From: Pete Stavrakoglou on
"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab1116d$0$1588$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>
>> Yes - and that health care would not be "free" in any case, as it now is
>> for many who currently (and expensively for the rest of us) use emergency
>> room facilities in lieu of having a regular (and far less expensive) GP.
>> As a tax-payer and health-care payer, I would much prefer to cover a
>> $100 GP visit than a $1000 ER visit for an "illegal" concealed inside my
>> bills.
>
> It's more logical and less expensive, but you'll never see it for two
> reasons. First, it's politically impossible because there are still too
> many Republicans in the House and Senate. Second, that "free" ER visit is
> now being funded by the operator of the hospital or clinic (public or
> private or non-profit) and everyone's private insurance which goes up as a
> result of the cost of indigent care. It's basically another unfunded
> federal mandate borne by state and local governments and private insurers.
> Providing coverage for illegals, while it would be cheaper overall, would
> be something that the federal government would have to fund. It would also
> attract more illegals. It's really moot anyway, as illegals would be
> unlikely to sign up for government health care even if offered since
> they'd be worried about being caught and deported.

News Flash! The Democrats are in complete control in the House and Senate,
they can pass anything they want. It's not the Republicans who are stopping
anything.

> OTOH, something needs to be done regarding the ER situation. My nephew is
> an ER physician and the ERs are being overwhelmed by the uninsured, mostly
> legal residents, that come in for free medical care, most of which would
> not be necessary were the condition treated earlier. The people really
> being hurt are the people that cannot afford insurance but that are not
> indigent. They are the only ones paying $1000 for a $1000 ER visit, just
> as they are the only one's paying rack rate for hospital stays.
>
>> And I would also prefer that a communicable desease or potentially
>> very serious and expensive condition be caught early through good care.
>> It is short-sighted to see this in "us vs. them" terms when universal
>> health care, including preventive care, helps us all. Or, for those
>> against
>> single payer health care (which is what SS Medicare is - and most are
>> VERY happy with that, and its administrative costs are a small fraction
>> of those of private insurance), look at the statistics. In EVERY country
>> that has a single-payer system of health care, the average life span is
>> greater than ours(!), and the cost of the health care system is less than
>> ours(!). Yet the "know-nothings" hide their heads in the sand and mutter
>> idiotic things like, "socialism"...
>
> They mutter it because they are being told to mutter it. You have to
> realize who these people are, for the most part. Under-educated,
> under-employed, middle-aged, white males. These are now the core
> constituency of the Republican party, and they do and say what Rush, Sean,
> Glenn, etc. tell them do and say. They have no capacity for looking at the
> big picture, and they have no desire or ability to check out any facts for
> themselves. I don't want to have Godwin's law kick-in so I'll avoid making
> the obvious statement.

You continue to espouse your opinions as if they're fact. I can say the
same about you - you take your marching orders from the leftist pundits.
You're claim is hollow.

> Maybe before Obama works on the health care problem he needs to work on
> the education problem, or we'll raise another generation of people that
> lack critical thinking skills. But he'd better hurry. The Democrats are
> unlikely to pick up any more House and Senate seats in the mid-term
> election in 2010, and if history is any indication they'll likely lose
> some seats. So Obama has only a year and a half to push through his agenda
> prior to the evil-doers having more of a chance to stop him.

Yes, we're all evil-doers. I think it's you who need an eductaion, one in
reality.


From: DRS on
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab10a6e$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au
> Ray Fischer wrote:

[...]

>> If you consider $1000 to $3000 per month to be a "minimum" amount of
>> money.
>
> Yeah, those sorts of figures astound me. In Australia, people were
> bitching when the government increased the Medicare levy from 1% to
> 1.5% of salary.

Just to be clear, that's per annum, although it doesn't take into account
the Medicare levy surcharge (1% of taxable income) for those without private
health insurance whose income exceeds the threshold (eg, single person, no
dependants = AU$70,000; person with spouse, no dependants = AU$140,000;
etc), so they end up paying 2.5%. Thus, a single person without kids on
AU$100,000pa without private cover would pay AU$2,500pa, or just over
AU$208pm.



From: SMS on
David Ruether wrote:

> And in the last couple of days, well over 70% of doctors
> supported the "public option" in another poll I caught on TV.
> Good ol' polls can "say" whatever you want, I guess...! ;-)

There is hope. According to a Gallup poll (that's a lot more reliable
than the push poll by the right-wing IBD), by a 68% to 21% margin,
Americans oppose rather than support South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's
shouted �You lie!� outburst.
From: SMS on
David Ruether wrote:

> I think you don't understand the predominant beliefs of the US electorate
> very well... I think few see the election of Democrats as specifically to
> "steal rich people's money so more can be given to (poor) me", as the
> unbelievably odd (to some of us) "bill of goods" the Republicans have sold
> to so many for so long that "supporting the interests of the rich is best for us
> (the poor) because, well, someday we may also be rich - which is a fantasy,
> but one that is widely held by Americans, especially now with widespread
> popular lotteries in existence. BTW, this nonsense predates the "anything
> socialistic is bad" myth sold also by those on the Right, who fail to mention
> that much of what is taken for granted as basic services *is* socialistic...
> Armed with these two myths, a disreputable bunch of rascals is often able
> to draw roughly 50% of the electorate's votes. Pushing these myths, with
> repeated lies and deceptions added, works for winning elections, alas...

The other issue many people don't understand is how the salary
structures have evolved in the U.S. in regards to gross pay and net pay.
A position paying $100K where $30K is paid in a combination of all taxes
is not going to be paying $100K if the tax burden falls to $10K. Even
within the same corporation there are differentials based on cost of
living of different areas of the country (and world), and these
differentials are based on both expenses for taxes and the costs of
goods and services.

If, after the past eight years, anyone voted Republican with the idea
that Republicans would protect their savings, investments, and job, then
they haven't been paying attention. Yet Republicans can talk about tax
cuts (unfunded tax cuts) and there are still some naive middle and lower
class voters that think that they'll automatically be better off paying
slightly lower taxes. These people are unable to look at the big picture
of how government is funded and the effects of increasing deficits. It's
the same people that whine about how we should have just let GM and
Chrysler go into liquidation, without understanding that the cost of
liquidation would be much higher.

Again, Obama needs to really work on the education problem. There are
still too many people voting against their own best interests, as well
as the best interests of the country, because they listen to and believe
the right wing talking heads.
From: Allen on
Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ab1116d$0$1588$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>> David Ruether wrote:
>>
>>> Yes - and that health care would not be "free" in any case, as it now is
>>> for many who currently (and expensively for the rest of us) use emergency
>>> room facilities in lieu of having a regular (and far less expensive) GP.
>>> As a tax-payer and health-care payer, I would much prefer to cover a
>>> $100 GP visit than a $1000 ER visit for an "illegal" concealed inside my
>>> bills.
>> It's more logical and less expensive, but you'll never see it for two
>> reasons. First, it's politically impossible because there are still too
>> many Republicans in the House and Senate. Second, that "free" ER visit is
>> now being funded by the operator of the hospital or clinic (public or
>> private or non-profit) and everyone's private insurance which goes up as a
>> result of the cost of indigent care. It's basically another unfunded
>> federal mandate borne by state and local governments and private insurers.
>> Providing coverage for illegals, while it would be cheaper overall, would
>> be something that the federal government would have to fund. It would also
>> attract more illegals. It's really moot anyway, as illegals would be
>> unlikely to sign up for government health care even if offered since
>> they'd be worried about being caught and deported.
>
> News Flash! The Democrats are in complete control in the House and Senate,
> they can pass anything they want. It's not the Republicans who are stopping
> anything.
>
>> OTOH, something needs to be done regarding the ER situation. My nephew is
>> an ER physician and the ERs are being overwhelmed by the uninsured, mostly
>> legal residents, that come in for free medical care, most of which would
>> not be necessary were the condition treated earlier. The people really
>> being hurt are the people that cannot afford insurance but that are not
>> indigent. They are the only ones paying $1000 for a $1000 ER visit, just
>> as they are the only one's paying rack rate for hospital stays.
>>
>>> And I would also prefer that a communicable desease or potentially
>>> very serious and expensive condition be caught early through good care.
>>> It is short-sighted to see this in "us vs. them" terms when universal
>>> health care, including preventive care, helps us all. Or, for those
>>> against
>>> single payer health care (which is what SS Medicare is - and most are
>>> VERY happy with that, and its administrative costs are a small fraction
>>> of those of private insurance), look at the statistics. In EVERY country
>>> that has a single-payer system of health care, the average life span is
>>> greater than ours(!), and the cost of the health care system is less than
>>> ours(!). Yet the "know-nothings" hide their heads in the sand and mutter
>>> idiotic things like, "socialism"...
>> They mutter it because they are being told to mutter it. You have to
>> realize who these people are, for the most part. Under-educated,
>> under-employed, middle-aged, white males. These are now the core
>> constituency of the Republican party, and they do and say what Rush, Sean,
>> Glenn, etc. tell them do and say. They have no capacity for looking at the
>> big picture, and they have no desire or ability to check out any facts for
>> themselves. I don't want to have Godwin's law kick-in so I'll avoid making
>> the obvious statement.
>
> You continue to espouse your opinions as if they're fact. I can say the
> same about you - you take your marching orders from the leftist pundits.
> You're claim is hollow.
>
>> Maybe before Obama works on the health care problem he needs to work on
>> the education problem, or we'll raise another generation of people that
>> lack critical thinking skills. But he'd better hurry. The Democrats are
>> unlikely to pick up any more House and Senate seats in the mid-term
>> election in 2010, and if history is any indication they'll likely lose
>> some seats. So Obama has only a year and a half to push through his agenda
>> prior to the evil-doers having more of a chance to stop him.
>
> Yes, we're all evil-doers. I think it's you who need an eductaion, one in
> reality.
>
>
Why don't you get back in your tent and work on improving your wet-plate
photography. That seems to be the time period you are mired in. You
might take some time out to work on your spelling. Plonk.