Culture Crisis instead of Health Care Crisis

[chud]

I wouldn't mind paying a little more in taxes to help the truly need out, the people that have a job and just can't find a way to make it. I believe most Americans wouldn't have a problem seeing some sort of health reform, not a government health care system. Unfortunately for every hardworking man or woman struggling to get by, there are those that chose to spend what little they have on a car they cant afford, designer clothes or the newest phone they don't need.

The company i was working at a few years ago went up on the employee part of the med insurance by $10.00 a week to $15.00 a week. All but 6 of the 108 employees in the plant dropped there coverage, most stating Parkland was free. I have to admit most of them were Spanish and were using Parkland to begin with, but you can see were I'm going with this.

[boo-boo bear]

I found nothing about the starting post to be racist in any way, shape, or form. Nowhere in the posting was race, creed or national origin ever mentioned. That tells me more about your way of thinking then it does about the starting poster.

I think it addresses the real problem, and that is one of a glaring lack of personal responsibility among a large number of people. Anyone can make it in this world, given the fact that they apply themselves. Unfortunately, the government support programs only create a large group who think it is their God given right to put wants above needs, as it is the governments purpose to support them. After the 1906 hurricane hit Galveston, the elected members voted to cease government assistance after a period due to "not wanting to create a class of layabouts". A lot of people, like energy, will sink to the lowest level allowed. I have no problem what so ever helping those who truly need it, as that is what a compassionate, just and caring society does. I do have a huge problem supporting those who work the system, do nothing to better themselves, refusing to go to school, or refusing most if not all work as they say it is a "degrading" job. We, as a society, offer free education to those who wish it, and it is your responsibility to make the most of it. My parents grew up dirt poor in farming families in Texas, and did without a lot, but they made it well, lived comfortable, well within their means and did not buy things they could not afford, or need. Few teach their children today that needs before wants, and what the difference is between the two.

In the military, we have aid societies. I could not tell you the number of times people would come to the chain of command for assistance screening due to needing food, diapers, etc. When a financial worksheet was done, it would be revealed that they would have cable, with every channel. Cell phones with all the bells and whistles, smoking couple packs a day of name brand smokes, six pack, or more, a day. When it was pointed out that by cutting out, or trimming back, these wants they would get all upset, saying they were necessary. And therein lies the real problem, today's society does not really understand the difference between needs and wants.

As for costs, yes it is totally out of control. Once again, we need to look in the mirror. Being a litigious society really benefits no one but the lawyers, and where they skim a third off the top, plus fee's, filing law suits to just press for a settlement because it's cheaper to pay out than fight. And those lawyer TV commercials, well, that to me says it all. And with most thinking corporations exist to profit only, without accountability. Wall Street publishes expectations, and the board room does what is required to meet those expectations, including shipping out jobs overseas, because their bonuses are based on meeting that expectation, not on what benefits both the company and employee today and in the long run. So, only short term thinking is used, without regard to long term benefits, or casualties. And now, it is all catching up with us.

A large underlying problem here is that when the government enacts these items, they do not make the program, or themselves, accountable. Congress exempts themselves from them! How can you expect Congress to be beholding to the public when they consider themselves to be above the public? Social Security, Medicaid, health reform, federal pension plans etc. does not apply to members of Congress, so Congress is more beholding to special interest, lobbyist, corporations because they grease their palms, while we working class cannot. So, the only way to resolve this is to first make Congress understand that they, as employee's of the Federal government due only to the fact of being voted into office by the citizens are required to follow the same HR requirements, and benefits, of any other federal employee.

Also, lobbyist should be removed from all capitals, and only allowed to meet in a public place with news media and constituents present. Most of the slimy underhand dealings would cease when exposed to the light of day.

Paying taxes does not bother me, the stupidity in their spending does. If I managed my finances as the government does, I would be in jail.

My apologies for the rant, but we have no one to blame for this but ourselves, and our get rich quick mentality. Also, I did not mean to take it political, but politicians are a huge part of the problem.

I will now step down off my soap box, take my meds and return to my normal low key self.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Brass Balls

Boy, I really started something! It's easy to see who the liberals are.

If you think our government can fix health care consider this:

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. They have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935. They have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938. They have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

War on Poverty started in 1964. They have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. They have had 44 years to get it right and both are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970. They have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. They had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

Congress has FAILED in every "government service" they have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE THEY CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM? IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NEED FOR GOOD HEALTH CARE; IT'S ABOUT TRUSTING THE GOVERNMENT TO RUN IT.

And consider this:

... we're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?

The good doctor was talking about his patent's lack of basic responsibility and our governments historical failure at social programs. Face facts, a cell phone is a luxury, let alone an iPhone. I went 40 years of my life without a cell phone, don't tell me it is a necessity. It's about "wants & needs" and in today's America the "wants" usually end up winning out over the "needs". For me, health insurance for me and my family is an important "need" and I will sacrifice some "wants" to have it. But I'm pissed off that the cost is so high because many people choose (yes, choose) not to have health insurance and then when something happens they cannot ever pay the bill. So us that choose to have health insurance get to pay their bill through increased premiums. To the young lady who spoke about accepting the fact if she gets breast cancer she's doomed because she chooses not to have health insurance, the truth is you probably wouldn't be doomed because you would be admitted and cared for at others expense. You might end up at Parkland but you would not be turned away. I truly hope you never face a health issue like this and the odds are in your favor you won't. But what about an automobile accident? Wants & needs.

I am currently in the UK on business and it is true they have a nice health care plan. Just walk in and you're taken care of, seen it myself. The quality of care is not up to what we get in the U.S. but it's not bad. But, ask anyone that lives here what they pay for it in their taxes. My British counterpart in our company makes about the same as I do but pays TWICE the taxes. But I'm sure he is just thrilled to help pay through his taxes for health care any visitors or students may need while in the UK.

This is beyond ridiculous. The post office works fine. Law firms rely on first class RRR mail because it is so reliable. Same with mass market catalogs, oil company royalty checks, and hundreds of other important communications. All a very low prices (which is why it looses money -- it's subsidized to be affordable).

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the three most successful anti-poverty programs in U.S. history. All three have demographic problems that can be solved (mainly through either means testing, in the case of SS; or costs controls with the two medical programs).

As for government run health care, that's not what's being proposed in either the Senate or the House bill, unfortunately. True government financed health care -- which is used in every single other industrialized country in the world and works quite well in those countries and costs roughly 60% of what our for profit system costs -- would be a vast improvement over the current bills, or the current system.

And your UK compatriots don't pay twice as much in taxes. That is just a plain and simple lie. Total tax burden in the UK are 35.7%. In the U.S. the total tax burden (which would include your local sales tax, state income taxes, pay roll taxes, etc.) is 26.9%. That's a little less that 34% greater, in case you can't locate your calculator.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...veloped-world/

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

This is beyond ridiculous. The post office works fine. Law firms rely on first class RRR mail because it is so reliable. Same with mass market catalogs, oil company royalty checks, and hundreds of other important communications. All a very low prices (which is why it looses money -- it's subsidized to be affordable).

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the three most successful anti-poverty programs in U.S. history. All three have demographic problems that can be solved (mainly through either means testing, in the case of SS; or costs controls with the two medical programs).

As for government run health care, that's not what's being proposed in either the Senate or the House bill, unfortunately. True government financed health care -- which is used in every single other industrialized country in the world and works quite well in those countries and costs roughly 60% of what our for profit system costs -- would be a vast improvement over the current bills, or the current system.

And your UK compatriots don't pay twice as much in taxes. That is just a plain and simple lie. Total tax burden in the UK are 35.7%. In the U.S. the total tax burden (which would include your local sales tax, state income taxes, pay roll taxes, etc.) is 26.9%. That's a little less that 34% greater, in case you can't locate your calculator.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...veloped-world/

Are you kidding me? You are using a blog as a reliable source of information? Blogs are opinion. Lest we forget, the admitedly left-leaning Dan Rather, falsified news, lied, was fired and lost a law suit all because of his political agenda.

The fact is that SS, Medicare and Medicaid are broke. The following three quotes are about SS and Medicare.

Originally Posted by Heritage.org;

Social Security is in crisis. Paying Social Security’s promised benefits over the next 75 years will require $5.7 trillion more than the existing payroll tax provides, and raising taxes by that amount would reduce employment, slow economic growth, and devastate working families.

Originally Posted by Heritage.org;

Raising payroll taxes to cover Medicare’s shortfalls through 2079 would cause even more economic damage. Between 2006 and 2010, higher taxes would reduce GDP by over $204 billion per year and cost more than 1.7 million private-sector jobs annually, boosting the unemployment rate by almost a percentage point. By 2015, real GDP would be nearly $208 billion lower than without the tax increases.

Originally Posted by Heritage.org;

Economist Laurence Kotlikoff estimates that U.S. payroll and income taxes would need to rise to almost 40 percent of wages to cover future retiree’s promised health and pension benefits.
See Laurence Kotlikoff, Hans Fehr, and Sabine Jokisch, “Aging, the World Economy, and the Coming Generational Storm,” National Center for Policy Analysis Policy Report No. 273, February 2005, at http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st273

Where are they going to get the money to fund SS for the baby-boomers who are now retiring en masse? Only the Federal Reserve and US congress think that money grows on trees. Which foreign country are you willing to bow to as the loans become unsustainable?

Fannie May was a great idea until they started giving loans to people who couldn't afford them, those same impoverished people are now defaulting, foreclosed, bankrupt and/or homeless. They didn't do those people any favors by giving them something for nothing.

There is an alternative to SS in the pipeline that works several times better than SS in Galveston. see: http://retirement.gov/policy/docs/ss...1/v62n1p47.pdf

[TexTushHog]

Almost identical numbers on tax burden here:

http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032a.html

Similar figure here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ta...otal-as-of-gdp

Here's the actual data, although I can't find it in the two minutes I've spent searching for the latest periods:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/35471773.pdf

Social Security can be fixed by modest changes in the tax structure and by means testing. The problem is that means testing has no political support.

Medicare and Medicaid are more troublesome, but if you move to single payer health care like every other country on the planet, you will save huge sums on medical care in general and those programs can be subsumed into the national health plan with the same savings. For-profit medicine is the problem, as you can readily see if you look at every other country on earth.

[TexTushHog]

OK, here's the latest data I can find -- for 2007 from the OECD.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/38/43098708.xls

U.S. Total Tax Burden: 28.3
U.K. Total Tax Burden: 36.6

29.3% higher.

[DFW5Traveler]

With all the data now being bantered back and forth, how about a common sense approach. Let's compare Michigan and Texas.

Michigan currently has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and Texas one of the lowest.

(Amounts in thousands. Per capita amounts in dollars)
In 2005 Michigan, who has a state income tax, raised 23,525,187 and was rated No.9 of the 50 states in revenue generated at 2,324.39 per capita and No.20 in the states. Texas on the other hand which doesn't have a state income tax for the same year raised 32,784,942 ranked No.4 at 1,434.16 per capita ranked No.49.

California generated the highest at 98,434,685, or 2,724.31 per capita and if you work in CA, you would not only pay your federal taxes, FICA, Income, etc, you also pay state income taxes and into MediCal, CA's version of Medicaid/MediCare. CA is issuing IOU's because they can't take enough money from it's people.

What political base controls each state? In which state would you rather reside? In which state would you rather start a business?

We have the right to PURSUE happiness. If WE don't PURSUE happiness, who's fault is it that WE aren't happy. Health Care reform is a given but there are a lot of ways to reform it without a single payer government takeover. Just think, a Canadian Premier just came down to the states to get better health care than offered in his own country. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2510700

Source: US Census Bureau - http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/05staxrank.html

[notdeadyet]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Social Security can be fixed by modest changes in the tax structure and by means testing. The problem is that means testing has no political support..

And the other problem with means testing is determining the income (or assets?) level beyond which the benefit is decreased or eliminated. Is it $100k/year, or $250k/year? Or....what? AND, how is means testing coordinated with integrated defined benefit pension plans? The only certainty in any means testing arrangement is that the real burden will fall on the middle and upper middle classes.

[/QUOTE]Medicare and Medicaid are more troublesome, but if you move to single payer health care like every other country on the planet, you will save huge sums on medical care in general and those programs can be subsumed into the national health plan with the same savings. For-profit medicine is the problem, as you can readily see if you look at every other country on earth.[/QUOTE]

As much as the president and some members of Congress want to villify the insurance companies, the insurance industry represents only one part of total medical costs. I don't pretend to know all the questions, much less the naswers, but do know that the main issue is the cost of care, and no one is willing to address that problem because doing so means making very very difficult decisions. For example: At what stage do you pull the plug on your comatose grandma and stop the $5k/day ICU charge when there's no hope for recovery? Who is entitled to a transplant? How many premature babies do we save at a cost of $1M+, even though the child is likely to be on public assistance for the remainder of its life? And so on. Until some of these questions are asked publicly and answered, cost containment in medical care just isn't possible.

You'll also find that some (perhaps, most) nations with national health plans have side-by-side or overlapping private insurance. I know that's the case in Australia, and believe it is the case in the UK. The result is that those persons with private insurance pay more, and end up with better care. Which is about the same thing that is true in the US.

And as an aside, pre-existing conditions are not a bar to coverage in Texas, because it has a state-sponsored "risk pool" with guaranteed issue. The pool isn't cheap, but it is available.

[Brass Balls]

TexTushHog,

What I said was "My British counterpart in our company makes about the same as I do but pays TWICE the taxes." I found your comment of "And your UK compatriots don't pay twice as much in taxes. That is just a plain and simple lie. Total tax burden in the UK are 35.7%. In the U.S. the total tax burden (which would include your local sales tax, state income taxes, pay roll taxes, etc.) is 26.9%. That's a little less that 34% greater, in case you can't locate your calculator." very interesting considering you know nothing about what either of makes in gross earnings, has for deductions, or counts as dependents. So yes, my numbers may be skewed some in this one particular case but pretty much apples to apples with REAL NUMBERS he pays ALMOST twice in INCOME TAXES as I do. My actual rate is less that the national average you quoted (all of them) and his is higher. And as an engineer I didn't need my calculator to figure this although I do know where it is.

[TexTushHog]

Income tax is not "taxes." I consider the broader term to include all taxes. What difference does it make whether a tax is an income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc., in terms of comparing countries (as opposed to figuring out external effects of various forms of taxation)? Basically Brits pay about 1/3 more tax that Americans and get a good bit more for their money, including all of their health care.

[DFW5Traveler]

In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.

Can anyone show me where in the Constitution health care is listed in the 17 enumerated powers granted to the legislature of the US government?

Oh wait!!! Here they are:

1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
7. To establish post offices and post roads;
8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
13. To provide and maintain a navy;
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles (16 km) square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.

Before you say the Commerce clause...
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm

A. "Commerce"

1. What "Commerce" Is

"Commerce" was defined in the early years of the Union as trade, intercourse, navigation, traffic, and transportation for profit. "Navigation," for example, although perhaps more immediately grasped by the modern mind than what is meant by "traffic," is less straightforward than might be imagined.[34 ]Still, when "commerce" is repeatedly described in similar terms by those discussing the national regulation of commerce, a clearer view of the word's scope takes shape. In short, "commerce" means the activities of buying and selling that come after production and before the goods come to rest.

Professor Crosskey — whose analysis excludes the great number of ratification documents that identify "commerce" with trade — interpreted "commerce" far more broadly to mean "all gainful activity."[35] Crosskey acknowledged that "[i]n most senses in which 'commerce' was used in the eighteenth century, the word 'trade' was also used."[36] "The exception," according to Crosskey, "was the broadest of the then current uses ... in which the word covered any or all of the manifold activities that men carry on together," and "almost always meant 'all kinds of business.' or the gainful activity of the nation."[37]

The language of the day supports the narrower interpretation, however. In 1773, Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language defined "commerce" as "Intercour[s]e; exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick."[38] Other contemporaneous dictionaries described commerce similarly, as "[e]xchange of one thing for another."[39]

"Trade" seems to be the most common substitute. Professor Randy Barnett has tallied each appearance of "commerce" both in Madison's notes on the Constitution Convention and in The Federalist.[40] Barnett concludes that "[i]n none of the sixty-three appearances of the term 'commerce' in The Federalist Papers is it ever used to refer unambiguously to any activity beyond trade or exchange."[41] He similarly concludes that in Madison's notes every non-foreign reference to "commerce" could be substituted with either "trade" or "exchange" "with the apparent meaning of the statement preserved."[42]

Indeed, in 1828, Madison wrote a letter in which he stated that "[t]he Constitution vests in Congress expressly...'the power to regulate trade.'"[43] Throughout the letter, Madison continues to replace "commerce" with "trade:" "a power to regulate trade;" "the power to regulate trade with foreign nations;" "[t]he meaning of the Phrase 'to regulate trade;'" and "regulations of trade," are but a few examples.[44]

The state ratifying conventions also include numerous instances of "commerce" being used such that "trade" could easily be substituted.[45] To pick one of many examples, a participant in the North Carolina convention referred to "commerce" as "the nurse of both" agriculture and manufacturing, because "[t]he merchant furnishes the planter with such articles as he cannot manufacture himself, and finds him a market for his produce."[46]

2. What "Commerce" Is Not

History provides us with more material on the subject of what "commerce" is not than on what "commerce" is. This is unsurprising; the Commerce Clause was not drafted to cause confusion. Its drafters employed plain language that could reasonably be expected to be understood at the time. It is therefore natural that most of the discussion should take place at the margins — identifying those areas that could be "commerce" but are not — and that very little of the discussion centers on a basic definition of a word already understood.

Early American writings distinguish "commerce" from the class of subjects to which it is separate but connected in two ways: either by a direct discussion of what is excluded from commerce, or by implication. Alexander Hamilton's writings in The Federalist Papers provide many of these definitions by implication. Hamilton often included "commerce" in a list of concepts which are similar in one way (activities critical to the success of the nation, for instance), but distinct enough to call for separate identification, as in "the state of commerce, of arts, of industry."[47]

These early discussions of the nature of the Union suggest that "commerce" does not include manufacturing, agriculture, labor, or industry. In short, "commerce" does not seem to have been used during the founding era to refer to those acts that precede the act of trade. Interstate commerce seems to refer to interstate trade — that is, commerce is "intercourse for the purposes of trade in any and all its forms, including the transportation, purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities between the ... citizens of different States."[48]

[Chip6228]

I think many are missing the point here....

First off, there is no government-run insurance in the first place. Public option comes close, but everybody immediately thinks that all other insurance will just go off and die. If that was the case, then why do we have UPS and FedEx? Oh, the USPS would run them out of business, right?

We are a country that has, what I feel, the best mix of capitalism and socialism. We are heavily focused on capitalism (makes the world run), but we have a few things fall into socialism that we want protected. How would you feel if your kids went to Microsoft High School, or GM Junior High? What if you had the McDonalds police and the Gatorade FD?

In the end, businesses are aimed for 1 thing: To turn a profit. Anybody arguing otherwise is delusional and has never been in the position of running a company. Companies only "donate" their time and money to charities if they feel it helps their public image, not out of the kindness of their hearts. So by allowing some healthy, non-business competition, we are able to keep some things in check so they stay focused on the MORALS of what is supposed to be accomplished.

Another point, I agree with the OP. I would NEVER want my money to help support someone who is as arrogant and stupid as that person. I wouldn't mind our gene pool to get a bit cleaner. BUT, for each one of those jackasses that take advantage of our system, there's a soul that is in need. What if you just lost your job, and a week later broke your leg or severed a finger? What do you do? What if your company dropped coverage because it was too costly for them as well, yet you put in easily 40hrs/week?

The problem with this issue is that it's never cut and dry, black and white. Like abortion, I tend to lean on the more open side - Yes, there are people that will abuse it, but there are people that also actually need it for a reason or another. Should we always deny help just because there may be someone to take advantage of it?

That being said, I'm slightly against the current HC Bill. Too much bad stuff that only helps the insurance companies and not us. The only parts I like are the patient bill of rights and the exchange (esp if public option is back on the table), but the rest of it is just feeding more money into the health care insurance pockets that are just as evil as big banks.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by Chip6228

I think many are missing the point here....

First off, there is no government-run insurance in the first place. Public option comes close, but everybody immediately thinks that all other insurance will just go off and die. If that was the case, then why do we have UPS and FedEx? Oh, the USPS would run them out of business, right?

We are a country that has, what I feel, the best mix of capitalism and socialism. We are heavily focused on capitalism (makes the world run), but we have a few things fall into socialism that we want protected. How would you feel if your kids went to Microsoft High School, or GM Junior High? What if you had the McDonalds police and the Gatorade FD?

In the end, businesses are aimed for 1 thing: To turn a profit. Anybody arguing otherwise is delusional and has never been in the position of running a company. Companies only "donate" their time and money to charities if they feel it helps their public image, not out of the kindness of their hearts. So by allowing some healthy, non-business competition, we are able to keep some things in check so they stay focused on the MORALS of what is supposed to be accomplished.

Another point, I agree with the OP. I would NEVER want my money to help support someone who is as arrogant and stupid as that person. I wouldn't mind our gene pool to get a bit cleaner. BUT, for each one of those jackasses that take advantage of our system, there's a soul that is in need. What if you just lost your job, and a week later broke your leg or severed a finger? What do you do? What if your company dropped coverage because it was too costly for them as well, yet you put in easily 40hrs/week?

The problem with this issue is that it's never cut and dry, black and white. Like abortion, I tend to lean on the more open side - Yes, there are people that will abuse it, but there are people that also actually need it for a reason or another. Should we always deny help just because there may be someone to take advantage of it?

That being said, I'm slightly against the current HC Bill. Too much bad stuff that only helps the insurance companies and not us. The only parts I like are the patient bill of rights and the exchange (esp if public option is back on the table), but the rest of it is just feeding more money into the health care insurance pockets that are just as evil as big banks.

The reasons for UPS/DHL/Fed Ex were to offer something the USPS wouldn't offer. Only after the successes of those companies did the USPS start offering overnight deliveries and they still won't garantee anything before noon.

Secondly, do you understand the Tenth Amendment? That's right, States Rights. If one state want's socialist policies it's up the people that vote for and allow it. Imposing one states will on another does not follow states rights traditions. It's a free country and if a free people want to live under socialism, they can move to a state or another country where it's accepted. You can't say that all of the people want psuedo-socialism. Why would anyone try to force an ideology onto someone who doesn't accept it's philosophy?

Originally Posted by Chip6228;

I wouldn't mind our gene pool to get a bit cleaner.

So are you saying that eugenics is a good thing? Isn't that exactly what the Nazi's thought? Have you ever wondered why Iran has such a hard-on for Israel? Do you know what Iran means in Farsi? To anyone out there who doesn't know the history of planned parenthood, research it. It's actually an eye opener about the progressives' eugenics movement.

[daveindallas]

I busted my ass for 15 years working for an employer who did not offer any health benefits,and i was his only full time employee!...and he could afford it(i did the everyday accounting)...so not everyone is lazy.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by daveindallas

I busted my ass for 15 years working for an employer who did not offer any health benefits,and i was his only full time employee!...and he could afford it(i did the everyday accounting)...so not everyone is lazy.

Not to bust your balls, but I have to ask, why did you stay with the employer if he didn't offer something you may have wanted?

Accepting the statis quo would have only reinforced your employer's position. If an employer truly values it's employees contributions, sometimes stepping away is a wake-up call to the employer. If stepping away doesn't change the status quo, they lose.