Quote :

"Paid leave for new parents - so parents should have to choose whether to stay at home with their newborn or miss that paycheck they so direly need to pay rent."

nothing like setting the feminist movement back a few decades when people stop hiring women to get around paying for 3 month vacations

2/19/2008 9:19:03 AM

no more laws that encourage people to have kids.

2/19/2008 9:20:19 AM

Quote :

"Dems are there to provide you with a life that they want for you, kinda the opposite of freedom."

Democrats do not force you to take advantage of government benefits that you may be able to use. In fact, most do not use these benefits. Things like being able to take time off if you have a kid is nice for people who don't want to immediately toss their kids into daycare (you also need to remember not everyone make 100k+ a year like you, so this isn't always affordable) and would prefer to give them some TLC and try to raise them properly instead.


If you don't like what the government offers then don't use it. Stick by your guns and keep saying we shouldn't support kids being brought up by their parents, it'll make you a real tough man.

2/19/2008 9:25:17 AM

Quote :

"Democrats do not force you to take advantage of government benefits that you may be able to use."

Universal healthcare ring a bell? Or FORCING businesses to pay for their employees NOT WORKING.

Oh yeah, lucky me and my income. Well my mother was a single mom and a nurse. So I grew up in daycare. She put her responsibilities first and raised her child. Many today simply dont do that.

This is a terrible idea. Employers are already cautious about hiring young woman. We like to look for older women, bc young women tend to be immature, call in sick( on fridays) more, will get pregnant, if they have a kid will leave in the middle of the day to care for it. As a business hiring a younger woman is more of a risk. This "program" will not help.

2/19/2008 9:42:37 AM

Quote :

"If you don't like what the government offers then don't use it."

That's great and all, but I still have to PAY for it.

2/19/2008 9:55:00 AM

Yeah, lets pay to go to war and murder tons of Iraqis instead of caring for our own citizens' health!

I'm with ya there, because those Iraqis were gonna come over here and try to push us around!

2/19/2008 9:58:52 AM

^^if you don't like the laws that this country passes, MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. gee it's fun to be on the other end of that line.

2/19/2008 10:00:09 AM

Quote :

"This is a terrible idea."

Yes, because european countries that have much more involved plans than this have such dreary economies.

2/19/2008 10:11:24 AM

France's real GDP growth has been relatively weak, the unemployment rate is relatively high, at nearly 8% in June 2007 according to the International Labour Organization (ILO) statistics .

Factor in almost a 20% unemployment in the 25 year old age group.

Ah, government bliss.


Terp, dont be an idiot. Yes the war is expensive, however we pay 10x more a year in entitlements. The "war" will be ending soon and most of the costs are a short term problem. The real issue is entitlement spending, which somehow one party wants to massively expand. I really think they are too smart not to realize we cant afford it, but realize their electorate arent.

2/19/2008 10:34:08 AM

^^ Actually, EU countries do tend to have slower growth rates and higher unemployment than the US, and it's possibly because of their institutional infrastructure. I recomend you check out the work of Nobel-prize winning economist Ed Phelps.

Here's a keynote address he gave at a conference a few years back:
http://www.columbia.edu/%7Eesp2/MunichConf2002Final.pdf

Here's an op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal (it's much shorter and aimed at a popular audience):
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009068

Just because they are not Soviet Russia doesn't mean their economies do not "suffer" from restrictions on entreprenurship and innovation. The right question is whether slower growth is "worth" the trade-off.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM. Reason : ``]

2/19/2008 10:44:20 AM

Quote :

"Both Obama and Clinton rely on private insurers to provide coverage, and make no changes to the health care provider community - they do not become government employees."

Quote :

"Funding - Both will require contributions from employers, insureds, and taxpayers, who will provide some of the funding for those in lower income brackets. In Obama's plan, some small employers (no definition provided) will not have to help pay premiums; Clinton offers small employers (again, not defined) a Federal tax credit to help pay for insurance. Obama also promises to cover some portion of employers' high cost claims; the assumption here is that his plan would have the Feds provide stop-loss insurance for claims above a certain dollar threshold. Clinton provides a similar mechanism, but only for retiree coverage. (this is a significant difference, but one no one is talking about). In addition, Clinton would partially fund her program by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on families with incomes >$250,000 In contrast to Obama, Clinton's plan relies on direct tax subsidies for low-income folks to help them buy coverage. "

http://www.joepaduda.com/archives/001126.html

2/19/2008 10:46:40 AM

Quote :

"Terp, dont be an idiot. Yes the war is expensive, however we pay 10x more a year in entitlements."

Don't worry, I'm not being an idiot. If you're going to give me numbers, tell me where you're getting them from.

Not only that, there are tons of contractors making fistfulls of cash (Halliburton, Blackwater, etc...), so if these people keep control of our gov't, they'll keep the war going.

As for universal healthcare, that would be helping sick people, not rich people (like them ^).

2/19/2008 10:55:09 AM

Quote :

"Don't worry, I'm not being an idiot. If you're going to give me numbers, tell me where you're getting them from. "

Geez, now I have to teach you? What is the point. You dont want to listen.

But Ill give it a go:

War funding, which averaged about $93 billion a year from 2003 through 2005, rose to $120 billion in 2006 and $171 billion in 2007 and President George W. Bush has asked for $193 billion in 2008, the nonpartisan office wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_spending_dc


Entitlement spending in 2007:

SS 586 billion
Medicare 395 Billion
Welfare/Unemp. 367 Billion
Medicaid 276 billion

Total 1.6 T


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

Enough?

2/19/2008 11:11:29 AM

The sad thing is, people actually think we can afford universal healthcare.

Our govt spent around 750 billion last YEAR for healthcare for the elderly and the poor. Now how much extra would it cost to cover the rest..you know, the majority of the population?

Im sure it would be alot more than the 40billion that raising the tax on the rich would bring in.

2/19/2008 12:01:31 PM

We definitely can't pull it off with idiots in power, that's for damn sure

2/19/2008 12:02:52 PM

look at the numbers terp, you cant pull it off period without massive increases in taxes across all income levels AND spending cuts.

NC medicaid is working to pass a bill that will limit the amount of visits a year they can see a doctor. You dont think you too will have those restrictions?

Im sorry terp, I should have said about 16x more than iraq. Which you are now aware of. Dont buy the BS that ending the war and increasing taxes on teh rich will create this tremendous wealth that will pay for all these programs.

2/19/2008 12:12:16 PM

We already spend more than any country in the world for health care, and are not getting the best health care by any indicator. I don't think it makes a difference to most people whether the money is going to the government or an HMO, it is still leaving their pockets. You are only looking at one side of the equation, because it would save money on the front end if people would see a doctor and get preventative health care, and have an option other than the ER. We already pay for universal health care (not just the poor and the elderly). What we don't have is a coherent universal health care system.

While the up front costs of any initiative will be substantial, it is simplistic to look only at costs without accounting for areas of potential cost savings.

2/19/2008 1:20:50 PM

^Actually, insured Americans get some of the best health care in the world. Compared with 'model' countries like France, we have shorter wait times, more cutting edge procedures and pharmacuticals, better doctors, newer equipment, etc...

It's the uninsured people that drag down the country's global health care rankings.

2/19/2008 1:27:08 PM

cost savings? what are you talking about? I wonder why people with "free" healthcare tend to be the most obese. They have no incentives to take care of themselves, bc there arent any consequences for thier actions.

Do you want to make health insurance more affordable? Get govt regs out of it and allow competition adn people to buy thier own insurance.

Do you want to make healthcare more affordable? Tort reform and have people pay cash.

Neither of which anyone wants to do. Healthcare is a funny thing. People bitch about how important it is and how they NEED it, yet dont expect to pay a dime for any of it.

Good post prawn. I agree. Why to canadians flock to our hospitals for care? Id say the main reason we rank so low is the number of people we have and the fact we are the fattest industrialized nation on the planet.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 1:54 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2008 1:29:28 PM

If we treat a poor or even homeless man's diabetes before we have to cut his leg off, it will save our country money in the long run.

Also, I hope legislation is passed soon that regulates the ruthless pharmaceutical companies... they seem more and more like the gangsters who ran the streets pushing heroin back in the 60s. America is 1 of 2 countries in the world who even allow their bullshit ads to even show up on TV.

2/19/2008 4:16:55 PM

Quote :

" It's the uninsured people that drag down the country's global health care rankings."

You're gonna have to justify this fully otherwise you're just full of shit.

2/19/2008 4:20:33 PM

Quote :

"^Actually, insured Americans get some of the best health care in the world. Compared with 'model' countries like France, we have shorter wait times, more cutting edge procedures and pharmacuticals, better doctors, newer equipment, etc..."

unless you get REALLY sick and/or lose your job. then you're just fucked in many cases.

2/19/2008 4:21:48 PM

Quote :

"If we treat a poor or even homeless man's diabetes before we have to cut his leg off, it will save our country money in the long run. "

LOL. Yeah, that makes for a good sound bite. However, in reality diabetes needs to be controlled more with lifestyle changes than just with medication. It is far easier to take a pill than to change a lifestyle, esp if you dont pay for the pill or an increased in premiums. SO what happens is that you not only pay more every year as they require more and more meds, you eventually pay for the amputation. There is no self responsibility in healthcare, more so in govt provided healthcare. Thats why you have many people flocking to the ERs for a cough and many of them have medicaid or medicare.

Hell, I can remember when tenncare, tenn. medicaid..now bankrupt, had a reform and that prevented medicaid people from calling for the ambulance to take them to teh ER for nonthreating conditions. That was their mode of transportation.. They actually had a march and called it discrimination. This was back in the mid 90s. Why? bc a cab ride cost them 30 bucks. The medicaid tax which costs them nothing, takes too long from the demand. And the Ambulance cost them nothing and comes quickly..however costs taxpayers 400-800 a ride. But why would they care? They arent paying for it.

2/19/2008 4:35:42 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, that makes for a good sound bite."

among other things

There's a smart way to do healthcare, and there's your way

2/19/2008 4:37:38 PM

^yeah, I dont have a perspective on healthcare. I never hear, "the doctor cant keep my sugar down." as they drink a mountain dew. No you probably have a better perspective.

Like I said earlier, you just arent prepared to listen.

What is my way? Responsiblity? Oh gosh. You agree with obama or clintons plan?

2/19/2008 4:46:49 PM

so then what is the explanation for our country having such abysmal numbers for nearly every metric of health when compared to most other industrialized nations?

i mean presumably our country has more "responsible" people since most people pay for their health insurance. unless you feel that even insurance isn't enough responsibility? maybe we should all just have to pay out everything we need for health care. and if you need a really expensive procedure, you're screwed unless you have the money to cover it?

2/19/2008 4:52:19 PM

Quote :

"cost savings? what are you talking about?"

The savings of early diagnosis and treatment. Regular physicals and health care screening, treatment in a doctor's office instead of waiting for things to get bad and hitting an ER. You know, the stuff that people with health insurance do that saves money for private health insurance providers.

Quote :

"^Actually, insured Americans get some of the best health care in the world. Compared with 'model' countries like France, we have shorter wait times, more cutting edge procedures and pharmacuticals, better doctors, newer equipment, etc... It's the uninsured people that drag down the country's global health care rankings."

Those insured people must REALLY be in bad shape if they are pulling our infant mortality, life span, etc. that far down the tubes. I guess you could measure quality of health care by "cutting edge procedures and pharmacuticals[sic]", or you could measure it by results.

Who do you think is paying for the uninsured people that end up at the ER, anyway?

Quote :

"Do you want to make health insurance more affordable? Get govt regs out of it and allow competition adn people to buy thier own insurance."

Or you could let the government negotiate for better rates like any other employer, considering they are the biggest provider.

2/19/2008 4:54:50 PM

Quote :

"Or you could let the government negotiate for better rates like any other employer, considering they are the biggest provider. "

Yep, they do such a good job with roads, highway projects, halliburton. LOL

Sarijoul, I answered it 7 posts up.

I believe we try to save a preemie as young as 22-23 weeks. These tend to have about a 1% chance of survival. Most european countries dont until 25 weeks.

2/19/2008 5:06:25 PM

that's not the only metric of health

2/19/2008 5:33:43 PM

Many governments could potentially do a better job keeping costs down on bid for engineering, road projects, etc. if they had more in house engineers to provide a viable alternative, but that is another story. As far as health care goes, let the private companies compete. If they do that much better a job than government, people will stay with them. If anything, their costs should go down because they won't be stuck subsidizing the uninsured.

2/19/2008 6:07:18 PM

Mark, while what you say sounds good. But if you believe that BHO and Hil will do what they say and force insurances companies to pay for the sick. Then why would anyone get insurance to begin with? Why would I get insurance while Im young and healthy, when I know that if I do get sick and NEED insurance, the govt will give it to me. You would just be wasting your money. You see the problem? Its like buying life insurance on your loved one after they died. Will we force that next?

2/19/2008 6:17:47 PM

http://digg.com/lbv.php?id=5317193&ord=2

Here's a bit on the whole plagiarism thing. Yes we will?

Worried about entitlements? Increase the pay roll ceiling tax for SS, above a flat $9K max. There's a start to affording it.

Blah blah tax hike, blah blah. Cry me a river. God forbid somebody try to help sick people too.

^ BHO. Thats so cute, do you make it a point to say that everytime?

2/19/2008 6:31:50 PM

^^Isn't that the point of insurance? Have you actually bothered to learn anything about Obama and Clinton's proposals? Both are calling for health insurance for all, not free medical care on demand. What your describing is actually closer to the status quo than either Clinton or Obama's plan.

2/19/2008 8:41:42 PM

cnn exit polls showing he leads wisconsin!!!

woohoo

2/19/2008 9:01:49 PM

He just won another one, then with Hawaii, that's like 11 in a row?

2/19/2008 9:30:02 PM

He is ass raping Hil-Dog everywhere.

Si, se puede homies.

2/19/2008 9:50:24 PM

he sounds WORN OUT in his speech tonight in texas.

2/19/2008 10:17:52 PM

LOL, the more I watch BHO the less faith I have in americans' intelligence.

If you really believe that you pay more in taxes than warren buffet, you are a moron. There is a difference between income tax and capital gains.

Massive spending increases. However, tax CUTS to under 75k crowd. Seniors earning under 50k will pay NO income taxes. LOL Are you guys serious? If he said he plans on taxing a leprechaun to make up the difference, and people would cheer.

Mark, the purpose of insurance is to protect yourself against future large expenses should an accident occur. That cost is lowered when paid by many who do not use those services. Its Insurance. You know Ive had car insurance and honestly, I hope to never have to use it. But just in case, im covered bc I planned ahead. Now, with the proposals by your gimmecrats. Why in the world would you pay for insurance while you are healthy, unless you are forced to? If you get a disease or eat your way into diabetes, you can get it then. Again take away responsibilty, its what they do best.

Rogue, BHO are his initials, ass. Until you stop spending SS dollars in the general fund, SS will continue to be a horrible idea.

[Edited on February 19, 2008 at 10:21 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2008 10:19:33 PM

I remember in 4th grade when the teacher told us about acronyms. For a few days kids would run around coming up with stupid shit to call themselves or defining some sort of catch phrase with initials.

Congratulations eyedrb, gg.

2/19/2008 11:10:05 PM

elegant but empty

2/19/2008 11:24:17 PM

^^^So car insurance is a good idea because of unforeseen accidents, but health insurance is not. Congrats on your ability to predict future injuries and medical emergencies.


By the way, liability insurance is mandated. I'm sure you are patting yourself on the back for figuring out that insurance, on average, is a bad investment.

2/19/2008 11:30:17 PM

Ignore his pathetic attempt to highlight Barack Obama's middle name in what is one of the more ignorant displays of ethnic hatred.

Yes, we get that his middle name is Hussein. SO MOTHER FUCKING WHAT? It's a sad state of affairs with Obama's motherfucking middle name tests the limits of American nomenclatural tolerance.

And, a bunch of this is simple attack politics that the GOP and many of it's ridiculous talk radio bullshit coalition use - and it's quite trite and pretty damned ridiculous. Part of why I can't even listen to their points because their too immature to move beyond rudimentary items.

2/20/2008 12:26:57 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/middlenames,0,4987002.triviaquiz

Candidate name quiz

Obama was the only one I knew

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 1:10 AM. Reason : ]

2/20/2008 1:09:53 AM

i only got 3 right, and one was by guessing.

Hillary has spent a lot of time Texas, if she has anything less than a blowout victory there, then her campaign days are numbered.

2/20/2008 6:23:24 AM

Obama is captivating democrats with his magic words. The GOP better get congress back, or his magic words will turn into huge tax increases and more intrusion into our lives.

Thank God for the Electoral System.

2/20/2008 10:13:27 AM

markgoal is totally missing the point.

No one said car insurance is bad. But, if the government forced all car insrurance companies to sell policies on demand, would most people buy insurance policies right away and pay premimums year round? Or would they rather NOT pay those premimums and wait till they have an accident to buy insurance?

Chances are, you will get the later. In that situation, no insurance company could cover its costs. That's why you would have to have a mandate to make the plan workable.

WELCOME TO THE PROBLEM WITH OBAMA's HEALTH CARE PLAN.

If you want a single-payer system like France, that's fine. But please do realize that that's not what Obama is selling. Not even fucking close.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 10:17 AM. Reason : ``]

2/20/2008 10:16:51 AM

mark, again, you are missing my point about insurance. With car insurance if you dont have it YOU have to pay. The govt doesnt force anyone to fix your car for free, got it? Health insurance is no doubt the responsible thing to do. However, if the govt is going to force insurance companies to insure EVERYONE regardless of conditions, then it makes no sense to get insurance while you are healthy. You could always get it later. Understand now?

Also, with car insurance, you are rewarded for doing the right things. No wrecks, tickets, etc you have a better rate. The same holds true, right now, with private insurance. So, let me ask you this, who doesnt have the incentive to do the right things? Yep, the people who are given thier insurance by the govt. Again, that increase in cost is shifted to the taxpayers.

Geez, you guys got your panties in a knott over his middle name. Dont get mad at me, I didnt name the man.

86, It took you until 4th grade to learn your initials? Nice

Kainen, Ethnic hatred? LOL. So saying someone's name is now ethnic hatred. Arent you taking this PC bullshit to the next level.

Of all the shit this man says and proposes things we cant support, you attack me on his middle name? Typical

2/20/2008 10:17:55 AM

I'm not proposing a single payer system. Neither Obama nor Clinton has specified how that hole will be filled. Clinton refuses to specify what a mandate means. I agree that it is a sticking detail that needs to be worked out. I would personally take premiums out of paychecks for those without health insurance through some other provider, much like Social Security.

Obviously affordability matters, as Obama says, but it would need to be mandated to completely fix the problem, as Clinton says. Neither one has presented all of the specifics, and even if they did many will need to be worked out in the legislative process before we get there. In this case the difference in policy proposals is far less significant than the ability to make something resembling either proposal happen.

A key to keeping costs down will be making the government's health care plan attractive to younger, healthier people, which provide an implicit subsidy to older, less healthy people and keep the premiums down in most health care plans. Also getting healthy people insured is a good way to keep them healthy, also saving costs in the long run. I really think you are out in left field with car insurance, b/c their are multiple types of coverages, some that are mandated and some are not.

2/20/2008 11:32:10 AM

markgoal

I want to clear up a misconception about Obama and Hillary's Health Care proposals that alot of people in this thread share.

These Proposals Are About Expanding Insurance Coverage, Not Lowering Health Care Costs

Today, doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies et al work in a mixed-market system. No candidate is proposing changing that. If either Obama's or Hillary's plans "work" like they are intended, the only difference from today's system will be that more people have insurance. That means greater demand for health care resources. And in even a mixed-market system you don't have to guess what happens to prices when demand rises. That's why I actually expect US expenditures on health care to go UP with an Obama/Hillary plan, not down.

France and Canada spend less on health care because they have removed the market. All doctors and health care workers are government employees. Pharmaceutical companies deal with only one customer, the government. Rather than ration health care resources through the price system, these countries ration their resources through waiting lines and government fiat (note: this doesn't mean they are costless, it means the costs don't show up on the books. They are wasted time waiting, delayed treatment, etc. This isn't a free lunch)

Now, one could argue that expanding insurance will lower costs by making "preventative" medicine more accessable. But there is no evidence to suggest that these savings actually exist or how large they will be. Here's John Gruber, Health Economist at MIT:

Quote :

"“It’s a nice thing to think, and it seems like it should be true, but I don’t know of any evidence that preventive care actually saves money,”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/business/08leonhardt.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

So get serious people. If you're going to debate the issues, at least do your homework.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 11:53 AM. Reason : ``]

2/20/2008 11:41:06 AM

So I guess France and Canada whith their healthcare systems are socialist right?

If either of them proposed having the gov't be the only customer of health care... you would call them socialist right?

Well, you're already calling Obama a socialist, my bet is he's going to make a compromise. Healthcare needs to be fixed, and McCain's whole "leave it up to the families" approach isn't going to even begin to fix our fucked up healthcare system.

2/20/2008 11:57:51 AM