Guest Sid9 Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "Biscuits and Books" <Cheney_did_Barney@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:esQmi.7986$tj6.5028@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > "booker" <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote in message > news:pan.2007.07.16.19.14.02.213900@invalid.com.invalid... > > That's assuming they will treat you at all. The ER is only required to >> treat immediately life-threatening situations. A great many diseases and >> injuries can leave one too sick to work, yet not qualify under the law as >> medical emergencies. > > Let me tell you abnout these emergency rooms. > > First, they're crowded with Mexicans -- not Mexican-Americans, but raw > Mexicans -- who treat it as a way to gather and socialize. > > 2nd, if you are sick, you probably will not get seen unless you speak > Spanish. My wife went in last year with a huge lung infection. I was too > sick to go, so some friends took her. After a while they had to leave and > my wife hadn't been seen. The black bnitch at the desk said to her she > wouldn't be seen either. She came home. > > The next morning I called an ambulance and that took her back. This time > she was seen, because the EMTs told the place to look at her. She finally > got treated. > > Then the fuckers charged us for something they didn't do on the first > night. They also said it wasn't an emergency so my insurance wouldn't pay > for the ambulance. It took about 8 months to get them to remove (or > redate) the procedure she didn't get and for the ambulance to be paid for, > all befcause this fucking place is a joke of a hopital. > > It's not in Los Angeles, but in a nearby town. > > > Michael Moore got over 25,000 stories on the internet in 24 hours. The hospital and insurance companies only knew one color green...the color of money. They treated whites, blacks, and Mexicans equally Quote
Guest Larry Hewitt Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "James McGill" <jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote in message news:f7g008$cv0$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu... > Sid9 wrote: >> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they >> need to pay their rent and they are living >> from paycheck to paycheck with two >> wage earners in the family > > If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so much as a > $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd suggest that your > problems began long before you got sick. Either you have made poor > choices, or you have had other misfortunes. Either way, this is not a > valid argument on the cost of healthcare. God, I wish a doctor's visit only cost $100 Just went in with an upper respiratory complaint. The ENT "cart" , a plastic bin with tongue depressors, ear lookie innie things, nose lookie uppie things, swabs, and stuff, cost another $35. Sputum culture, $22.50. First prescription was free, $10 to write the second. Prescriptions, $38. Second visit, $95. All told the infection I caught of off a bunch of rug rats cost $300. Now that it is summer and kids are into all kinds of athletics, pulled tendons, broken bones, and the like are occurring more frequently. Around here a broken bone averages $850, including _three_ visits to the GP (initial diagnosis and referral to a radiologist, radiologist, return to GP to read picture and have cast put on, third visit to GP to take cast off). When I was a kid the doctor took the x-ray and you walked (Limped?) out with a permanent cast --- you even got crutches if you needed them. Nowadays you leave with a temporary inflated cast and have to come back a couple of days later for the hard cast/ Larry Quote
Guest Larry Hewitt Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "JimPgh" <iwantnomail@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:jr0n93d82l9dfbauhjqv2srbq00am84hrt@4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:30:44 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >>July 16, 2007 >> >>Op-Ed Columnist >>The Waiting Game >>By PAUL KRUGMAN >>Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. "I >>mean, people have access to health care in America," he said last week. >>"After all, you just go to an emergency room." >> > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp... That is a two year old article. As Statistics Canada points out, this is changing as liberal governments are reversing conservative government policies that starved the health care system or diverted funds to private providers. Statistics Canada notes that wait times and errors have fallen significantly over he last 2 years. Larry Quote
Guest Larry Hewitt Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "JimPgh" <iwantnomail@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:21gn93hobeeju8l8khv3d686gn0gbfrl9q@4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:45:32 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >>JimPgh wrote: >>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:30:44 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>> >>>> July 16, 2007 >>>> >>>> Op-Ed Columnist >>>> The Waiting Game >>>> By PAUL KRUGMAN >>>> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President >>>> Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he >>>> said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room." >>>> >>> >>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp... >> >>Nice article! Thanks! >> >>(See excerpt below) >> >> >> >>"...Despite the financial burden, Canadians value their Medicare as a >>marker >>of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart >>from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health >>insurance. >> >>Raisa Deber, a professor of health policy at the University of Toronto, >>believes Canada's system is one of the world's fairest. >> >>"Canadians are very proud of the fact that if they need care, they will >>get >>care," she said. Of the United States, she said: "I don't understand how >>they got to this worship of markets, to the extent that they're perfectly >>happy that some people don't get the health care that they need." >> >>Canada does not have fully nationalized health care; its doctors are in >>private practice and send their bills to the government for reimbursement. >> >>"That doctor doesn't have to worry about how you're going to pay the >>bill," >>said Deber. "He knows that his bill will be paid, so there's absolutely >>nothing to stop any doctor from treating anyone." ..." >> >> > So you want to pay 48% in icome taxes, eh? You mean I don;t now?? Coulda fooled me. Lrry Quote
Guest Guy Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "JimPgh" <iwantnomail@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:21gn93hobeeju8l8khv3d686gn0gbfrl9q@4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:45:32 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >>JimPgh wrote: >>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:30:44 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>> >>>> July 16, 2007 >>>> >>>> Op-Ed Columnist >>>> The Waiting Game >>>> By PAUL KRUGMAN >>>> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President >>>> Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he >>>> said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room." >>>> >>> >>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp... >> >>Nice article! Thanks! >> >>(See excerpt below) >> >> >> >>"...Despite the financial burden, Canadians value their Medicare as a >>marker >>of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart >>from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health >>insurance. >> >>Raisa Deber, a professor of health policy at the University of Toronto, >>believes Canada's system is one of the world's fairest. >> >>"Canadians are very proud of the fact that if they need care, they will >>get >>care," she said. Of the United States, she said: "I don't understand how >>they got to this worship of markets, to the extent that they're perfectly >>happy that some people don't get the health care that they need." >> >>Canada does not have fully nationalized health care; its doctors are in >>private practice and send their bills to the government for reimbursement. >> >>"That doctor doesn't have to worry about how you're going to pay the >>bill," >>said Deber. "He knows that his bill will be paid, so there's absolutely >>nothing to stop any doctor from treating anyone." ..." >> >> > So you want to pay 48% in icome taxes, eh? Complete, total, absolute BULLSHIT. Anyone can see by looking at the tax return forms from 2006, a typical resident of Ontario pays WAY LESS than 48% Federal: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5000-s1/5000-s1-06e.pdf Ontario: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5006-c/5006-c-06e.pdf Someone earning over $118,000 NET TAXABLE income pays a cumulative (federal and provincial) 40% in income taxes on taxable income. typical employee earning $70,000 gross pays less than 30% in federal and provincial taxes on taxable income. Quote
Guest Larry Hewitt Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "booker" <invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote in message news:pan.2007.07.16.19.14.02.213900@invalid.com.invalid... > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:54:16 +0000, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia > wrote: > >> Sid9 wrote: >> >>> July 16, 2007 >>> >>> Op-Ed Columnist >>> The Waiting Game >>> By PAUL KRUGMAN >>> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. >>> "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he said last >>> week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room." >> >> He's stupid. If you go to an emergency room, you still get billed full >> pricve. If you can't pay, either your credit gets ruined and/or you >> declare bankruptcy. If you don't pay and you own equity, the hospital can >> and will put a lien on your house. > > That's assuming they will treat you at all. The ER is only required to > treat immediately life-threatening situations. A great many diseases and > injuries can leave one too sick to work, yet not qualify under the law as > medical emergencies. > > Suburban and rural hospitals more and more are declining to treat the uninjured except in life threatening emergencies. In the Charlotte NC metropolitan area ( including 3 counties in South Carolina) only 1 downtown Charlotte --- Carolinas Medical Center ---hospital emergency room will treat anyone who walks in. No other hospital in he city or 5 surrounding counties will treat non-emergency cases. Surprisingly, even the hospitals affiliated with churches, like Presbyterian Health Care and Catholic Hospital Center, will not treat non-emergency walk ins. Larry Quote
Guest Sid9 Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 Guy wrote: > "JimPgh" <iwantnomail@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:21gn93hobeeju8l8khv3d686gn0gbfrl9q@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:45:32 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> >> wrote: >>> JimPgh wrote: >>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:30:44 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> July 16, 2007 >>>>> >>>>> Op-Ed Columnist >>>>> The Waiting Game >>>>> By PAUL KRUGMAN >>>>> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President >>>>> Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he >>>>> said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room." >>>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp... >>> >>> Nice article! Thanks! >>> >>> (See excerpt below) >>> >>> >>> >>> "...Despite the financial burden, Canadians value their Medicare as >>> a marker >>> of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country >>> apart from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack >>> health insurance. >>> >>> Raisa Deber, a professor of health policy at the University of >>> Toronto, believes Canada's system is one of the world's fairest. >>> >>> "Canadians are very proud of the fact that if they need care, they >>> will get >>> care," she said. Of the United States, she said: "I don't >>> understand how they got to this worship of markets, to the extent >>> that they're perfectly happy that some people don't get the health >>> care that they need." Canada does not have fully nationalized health >>> care; its doctors >>> are in private practice and send their bills to the government for >>> reimbursement. "That doctor doesn't have to worry about how you're going >>> to pay the >>> bill," >>> said Deber. "He knows that his bill will be paid, so there's >>> absolutely nothing to stop any doctor from treating anyone." ..." >>> >>> >> So you want to pay 48% in icome taxes, eh? > > > Complete, total, absolute BULLSHIT. > > Anyone can see by looking at the tax return forms from 2006, a typical > resident of Ontario pays WAY LESS than 48% > > Federal: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5000-s1/5000-s1-06e.pdf > > Ontario: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5006-c/5006-c-06e.pdf > > Someone earning over $118,000 NET TAXABLE income pays a cumulative > (federal and provincial) 40% in income taxes on taxable income. typical > employee earning $70,000 gross pays less than 30% in federal > and provincial taxes on taxable income. Those are marginal tax rates...not the actual tax paid. Quote
Guest Guy Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 "Guy" <nospam@nospam.us> wrote in message news:469bd9eb$0$24783$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "JimPgh" <iwantnomail@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:21gn93hobeeju8l8khv3d686gn0gbfrl9q@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:45:32 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>JimPgh wrote: >>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:30:44 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> July 16, 2007 >>>>> >>>>> Op-Ed Columnist >>>>> The Waiting Game >>>>> By PAUL KRUGMAN >>>>> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President >>>>> Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he >>>>> said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room." >>>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp... >>> >>>Nice article! Thanks! >>> >>>(See excerpt below) >>> >>> >>> >>>"...Despite the financial burden, Canadians value their Medicare as a >>>marker >>>of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart >>>from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health >>>insurance. >>> >>>Raisa Deber, a professor of health policy at the University of Toronto, >>>believes Canada's system is one of the world's fairest. >>> >>>"Canadians are very proud of the fact that if they need care, they will >>>get >>>care," she said. Of the United States, she said: "I don't understand how >>>they got to this worship of markets, to the extent that they're perfectly >>>happy that some people don't get the health care that they need." >>> >>>Canada does not have fully nationalized health care; its doctors are in >>>private practice and send their bills to the government for >>>reimbursement. >>> >>>"That doctor doesn't have to worry about how you're going to pay the >>>bill," >>>said Deber. "He knows that his bill will be paid, so there's absolutely >>>nothing to stop any doctor from treating anyone." ..." >>> >>> >> So you want to pay 48% in icome taxes, eh? > > > Complete, total, absolute BULLSHIT. > > Anyone can see by looking at the tax return forms from 2006, a typical > resident of Ontario pays WAY LESS than 48% > > Federal: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5000-s1/5000-s1-06e.pdf > > Ontario: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5006-c/5006-c-06e.pdf > > Someone earning over $118,000 NET TAXABLE income pays a cumulative > (federal and provincial) 40% in income taxes on taxable income. typical > employee earning $70,000 gross pays less than 30% in federal and > provincial taxes on taxable income. Correction, the person earning over $118,000 net pays 40% on the net amount ABOVE $118,000. They pay at the lower rates for the earnings below that amount on a sliding scale. The blended rate is less than 40%. > > Quote
Guest Sid9 Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 Guy wrote: > "Guy" <nospam@nospam.us> wrote in message > news:469bd9eb$0$24783$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> >> "JimPgh" <iwantnomail@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:21gn93hobeeju8l8khv3d686gn0gbfrl9q@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:45:32 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> >>> wrote: >>>> JimPgh wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:30:44 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> July 16, 2007 >>>>>> >>>>>> Op-Ed Columnist >>>>>> The Waiting Game >>>>>> By PAUL KRUGMAN >>>>>> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President >>>>>> Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he >>>>>> said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room." >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp... >>>> >>>> Nice article! Thanks! >>>> >>>> (See excerpt below) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "...Despite the financial burden, Canadians value their Medicare >>>> as a marker >>>> of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country >>>> apart from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack >>>> health insurance. >>>> >>>> Raisa Deber, a professor of health policy at the University of >>>> Toronto, believes Canada's system is one of the world's fairest. >>>> >>>> "Canadians are very proud of the fact that if they need care, they >>>> will get >>>> care," she said. Of the United States, she said: "I don't >>>> understand how they got to this worship of markets, to the extent >>>> that they're perfectly happy that some people don't get the health >>>> care that they need." Canada does not have fully nationalized health >>>> care; its doctors >>>> are in private practice and send their bills to the government for >>>> reimbursement. >>>> >>>> "That doctor doesn't have to worry about how you're going to pay >>>> the bill," >>>> said Deber. "He knows that his bill will be paid, so there's >>>> absolutely nothing to stop any doctor from treating anyone." ..." >>>> >>>> >>> So you want to pay 48% in icome taxes, eh? >> >> >> Complete, total, absolute BULLSHIT. >> >> Anyone can see by looking at the tax return forms from 2006, a >> typical resident of Ontario pays WAY LESS than 48% >> >> Federal: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5000-s1/5000-s1-06e.pdf >> >> Ontario: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5006-c/5006-c-06e.pdf >> >> Someone earning over $118,000 NET TAXABLE income pays a cumulative >> (federal and provincial) 40% in income taxes on taxable income. typical >> employee earning $70,000 gross pays less than 30% in federal >> and provincial taxes on taxable income. > > Correction, the person earning over $118,000 net pays 40% on the net > amount ABOVE $118,000. They pay at the lower rates for the earnings > below that amount on a sliding scale. The blended rate is less than > 40%. These are marginal tax rates. Quote
Guest Michael Ejercito Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Jul 16, 1:25 pm, "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Crans...@NeoConEvilFighter.com> wrote: > "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1184603686.599318.265940@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jul 16, 6:14 am, "??????????" <???????????@???????????.com> > > wrote: > >> 'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at > >> easehttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-movie22jun22,0,5... > > >> Leading candidates are sidestepping direct comment on filmmaker > >> Michael > >> Moore's proposals for universal healthcare. > >> By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer > >> June 22, 2007 > >> WASHINGTON - With the release of Michael Moore's "Sicko," a movie > >> once again > >> is adding sizzle to an issue that's a high priority for liberal > >> politicians - this time comprehensive health insurance for all. But > >> unlike > >> Al Gore's film on global warming, which helped rally support on an > >> equally > >> controversial problem, "Sicko" is creating an awkward situation for > >> the > >> leading Democratic presidential candidates. > > >> Rejecting Moore's prescription on healthcare could alienate liberal > >> activists, who will play a big role in choosing the party's next > >> standard-bearer. However, his proposal - wiping out private health > >> insurance > >> and replacing it with a massive federal program - could be > >> political poison > >> with the larger electorate. > > Somehow, the concept of a state or federal program COMPETING with > > private health insurance NEVER occurs to these people. > > Medicare has been immensely successful without having to compete with > private health insurance. So what would be wrong with making Medicare voluntary, available to all ages, and funded entirely by those who choose to participate? Michael Quote
Guest Sid9 Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 Michael Ejercito wrote: > On Jul 16, 1:25 pm, "Lamont Cranston" > <Lamont.Crans...@NeoConEvilFighter.com> wrote: >> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1184603686.599318.265940@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >>> On Jul 16, 6:14 am, "??????????" <???????????@???????????.com> >>> wrote: >>>> 'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at >>>> easehttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-movie22jun22,0,5... >> >>>> Leading candidates are sidestepping direct comment on filmmaker >>>> Michael >>>> Moore's proposals for universal healthcare. >>>> By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer >>>> June 22, 2007 >>>> WASHINGTON - With the release of Michael Moore's "Sicko," a movie >>>> once again >>>> is adding sizzle to an issue that's a high priority for liberal >>>> politicians - this time comprehensive health insurance for all. But >>>> unlike >>>> Al Gore's film on global warming, which helped rally support on an >>>> equally >>>> controversial problem, "Sicko" is creating an awkward situation for >>>> the >>>> leading Democratic presidential candidates. >> >>>> Rejecting Moore's prescription on healthcare could alienate liberal >>>> activists, who will play a big role in choosing the party's next >>>> standard-bearer. However, his proposal - wiping out private health >>>> insurance >>>> and replacing it with a massive federal program - could be >>>> political poison >>>> with the larger electorate. >>> Somehow, the concept of a state or federal program COMPETING with >>> private health insurance NEVER occurs to these people. >> >> Medicare has been immensely successful without having to compete with >> private health insurance. > So what would be wrong with making Medicare voluntary, available to > all ages, and funded entirely by those who choose to participate? > > > Michael Do you really believe that people who opt out of having universal insurance will not sooner or later use health system resources? Universal mean everyone is covered. It may mean that every one pays...as they do in Medicare. What does an insurance company contribute? It's what they take out that counts. Quote
Guest JimPgh Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:49:46 -0400, "Guy" <nospam@nospam.us> wrote: > >"JimPgh" <iwantnomail@nowhere.com> wrote in message >news:21gn93hobeeju8l8khv3d686gn0gbfrl9q@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:45:32 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>JimPgh wrote: >>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:30:44 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> July 16, 2007 >>>>> >>>>> Op-Ed Columnist >>>>> The Waiting Game >>>>> By PAUL KRUGMAN >>>>> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President >>>>> Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he >>>>> said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room." >>>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp... >>> >>>Nice article! Thanks! >>> >>>(See excerpt below) >>> >>> >>> >>>"...Despite the financial burden, Canadians value their Medicare as a >>>marker >>>of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart >>>from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health >>>insurance. >>> >>>Raisa Deber, a professor of health policy at the University of Toronto, >>>believes Canada's system is one of the world's fairest. >>> >>>"Canadians are very proud of the fact that if they need care, they will >>>get >>>care," she said. Of the United States, she said: "I don't understand how >>>they got to this worship of markets, to the extent that they're perfectly >>>happy that some people don't get the health care that they need." >>> >>>Canada does not have fully nationalized health care; its doctors are in >>>private practice and send their bills to the government for reimbursement. >>> >>>"That doctor doesn't have to worry about how you're going to pay the >>>bill," >>>said Deber. "He knows that his bill will be paid, so there's absolutely >>>nothing to stop any doctor from treating anyone." ..." >>> >>> >> So you want to pay 48% in icome taxes, eh? > > >Complete, total, absolute BULLSHIT. > Should have been 48% of income goes to taxes, not 48% income tax. There are other taxes besides income tax. Quote
Guest Sid9 Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 JimPgh wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:49:46 -0400, "Guy" <nospam@nospam.us> wrote: > >> >> "JimPgh" <iwantnomail@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:21gn93hobeeju8l8khv3d686gn0gbfrl9q@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:45:32 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> JimPgh wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:30:44 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> July 16, 2007 >>>>>> >>>>>> Op-Ed Columnist >>>>>> The Waiting Game >>>>>> By PAUL KRUGMAN >>>>>> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President >>>>>> Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he >>>>>> said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room." >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp... >>>> >>>> Nice article! Thanks! >>>> >>>> (See excerpt below) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "...Despite the financial burden, Canadians value their Medicare >>>> as a marker >>>> of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country >>>> apart from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack >>>> health insurance. >>>> >>>> Raisa Deber, a professor of health policy at the University of >>>> Toronto, believes Canada's system is one of the world's fairest. >>>> >>>> "Canadians are very proud of the fact that if they need care, they >>>> will get >>>> care," she said. Of the United States, she said: "I don't >>>> understand how they got to this worship of markets, to the extent >>>> that they're perfectly happy that some people don't get the health >>>> care that they need." >>>> >>>> Canada does not have fully nationalized health care; its doctors >>>> are in private practice and send their bills to the government for >>>> reimbursement. >>>> >>>> "That doctor doesn't have to worry about how you're going to pay >>>> the bill," >>>> said Deber. "He knows that his bill will be paid, so there's >>>> absolutely nothing to stop any doctor from treating anyone." ..." >>>> >>>> >>> So you want to pay 48% in icome taxes, eh? >> >> >> Complete, total, absolute BULLSHIT. >> > Should have been 48% of income goes to taxes, not 48% income > tax. There are other taxes besides income tax. 48%? Marginal tax rate? Quote
Guest Steve Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:31:46 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: >Steve wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill >> <jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote: >> >>> Sid9 wrote: >>>> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they >>>> need to pay their rent and they are living >>>> from paycheck to paycheck with two >>>> wage earners in the family >>> >>> If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so >>> much as a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd suggest >>> that your problems began long before you got sick. Either you have >>> made poor choices, or you have had other misfortunes. Either way, >>> this is not a valid argument on the cost of healthcare. >> >> >> You don't expect the leftists to stop demanding that the responsible >> people pay the bills for the irresponsible ones, do you? > > >Your generalization is fallacious. >Nothing new here > Nothing fallacious about it... look now how the leftists want to increase the amount of money rich people pay into social security Quote
Guest Steve Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:30:58 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >James McGill wrote: >> Sid9 wrote: >>> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they >>> need to pay their rent and they are living >>> from paycheck to paycheck with two >>> wage earners in the family >> >> If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so much >> as a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd suggest that >> your problems began long before you got sick. Either you have made >> poor choices, or you have had other misfortunes. Either way, this is >> not a valid argument on the cost of healthcare. > >Have you seen "Paycheck advance" >stores where desperate people bury >themselves deeper just to pay for some >essential? Most likely because they just bought a 52 inch digital TV... >"Let them eat cake": > > >A slogan for unknowing >and uncaring few remaining RRRs > Quote
Guest Sid9 Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 Steve wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:31:46 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> Steve wrote: >>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill >>> <jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> Sid9 wrote: >>>>> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they >>>>> need to pay their rent and they are living >>>>> from paycheck to paycheck with two >>>>> wage earners in the family >>>> >>>> If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so >>>> much as a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd >>>> suggest that your problems began long before you got sick. Either >>>> you have made poor choices, or you have had other misfortunes. >>>> Either way, this is not a valid argument on the cost of healthcare. >>> >>> >>> You don't expect the leftists to stop demanding that the responsible >>> people pay the bills for the irresponsible ones, do you? >> >> >> Your generalization is fallacious. >> Nothing new here >> > > Nothing fallacious about it... look now how the leftists want to > increase the amount of money rich people pay into social security Nothing wrong with that...the "cap" is wrong and should be eliminated. Quote
Guest Sid9 Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 Steve wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:30:58 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> >> James McGill wrote: >>> Sid9 wrote: >>>> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they >>>> need to pay their rent and they are living >>>> from paycheck to paycheck with two >>>> wage earners in the family >>> >>> If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so >>> much as a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd >>> suggest that your problems began long before you got sick. Either >>> you have made poor choices, or you have had other misfortunes. >>> Either way, this is not a valid argument on the cost of healthcare. >> >> Have you seen "Paycheck advance" >> stores where desperate people bury >> themselves deeper just to pay for some >> essential? > > Most likely because they just bought a 52 inch digital TV... I don't think you would be willing to swap places with anyone that patronizes a "Paycheck advance" store. > >> "Let them eat cake": >> >> >> A slogan for unknowing >> and uncaring few remaining RRRs Quote
Guest Steve Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:53:52 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: >Steve wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:31:46 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>> Steve wrote: >>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill >>>> <jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sid9 wrote: >>>>>> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they >>>>>> need to pay their rent and they are living >>>>>> from paycheck to paycheck with two >>>>>> wage earners in the family >>>>> >>>>> If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so >>>>> much as a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd >>>>> suggest that your problems began long before you got sick. Either >>>>> you have made poor choices, or you have had other misfortunes. >>>>> Either way, this is not a valid argument on the cost of healthcare. >>>> >>>> >>>> You don't expect the leftists to stop demanding that the responsible >>>> people pay the bills for the irresponsible ones, do you? >>> >>> >>> Your generalization is fallacious. >>> Nothing new here >>> >> >> Nothing fallacious about it... look now how the leftists want to >> increase the amount of money rich people pay into social security > > >Nothing wrong with >that...the "cap" is >wrong and should >be eliminated. > and that demonstrates the truth of my statement above... that you want leftists the responsible people to pay the bills for the irresponsible ones.... Quote
Guest Steve Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:10 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: >Steve wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:30:58 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> James McGill wrote: >>>> Sid9 wrote: >>>>> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they >>>>> need to pay their rent and they are living >>>>> from paycheck to paycheck with two >>>>> wage earners in the family >>>> >>>> If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so >>>> much as a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd >>>> suggest that your problems began long before you got sick. Either >>>> you have made poor choices, or you have had other misfortunes. >>>> Either way, this is not a valid argument on the cost of healthcare. >>> >>> Have you seen "Paycheck advance" >>> stores where desperate people bury >>> themselves deeper just to pay for some >>> essential? >> >> Most likely because they just bought a 52 inch digital TV... > >I don't think you would >be willing to swap >places with anyone >that patronizes a >"Paycheck advance" store.] <LOL> ...because I've made enough of the right choices throughout my life, I'll never have to... people who squandered their education opportunities have only themselves to blame... Quote
Guest milt.shook@gmail.com Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 On Jul 16, 7:17 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:10 -0400, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >Steve wrote: > >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:30:58 -0400, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>> James McGill wrote: > >>>> Sid9 wrote: > >>>>> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they > >>>>> need to pay their rent and they are living > >>>>> from paycheck to paycheck with two > >>>>> wage earners in the family > > >>>> If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so > >>>> much as a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd > >>>> suggest that your problems began long before you got sick. Either > >>>> you have made poor choices, or you have had other misfortunes. > >>>> Either way, this is not a valid argument on the cost of healthcare. > > >>> Have you seen "Paycheck advance" > >>> stores where desperate people bury > >>> themselves deeper just to pay for some > >>> essential? > > >> Most likely because they just bought a 52 inch digital TV... > > >I don't think you would > >be willing to swap > >places with anyone > >that patronizes a > >"Paycheck advance" store.] > > <LOL> ...because I've made enough of the right choices throughout my > life, I'll never have to... people who squandered their education > opportunities have only themselves to blame... Yeah, you're like the poster boy for education here... good lord... Quote
Guest milt.shook@gmail.com Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 On Jul 16, 10:59 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill > > <jmcg...@email.arizona.edu> wrote: > >Sid9 wrote: > >> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they > >> need to pay their rent and they are living > >> from paycheck to paycheck with two > >> wage earners in the family > > >If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so much as > >a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd suggest that your > >problems began long before you got sick. Either you have made poor > >choices, or you have had other misfortunes. Either way, this is not a > >valid argument on the cost of healthcare. > > You don't expect the leftists to stop demanding that the responsible > people pay the bills for the irresponsible ones, do you? You already do, you fucktard... MOST of the irresponsible smokers, fatties, etc. have insurance... unless the insurance company found out they were a fat smoker... Seriously, you don't have the slightest clue how insurance work, or how our health care system works. Is there anything you do know? Quote
Guest milt.shook@gmail.com Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 On Jul 16, 10:39 am, James McGill <jmcg...@email.arizona.edu> wrote: > Sid9 wrote: > > Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they > > need to pay their rent and they are living > > from paycheck to paycheck with two > > wage earners in the family > > If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so much as > a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd suggest that your > problems began long before you got sick. Either you have made poor > choices, or you have had other misfortunes. Either way, this is not a > valid argument on the cost of healthcare. I'd like to know where you can go for a $100 doctor visit. Perhaps if he just looks down your throat and makes you say ahh and boots you out the door... he might only charge $100. Quote
Guest milt.shook@gmail.com Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 On Jul 16, 6:32 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:31:46 -0400, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >Steve wrote: > >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill > >> <jmcg...@email.arizona.edu> wrote: > > >>> Sid9 wrote: > >>>> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they > >>>> need to pay their rent and they are living > >>>> from paycheck to paycheck with two > >>>> wage earners in the family > > >>> If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so > >>> much as a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd suggest > >>> that your problems began long before you got sick. Either you have > >>> made poor choices, or you have had other misfortunes. Either way, > >>> this is not a valid argument on the cost of healthcare. > > >> You don't expect the leftists to stop demanding that the responsible > >> people pay the bills for the irresponsible ones, do you? > > >Your generalization is fallacious. > >Nothing new here > > Nothing fallacious about it... look now how the leftists want to > increase the amount of money rich people pay into social security A guy who makes $1 million per year pays .765% -- that's POINT-765%! for Social Security. Less than 1%. Meanwhile, the guy who's starting his own small business and pays himself $25,000 has to pay 15.3%. Here's what I've proposed for years. If you raise the cap to $500,000, you can cut the percentage by half. That way everyone wins. Ah... but that would mean the rich would pay more, so you're probably against it. Quote
Guest milt.shook@gmail.com Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 On Jul 16, 7:17 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:55:10 -0400, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >Steve wrote: > >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:30:58 -0400, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>> James McGill wrote: > >>>> Sid9 wrote: > >>>>> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they > >>>>> need to pay their rent and they are living > >>>>> from paycheck to paycheck with two > >>>>> wage earners in the family > > >>>> If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so > >>>> much as a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd > >>>> suggest that your problems began long before you got sick. Either > >>>> you have made poor choices, or you have had other misfortunes. > >>>> Either way, this is not a valid argument on the cost of healthcare. > > >>> Have you seen "Paycheck advance" > >>> stores where desperate people bury > >>> themselves deeper just to pay for some > >>> essential? > > >> Most likely because they just bought a 52 inch digital TV... > > >I don't think you would > >be willing to swap > >places with anyone > >that patronizes a > >"Paycheck advance" store.] > > <LOL> ...because I've made enough of the right choices throughout my > life, I'll never have to... people who squandered their education > opportunities have only themselves to blame... Yeah, dammit! He owns that drafty, beer-soaked trailer, and he has a lifetime lease in the trailer park. Quote
Guest Michael Ejercito Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 On Jul 16, 2:09 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Michael Ejercito wrote: > > On Jul 16, 1:25 pm, "Lamont Cranston" > > <Lamont.Crans...@NeoConEvilFighter.com> wrote: > >> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1184603686.599318.265940@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > >>> On Jul 16, 6:14 am, "??????????" <???????????@???????????.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> 'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at > >>>> easehttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-movie22jun22,0,5... > > >>>> Leading candidates are sidestepping direct comment on filmmaker > >>>> Michael > >>>> Moore's proposals for universal healthcare. > >>>> By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer > >>>> June 22, 2007 > >>>> WASHINGTON - With the release of Michael Moore's "Sicko," a movie > >>>> once again > >>>> is adding sizzle to an issue that's a high priority for liberal > >>>> politicians - this time comprehensive health insurance for all. But > >>>> unlike > >>>> Al Gore's film on global warming, which helped rally support on an > >>>> equally > >>>> controversial problem, "Sicko" is creating an awkward situation for > >>>> the > >>>> leading Democratic presidential candidates. > > >>>> Rejecting Moore's prescription on healthcare could alienate liberal > >>>> activists, who will play a big role in choosing the party's next > >>>> standard-bearer. However, his proposal - wiping out private health > >>>> insurance > >>>> and replacing it with a massive federal program - could be > >>>> political poison > >>>> with the larger electorate. > >>> Somehow, the concept of a state or federal program COMPETING with > >>> private health insurance NEVER occurs to these people. > > >> Medicare has been immensely successful without having to compete with > >> private health insurance. > > So what would be wrong with making Medicare voluntary, available to > > all ages, and funded entirely by those who choose to participate? > > > Michael > > Do you really believe that > people who opt out of > having universal insurance > will not sooner or later > use health system resources? Of course. If they were wise, those who opt out of having universal insurance would select a private insurer who could deliver better service. If NOT.... > > Universal mean everyone > is covered. > > It may mean that every one > pays...as they do in Medicare. > > What does an insurance > company contribute? > So let the government (local, state, or federal) start an insurance company and get funding from those who choose to get insurance from them. Michael Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.