you are happy with, no one is forcing you to switch to some "social medical care" system. If you have an individual plan, you can continue to use it.

The ACA gives insures benefits, such as coverage of pre-existing conditions, and sets up a program where those without insurance can purchase it.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21508 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8019 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
Any sources to back that up?

It has been stated countless times on Fox news.

And of course they have no bias at all and are fully aware of the facts of what they are talking about. I wonder if you heard that during one of Fox's many "non-news" shows.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
Our private system has been and will continue to work just fine.

$78,000 for a hip replacement in the US vs. $13,600 in Belgium (and that includes the cost of the plane ticket to get to and from Belgium): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/he...mple-math.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

No, it's not working just fine. It's not working at all. We pay far more money for not much more (if any) benefit in terms of care compared to other developed countries in the world. That's got to change.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8009 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
There are people claiming that the Obamacare implantable microchips are here. No joke.

I would really like to be able to disbelieve that, truly I would.....



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2963 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8002 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
We have no need for a socialized health care program
Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
(not to mention it violates the constitution-forcing someone to buy it).

Woah. Generally, a 'socialized health care program' does not necessarily force someone to buy anything.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court upheld that particular feature of the ACA, therefore making it perfectly constitutional.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Healthcare will remain private. You should actually read facts and not what you are fed by the GOP.


  

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):
My father was diagnosed with bowl cancer a few years ago, he had some blood in his stool on Sunday night, went to see his GP on Monday, was referred to a specialist which he saw on Thursday, was operated on the following week, that's socialised medicine in action. I wonder if it would be any quicker in the US?

Not in my experience with our current system.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
It has been stated countless times on Fox news. Bottom line, we do not need social medical care. Our private system has been and will continue to work just fine.

That's not an argument--you are merely restating what you said before.

Hell, you're not even describing what Fox has said--and I'm not even going to get into the Fox argument.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2978 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7991 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
It has been stated countless times on Fox news.

Well that takes care of that. Nothing to see here.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7108 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7986 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
No it won't. It's already in effect and no destruction has occurred that cannot be readily attributed to other things.

It will hurt small/medium businesses. I personally know business owners who are ready to sell their business because of the cost Obama Care will bring them.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 7):
The new hip cost 350 USD, this is the same brand of hip he was going to buy on a special deal for 13k in the US.

From everything I haver read Americans get the short end of the stick when it comes to healthcare, I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a better system.

This is true and this is the biggest problem I have with the American Healthcare system. We pay for everyone's freaking medicine, research etc.. Drug companies, healthcare companies need to make money but Americans should not be the ones footing such a large portion of the bill. Why there have been no DOJ investigations on this I don't know. Oh wait of course how could congress hurt the pockets of their biggest donors. Its disgusting what Washington lets healthcare companies, pharmaceutical companies etc.. do to Americans.

The thing is from what I know about Obamacare, this wont change.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7801 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7963 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 2):
The bill is not perfect, but in 4 years, the GOP has nothing better but to threaten the shutdown of Government?

For real. Most Democrats I've talked to have minor problems with it, some have major problems with it. But what has the GOP proposed??? They've completely lost all the respect I had for them in the last few years, this whole repeal the ACA and replace it with "IDK we'll figure it out later" or vaguely, 'the free market,' tells me absolutely nothing. I'd rather ride forward with a somewhat flawed step forward and tweak it from there than go back to the status quo with no real change in sight.

GOP: lay out a well thought out, detailed plan, THEN vote to REPLACE the ACA with the superior program. They've had enough time to think of something, anything--they either have nothing or haven't really advertised it very well, their fault. And tort reform isn't a comprehensive alternative, and geez, you can have tort reform with or without the ACA

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
You think its expensive now??? Just wait... Private premiums will sky rocket. Heath care quality will plummet. Look to the north, it takes up to 6 months just to get an appointment for a check up in Canada.

I used to believe the propaganda on how much foriegn socialized healthcare sucks until I got on this website and EVERY poster except one Brit I've talked to with some kind of socialized healthcare loves it and wouldn't go back to the old/the US system. Any foreigners have any really bad experiences, the ones you hear from the far right in America?

Now no system is perfect, and our foreign posters will be quick to mention that

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
So even when the SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional, people are still complaining...Welcome to 'Merica.

Yeah, it's sad. I've seen both sides champion a decision and turn around and say that the court was bought and/or it's a liberal activist haven. Give me a break, at least pretend not to be super biased

Quoting skyservice_330 (Reply 11):
Source? I live here, I use the publicly funded system - I have never waited 6 months for anything.

There you go. I wonder what the OP has to say against, you know, a real Canadian. I don't care what he's heard on the news

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
In fact if more of medicine were deregulated, and also laws passed to make it harder to sue for medical malpractice, costs will come down. Let the market decide how it will work.

Why hasn't our lovely GOP come out with a plan yet? All I've heard are vague things like tort reform which, again, doesn't need the ACA repealed to get through Congress

So to sum up:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
Obama care is set to implement next year. Is there any way to stop it and keep health care private?

No, there isn't. I'd say there is a way, the GOP coming up with a better alternative, but I'd bet $1000 they won't. They've had years and years and all they've done is fed us crap. It wouldn't take much to sway me personally but they have less than nothing and all it's doing is pissing off the population. Wonder if they'll ever learn. What they've done for years is obviously not working



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7947 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):

Until he gets a hangnail and gets shafted with a $3k bill for having it fixed.

I had one of these, it cost 170 NOK (about 30 USD) to fix.

Quoting flymia (Reply 22):
We pay for everyone's freaking medicine, research etc.. Drug companies, healthcare companies need to make money but Americans should not be the ones footing such a large portion of the bill.

Who do you mean by everyone? I hope you don't mean everyone else in the world? Not all the worlds major drug companies are based in the US, there are boat load of them in Europe. A lot of the problem is how you purchase drugs, in many countries with socialised medicine products are bought in bulk on a national level rather than hospital level in the US, so the European/Canadian/Australian/NZ health authorities buying power is far greater than any individual hospital could wield in the US.


User currently onlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4375 posts, RR: 27
Reply 25, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8124 times:

This thread could be an introductory level college course on how to look uneducated on the internet.


The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2963 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8124 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 24):
I had one of these, it cost 170 NOK (about 30 USD) to fix.

I'm betting that this was not in the United States.

30 USD is what I pay when I go to see the doctor for my yearly check-up as a co-pay.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8155 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
$78,000 for a hip replacement in the US vs. $13,600 in Belgium (and that includes the cost of the plane ticket to get to and from Belgium):

Yup that's the one I was referring to, the rest of the article is pretty interesting as well.

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 26):

I'm betting that this was not in the United States.

No in Norway.

[Edited 2013-08-09 14:58:22]

User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 28, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8096 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
Let's make it clear: healthcare isn't a free market. You choose when you buy a plane ticket; you don't choose when you need a doctor.

A free market is a market which lacks government intervention. Nothing to do with when people choose to use a service.

The US healthcare system does of course have enormous levels of intervention, that it is why it is such a mess.

What we are seeing with Obamacare is the phenomena that intervention begets intervention. Politicians think it is easy to fix the market with laws, but they normally fail to see or are not interested in seeing (because they won't be in office by then) the blowback that those laws bring in. Then when that blowback occurs and the situation ends up worse then before, they try and fix things with more laws.

Correct me if i'm wrong as information doesn't really filter over here in digestible format but will it now not possible for insurance companies to discriminate against pre-existing conditions?

Well it's not too hard to see the spectacular abortion of logic there and how that will inevitably increase costs.

As far as i can see the US might as well go fully single payer now, as the current system seems to be perfectly designed to maximise costs at every step of the way... no doubt because the politicians making the laws are being paid off by the companies that benefit.


User currently onlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2208 posts, RR: 5
Reply 29, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8089 times:

You guys forget an essential part of our history. The GOP did, in fact, come up with an alternative to Obamacare and it was implemented in the State of Massachusetts by their last Presidential candidate. Obamacare is, quite shockingly, based on a GOP healthcare idea.

The GOP...wicked retahdid!


User currently offlineCaliAtenza From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8051 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):

It has been stated countless times on Fox news. Bottom line, we do not need social medical care. Our private system has been and will continue to work just fine. In fact if more of medicine were deregulated, and also laws passed to make it harder to sue for medical malpractice, costs will come down. Let the market decide how it will work.

Fox News??? really??? That's who you are quoting?


User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8021 times:

Nationalized healthcare would be great for the US. Have you seen how many crippled people there are in the US because they can't afford healthcare? And how many people go bankrupt due to health care costs (it's the largest cause of bankruptcy). Those people who are against it are, for the most part, those who can easily afford decent health insurance and/or are employed in the business. Think about the bigger picture, people. You think it's someone else's problem if they can't afford healthcare? It's everyones problem.

Looking at the English model, if you're in England and you want something above and beyond the NHS then you can get private insurance (eg BUPA) - and from what I recall it's considerably cheaper then the equivalent in the US (please correct me if I'm wrong on this, it's been a while since I moved to the US).

BTW death panels don't exist...except on FOX News.



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8027 times:

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 30):
Fox News??? really??? That's who you are quoting?

FOX News is awesome - that's why they have all those videos on Youtube. Just do a search for 'Bill O'Reilly gets owned by...' and 'Hannity caught in blatant lie...'.

 



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2963 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7989 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 27):

No in Norway.

As expected. The price you mentioned won't get you five seconds with a doctor in the States.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 34, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7983 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
This plan will destroy this country economically and somewhat socially.

In the states (mostly blue) that want it to work premiums are falling as the exchanges are being implemented and people can choose in the competitive marketplace. This is what conservatives should want, a competitive marketplace.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
We have no need for a socialized health care program (not to mention it violates the constitution-forcing someone to buy it). There must be some way to stop it.

In the old system if you got sick you very well could have lost everything and never be insurable again also as said the US supreme court ruled that the penalty for not complying with individual mandate falls under the governments right to tax.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
You think its expensive now??? Just wait... Private premiums will sky rocket. Heath care quality will plummet.

In the states where exchanges are being rolled out, the premiums are dropping.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Look to the north, it takes up to 6 months just to get an appointment for a check up in Canada.

You must be a troll.
I'm another Canadian and if I needed to see a GP I could get an appointment within the next week

Quoting flymia (Reply 22):
It will hurt small/medium businesses. I personally know business owners who are ready to sell their business because of the cost Obama Care will bring them.

That is probably one of the reasons that there was 5 years between the time when the law was signed to implementation to give those businesses time to figure it out. He has even given them another year to figure it out.

Furthermore this begs the question, why the heck is healthcare tied to employment. Let citizens purchase the coverage out of their own pockets provided they get a certain minimum as required by the ACA.

[Edited 2013-08-09 19:42:06]


Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7985 times:

Quoting skyservice_330 (Reply 11):
Source? I live here, I use the publicly funded system - I have never waited 6 months for anything.

As I have said before on here, twice as a visitor to Canada, someone in my group had to use that service, very well delivered, well satisfied and very well treated. No waiting four hours in an emergency room like here. I have been in Canada many times, I have never heard any complaints about the healthcare system. In fact it is always US people it seems who say how horrible it is.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19374 posts, RR: 58
Reply 36, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7958 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16):
I asked about that. He said "problem solved, my doctor has a $99 basic office visit fee for the uninsured."

Does his hospital have that fee when he gets hit by a car?

Quoting flymia (Reply 22):
It will hurt small/medium businesses. I personally know business owners who are ready to sell their business because of the cost Obama Care will bring them.

I know a few, too. They ALL claim that Obamacare is a socialized program that their employees will have to sign up for. Except it isn't. In other words, they know nothing about the bill.

And in spite of several businesses threatening repeatedly to shut down, I've noticed they've all stayed open.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8185 posts, RR: 8
Reply 37, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7939 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Thread starter):
We have no need for a socialized health care program

We already have a huge level of government supported health care. Medicare and Medicaid is the most obvious, but there are Military Health programs, VA Health, BIA Health, etc.

And then there is the reality that your tax dollars go to pay for health care for every government employee. Federal, state, county, city, town, village, school employes. Folks like those who have taxpayer supported health care.

You've got a lot of socialized medicine - you just pay more of your tax dollars for it than taxpayers in other countries. But you probably don't mind as a good part of those tax dollars flow through private insurance companies (who add on their profit margins - increasing the need for more tax dollars).

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Private premiums will sky rocket.

Actually ObamaCare limits premium distribution - 85% of premiums must go to policy holder care, leaving the insurance companies to 15% for admin and profits. That has resulted in the insurance companies sending refund checks - something not seen in a GOP administration.

There is also another important factor - when you add millions to the insurance rolls you take them off the charity rolls. That reduces cost shifting, which will allow for tighter control of premiums. That's a pretty good situation, especially for employers still paying out for nanny care.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Heath care quality will plummet.

Actually it can improve - and when you look at our outcome performance in comparison with other countries with advanced medical systems one an only anticipate improvements in our performance. Major factor in improving performance will be the ability of millions to go to a doctor's office or climic instead of not going - and getting a serious problem develop. The earlier you identify a medical problem the cheaper it is to treat, and the greater potential for a desired outcome.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Look to the north, it takes up to 6 months just to get an appointment for a check up in Canada.

         Try getting an appointment with a non-urgent specialist, like a dermatologist. I had the Urologist tell me to come back in February for my next appointment. Like a lot of other specialities he does have a long range appointment book, limiting the appointments left open for you.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Once Obama care is implemented you will have government deciding your fate and health care.

I haven't had any problems with Medicare - my doctors have been able to treat me based on their judgement. I can remember, however, doctors having to call 1-800-MOMMY-MAY-I to get approval to treat me when I had over priced private insurance. I also have to admit that my VA Doc also had the authority to order tests, like a CT Scan, without seeing approval from anyone.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 7):
From everything I haver read Americans get the short end of the stick when it comes to healthcare

We do when you look at the costs and outcomes that are below other countries.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 7):
I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a better system.

It's about money, not health care. There are too many companies and people making very big dollars and they make political contributions to keep it that way.

Check out the outcomes i the US in comparison with other civilized countries. We're No 1 in Women's Breast Cancer. And that's about it. My Doc says we're 27th overall, but my favorite was our outcomes in the area of infant mortality. We're tied with Cuba at 22. Tied with Bloody Cuba. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a better system.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):
I wonder if it would be any quicker in the US?

Major problems, be it bleeding or broken bones, get care almost as fast as patients with more socialized medicine. We do have longer waits in the ER, many times increasing health risks to patients, but most conservatives don't mind that 4 to 5 hour unnecessary wait (or the unnecessary increases in pricing) as long as they can say they have private insurance. Especially if they have employer nanny care provided "free".

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
It has been stated countless times on Fox news.

Well, there you go - everyone should take those statements as the holy grail.  
Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
Our private system has been and will continue to work just fine.

If you have a lot of money, or an employer who is still carrying the burden of employee nanny care. Employers are moving away from that albatross called nanny care expense so "working just fine" is going to be based on you having a lot of money. And you will still ahve a 4 to 5 hour wait at most hospital ERs in this country.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
laws passed to make it harder to sue for medical malpractice, costs will come down.

Texas passed multiple laws making it almost impossible to sue for medical malpractice and health care costs haven't gone down at all. But profits have gone up.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2978 posts, RR: 8
Reply 38, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7919 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 29):
Obamacare is, quite shockingly, based on a GOP healthcare idea.

The GOP...wicked retahdid!

Obamacare: they were for it before they were against it.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 34):
Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Look to the north, it takes up to 6 months just to get an appointment for a check up in Canada.

You must be a troll.
I'm another Canadian and if I needed to see a GP I could get an appointment within the next week

He's not a troll. He's just repeating what Fox News says. A troll actually knows what he's talking about but chooses to act like he's not.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2717 posts, RR: 18
Reply 39, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7919 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Look to the north, it takes up to 6 months just to get an appointment for a check up in Canada.

WOW, what a falsehood.

I can get a GP appointment the next day without any problems, except when my GP has his day's off of course. He's open Monday to Thursday and Saturday, so even then, it's only a one-day wait.

When I had a sudden medical event 16 years ago, I was taken to the hospital by a friend on a Thursday, tests on the Friday, talked to the surgeons on Saturday and had the operation the next Wednesday. Awesome medical care.

When I need a blood test, x-ray, etc, that's easy to get done on a walk-in basis at any number of clinics. Test results usually take a day or two then I just drop into my GP to get the results.

Yes, there are some issues with the Canadian system. Like any health system almost worldwide, costs are rising as our society ages. That's to be expected as the "boomer" generation ages. Likewise, in smaller rural areas, not every specialist is available. Doctors like many others want to work in major urban areas, not rural areas. But that situation is improving by the gov't offering incentives for doctors to relocate or set up a practice in more rural areas.

And best of all.... nobody is denied medical care, nobody gets left behind, nobody goes bankrupt trying to stay healthy or because their child gets sick.


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20362 posts, RR: 62
Reply 40, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7907 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):
Does his hospital have that fee when he gets hit by a car?

Honestly don't know what kind of catastrophic policy he's looking at, I wasn't all that interested in it. I would presume in the case of a car accident, that car insurance would cover up to their limits.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13029 posts, RR: 12
Reply 41, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7902 times:

I don't know yet if 'Obamacare'/ACA will mean - hopefully - much lower premiums on my individual health insurance. I sure can't afford to spend any more than I do now, and for sure if I were to lose my job. I guess it will take until after October 1st to go to the sure to crash websites, but I wish I had a better idea. That mystery is what is driving in part the fear of it going into effect, despite some improvement for millions from the parts of the ACA already in effect.

It may be too late to stop it, but it isn't too late to put in some fixes to hold down costs, especially for medicines, unnecessary procedures, better management of emergency rooms to deal with those with true emergencies from those who are poor and have a health problem yet treat them promptly. I would like to see a total end of almost all prescription drug advertising, especially on TV, where the government sets pricing margins to assure a reasonable rate of return for drug makers but cutting out excessive costs. Improvements in care safety to reduce infection and malpractice risks thus reducing overall costs.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8185 posts, RR: 8
Reply 42, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7895 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 40):
I would presume in the case of a car accident, that car insurance would cover up to their limits.

And a lot of times their "limits" are grossly inadequate. End up a Pare or Quad and you better hope the driver of the other car has really, really deep pockets - or you know a really, really good trial lawyer.


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20362 posts, RR: 62
Reply 43, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7892 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 42):
And a lot of times their "limits" are grossly inadequate.

Like I said, he's looking at catastrophic coverage, and don't know all of the details of the policy.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2752 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7879 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 34):
In the states (mostly blue) that want it to work premiums are falling as the exchanges are being implemented and people can choose in the competitive marketplace. This is what conservatives should want, a competitive marketplace.

Boy I wish I lived in one of those blue states. I'm from a deep blue state (Connecticut) and premiums have continued to make huge jumps. Not saying it is directly related to Obamacare, but it hasn't helped my insurance.
Pat



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 45, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7864 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 22):
It will hurt small/medium businesses. I personally know business owners who are ready to sell their business because of the cost Obama Care will bring them.

Yeeees, well to be fair I know personally many people who were planning to leave the country if Obama got reelected and mysteriously they all seem to still be here.

I think we'll have to wait to see if there's any appreciable effect on business.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 23):
For real. Most Democrats I've talked to have minor problems with it, some have major problems with it. But what has the GOP proposed???

This is the crux of the entire debate. Healthcare in the US is broken. That's not an opinion, or hyperbole, it's a statistical truth. If the GOP comes up with a better idea I am all ears. But until they do I have to assume they simply don't have any ideas at all.

Republicans are always keen on real-world analogies, so here's a cooking one. You have been eating cold oatmeal every day for your entire life because that's all you know how to do. Then you find a recipe for a delicious Beef Brisket, but when you make it, you find you've added too much salt. Do you try cooking it again, this time using less salt in the rub, or do you go back to eating cold oatmeal for the rest of your life?

Not sure where that came from. I must be hungry.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 46, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7859 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 45):
If the GOP comes up with a better idea I am all ears.

They can't because it is a GOP idea!! It is really funny that the party of personal responsibility wants none of it when a democrat embraces the best thing about conservatives.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 45):
Yeeees, well to be fair I know personally many people who were planning to leave the country if Obama got reelected and mysteriously they all seem to still be here.

We heard the same in 2004 when Bush got re-elected and no one left then. Anyone who wants to leave a country when your party doesn't win an election, all I say is good riddance as you are not helping that country progress and actually you are impeding it.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11521 posts, RR: 15
Reply 47, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7837 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Once Obama care is implemented you will have government deciding your fate and health care.

And will still cover you. As opposed to right now which is death panels. All those people who get cancer and their premium and co-pay skyrocket? Or they are dropped from their private health insurace? ACA is much worse, right? Being forced to take health care is just awful compared to paying tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket every month. /sarcasm



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19374 posts, RR: 58
Reply 48, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7819 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 46):
We heard the same in 2004 when Bush got re-elected and no one left then. Anyone who wants to leave a country when your party doesn't win an election, all I say is good riddance as you are not helping that country progress and actually you are impeding it.

Depends. I was ready to start seeking employment abroad had there been a GOP victory with the last one. With my basic civil rights in the balance, it wasn't about politics. As it stands now, with that issue almost wrapped up, my plan is to stay unless I start getting signs that there is going to be something extreme like civil unrest. Although, I'm starting to get those vibes... maybe I'm just paranoid.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 41):
It may be too late to stop it, but it isn't too late to put in some fixes to hold down costs, especially for medicines, unnecessary procedures, better management of emergency rooms to deal with those with true emergencies from those who are poor and have a health problem yet treat them promptly.

I am a big fan of ER copays. A huge fan. It should be enough to make the patient think twice, but not enough to deter a true emergency. For Medicaid patients, $10 for the ambulance and $10 for the ER seems reasonable. If it's someone's life on the line, they will find $20 to pay the bill. For private insurance patients, ER copays can already be $50-$250. Sucks.


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20362 posts, RR: 62
Reply 49, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7807 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 48):
unless I start getting signs that there is going to be something extreme like civil unrest. Although, I'm starting to get those vibes

Civil unrest over what, by whom, and where?

Earlier today you were fearing that Putin was turning Russia into a fascist dictatorship heading straight towards global thermonuclear war.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 50, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7779 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):
It has been stated countless times on Fox news.

Oh wow! Said without a trace of irony too I bet!
If that's your source of 'info', you are better off with the Cartoon Network.

And best you don't pretend to know what happens in other countries too.

You also don't like to live in a democracy it seems, unless everything goes your way all the time. Life isn't like that.


User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7702 times:

The US has got some of the best doctors and healthcare in the world. Just a shame that so many can't afford it.


Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19374 posts, RR: 58
Reply 52, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7616 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 49):
Earlier today you were fearing that Putin was turning Russia into a fascist dictatorship heading straight towards global thermonuclear war.

He is turning it into a dictatorship. In fact, it pretty much is already. Mr. Putin cannot be ousted by an election. And given that his law enforcement arm is partnering with neo-Nazi groups, I don't see how what I said is an overstatement.

As for global thermonuclear war, if Mr. Hitler had had thermonuclear weapons, do you think for a moment his megalomaniacal mind would have hesitated to use them?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 49):
Civil unrest over what, by whom, and where?

Don't know yet.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4465 posts, RR: 2
Reply 53, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7599 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
You think its expensive now??? Just wait... Private premiums will sky

This is the big lie of the GOP. They were already skyrocketing. That was part of the reason that Obama won in 2008. Folks were sick of skyrocketing healthcare.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 4):
Once Obama care is implemented you will have government deciding your fate and health care.

How is the government going to decide? Does the government decide how I use my social security check?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20362 posts, RR: 62
Reply 54, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7590 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52):
I don't see how what I said is an overstatement.

Read what you are preaching about Putin in the other thread. He is dangerous and in control of nuclear weapons:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
And the fact that Russia has the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world and a bunch of poorly-controlled bioweapons labs that may or may not have been shut down is a very frightening thing with a leader who is starting to act increasingly like a megalomaniac.

There is no issue before us which would cause nuclear weapons to be used between the U.S. and Russia. Even with a megalomaniac at the helm. That is simply fearmongering at its most ugly and base example.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52):
As for global thermonuclear war, if Mr. Hitler had had thermonuclear weapons, do you think for a moment his megalomaniacal mind would have hesitated to use them?

That is an impossible-to-answer piece of rhetoric regarding Hitler, because it doesn't take into account any deterrents Hitler would have faced. Who knows what Hitler would have done, given that an Allied power had nuclear weapons, weapons we used against an Axis power not once, but twice, with the U.S. still being the only country in the history of the world to use such weapons in wartime.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 49):
Civil unrest over what, by whom, and where?

Don't know yet.

I lived through the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, yet hold no fear of any type of civil unrest is about to occur. We do live in the same United States, don't we?

The amount of destructive fearmongering you're pushing in the forum, first concentration camps, and now nuclear war and domestic civil unrest, is reaching a level almost now qualified to be termed as propaganda. I find that unnecessary and counterproductive.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 55, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7545 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):
Does his hospital have that fee when he gets hit by a car?

If he gets hit by a car wouldn't it be the insurance provider of the car owner who pays, better yet make sure you're hit by a car in Europe, NZ or Australia and the govt will patch you up for free   

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52):
As for global thermonuclear war, if Mr. Hitler had had thermonuclear weapons, do you think for a moment his megalomaniacal mind would have hesitated to use them?

Hitler didn't, but the crackpots in Washington sure did, worst mistake the human race has ever made IMO.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 56, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7537 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 54):
That is an impossible-to-answer piece of rhetoric regarding Hitler, because it doesn't take into account any deterrents Hitler would have faced. Who knows what Hitler would have done, given that an Allied power had nuclear weapons, weapons we used against an Axis power not once, but twice, with the U.S. still being the only country in the history of the world to use such weapons in wartime.

I know it's off topic, but as a historical aside, at the start of WW2, all of the UK population were issued with gas masks. Even children, my parents included and were drilled in their use.
It was assumed that gas bombs would be dropped by the enemy.
They didn't know it until after the war but the masks would not have worked. As a spin off to developing pesticides in the 1930's the Nazis did weaponise nerve agents.

While chemical weapons were used to kill most of the 6 million in the camps, they never used it against enemy nations.
Why? It seems that they assumed that Britain had similar agents.
In fact the very limited stockpile of ageing WW1 bombs and shells were mainly used for training. The UK had signed agreements banning these weapons in he 1920's.
It might be that having been gassed himself in WW1, Hitler had an aversion to their battlefield use too. Not a moral one but perhaps not wanting to see another generation of German soldiers go through the same, if not from enemy retaliation then just the wind direction changing.

So even the Nazis were deterred, albeit 'informed' by their typically poor intelligence gathering against the UK.
However, as the war went on and became more brutal, Churchill did order the planning and fabrication of a means to retaliate had chemical weapons been used against the UK.
The RAF would have pounded German cities and agriculture with anthrax bombs.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19374 posts, RR: 58
Reply 57, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7430 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 56):
If he gets hit by a car wouldn't it be the insurance provider of the car owner who pays, better yet make sure you're hit by a car in Europe, NZ or Australia and the govt will patch you up for free

Assuming that the driver of said car is insured. It's required to purchase that sort of insurance for all car owners, but that doesn't mean that everybody has it.

BTW, I just priced out how much it would cost our household to purchase insurance at our income and it works out to $550/mo for the both of us. That's actually, really good. And even better, if we had two kids it would only go up to $850/mo, which compared to the $1200-$2000/mo a family of four would currently pay to purchase their own (and have to deal with preexisting conditions and all that), is really good.

And we wouldn't get a tax credit because we make too much, but the cost of the healthcare is pre-tax income, so you can knock a "virtual" 30% off the price. That's actually shockingly good.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 58, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7394 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 57):
And we wouldn't get a tax credit because we make too much, but the cost of the healthcare is pre-tax income, so you can knock a "virtual" 30% off the price. That's actually shockingly good.

It's shockingly bad. That's one of the reasons healthcare costs so much. People overspend on healthcare because it's tax free, it also ties insurance to jobs which is plainly stupid.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 59, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7367 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Healthcare will remain private. You should actually read facts and not what you are fed by the GOP.

It's not the GOP - It's Obama, Pelosi and Ried, who said in the past that the eventual goal is single-payer (i.e. government paid-for and controlled-by healthcare). Harry Ried reiterated it just the other day.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013...ventual-sing/#.UgZasA-Zri4.twitter

Quote:
In just about seven weeks, people will be able to start buying Obamacare-approved insurance plans through the new health care exchanges.

But already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting those plans, and the whole system of distributing them, will eventually be moot.

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

Obamacare was designed to fail from the beginning. Why else would leftists enact a 2,700-page bill restructuring 1/6th of the domestic economy without bothering to first read the document? The failure of any left-liberal policy leads, inexorably, to its entrenchment and expansion. But for the Left, this is a feature, not a bug.

For those of you who want single-payer health care, I ask you to look at public education, where a nationwide left-liberal apparatus directs a producer-centric system that delivers an objectively awful product at absurd cost. Some countries have managed to do it (decent public schools and public health care), but we can't. The US is just too damned big and diverse. The tail starts wagging the dog.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 58):
it also ties insurance to jobs which is plainly stupid

Agreed. I am a supporter of the individual mandate - have been for many years. But for catastrophic coverage only, not Obamacare's kitchen sink approach.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11521 posts, RR: 15
Reply 60, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7313 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):
The US is just too damned big and diverse. The tail starts wagging the dog.

Because the main stream, right-wing controlled media tells people it is. FOX, AM radio, NewsMax, etc. tell their listeners/readers that a huge majority want high cost, private health care.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):
It's not the GOP - It's Obama, Pelosi and Ried, who said in the past that the eventual goal is single-payer (i.e. government paid-for and controlled-by healthcare). Harry Ried reiterated it just the other day.

Again, it is the right-wing media machine telling people what they want. Do you honestly believe people want to pay thousands of dollars a month plus and out of pocket expense when they go for something like chemo or heart attack or something? You honestly believe the best thing is for private companies to deny coverage and let people die? This from the party of "every life is sacred".



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinesbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 836 posts, RR: 5
Reply 61, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7288 times:

I don't get why people don't seem to want a better system. I am in the UK.

..If I wake up unwell and need to see a Dr I call the surgery and get an appointment that day,

..If I get bitten by a dog or need stitched I don't need to got to the ER we have minor injury units for that sort of thing.

..Out of hours GP surgeries available at the hospital and in the city centre where I live - just walk in and wait

..Major trauma etc, go to the ER and get seen and treated.

All the above is free at point of delivery because of the NI deductions taken from my pay each month - a price I am more than willing to pay.,

My mother was recently diagnosed with very early cancer of the womb. Total time from first symptoms to end of treatment (including total hysterectomy and radiotherapy was 9 weeks).

Why would I want to change that to the US system?



The best way forwards is upwards!
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 62, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7287 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sbworcs (Reply 61):
I don't get why people don't seem to want a better system. I am in the UK.

Quite simply, because many people don't view it as a better system, for a variety of reasons.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7274 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 62):
Quoting sbworcs (Reply 61):
I don't get why people don't seem to want a better system. I am in the UK.

Quite simply, because many people don't view it as a better system, for a variety of reasons.

If you have good health insurance in the US - and plenty of money - then the healthcare is very good. Great doctors/nurses/surgeons, great medical facilities etc. However, the problem comes if you don't have insurance and/or money. As a generalization most of the people who are against Obama care are the people with money (the old notion 'I'm alright Jack'), most of the people that don't have the luxury of money/insurance are for it. Unfortunately those with money tend to be the most influential (another generalization).



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2717 posts, RR: 18
Reply 64, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7262 times:

Quoting sbworcs (Reply 61):
I don't get why people don't seem to want a better system.

In point of fact, Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception.

It's also why I wonder about the USA being the only OECD county that has no paid holidays or paid annual leave guaranteed by law.

Why is it therefore that while the USA might call itself an advanced nation and part of the "first world" countries, they are just so damn backwards with basic human services for their citizens? While most other countries place an actual value on people and treating the less able/fortunate in their societies with a base level of services and benefits, the American industrial complex seems to be based on climbing over people and stomping the weakest into the ground (metaphorically speaking). It's the American "I got it... too bad for you if you don't" type of thought that the rest of the world looks to the USA and shakes it's collective head.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 65, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7242 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 64):
Why is it therefore that while the USA might call itself an advanced nation and part of the "first world" countries, they are just so damn backwards with basic human services for their citizens? While most other countries place an actual value on people and treating the less able/fortunate in their societies with a base level of services and benefits, the American industrial complex seems to be based on climbing over people and stomping the weakest into the ground (metaphorically speaking). It's the American "I got it... too bad for you if you don't" type of thought that the rest of the world looks to the USA and shakes it's collective head.

Last week, the BBC showed a program in which one of it's reporters and his wife, plus their two young children, spent some time living as an average family in Germany.
He went to work as a machine operator in pencil factory - one of the world's leading ones after over 200 years and not outsourced to slave labour economies and yet profitable.
The wife, in the UK a working mother, has to, being as typical as possible, stay at home as most German women with Kindergarten age kids still do. Which she did not like.

Oh dear, at the factory they did not like our reporter sending a text while at work. But canteen meals were good and subsidised.
This illustrated a stark fact, Germans work fewer hours than UK (and certainly US) workers but are much more productive.
They also get 30 Paid days per year as holiday.
(I think I do well with 26).

What emerged from these personal experiences was actually what is already known, Germans work shorter hours but harder. The education system is rather more suited to the actual economy. The German financial system is geared towards long term support of industry - of which German SME's are the backbone, rather than as in the US and UK, casino crookedness, asset stripping and a crack addict like obsession with hostile takeovers.

There is a reason why roads in both the UK and US are full of German automotive products. And much else besides.

The big lie put about by the right in the US and to an extent the UK too, is that economic future is all about a race to the bottom - not for the few who have an undue influence in politics of course.
Did I mention that Germany also has a health and welfare system rather more generous than the UK's and light years away from the US?
They don't seem to have a concern about 'crumbling infrastructure' as in the US.
Yet their economic competence and success is there for all too see - not on FOX News though.

It's not a paradise, local concerns about stagnant wages, immigration, to name two came up in that program as well.

So when some blowhard bangs on about the 'perils' of 'European style socialism' worth remembering several things, the nations of that continent are far from all the same (France for example has a world class private/semi private industrial sector but a bloated and seemingly very hard to reform public one), but in the more successful ones, they are more productive, harmonious, less violent societies.

[Edited 2013-08-11 10:54:53]

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 66, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7247 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
Because the main stream, right-wing controlled media tells people it is.

Tell me one country of such diversity and population that has managed to do it. The old Soviet Union? China? Great models!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
FOX, AM radio, NewsMax, etc. tell their listeners/readers that a huge majority want high cost, private health care.

There you go making crap up again...

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
Again, it is the right-wing media machine telling people what they want.

You consider Harry Ried to be party of Right Wing Media? That's a new one...

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
Do you honestly believe people want to pay thousands of dollars a month plus and out of pocket expense when they go for something like chemo or heart attack or something? You honestly believe the best thing is for private companies to deny coverage and let people die? This from the party of "every life is sacred".

Of course not. But neither do I want to see the entire system collapsed, which Obamacare is designed to do. It's the old Cloward/Pivin strategy - push a system to total collapse so that you have an excuse to completely replace it.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 67, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7165 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 66):
It's the old Cloward/Pivin strategy - push a system to total collapse so that you have an excuse to completely replace it.

And say that Capitalism failed and does not work. When it has been leeched to death by socialism all along. Obamacare was meant to stop itself.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 68, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7104 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 67):
And say that Capitalism failed and does not work. When it has been leeched to death by socialism all along. Obamacare was meant to stop itself.

Yeah, the great banking meltdown was caused by 'reds under the bad' was it?

Jeez.......


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 69, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7093 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 68):
Yeah, the great banking meltdown was caused by 'reds under the bad' was it?

Sub-Prime mortgages would not have existed without the direct requirements of federal programs.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 70, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7089 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 58):
People overspend on healthcare because it's tax free, it also ties insurance to jobs which is plainly stupid.

Perhaps those who pay cash may spend too much because its tax free but many don't have that luxury. Those who are insured and often restricted to where they can go because their insurance policy dictates

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):
The US is just too damned big and diverse. The tail starts wagging the dog.

Make it state run and set up a system so that claims can be made nationally if someone happens to need care when out of their state.

Quoting GDB (Reply 65):
What emerged from these personal experiences was actually what is already known, Germans work shorter hours but harder.

I would say Germans work smarter, they are more productive because they do get time to rest, live life and businesses in Germany invest time into their employees where they can be bolder in their decision making thus resulting in more innovative results (you kind of did say this).

In the US, labour genrally is seen as a cost thus US workers are burnt out and many live in constant fear that even one slip up can get them fired. The end result is that many do not give their employers feedback on things they could do better.

Quoting GDB (Reply 65):
So when some blowhard bangs on about the 'perils' of 'European style socialism' worth remembering several things, the nations of that continent are far from all the same (France for example has a world class private/semi private industrial sector but a bloated and seemingly very hard to reform public one), but in the more successful ones, they are more productive, harmonious, less violent societies.

  



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineiMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6278 posts, RR: 34
Reply 71, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7067 times:

I find it interesting that nobody calls it the "Affordable Care Act" these days. Perhaps that is because Obama caved to the insurance companies and gave them a very nice gift? Medical care will only get more expensive as time goes by.


Quit calling an airport ramp "Tarmac" and a taxiway "runway".
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20362 posts, RR: 62
Reply 72, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7056 times:

Quoting iMissPiedmont (Reply 71):
I find it interesting that nobody calls it the "Affordable Care Act" these days.

I see it abbreviated as "ACA" in news reports quite often, while opinion and commentary pieces are more likely to call it Obamacare.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7801 posts, RR: 52
Reply 73, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7056 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 72):
I see it abbreviated as "ACA" in news reports quite often, while opinion and commentary pieces are more likely to call it Obamacare.

Doesn't the President himself call it Obamacare? He wants that to be a positive term and owned it, IIRC. Could be wrong



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20362 posts, RR: 62
Reply 74, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7049 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 73):
Doesn't the President himself call it Obamacare?

Good question. I googled how Obama refers to Obamacare and got this piece from CBS News with a clip from last week's press conference.

Shutdown over Obamacare "a bad idea," says Obama

Obama refers to "affordable care" in his reply a few times to reiterate what the program is called and is about rather than referring to opposition to Obamacare. The story refers to the program both ways in the written story.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 75, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7042 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 73):
Doesn't the President himself call it Obamacare?

I think it was first used as a disparagement by his opponents.
Maybe another response to this could have been not to co-opt the term but saying, 'Obamacare? At least I do. Be assured my opponents do not as far as your health provisions and costs are concerned'.

(I don't know or have a stake in it either way, it just seems odd that even minor health reforms in the US take so long, it's one of those issues whose passion really bewilders outsiders, same with women's control over their own reproductive system - stuff that the most of the other Western democracies settled decades ago. If you were brought up in an era when the US seemed so forward thinking, in business, science and technology and many assumed, social issues too, it just seems so strange).


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 76, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7044 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 70):
Make it state run and set up a system so that claims can be made nationally if someone happens to need care when out of their state.

I would not object to this, particularly if the federal mandate is broad and simply requires the states to come up with a way to ensure universal coverage (with an appropriate constitutional amendment to authorize it). Let the states figure it out. Some will get it right, and some will get it wrong and later copy the systems from states that got it right.

But the left will never agree with this.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 70):
I would say Germans work smarter, they are more productive because they do get time to rest, live life and businesses in Germany invest time into their employees where they can be bolder in their decision making thus resulting in more innovative results (you kind of did say this).

In the US, labour genrally is seen as a cost thus US workers are burnt out and many live in constant fear that even one slip up can get them fired. The end result is that many do not give their employers feedback on things they could do better.

Oversimplified. Labor and management are a partnership, both needing each other. German labor unions generally understand this, and the concept is taught to german kids at school. In the US, employers are portrayed more as exploiters, where labor is morally justified in squeezing every little bit they can out of them, even if it means the long term destruction of the business.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20362 posts, RR: 62
Reply 77, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7030 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 76):
Some will get it right, and some will get it wrong and later copy the systems from states that got it right.

But the left will never agree with this.

Oh I don't know. In left-leaning progressive Oregon, we've had the Oregon Health Plan for years to handle how our Medicaid dollars are spent, which has been widely studied by other states for how to incorporate features of it in how they distribute those funds themselves. Don't know how many others have adopted parts of it since I'm no longer connected to contracting in the medical profession as I was a decade ago, but I never remember hearing "we can't do that because those liberals in Oregon came up with it." Spending limited health care dollars efficiently should be welcomed by both side of the aisle.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 78, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6998 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 77):
Oh I don't know. In left-leaning progressive Oregon, we've had the Oregon Health Plan for years to handle how our Medicaid dollars are spent, which has been widely studied by other states for how to incorporate features of it in how they distribute those funds themselves.

You are talking about the distribution of federal money within the state. That has nothing to do with figuring out how to get everyone in the state covered for basic health care, without any money from Washington.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20362 posts, RR: 62
Reply 79, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6970 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 78):
You are talking about the distribution of federal money within the state.

When I scrolled back to reply #59, what I saw was you talking about a single-payer nationalized system, which on a state level, that's what the Oregon Health Plan emulates. The only difference being a smaller group of individuals served, and where the funding comes from to pay for the medical services.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 80, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6957 times:

I watched a woman from the House on Fox News today at noon. She had that Michelle Bachman gleam in her eye as she stated that the Republicans would accept nothing less than the complete and utter destruction, abandonment, repeal of this law they call Obama Care. There was no talk of compromise, nothing but we will not let it happen. I do think this is the law of the land. Obama is President and the Senate is controlled by Democrats. She has high hopes for Free Enterprise, at the expense of millions. This is not a precise retelling of her words, but you get the gist of her position. I do watch Fox news to compare and see how news can twisted to meet ones agenda.


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 81, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6941 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 80):
I do watch Fox news to compare and see how news can twisted to meet ones agenda.

How was the news twisted? A House member giving her opinion is just that - an opinion - just like when Fox shows Harry Ried talking about how the US will certainly end up with single-payer.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 82, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6937 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 79):
When I scrolled back to reply #59, what I saw was you talking about a single-payer nationalized system, which on a state level, that's what the Oregon Health Plan emulates. The only difference being a smaller group of individuals served, and where the funding comes from to pay for the medical services.

With funding from Washington. That's different. They are spending other people's money.

Let's make it clear. If Oregon or any other state wants to do a single-payer system within their state, paid for by state taxes and not dependent on any funds from Washington, I have absolutely no objection to it. I don't think it is the best choice, but they might be able to make it work. Go for it.

But I am absolutely, utterly opposed to a federally-managed single-payer system.

The one role I see the federal government playing, once the need for Medicare and Medicaid have been eliminated by the establishment of state-run systems, is some sort of clearing house function. For instance, if someone works their entire career in New York and then retires to Florida, then it would only be fair that New York (or whoever received the premiums when he paid them) help fund this person's health care in Florida. That would be a valid role for the Fed.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 83, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6925 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 80):
I do watch Fox news to compare and see how news can twisted to meet ones agenda.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 81):
How was the news twisted? A House member giving her opinion is just that - an opinion - just like when Fox shows Harry Ried talking about how the US will certainly end up with single-payer.

I will now speak like a politician, I meant to say, I did not mean that, I must not have made myself clear. I will now speak like a non-politician. I should have said that I think the news is always twisted to meet ones agenda. I should have said that after I watch non-Fox News, and then I watch Fox, the positions are always twisted to meet ones agenda. Hmm, maybe that is lawyer speak. She did have a gleam in her eye like Michelle.   



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20362 posts, RR: 62
Reply 84, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6924 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 82):
With funding from Washington. That's different. They are spending other people's money.

And Oregon. I've been to the OHP budget meetings, so I'm familiar with how it works and why it was setup the way it was.

I'd google some links for you since your understanding seems to be a bit off, but according to the folks in Civ-Av, we're not supposed to do that for people any longer. It'd be far better for you to either live in ignorance or wait until someone from OHP or has used their services to come along and fill you in on it.  



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineaa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3347 posts, RR: 8
Reply 85, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6863 times:

I used to hate the ACA. Then I got a job in a large hospital system and realized it is a GRAVY TRAIN. The bill covers everyone, but has essentially no cost containment measures in place. As a matter of fact, did you know Medicaid rates are going to Medicare levels? Yowza.

The most noticeable quality improvement efforts I see are the ones that relate to patient satisfaction. Most hospitals are now setting up "Patient Satisfaction Analysis" departments to do things like reduce noise on the med-surg floor, script the telephone operator's call, hold AIDET training sessions, etc. They can actually do a lot of good. Health care is a really competitive market where I live, so we try to be on our game 100% of the time if there's a patient around, ACA or no ACA. These consultants and designers package up things for you, they seem good and make sense, but they charge a lot of money. All so that the old diabetic fills out the right bubbles on his Press Ganey card, so we don't lose a percentage of our Medicare funding.

If you work for a health system or are a physician, you should love the ACA. (Although, physicians, you're eggs are kinda in one basket here. Tread lightly and call the American Dental Association for some advice.)

Otherwise, just keep your health insurance plan and stay out of the rest for as long as possible.


User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2963 posts, RR: 1
Reply 86, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6761 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 64):
It's also why I wonder about the USA being the only OECD county that has no paid holidays or paid annual leave guaranteed by law.

Why is such a thing important?

Do you propose we be like the French and mandate 35 hour workdays and a month off?



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 87, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6754 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 86):
Why is such a thing important?

It's important in furtherance of basic standards of welfare and protection from exploitation for the general population, and has benefits in health, well being and social welfare for all. That affects everybody, be it directly or indirectly.

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 86):

Do you propose we be like the French and mandate 35 hour workdays and a month off?

Why automatically leap to the extreme? Immediately flagging up one unsatisfactory example as opposed to a wealth of more measured examples really doesn't help your point much.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5361 posts, RR: 53
Reply 88, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6739 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 12):

It has been stated countless times on Fox news. Bottom line, we do not need social medical care. Our private system has been and will continue to work just fine. In fact if more of medicine were deregulated, and also laws passed to make it harder to sue for medical malpractice, costs will come down. Let the market decide how it will work.

Demonstrably false - as Ken777 stated later:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):

Texas passed multiple laws making it almost impossible to sue for medical malpractice and health care costs haven't gone down at all. But profits have gone up.

The only people helped by limits on medical malpractice are malpractice insurers who know they'll have to pay out less. They're in a profit-driven industry - you honestly expect them to lower premiums? Hasn't happened yet in a single state where limits on med mal have been passed. Don't hold your breath for it to happen nationally. Meanwhile plaintiffs get hurt by it. Check out the documentary "Hot Coffee" and prepare to have your eyes opened.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 89, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6704 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 76):
Oversimplified. Labor and management are a partnership, both needing each other. German labor unions generally understand this, and the concept is taught to german kids at school. In the US, employers are portrayed more as exploiters, where labor is morally justified in squeezing every little bit they can out of them, even if it means the long term destruction of the business.

Similarly the more intelligent employers in Germany realise that their staff can make or break their business. Therefore they treat their staff as an assett and not just as a cost factor, as it is so often visible in the Anglosaxon world.
Of course, they demand performance and discipline as well, just like any other employer, but they also let the staff feel that they need them and reward them accordingly. With the future (and already visible) labour shortages due to the demoscopic changes, keeping the staff happy will become more and more important.

It always takes two to tango.

Jan


User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2963 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6685 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 87):
It's important in furtherance of basic standards of welfare and protection from exploitation for the general population, and has benefits in health, well being and social welfare for all. That affects everybody, be it directly or indirectly.

What I don't understand is why there should be a government mandate on such a thing. If people want to work, let them work...



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1262 posts, RR: 3
Reply 91, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6682 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 69):
Sub-Prime mortgages would not have existed without the direct requirements of federal programs.

I reiterate everything I said in this thread:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...non_aviation/print.main?id=2457571

I went on vacation towards the end of the thread, but your arguments failed to convince me. The contortions necessary to find a way to blame the government above the private-label lenders are frankly ludicrous.

In healthcare as in all things, there are areas where limited government regulation is good. It's just common sense that neither dogmatic position- that of unfettered capitalism and unfettered socialism- makes any sense. The truth is in the middle. With healthcare one can argue for more or less state involvement (both have countries who model such positions successfully), but the subprime crisis is a VERY poor argument for having none at all.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 92, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6677 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 87):
It's important in furtherance of basic standards of welfare and protection from exploitation for the general population, and has benefits in health, well being and social welfare for all. That affects everybody, be it directly or indirectly.

How does restricting your freedom to choose how much work and how much play you want to embark on benefit anyone?

I have no holiday leave as in my contract and have averaged 10 days holiday over the last 3 years. At this stage of my life i prefer the money.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 88):
They're in a profit-driven industry - you honestly expect them to lower premiums?

If they are profit driven then sure, i'd expect them to lower their premiums, so to attract more customers from competitors and generate more profit.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 91):
but the subprime crisis is a VERY poor argument for having none at all.

Of course it is, government set the interest rates artificially low for years, and low and behold we have a housing bubble, who would have thought that could happen?

It's a textbook example of how government interference tends to fails and capitalism tends to works.

[Edited 2013-08-12 10:33:41]

User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 93, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6661 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 90):
What I don't understand is why there should be a government mandate on such a thing. If people want to work, let them work...

The Republican's felt that the mandate was the best option as it made certain were personally responsible for "paying their way" with healthcare. The simple fact is that insurance works because people pay into it when they don't need it and often never use it. With healthcare, sooner or later most people need access to it and the more catastrophic the more is needed and it costs (generally) so everyone must pay into it for the simple fact that society as a whole and hospitals specifically cannot just turn people in need away to die in the streets. So we are already "all paying for it".

The mandate simply means people take, and must take, responsibility for their portion of the cost as much as is possible for as long as is possible. Yes, some people will never pay for what they get and some people will never get back what they pay in, but the overall system becomes and balanced system (when properly done) that works for everyone.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 69):
Sub-Prime mortgages would not have existed without the direct requirements of federal programs.

Well there is a bald faced lie. There were already many programs in place that forced or required banks to meet certain criteria, and while some were onerous they were not the "cause".

The sub-prime fiasco came about with the relaxation of documentation requirements on the industry. Something the banks pushed for and that was support wholeheartedly by the Republicans and finally came to past during the Clinton and Bush time frame as the Democrats came on board and supported it as a way to give greater access to loans for lower income people. Then "Alt A" and other similar low documentation loans (that had previously been primarily used for self-employed people) loans were suddenly used where they never had been before and oversight was relaxed to allow "efficiency".

Interestingly most neighborhood or community banks and credit unions did OK during the crisis because they did not widely use these types of lower requirement loans, as they still had requirements to meet regarding a person’s ability to payback and documentation to demonstrate that.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 94, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6643 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 90):
What I don't understand is why there should be a government mandate on such a thing. If people want to work, let them work...

Of course, except what about employers who want you to work 80 hours per week. We know here are plenty out there who would require that, if they could. Look back in history. You want to work 80 hours fine, many times I did that, in an emergency situation, I was not, nor could not be forced. Voluntary fine, your right. We are talking about being forced, by threat of termination, whatever, that is not an employers right. It was, not so now by virtue of labor laws. At least where I live anyway. We are talking about the freedom to live, not slave. I thought that was done away with after the Civil War.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 95, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6643 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 90):

What I don't understand is why there should be a government mandate on such a thing. If people want to work, let them work...

If people want to work the extra then I have zero problem with that, but I am staunchly in favour of a minimum standard amount for employers to offer to those who need or want it. It needn't be ridiculously large, but it's clear that some companies can't be trusted to look after their employees in this respect, and it particularly becomes an issue in areas with limited choice of employer.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 92):
How does restricting your freedom to choose how much work and how much play you want to embark on benefit anyone?

I'm not suggesting that freedom to work as much as you want should be restricted, but for most people freedom to have as much play as you want, as you put it, is very far from even being a remote possibility. I'm merely suggesting that there be a minimum, reasonable standard amount of paid leave available for those who want to take it.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 92):
I have no holiday leave as in my contract and have averaged 10 days holiday over the last 3 years. At this stage of my life i prefer the money.

Good for you. I on the other hand work like a dog too, but am emotionally and physically drained pretty much at the end of every single shift. It can be massively rewarding work, but it's hugely taxing in all respects. I too would both like and need the extra money, but know that for the sake of my health and psychological welfare I do actually need to use the leave I'm entitled to. Jobs are very different in terms of their impact on people, and how people's own health interacts with work. If you're fit, able and willing to go without leave then all power to you, and I mean that. But, my hours and times of work are ridiculous enough without depriving myself of the rest I need to cope with it and guarantee to give of my very best at all times when I'm there. I'm lucky that my leave is probably above average, or at least above minimum, but to think how some people in particularly gruelling jobs would cope without even a basic amount of guaranteed leave, well - I just don't think it's particularly humane or responsible to not guarantee the opportunity of a reasonable amount of paid time off.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 96, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6631 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 95):
I'm merely suggesting that there be a minimum, reasonable standard amount of paid leave available for those who want to take it.

How is that fair on the people that create jobs though? Why should they have to offer 20 days holiday if they can only justify giving 10?

The market can decide terms and conditions, just like it decides wages.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 97, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6605 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 96):
How is that fair on the people that create jobs though? Why should they have to offer 20 days holiday if they can only justify giving 10?

Why is the right of a company to offer no holiday more important than the right to ensure that all workers are assured of at least a small amount of paid leave, to help basically guarantee that people get to live a bit and help remain healthy? I hate to answer a question with a question there, but you get my point I'm sure. Also, if the minimum applies to all, it's not detrimental to any particular company over another and does not skew the market. We've been here before though RB, so I don't see any need for the two of us to flog a dead horse. You essentially believe that the market can take care of everything, I disagree and think that the free market should certainly have various checks, balances, rights and conditions for doing business. For what it's worth, while I fundamentally disagree with your position, I admire the way you stick to your principles.

Anyway, I have to be up at stupid o'clock for a very long day tomorrow, so that's all from, me this evening.  



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4465 posts, RR: 2
Reply 98, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6598 times:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...cked-with--55k-bill-150152873.html


And this is why we need Obamacare.
Where lapsed insurance nails you with a 55,000 dollar bill for something that costs someone under insurance a few hundred.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 99, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6588 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 97):
Why is the right of a company to offer no holiday more important than the right to ensure that all workers are assured of at least a small amount of paid leave, to help basically guarantee that people get to live a bit and help remain healthy?

Ask yourself why employees have a right to enforce holiday terms on their employers? If you don't want a job with no holiday, don't agree to a job with no holiday. Not very hard.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 97):
Also, if the minimum applies to all, it's not detrimental to any particular company over another and does not skew the market.

Yes it does. You're a small business, and you only have 2 additional employees. You can't afford to have 40 days off between them because the nature of your business can't support that. You might even be willing to pay more per hour to make up for that, and people might be willing to work for such terms. But now you've handed an advantage to a business with a larger workforce that doesn't suffer from extreme downtimes.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 100, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6569 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 90):
What I don't understand is why there should be a government mandate on such a thing. If people want to work, let them work...

Sorry I did not realize this was about working:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 86):
Quoting photopilot (Reply 64):
It's also why I wonder about the USA being the only OECD county that has no paid holidays or paid annual leave guaranteed by law.

Why is such a thing important?

...and not the "healthcare mandate"

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 96):
How is that fair on the people that create jobs though? Why should they have to offer 20 days holiday if they can only justify giving 10?

The market can decide terms and conditions, just like it decides wages.

Actually the business is operating in the society and in the modern western ones that many of us live in, we the people of the society get to decide what a business must follow in order to operate. And truthfully, a managed, appropriate work period is better for capitalism. Time off gives people a chance (and a need often) to spend their money which increases capitalism. Improved health means more people can do more things, work longer (as in they aren't sick at home), make more money, and spend more money.

Obviously there are limits but over all the 40 hour work week (with overtime as needed) has proven to be a very effective time period. Any shorter seems to not be effective. Regarding vacation time... I don't know. I think a minimum isn't a bad thing at all but perhaps no requirement for paid vacation (depending on the business size?). In the USA, ten days (two weeks) is the nominal "standard" for initial vacation time allowed by many companies. This is addition to the roughly 5 to 10 holidays that most everyone gets (some get a lot more than that).

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 101, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6567 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 99):
Ask yourself why employees have a right to enforce holiday terms on their employers? If you don't want a job with no holiday, don't agree to a job with no holiday. Not very hard.

But is that smart and healthy for the society over all? What societies or nations produce more wealth, ones with looser controls or ones with strong rules and controls for business?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2707 posts, RR: 8
Reply 102, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6548 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 80):
She had that Michelle Bachman gleam in her eye as she stated that the Republicans would accept nothing less than the complete and utter destruction, abandonment, repeal of this law they call Obama Care

As she should have. After all a majority of people want it repealed

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 80):
There was no talk of compromise,

You mean like the dems did when they passed this poison pill?

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 80):
She has high hopes for Free Enterprise, at the expense of millions

You have high hopes on government run programs at the expense of millions who do not want to participate.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 81):
How was the news twisted? A House member giving her opinion is just that - an opinion - just like when Fox shows Harry Ried talking about how the US will certainly end up with single-payer.

FOX must have twisted his words.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 103, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6533 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 101):
But is that smart and healthy for the society over all? What societies or nations produce more wealth, ones with looser controls or ones with strong rules and controls for business?

Looser controls obviously. Don't confuse loose controls with no rule of law - that's a very different thing.

If something is smart and healthy people will do it voluntarily

We are wildly off topic now.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7050 posts, RR: 8
Reply 104, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6527 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
So even when the SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional, people are still complaining...Welcome to 'Merica.
Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 20):
Notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court upheld that particular feature of the ACA, therefore making it perfectly constitutional.

Did the ruling actually say that if it is looked at as a federal tax it is ok?
I always thought they wimped out in making a ruling either for or against.

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 51):
The US has got some of the best doctors and healthcare in the world. Just a shame that so many can't afford it.

That's exactly why they have some of the best doctors, most want to work there because of the unlimited funds for salaries and access to equipment and drugs, as well as the insurance companies who charge massive premiums for liability insurance for all.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
Because the main stream, right-wing controlled media tells people it is. FOX, AM radio, NewsMax, etc. tell their listeners/readers that a huge majority want high cost, private health care.

You mean FOX News is the definitive word in public news in the USA, here I was thinking that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC etc were all bigger than FOX.  
Quoting photopilot (Reply 64):
In point of fact, Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception.

It's also why I wonder about the USA being the only OECD county that has no paid holidays or paid annual leave guaranteed by law.

My guess would be the US constitution and those initial words We The People.
Most other countries have Government, King and Queen and business before the people. Direct government involvement in the US econony in terms of owning and operating business is usually frowned upon, those who which to manipulate have to find more creative means.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 105, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6499 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 103):
Looser controls obviously. Don't confuse loose controls with no rule of law - that's a very different thing.

If something is smart and healthy people will do it voluntarily

We are wildly off topic now.

Actually, oddly enough while discussing this your final comment actually dragged it right back on topic:

People don't always do smart and healthy things voluntarily. In fact they often do stupid and unhealthy things. That is the reason a mandate or a taxes that is paid by everyone is an important element in a good effective healthcare system.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 106, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6476 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 105):
People don't always do smart and healthy things voluntarily. In fact they often do stupid and unhealthy things. That is the reason a mandate or a taxes that is paid by everyone is an important element in a good effective healthcare system.

I would argue that's exactly why there shouldn't be mandates or taxes. Why should i have to pay for people's stupid or unhealthy lifestyles... or vice versa of course. You shouldn't subsidise stupidity.


User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2963 posts, RR: 1
Reply 107, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6471 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 94):
Of course, except what about employers who want you to work 80 hours per week. We know here are plenty out there who would require that, if they could. Look back in history. You want to work 80 hours fine, many times I did that, in an emergency situation, I was not, nor could not be forced. Voluntary fine, your right. We are talking about being forced, by threat of termination, whatever, that is not an employers right. It was, not so now by virtue of labor laws. At least where I live anyway. We are talking about the freedom to live, not slave. I thought that was done away with after the Civil War.

Who is talking about being forced? Nowhere in any labor law does it allow for employers' forcing employees to work.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 108, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6462 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 106):
I would argue that's exactly why there shouldn't be mandates or taxes. Why should i have to pay for people's stupid or unhealthy lifestyles... or vice versa of course. You shouldn't subsidise stupidity.

But you can't do that. Or at the very least you should not do that. TO do so would be a detriment to the productivity and societal health of the nation.

Unhealthy people cause more burden on those around them that must care for them. A sick person can infect other healthy people. People dying on the street do not make society stronger or less stupid.

A strong vibrant country has a society that values life and productivity and works to protect both.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 109, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6452 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 108):
TO do so would be a detriment to the productivity and societal health of the nation.

How do you figure? People doing less stupid things, and less unhealthy things would be beneficial to the productivity of the nation. People being taxed less would also be beneficial to the productivity of the nation. The socialisation of costs is inherently inefficient.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 110, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6442 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 55):
Washington sure did, worst mistake the human race has ever made IMO.

Dropping those 2 bombs obviated the need to invade Japan. Not invading Japan saved the lives of an estimated 1,000,000 American soldiers and the lives of an estimated 1,700,000 Japanese people who would've fought to the death repelling an invasion.

Are you aware of the atrocities committed by the Japanese against the peoples of SE Asia? YOU might not like the idea of the bombings on Japan, just ask the peoples of the region what THEY think. Their voice is the only one that matters....certainly not yours!

And I ask you......honestly, would the Japanese have used the A-bomb if they had it? Would the Germans have?



We now return to our regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.

BTW, the 2 A-bombs dropped were not 'thermonuclear'. They were 'fission'. The H-bomb is 'thermonuclear'.

[Edited 2013-08-12 14:07:18]


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 111, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6435 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 109):
How do you figure? People doing less stupid things, and less unhealthy things would be beneficial to the productivity of the nation. People being taxed less would also be beneficial to the productivity of the nation. The socialisation of costs is inherently inefficient.

But health care costs are already, automatically "socialized". And I do not understand your "how do you figure?" as I already noted how I figured that.

Put simply:
Unhealthy people are less productive in society and contribute less. Unhealthy people can not care for themselves as well as a healthy person. Unhealthy people are a burden to those around them. Unhealthy people with diseases can cause healthy people to become sick and unhealthy. Society must have a way to keep people healthy, engaged, and productive if it is to thrive.

And in general it is younger people that do more stupid and unhealthy "things". As people grow older and learn more and have more at stake to lose they start to make different choices and have different considerations as to what is something that they should and will do.

And as most people start out younger and progress to older (at least everyone that I have ever known) it is not a problem that can be resolved easily. Youth and ignorance, that feeling of invulnerability that youth affords (which is also critical to a society to grow and prosper) is just part of life and while we continuously try to teach people, each is able to make their own choices. And whether you like it or not those choices can and will affect you if we do nothing to help when they turn out to be a bad choice. Parents bear this with children and nations bear this with their citizens.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 112, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6437 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 99):

Ask yourself why employees have a right to enforce holiday terms on their employers?

Golly did you really say that? How about sick leave? Shoot how about actually getting paid?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 99):
If you don't want a job with no holiday, don't agree to a job with no holiday.

Who would be stupid enough to take a job with no holiday?

Quoting tugger (Reply 101):
What societies or nations produce more wealth, ones with looser controls or ones with strong rules and controls for business?

We all know the answer to that question, it's just some can't see it.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 110):
Dropping those 2 bombs obviated the need to invade Japan.

The correct way of doing it would have been to drop a bomb on an uninhabited island near Japan, then say hey guys look what we can do, if you don't stop this we'll drop it on the mainland, it would have been just as effective.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 113, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6403 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 111):
But health care costs are already, automatically "socialized".

No they're not, only via the coercion of government are they socialised in many countries.

Quoting tugger (Reply 111):
Unhealthy people are less productive in society and contribute less. Unhealthy people can not care for themselves as well as a healthy person.

Which, as i say, is why you shouldn't subsidise unhealthy lifestyles by socialising their costs. If only you are responsible for your healthcare costs, or premiums, then you are rather more likely to lead a healthy lifestyle than if society is responsible.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 112):
Who would be stupid enough to take a job with no holiday?

Thank you for vindicating my point.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 112):
Golly did you really say that? How about sick leave? Shoot how about actually getting paid?

Likewise who would be stupid enough to take a job without sick leave or heck, actual remuneration.

[Edited 2013-08-12 15:12:30]

User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 114, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6393 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 113):
No they're not, only via the coercion of government are they socialised in many countries.

And you are apparently still missing my point.... the cost is socialized automatically because of the broad impact that already automatically occurs when people are sick, injured, unhealthy. That impacts the society at alarge massively if left unattended. It has nothing to do with taxes per se, already we pay increased insurance costs because of the high cost of uninsured people, and people that cannot afford the costs of the services required.



Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 113):
Which, as i say, is why you shouldn't subsidise unhealthy lifestyles by socialising their costs. If only you are responsible for your healthcare costs, or premiums, then you are rather more likely to lead a healthy lifestyle than if society is responsible.

So are you saying we should let people be sick and die rather than treat them? The idea behind "the mandate" (or a method that uses taxes) and insurance is that we all will need things at different times, things that we can't foresee, and that often we will need the most expensive options at times when our earning capacity is lower, and that we won't need or use services when our earning capacity (i.e.: capacity to pay for services ) is at its maximum.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 115, posted (11 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6375 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 114):

And you are apparently still missing my point.... the cost is socialized automatically because of the broad impact that already automatically occurs when people are sick, injured, unhealthy. That impacts the society at alarge massively if left unattended.

The overwhelming beneficiary of healthcare is the person being treated. Plenty of people can do my job, it would be no great loss to society if i did not exist, it would be quite a great loss to me if i didn't exist.

Regardless, you seem to be implying that people are so stupid that they won't actually seek health care and that we need the government to step in to save them from our own stupidity. Which begs the question, if we are all so ignorant to the benefits of healthcare, how are we going to vote a government in to provide us with it?

Quoting tugger (Reply 114):
So are you saying we should let people be sick and die rather than treat them?

I suggest you get insurance for that.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 116, posted (11 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6370 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 115):
Regardless, you seem to be implying that people are so stupid that they won't actually seek health care and that we need the government to step in to save them from our own stupidity. Which begs the question, if we are all so ignorant to the benefits of healthcare, how are we going to vote a government in to provide us with it?

I don't beleive I ever actually said such a think and if you found it implied then that was an error. The simple fact is that many (young people most often) do not insure themselves because it is an expense they do not need and will not use. And on the other end of the spectrum, those that need it the most will have to pay the highest prices and are often the least able to afford it (at the time they need it).

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 115):
I suggest you get insurance for that.

And if you don't?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5416 posts, RR: 8
Reply 117, posted (11 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6361 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 115):
The overwhelming beneficiary of healthcare is the person being treated. Plenty of people can do my job, it would be no great loss to society if i did not exist, it would be quite a great loss to me if i didn't exist.

By the way, you are looking at this way to small. Yes, you personally are a big beneficiary with good healthcare, but if you look beyond your nose and scale it up to the entire population of a nation, it is the entire group that benefits the most.

If you are healthy and able to work then you are able to spend money that employs other people, which in turn leads those employed people to earn money and spend it allowing other people to have jobs... you get the picture. When you can't work due to injury or illness, others in you family or friend network must support you or assist in your support. You don't spend as much money and they don't either. And if they don't help you then you end up as a burden on society either via assistance programs or law enforcement (I mean you gotta eat) or something else.

For a good strong capitalistic system to work you must have healthy and engaged workers. Starting everyone off with an automatic understanding that they will pay their own way and contribute to their healthcare lead to a better situation and not a worse one.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 118, posted (11 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6359 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 116):
The simple fact is that many (young people most often) do not insure themselves because it is an expense they do not need and will not use.

Why is insurance uncompetitive for young people anyway? Probably because of age ratings. Insurers can't insure young people for 5? times less than the elderly. That means insurers can't offer young people a competitive price that reflects the actual costs for young people to be insured, so young people will be more likely to pass and bear the risks themseves. What an idiotic regulation and apparently it's going down to 3:1. You see that is stupidity.

This is why i said above, America might as well go socialised now. Either have a free market, privatised healthcare system, or have single payer. Some kind of inbetween, overregulated corporatist mess isn't going to help anyone.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 119, posted (11 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6344 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 102):
As she should have. After all a majority of people want it repealed

We shall see how it shakes out.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 102):
You mean like the dems did when they passed this poison pill?

Exactly, the Dems had no choice as we can all plainly see.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 102):
You have high hopes on government run programs at the expense of millions who do not want to participate.

Lets face it, all the hysteria from the Republicans is based on their overwhelming fear that this law will work, and the Democrats will once again be given credit for some humanity, and it will be like SS, Medicare, a break for the common man and will go down in the history books as a Democratic program, which helped the downtrodden. Would some one tell me which programs the Republicans sponsored to help people retire with dignity, have a program to help those who can now retire with some medical assistance for the lower wage types, of which there are millions and millions. And now Obama care, a black President who got this passed. Horror, horror.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 120, posted (11 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6345 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 117):
By the way, you are looking at this way to small. Yes, you personally are a big beneficiary with good healthcare, but if you look beyond your nose and scale it up to the entire population of a nation, it is the entire group that benefits the most.

If you are healthy and able to work then you are able to spend money that employs other people, which in turn leads those employed people to earn money and spend it allowing other people to have jobs... you get the picture. When you can't work due to injury or illness, others in you family or friend network must support you or assist in your support. You don't spend as much money and they don't either. And if they don't help you then you end up as a burden on society either via assistance programs or law enforcement (I mean you gotta eat) or something else.

Again, you might have a point if it were the case that humans had no interest in self preservation and would simply die off if the government didn't make us buy healthcare. I'm afraid that notion is not remotely compatible with reality.

Your argument is rather flawed anyway because of course socialised healthcare systems are usually the ones that leave you on big queues waiting for operations.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 121, posted (11 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6314 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 112):
it would have been just as effective.

Nope, they needed their noses bloodied. The destructiveness had to be demonstrated. The Japanese military insisted on continuing the war, almost to the point of deposing the Emperor. Plus, they thought the US had only the one bomb. What they didn't know was that the US had only the two bombs.

Though you may not want to face it, if the Japanese or Germans had the bomb, they would most certainly have used it. And this world would be very different from what it is today.....and not for the better.

It should be remembered that the US was dragged into that war as an unwilling and unprepared participant. It had no interest in either of those two conflicts. Because the US industrial might and resources were so far removed from the fighting, it could build up its strength unhindered. No other nation on Earth could have beaten back both the Germans AND the Japanese. I think the world is damned lucky that the US was there when needed and was able to do what it did.

FYI, I'm not American.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 122, posted (11 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6310 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 121):
Nope, they needed their noses bloodied. The destructiveness had to be demonstrated. The Japanese military insisted on continuing the war, almost to the point of deposing the Emperor. Plus, they thought the US had only the one bomb. What they didn't know was that the US had only the two bombs.

Though you may not want to face it, if the Japanese or Germans had the bomb, they would most certainly have used it. And this world would be very different from what it is today.....and not for the better.

It should be remembered that the US was dragged into that war as an unwilling and unprepared participant. It had no interest in either of those two conflicts. Because the US industrial might and resources were so far removed from the fighting, it could build up its strength unhindered. No other nation on Earth could have beaten back both the Germans AND the Japanese. I think the world is damned lucky that the US was there when needed and was able to do what it did.

FYI, I'm not American.

Well said. Remember it took 2 bombs to get a surrender from the hardcore fanatics in charge.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7050 posts, RR: 8
Reply 123, posted (11 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6273 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 112):
The correct way of doing it would have been to drop a bomb on an uninhabited island near Japan, then say hey guys look what we can do, if you don't stop this we'll drop it on the mainland, it would have been just as effective.

Hmm, maybe Hitler should have bombed the Channel Island rather than the mainland and Churchill could have responded by bombing empty fields in Germany to make the point.
The Atom bombs are still bombs, just bigger, how many people died in the fire bombing of Dresden.

Today decades after the war when none of us have to worry about family and friends being in harms way and reading of the thousand who die daily on the battle field, line up for rations and work in factories making weapons of war, it is easy be dispassionate about the situation. We can only hope that another World War is not in our lifetime, history has already shown that the things that bought the last war can easily be duplicated, Holocaust, Killing Fields, Ethnic cleansing.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2978 posts, RR: 8
Reply 124, posted (11 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6172 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 119):
Would some one tell me which programs the Republicans sponsored to help people retire with dignity, have a program to help those who can now retire with some medical assistance for the lower wage types, of which there are millions and millions.

Well...loop holes and plenty of tax cuts help people retire with dignity...oh...you meant people with no money...yeah. Can't think of any  
Quoting par13del (Reply 104):
Did the ruling actually say that if it is looked at as a federal tax it is ok?
I always thought they wimped out in making a ruling either for or against.

IIRC, the majority's opinion stated that since Congress has the power to levy taxes, the mandate to purchase healthcare or face penalties can be considered as a tax. Ergo, under Congress's power (which was what the fight was about: Congress overreaching), the law is perfectly constitutional. And yes, the SCOTUS upheld it; it did not refuse to rule or strike it down.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8185 posts, RR: 8
Reply 125, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6121 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 44):
I'm from a deep blue state (Connecticut) and premiums have continued to make huge jumps

When I had my little company in a really red state my premiums doubled during W's first term.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 48):
It should be enough to make the patient think twice, but not enough to deter a true emergency.

Urgent care facilities are an excellent alternative - I went to one about 10 days ago as I had a sinus/throat/chest infection developing. Got in to see the doc about 30 minutes -v- 5 hours in an ER. Don't know the cost as I have MediGap as well as Medicare. A simple $7 generic Rx handled the problem.

What would really piss me of was when my wife was undergoing 18 months of chemo and hit a low point where she needed to be in the hospital. With zero resistance to anything she is kept for hours in the ER waiting room, right along with everyone who could have given her something that her system couldn't handle. The hospitals here simply have no system or ability to put patients at great risk in an isolated area.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):
It's not the GOP - It's Obama, Pelosi and Ried, who said in the past that the eventual goal is single-payer (i.e. government paid-for and controlled-by healthcare).

I believe that our goal should be to have core care paid for with a Medicare type tax. That cuts the costs of private insurance about 80% - based on private insurance in Australia.

Unfortunately we are not going to see that happen until employers get tired of that bloated albatross of nanny care that is dragging them down.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):
Why else would leftists enact a 2,700-page bill restructuring 1/6th of the domestic economy without bothering to first read the document?

Look at major legislation over the years and you will find page after page of references to previously enacted laws, regulations, etc. Laws are not enacted in isolation, hence the page counts increases.

As far as "not knowing what is in the law", you have to wait until a bill is passed an no last minute changes can be made before you know what's in the law. Even after both the House and Senate have passed a law there is often a need to take it to conference - which can bring more changes.

"Not reading a 2,700 page document" is a limp crutch for those who prefer the over priced, under performing system that

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):
For those of you who want single-payer health care, I ask you to look at public education,
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 59):
The US is just too damned big and diverse.

That doesn't matter. We can handle big and diversified. We put a man on the moon (actually two men) 45 years ago and you believe we can't handle basic programs that are, for the most part, already existing in computers?

I really can't understand why some people want to drag this country down to the level of wimps.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 126, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6039 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 124):
Well...loop holes and plenty of tax cuts help people retire with dignity...oh...you meant people with no money...yeah. Can't think of any

There you have it, the people with out money. I do not see any list for the Republican programs provided. I guess there are none to list   

Quoting par13del (Reply 123):
Today decades after the war when none of us have to worry about family and friends being in harms way and reading of the thousand who die daily on the battle field, line up for rations and work in factories making weapons of war, it is easy be dispassionate about the situation. We can only hope that another World War is not in our lifetime, history has already shown that the things that bought the last war can easily be duplicated, Holocaust, Killing Fields, Ethnic cleansing.

You are correct, nothing has changed, it still lurks out there, kept away by guns and military might.

[Edited 2013-08-13 21:09:40]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 127, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6029 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 125):
That doesn't matter. We can handle big and diversified. We put a man on the moon (actually two men) 45 years ago and you believe we can't handle basic programs that are, for the most part, already existing in computers?

I really can't understand why some people want to drag this country down to the level of wimps.

Nor can I. I also notice that anything that might actually help the majority of American's, bring more equity to our lives, and just spread the wealth just a little more fairly, (not wealth re- distribution either.) Just because a person may have to live in 10.000 sq. ft. house instead of a 15 thousand Sq. ft. house, does not seem unfair to me. I mean why does a person need 3 cars, when some have none, especially a 250K Bentley for example. Now we have Obama Care (Well named too) that might actually help more people to afford medical care. Nope! We cannot even try it. Kill it, eliminate it, banish from our lives, let the free market take care of us. Sure!!!!



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8185 posts, RR: 8
Reply 128, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6034 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 127):
Just because a person may have to live in 10.000 sq. ft. house instead of a 15 thousand Sq. ft. house, does not seem unfair to me.

Or a 1,500 sq ft house - which was about the size of out first home.

Fortunately I live in a city where there is a lot of wealth, and a large number of those wealthy individuals have returned a portion of their wealth to the city. Investments in education, hospital wings. parks, etc. Philanthropy on top of the taxes paid over their years.

Makes "Greed Is Good" look pretty pathetic in comparison.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 129, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6027 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 128):
Makes "Greed Is Good" look pretty pathetic in comparison

Oh! it sure does. One cannot fault those who want to return or share the blessings with others and their community. They are to be admired. some others, not so much.  



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11521 posts, RR: 15
Reply 130, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6018 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 66):
There you go making crap up again...

How so? When Rush, FOX, NewsMax says "It will cost too much" is not telling people they don't want it? It is already shown health care costs will be lower. Even though right-wing sources say it will not happen.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 66):
I want to see the entire system collapsed, which Obamacare is designed to do.

Source? Or is this one of your fantasies where if A comes true B will happen because one or two people said?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 131, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5974 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 127):
ust because a person may have to live in 10.000 sq. ft. house instead of a 15 thousand Sq. ft. house, does not seem unfair to me. I mean why does a person need 3 cars, when some have none, especially a 250K Bentley for example.

What would motivate people to do a demanding jobs if they weren't allowed to use their earnings to by 3 cars or a large house? They just had to have the same stuff as everyone else.


User currently onlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2208 posts, RR: 5
Reply 132, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5929 times:

The GOP has cried wolf so many times with legiasation and elections that my honest opinion is that they are petrified at being found out yet again for their false prophecies. To wit:

Medicare: GOP predicted economic extinction for the United States

Medicaid: Ditto

Election of Obama: Ditto (twice!)

So now again they are claiming imminent economic collapse due to healthcare legislation. History predicts the United States will survive, and almost one year into Obama's reelection the country is humming along quite nicely (all things considered), and the stock market is minting new billionaires by the nanosecond.

Why hell, in California we have a new world class automobile manufacturer (in the Bleeding Red Communist Area by The Bay!!! WTF!?)

My suggestion to the GOP, why not let the shit happen first and they "I told ya so ya Commie Scumbag". It won't happen, instead the rich will continue to thrive as always except that now their gardener will be able to afford a life-saving operation (paid for by his own healthcare coverage).

Making poor people pay their own fair share, how the hell the GOP got against that concept is one of the great mysteries of our age.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7801 posts, RR: 52
Reply 133, posted (11 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5918 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 131):
What would motivate people to do a demanding jobs if they weren't allowed to use their earnings to by 3 cars or a large house? They just had to have the same stuff as everyone else.

Not subscribing to any ideology on this thread, but I object to this statement. Even in societies that are more equalized, there still exists opportunity and ambition will get you further than everyone else in that society. Maybe you won't get filthy rich like in the US, but I don't believe for a second that an ambition person in, say, Sweden, will try any less harder if his end game is less than what he would've had in America. They may prefer a system where they could obtain more, but the ambitious people I have met do the best they can in their situation and don't complain/give up like you're suggesting



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8185 posts, RR: 8
Reply 134, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5869 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 131):
What would motivate people to do a demanding jobs if they weren't allowed to use their earnings to by 3 cars or a large house?

Amazingly enough a lot of people perform well in demanding jobs without great wealth heading their way.

And a lot of times they are some of the best performers around because they are doing what they love instead of picking some career solely for the potential income.

The odd thing is that large houses are falling out of favor in the market. From my house I can see 3 McMansions for sale and the "Price Reductions" have already hit. Around here a $500K house is more attractive than one twice the price.

And 3 cars? Depends on how they were bought. Some are smart buys and others are just three times the rapid depreciation.

But in both cases it's really the customers decisions on how they spend/invest their money.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 135, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5853 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 131):
What would motivate people to do a demanding jobs if they weren't allowed to use their earnings to by 3 cars or a large house? They just had to have the same stuff as everyone else.

Gee, let me ponder that wisdom. The horror of living in such a small space, 10K versus15k Oh the humanity!



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineakiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 603 posts, RR: 5
Reply 136, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5850 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 134):
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 131):
What would motivate people to do a demanding jobs if they weren't allowed to use their earnings to by 3 cars or a large house?

Amazingly enough a lot of people perform well in demanding jobs without great wealth heading their way.

And a lot of times they are some of the best performers around because they are doing what they love instead of picking some career solely for the potential income.

        

If money were the only motivator in this country, we would basically have no engineers. I could take my BS in engineering, say screw it to my PhD program, and go work in finance. Starting finance salaries for people with my qualifications are easily in the low-to-mid six figures source. My starting salary would be close to what almost all engineers make after 30+ years (excluding software engineers) source.

So why am I slogging it out in a 5 year PhD program, making $29,000 /yr, and knowing that I will likely never make more than 120-130K/yr instead of going to finance and earning $130,000 /yr? Because I love engineering and always will.



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8843 posts, RR: 10
Reply 137, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5844 times:

Quoting akiss20 (Reply 136):
So why am I slogging it out in a 5 year PhD program, making $29,000 /yr, and knowing that I will likely never make more than 120-130K/yr instead of going to finance and earning $130,000 /yr? Because I love engineering and always will.

  


I commend you, money is not the end all after all? Job satisfaction does mean something after all? I guess you may not believe that Greed is good, nor do I.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21508 posts, RR: 56
Reply 138, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5836 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 131):
What would motivate people to do a demanding jobs if they weren't allowed to use their earnings to by 3 cars or a large house? They just had to have the same stuff as everyone else.

The satisfaction of doing a challenging job and doing it very well. The satisfaction of making a difference in people's lives.

How do I know that? Because that's what motivates me. It's not the money. If it were just about the money, then I'd have no real motivation to do my job any better than I absolutely had to, as it wouldn't pay me any extra. But I have pride in what I do, so I do try to do my job the best I can.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7801 posts, RR: 52
Reply 139, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5825 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 138):
How do I know that? Because that's what motivates me. It's not the money. If it were just about the money, then I'd have no real motivation to do my job any better than I absolutely had to, as it wouldn't pay me any extra. But I have pride in what I do, so I do try to do my job the best I can.

I second (or third or however high we''re at) that. I have the means and opportunity to make a ton but all I want to be is an airline pilot (which so happens to be a well paying job, but I'd take half that money and the opportunity to travel and be just fine.) I'm probably a bad example since airline pilots do make quite a bit, but I've done well a lot in life even when the rewards weren't too high.

Anyway, even in a system where people had to break their backs to make only $500K a year instead of $30mil a year, you'd still see those jobs sought after like crazy, and those truly with ambition would go after them. Keep in mind, I'm not arguing for or against anything here, I just don't buy the argument that people would just be so unmotivated to make "only" $500K and have a house that's not quite as big and only 2 cars instead of 3



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3277 posts, RR: 45
Reply 140, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5818 times:

This belongs here:

http://i.imgur.com/MKybStQ.jpg

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineakiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 603 posts, RR: 5
Reply 141, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5802 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 137):
I commend you, money is not the end all after all? Job satisfaction does mean something after all? I guess you may not believe that Greed is good, nor do I.

Amazingly yes haha. Another thing that seems to be ignored a lot in the United States is that sometimes you don't really need more. My father served as a good example of this for me. He has been an engineer of some form or another (started in materials and slowly ended up in telecom) for 35 years. He easily could have moved up into management 10 or more years ago and climbed the latter and probably be making more than twice or three times what he is now. But that would mean being a manager and not an engineer. With his salary and my mothers, we were able to live a very good middle class life. They were able to pay for my education (for which I am so grateful), provide me with good opportunities and experiences, shelter me, feed me etc etc. Could he have gone for bigger bucks and be driving a new Porsche instead of a Scion? Ya probably. But that would mean giving up doing what he loves to do, and for what? A nicer car? He has 90% as much fun in his $3,000 used Miata as he would in a $80,000 new 911.

Granted I am quite young, but I feel that in the end you won't look back at your house or your car and have those be the things you are proud of, but rather what you contributed to society. I'd rather be able to point to some jet engine and be able to say "I helped make that" than drive to work in a flashy car any day.

That being said, if I could be an engineer *and* own a Cirrus or a Mooney...  

My 2 cents

[Edited 2013-08-14 21:47:46]


Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 142, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5789 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 127):
Just because a person may have to live in 10.000 sq. ft. house instead of a 15 thousand Sq. ft. house, does not seem unfair to me.

It's unfair because it's their money, not yours. You don't get a piece, you don't get a say. Spend your money however you wish, but leave others alone.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 127):
I mean why does a person need 3 cars, when some have none, especially a 250K Bentley for example.

Because they want it, which is as virtuous a reason as any. No person should ever need any more rationale than that.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 128):
Makes "Greed Is Good" look pretty pathetic in comparison.

Greed is what made all that, and ultimately everything, possible in the first place. How can you say that dismantles the "Greed is Good" philosophy when in fact it's the very foundation it is all built on.

Quoting wingman (Reply 132):
Why hell, in California we have a new world class automobile manufacturer (in the Bleeding Red Communist Area by The Bay!!! WTF!?)

It happened to be where they had an abandoned factory for one thing.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 133):
Maybe you won't get filthy rich like in the US, but I don't believe for a second that an ambition person in, say, Sweden, will try any less harder if his end game is less than what he would've had in America.

Then how is that fair? Two completely equal but highly driven and talented individuals, so what makes it in any way fair that the Swede get less for his efforts?

Quoting akiss20 (Reply 136):
Because I love engineering and always will.

In other words, because you're greedy.

Quoting akiss20 (Reply 141):
But that would mean giving up doing what he loves to do, and for what? A nicer car?

What if what he loves to do is drive a nicer car?

Quoting akiss20 (Reply 141):
I'd rather be able to point to some jet engine and be able to say "I helped make that" than drive to work in a flashy car any day.

That's great, but you're one person. What gives you or anyone else the power to make those decisions and set those priorities for others. Society shouldn't be passing judgement on motivations of individuals, nor punishing or exploiting them for it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7801 posts, RR: 52
Reply 143, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5786 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 142):
Then how is that fair? Two completely equal but highly driven and talented individuals, so what makes it in any way fair that the Swede get less for his efforts?

I already said I'm not arguing for any ideology, I'm just calling BS that people still wouldn't work hard if the end goal was 'pretty rich' vs 'filthy rich'

Personally, I'm left of you but still pretty right compared to many of these other posters. I'm for basic safety nets at a minimum to keep people safe/healthy and out of poverty, and although I wish people would care less about money and settle for much less, I don't think it's my or anyone's job* to say how much someone can or can't have

*I am for taxes, obviously, the government has a duty to take some money for services



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 144, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5771 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 143):
I wish people would care less about money and settle for much less, I don't think it's my or anyone's job* to say how much someone can or can't have

Nobody should ever settle for less of whatever they want. That sort of thing is why 47% of the people don't pay income tax but feel it's fine to reach into the pockets of those who do. That sort of thing is why Americans genuinely lament the fact that there might be competition and being born American might not be a golden ticket to the middle class whether they get an education and work hard or not.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineakiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 603 posts, RR: 5
Reply 145, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5771 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 142):
Quoting akiss20 (Reply 136):
Because I love engineering and always will.

In other words, because you're greedy.

Nice try. The argument I am trying to argue against is that monetary greed is the only motivator. If you want to call the love of a job well done greed, well that's your own business.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 142):
Quoting akiss20 (Reply 141):
But that would mean giving up doing what he loves to do, and for what? A nicer car?

What if what he loves to do is drive a nicer car?

Then by all means let him try and get a nicer car. My point was that the nicer car isn't the only motivator in life, despite the arguments some have posed.



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11521 posts, RR: 15
Reply 146, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5771 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 142):
Two completely equal but highly driven and talented individuals, so what makes it in any way fair that the Swede get less for his efforts?

According to you, there were no rich people in the United States prior to 1981. All these rich people and the huge gap that came with it, happened after that and is just fine the gap keeps widening. How is that good? How is poverty good? How is poverty caused by the very wealthy good? Everyone wants to have money. Everyone wants to not decide between food and rent and forgetting health care yet again this month. Except the far right wing like you.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4940 posts, RR: 19
Reply 147, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5771 times:

The other day I saw an article that the Obamacare deductible for 100% coverage is $6,200. Most insurance companies today have their 100% deductible at $3,000 or so. In the end I think people will just end up paying more for less.


Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 148, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5768 times:

Quoting akiss20 (Reply 145):
Nice try. The argument I am trying to argue against is that monetary greed is the only motivator.

I never said monetary greed is the only motivator. But it is the only sort of payoff or satisfaction we have to quantify for the government so they can take a portion of it to redistribute to others.

Quoting akiss20 (Reply 145):
If you want to call the love of a job well done greed, well that's your own business.

Everything good that has ever happened happened because someone wanted something.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 146):
According to you, there were no rich people in the United States prior to 1981.

Show me where I said that. Seriously, show me.

But, there are more wealthy people today than there were then.
http://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2012/12...-billionaires-are-there-in-the-us/

Quoting seb146 (Reply 146):
How is poverty good?

It's not.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 146):
How is poverty caused by the very wealthy good?

Poverty isn't caused by the wealthy. I don't know how this became the narrative, but there is only slightly more truth to that than the Da Vinci Code.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineakiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 603 posts, RR: 5
Reply 149, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5769 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 148):
Quoting akiss20 (Reply 145):
If you want to call the love of a job well done greed, well that's your own business.

Everything good that has ever happened happened because someone wanted something.

So in your mind there is absolutely, 100% no such thing as a self-less or a non-greed motivated act? This reminds me of a Friends episode...



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 150, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5768 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 131):
What would motivate people to do a demanding jobs if they weren't allowed to use their earnings to by 3 cars or a large house? They just had to have the same stuff as everyone else.

The problem with a large house is that someone has to clean it!

Quoting akiss20 (Reply 136):
So why am I slogging it out in a 5 year PhD program, making $29,000 /yr, and knowing that I will likely never make more than 120-130K/yr instead of going to finance and earning $130,000 /yr? Because I love engineering and always will.

Take your engineering degree and get a job in the oil & gas industry, you'll be earning big bucks from the get go. One of my friends is a hydraulic engineer and works on cranes for platforms and supply vessels, he's earning about 200k USD.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 142):
Then how is that fair? Two completely equal but highly driven and talented individuals, so what makes it in any way fair that the Swede get less for his efforts?

Why do you think that, there are plenty of stinking rich Swedes, the average Swede is better off than the average American, healthier and happier too.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7801 posts, RR: 52
Reply 151, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5767 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 144):
Nobody should ever settle for less of whatever they want.

I've never contested this

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 144):
That sort of thing is why 47% of the people don't pay income tax but feel it's fine to reach into the pockets of those who do.

Come on, you know me and what I post on this site well enough (I think) and although I'm left of you, I'm not talking about redistribution or most of what some other posters I'm talking about. I'm talking about basic healthcare and some social programs. I guess that's "technically reaching into pockets of others" but even you acknowledge the government needs to provide some services, I just draw the line a little bit to the left of you

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 144):
That sort of thing is why Americans genuinely lament the fact that there might be competition and being born American might not be a golden ticket to the middle class whether they get an education and work hard or not.

I think you are stereotyping way too much here. You and I know there are lazy, basically worthless people that just leach off the government, but just because someone has hit some hard times and NEEDS to be on government assistance doesn't make them a lazy welfare queen that lacks ambition and loves soaking in his/her failure. We (well, at least I) see a bunch of hard working people that have hit hard times, and simply saying "well work harder" is not the answer, and "well you should have done ______ differently" is stupid since everyone including you and I have made mistakes, it just hasn't screwed us over, and I don't want to see these good people, our fellow countrymen, go bankrupt because they get sick and have no health insurance

Don't think that just because I'm arguing with you on some points means I subscribe to the extreme other side's ideology. Either I'm misunderstanding what you are saying in your replies or you have me totally wrong. I'm not talking about redistribution and capping salaries and banning sports cars or whatever



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 152, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5774 times:

Quoting akiss20 (Reply 149):
So in your mind there is absolutely, 100% no such thing as a self-less or a non-greed motivated act?

Pretty much. Everything is selfish at some level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 150):
Why do you think that, there are plenty of stinking rich Swedes, the average Swede is better off than the average American, healthier and happier too.

But how much wealthier would they be if they didn't have such suffocating taxes, both on income and purchases? And Swedes may make more, but they also pay far more than people in many other countries.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 151):
I guess that's "technically reaching into pockets of others" but even you acknowledge the government needs to provide some services, I just draw the line a little bit to the left of you

But services that those paying don't benefit from? That's too much and when you think about it, is really just mob rule, albeit in a codified and relatively civilized manner.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 151):
You and I know there are lazy, basically worthless people that just leach off the government, but just because someone has hit some hard times and NEEDS to be on government assistance doesn't make them a lazy welfare queen that lacks ambition and loves soaking in his/her failure.

WarR1 seems to think that being alive and American is all one should ever need to get into the middle class.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 151):
We (well, at least I) see a bunch of hard working people that have hit hard times, and simply saying "well work harder" is not the answer, and "well you should have done ______ differently" is stupid since everyone including you and I have made mistakes, it just hasn't screwed us over, and I don't want to see these good people, our fellow countrymen, go bankrupt because they get sick and have no health insurance

It would be more like "well, work smarter" but either way you can't fix the game. You can try and give people the tools to win, but you can't fix the game because the market always wins.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7801 posts, RR: 52
Reply 153, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5772 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 152):
But services that those paying don't benefit from? That's too much and when you think about it, is really just mob rule, albeit in a codified and relatively civilized manner.

It's insurance. It is there for you if you ever need it. And don't think it can't happen to you. There are plenty of people who thought they were set for life before the recession hit. You do your best and hope you ever need to use it. May have to agree to disagree on that, buddy. There is no right answer we can ever reach

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 152):
WarR1 seems to think that being alive and American is all one should ever need to get into the middle class.

What does that have to do with what I said?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 152):
It would be more like "well, work smarter" but either way you can't fix the game. You can try and give people the tools to win, but you can't fix the game because the market always wins.

Always is a dangerous word. Even you, whether you admit it here or not, would enjoy living in a world with a truly free market with 0 government intervention in anything. We'd all live in dorms and work the factories 12 hours a day making crap wages. It was really like that a long time ago, and why isn't it like that now? I'll give you a hint, the answer isn't "the free market changed that"

The extreme of any ideology is almost always very flawed, it's somewhere in the middle that is optimum. Again, I'm not talking about holding someone's hands all throughout life. Even you believe in some kind of regulation, I just believe in a little bit more.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)