OT - when politics gets personal

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:58:25 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
are you prepared, right here, right now, to
state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his,
but
these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean
for
your and your family's own financial situation?

not going to answer for Larry,

Whew, good...I was beginning to think everyone on ROFF but me knew this
couple...

but the sensible thing for all Americans,
with any sense of a common social contract with one another, would be to
answer 'yes'. Why?

Yeah, that's what I'm asking - why?

Because the bit about 'regardless of what that means...."
is just a smokescreen. With single-payer national health insurance, the cost
per person would plummet.

What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer system.

It's a given.

Lemme guess - Louie's brother-in-law gave ya the what's what on it? Seriously,
though, why is it a given?

And, it ought to be a no-brainer,
except for the fact that the one party which has shown no brains, and less
compassion, seems determined to block it. And the other,seemingly, doesn't
have the collective balls to make the case and pass it.

Um, OK - refresh my memory - which party is which...?

TC,
R
Tom

Um, OK - refresh my memory - which party is which...?

TC,
R



....and there's the rub!

John

wrote in message
...
What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer
system.

because the power of negotiation will remove some of the bloated costs built
in, for starters. With the current system, a ton of breakdowns into various
insured groups almost ensures a lack of transparent price structures. And,
given human nature invites vast overpricing and profit taking.

That said, I'm with Jeff in saying that healthcare ought to be treated as a
societal benefit, or as he put it, a right of citizenship, not a for-profit
business.

Tom

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:13:15 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer
system.

because the power of negotiation will remove some of the bloated costs built
in, for starters. With the current system, a ton of breakdowns into various
insured groups almost ensures a lack of transparent price structures. And,
given human nature invites vast overpricing and profit taking.

That said, I'm with Jeff in saying that healthcare ought to be treated as a
societal benefit, or as he put it, a right of citizenship, not a for-profit
business.

Ya know, I keep hearing about these friggin' "rights" and "societal benefit" and
what folks ought to get and all, but what about some of the responsibilities
that come with them...? As it currently stands, should what appears to be the
latest cluster**** of a scheme actually come to pass, those folks who will
benefit most from "universal" health care are the very ones who would contribute
literally _nothing_ to the cost of it all. And no, I don't mean the truly
destitute, as I doubt they'll see much, if any, change in their "real-world"
health care no matter which of the current set of usual suspects "reforms" it. I
refer to those with jobs, but not enough income, after all the exemptions,
credits, etc., to owe _any_ income tax. And before anyone says anything, the
wonderful, as I understand it, the perfect European and UK systems' _effective_
income tax bands start at _much_ lower incomes than the US and there are various
other taxes, such as VAT, etc., that US liberals scream to all holy hell about
being regressive, unkind and just downright mean.

And on top that, if this scheme has no profit, who is gonna work for it, how
are, ahem, medical labs gonna get paid, fancy new machines purchased, new drugs
developed, etc.?

TC,
R

Tom

On Feb 24, 6:02*pm, wrote:


Ya know, I keep hearing about these friggin' "rights" and "societal benefit" and
what folks ought to get and all,

Do you?

well

gosh

but what about some of the responsibilities
that come with them...?

And what responsibilities would those be?

As it currently stands, should what appears to be the
latest cluster**** of a scheme actually come to pass, those folks who will
benefit most from "universal" health care are the very ones who would contribute
literally _nothing_ to the cost of it all.

Just like fire and police protection, huh? The rich pay for
everything and the poor get all the benefits. Precisely why they
stay poor for generation after generation.....why get rich with all
the burdens this entails when a life of poverty keeps you on easy
street.

And no, I don't mean the truly
destitute,

Oh, you mean the not so truly destitute. The.....um.....uh......

as I doubt they'll see much, if any, change in their "real-world"
health care no matter which of the current set of usual suspects "reforms" it.

Well, you know how much weight your doubts and suspicions and guesses
and hints and suggestions and allusions and abstractions and
circumlocutions and perambulations and disseminations and distractions
and prevarications and ruminations and buffoonery carry around here.

I refer to those with jobs, but not enough income, after all the exemptions,
credits, etc., to owe _any_ income tax.

And you personally know......um.....exactly how many such people?

And before anyone says anything, the
wonderful, as I understand it, the perfect European and UK systems' _effective_
income tax bands start at _much_ lower incomes than the US and there are various
other taxes, such as VAT, etc., that US liberals scream to all holy hell about
being regressive, unkind and just downright mean.

All of which, assuming there's a shred of demonstrable truth to it
means.....what?

And on top that, if this scheme has no profit, who is gonna work for it, how
are, ahem, medical labs gonna get paid, fancy new machines purchased, new drugs
developed, etc.?

How do the folks who develop, manufacture and distribute bullet proof
vests, badges, guns, ammunition, automobiles, fire trucks, ladders,
handcuffs, tazers, uniforms, hoses, nightsticks, shiny sunglasses,
hats, jail cells, pumps, defibrulators, gurneys, sphygmomanometers,
flashlights, notepads, radar, sirens, leather belts and doughnuts get
paid?

Moron.

g.

wrote in message
...
And on top that, if this scheme has no profit, who is gonna work for it,
how
are, ahem, medical labs gonna get paid, fancy new machines purchased, new
drugs
developed, etc.?

you don't need to run a profit in order to acquire state of the art
instrumentation for a lab. It happens all over the world, in other systems
of public healthcare. As for the drug development, I don't read of anyone
suggesting that the pharma industry become non-profit. Yet.
Tom

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:04:46 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
And on top that, if this scheme has no profit, who is gonna work for it,
how
are, ahem, medical labs gonna get paid, fancy new machines purchased, new
drugs
developed, etc.?

you don't need to run a profit in order to acquire state of the art
instrumentation for a lab.

Lab fairies? Oh, wait...do David Geffen and Elton John buy 'em and donate 'em?
If so, change that to "Provided by gracious donors"....

It happens all over the world, in other systems of public healthcare.

Ah - theft...

OTOH, I wish I could find it, but I saw a news story in the last coupla-three
months from, IIRC, a French news source that was about how taxation had become a
point of contention. Among those interviewed was a Parisian cab driver who made
what would be about 25K USD and who paid nearly 20% of that in taxes (and also
IIRC, about 10-15% was income-based taxes and 5-10% paid for health care). Now,
here's a "blue-collar" guy in one of the world's most expensive cities making
what some in the US would call very low wages, yet he still paid out about 20%
of his income in tax - would you think such would fly in the US? Can you think
of any pol of any party who would get up in public and say such needs to happen
here?

I decided to do a _quick_ search for it, and while I didn't find it, I did find
this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92419273

According to the above, the cabbie would have paid about 10% of the required 20
with the cab company picking up the other 10%.

As for the drug development, I don't read of anyone
suggesting that the pharma industry become non-profit. Yet.

Oh, yeah, now THERE'S a non-controversial subject...

TC,
R
Tom

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer
system.

because the power of negotiation will remove some of the bloated costs
built in, for starters. With the current system, a ton of breakdowns into
various insured groups almost ensures a lack of transparent price
structures. And, given human nature invites vast overpricing and profit
taking.

That said, I'm with Jeff in saying that healthcare ought to be treated as
a societal benefit, or as he put it, a right of citizenship, not a
for-profit business.

Tom

I think our state and federal governments should sell the nation’s highways,
roads, and streets to for-profit organizations. That way we all pay to
travel to and from work, the grocery store, day care, your favorite bar, the
dentist, anywhere and anytime you or I might drive. Just think of the profit
potential. I mean, why should we pay highway usage or fuel taxes for our
government to maintain our roadways, when private organizations could
obviously provide better maintenance, construction, and means of usage. I
mean it is not as if use of the nation’s roadways is a constitutionally
protected right, right? Kelo vs. New London (I believe this is the case
name) determined that the public transfer of one private entities property
to another private entity for the purpose of economic development trumps the
rights of the individual. Hell, I say the government should exercise its
right of eminent domain over all U.S. citizens and transfer all private
property from private individuals to other private individual, who can
*claim* that they will put the property to better economic purposes, which
thereby serves the public interest better. What makes travel to anywhere,
anymore important than one's health.

Hell, once we transer the nation's roadways to the for-profit companies and
make travel on the nation's roadways so expensive that we cannot affort to
drive to and from work, get our groceries, pick up little Cindy Lou Hoo
from daycare, travel to your doctor's office, or the hospital to have
another child delivered, healthcare reform will appear insignificant in
comparison.

Op

On Feb 24, 10:29*pm, "Mark Bowen" wrote:
"Tom Littleton" wrote in message

...







wrote in message
.. .
What makes _you_ think that? *And no, Medicare is not a single payer
system.

because the power of negotiation will remove some of the bloated costs
built in, for starters. With the current system, a ton of breakdowns into
various insured groups almost ensures a lack of transparent price
structures. And, given human nature invites vast overpricing and profit
taking.

That said, I'm with Jeff in saying that healthcare ought to be treated as
a societal benefit, or as he put it, a right of citizenship, not a
for-profit business.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

I think our state and federal governments should sell the nation’s highways,
roads, and streets to for-profit organizations. That way we all pay to
travel to and from work, the grocery store, day care, your favorite bar, the
dentist, anywhere and anytime you or I might drive. Just think of the profit
potential. I mean, why should we pay highway usage or fuel taxes for our
government to maintain our roadways, when private organizations could
obviously provide better maintenance, construction, and means of usage. I
mean it is not as if use of the nation’s roadways is a constitutionally
protected right, right? Kelo vs. New London (I believe this is the case
name) determined that the public transfer of one private entities property
to another private entity for the purpose of economic development trumps the
rights of the individual. Hell, I say the government should exercise its
right of eminent domain over all U.S. citizens and transfer all private
property from private individuals to other private individual, *who can
*claim* that they will put the property to better economic purposes, which
thereby serves the public interest better. What makes travel to anywhere,
anymore important than one's health.

Hell, once we transer the nation's roadways to the for-profit companies and
make travel on the nation's roadways so expensive that we cannot affort to
drive to *and from work, get our groceries, pick up little Cindy Lou Hoo
from daycare, travel to your doctor's office, or the hospital to have
another child delivered, healthcare reform will appear insignificant in
comparison.

Op

An even better plan than it appears at first glance. Not because it
makes the cost of health care reform appear insignificant by
comparison, but because it moots the issue. Who cares what health
care costs if no one can get to it? Which, if you think about it, is
pretty much the situation tens of millions of Americans are already
in. Spread the pain a bit and everybody's happy!

giles