well personally i fall into the catagory of someone who does not have basic medical coverage. honestly if something major were to happen to me, im screwed..

Same here. It's ridiculous that my, yours and so many others' main method of staying healthy is just not to get sick.

or injured!! XD

although that is true, its just gonna be the next case of "how much" do you regulate.. and those companies are gonna complain that its imfringing on their freedom to do buisness.. i mean, heck, im an insurance salesman, and i know its hard enough to afford healthcare on top of all the other stuff you gotta pay for..

BUT, for those that can afford it, and DO have the means to pay for private coverage, good :D keep what you have :)

all i know is that if you dont have anything (my self and others) then the government is proposing that they make healthcare universal to those that cant afford it. (atleast this is where i left off on the debate a few months ago). it means the doctors and insurance companies take a hit, but i beleive its not gonna be as bad as they say it would be..

well i like that idea too.. but i dont have enough money to actually pay for anything.. :P

i think thats one of the biggest issues here, is that people who dont have healthcare, cant afford it.. :P

wow.. yeah, see.. i mean, THAT sucks too! i mean, i do understand where the insurance company is coming from.. but i swear they make the knockout questions so damn strict! *sigh* it honestly sucks..

oh exactly! pre disposition.. they wont cover you for anything that you have had, or pre disposed to else pay up the ass for that coverage.. and even then you may not even use it! honestly, i have had doctors tell me they dont accept certain coverages, because yes, the insurance takes their sweet ass time getting the money to them! and thats also one of the reason why alot of doctors end up "pushing" medication. all those pharmisutical companies trying to make a buck, end up having doctors make deals with those companies to make money!! in the end, people end up getting reactions to the drugs, and end up dying! so really, everything is so f'd up, and is all about money.. *sigh*

Its still a business. Gotta make money. You don't make money off the people who wish to be covered who are doomed to die long before you can make a profit off them.
If the Dems were really concerned about expanding healthcare to those who can't afford it, why not expand Medicare and change the requirements so those people can get it?

thats another issue i have with the current healthcare system, is how strict everything really is.. i mean, yes, as americans we all try to make a buck... its just those few that go above and beyond and get greedy.

but the strict laws need to atleast be revised if they are really going to go thru with everything.. i honestly believe that if we keep to how we have been, its only going to make things worse as there are more and more people losing jobs and coverage. how can people pay for something they arent even making money for?

Theres quite a bit that can be done. Remove our signature from NAFTA, charge tarrifs on imported goods and boost American industry once more. This will take care of our job problem. Plus, industrial jobs usually always have excellent benefits. My Grandpa was a highly educated accountant. He was a math wizard... He spent his entire life working for Case, building tractors. He made an incredible pay and had full benefits. Then Case announced they were moving their factories to China. He was layed off and forced to work as a truck driver because he was no longer able to get an office job. Few benefits, horrible hours, etc etc.

The insurance companies aren't being greedy. They are trying to survive. Insurance companies have been falling ever since Medicaid came to be. Medicaid sent insurance companies down hill rapidly. Now they struggle to survive. Insurance companies make significant profits because they must maintain a massive deposit should anything happen since their finances aren't set in stone. They would be unable to maintain business if they cannot reject you because you are doomed to die soon anyways.

So ya, best and most permanent solution: Get our factory jobs back. Everything would be taken care of.

i agree alot of our jobs need to be brought back to our own soil. i honestly think they are removing vital organs of the body of america by doing so. keep the money IN the system, and not exporting it! its a hard thing to believe but when we put our minds to something, we can do it! i just really think we have to get those with their heads up their asses to see the bigger picture, and not about how they and their oversea friends are gonna be losing a buck! we have to take care of our own country before we can even START to think of fixing other peoples problems! put an end to the bickering, and just DO something..

It basically says that, because our intuition fails in various ways, the (true) statements that have been made to reassure people about some of the practices of the insurance industry are actually admissions of extreme callousness.

Due to bureaucratic fol-de-rol, a large portion of those paying insurance premiums have filled out some trivial aspect of their paperwork incorrectly. The insurance industry doesn't care about these people, because most of them pay in more than they take out, so ignoring the errors is free money. The thing is, though, if somebody has an expensive condition, then it becomes profitable for the companies to notice small mistakes in the paperwork, and thereby drop the plan.

That's about the meat of the article, but now I wonder... If the plan was 'never valid', then surely the insurance companies should refund the premiums, should they not?

Though in immediate retrospect, that wouldn't actually hurt them too much, simply because they were always going to get out more than they put in. (Indefinite antecedents ahoy!) Or something. My words aren't working too well, but my point is, what I said at the end wouldn't actually work too well.

They can refund the premiums and STILL make a killing here. Because they're getting rid of the only people they actually have to do anything for.

I should start selling tiger attack insurance and then revoke any policies of people attacked by tigers :3

Mifmaf, how do you find such compelling reads?

Having taken a statistics class, I can totally see where the poster is coming from. Math and words don't mix well. And unless you see the process with which a statistical data set is developed... Well... It could mean anything!

If I understand correctly... What this guy is basically saying is that insurance companies make it easy for you to have errors when applying, meaning that they can bail without fault if they feel the customer is getting too risky with their illness. That's cheap and totally rotten.

I don't know that I support the whole proposed national health insurance hoo-haw. I think it's a wonderful idea if done properly, but it's a matter of scale, really. Other nationalized nations are (if I recall correctly, I don't remember all the socialized health care nations by heart) generally smaller in population and pretty much any where other than America has less heart disease and diabetes, so one could contend that they are also more preventative in their health.

It sucks that this is happening to people, especially since they paid their own money. I think the whole situation stinks, but until republicans stop feeling so butt-hurt and stubborn and democrats stop bickering with each other, I'm afraid anything they try to do to resolve the insurance problem will not be enough or, since we're in a recession, at the wrong time.

My two pennies. Quite an awesome find Maf!

I believe a majority of developed nations have nationalized health-care.

The proposal in congress I believe is to institute a state run insurance option at an extremely low cost that can be taken if no other health-care is available. Given the scale of such a policy it would be easy to both subsidize the sickest as well as keep costs down due to its inherent leverage.

Not only did it talk about the errors they use to disqualify people, it also talks about the fact that of the people that have the most need for the insurance 50% are dropped.

When money mixes with health care you have fully surrendered to greed. How much is your arm worth to you?

I believe a majority of developed nations have nationalized health-care.

When you include single-payer systems like Canada's, "majority" means "all but one."

The irony is, single-payer and state systems actually cost _less_ government money than the US already pays for health care.

Yup, in fact when you look at the taxes in the US vs Canada they're actually almost the same. The people in the US just get less benefit from it.

You make a strong argument, and of course no one would ever claim that a human being isn't valuable or has a specific monetary worth.

And I understand a lot of the opposition to the health care plan is caused by conservative scare-mongering.

But there is no denying that this plan is going to get marked up the wazoo with riders and sub-clauses. THAT is what scares me. I highly distrust congress, as I feel their motivations lie less in national interest and more in personal and local interest, with a large side helping of lobbyist "incentives". This thing is going to cost a ton, but you know what? The majority of the cost is going to be pork, mark my word. And now's not the best time for them to be doing that.

I want there to be more options for people, and for the insurance companies to stop being such dicks. But so far I haven't heard any straight-talk on what exactly their plan is. It's "socialized" this and "reformed" that... But I have yet to see any "Ok, here's how we're going to get this done". That's all I want, because at this point it's really more of an ideological fight between pro- and anti- large government groups. And a bunch of fear mongering on both sides.

I seriously have never understood America's issue with nationalised healthcare. I mean the NHS over here in Scotland is now 60 years old, and is so universally loved that no politicians would even think of cutting its funding as they'd be voted out of power in a split second. Even the Conservative Party, our equivalent of the Republicans, have pledged to maintain its funding through the recession!

i think its also some peoples fear that we are gonna become "socialistic", as if it were the worst thing in the world... :\

The problem is that the vast majority of Americans, in general, are fucking stupid and incredibly selfish and shortsighted. Every argument that I've seen against nationalized healthcare has basically been, 'But I have great health insurance! Why should I pay any amount for anybody else to be healthy? They should buy their own!' or 'But then i might have to wait longer, if suddenly everyone is able to get the care they need!'

Rationing healthcare? Old folks left to die? All bullshit. We already have national healthcare, but only if you're over 65 or obscenely poor, yet for some odd reason, the people most against government-option healthcare are the ones currently receiving it. I guess they just want to keep their special privileges.

I actually work in a hospital, and everything that the anti-healthcare nuts are warning will happen.. is already happening. Has been happening, and for a long time. ER waits are upwards of six hours, unless you're complaining of chest pains or came in via ambulance. The reason for this is because so many people without healthcare are forced to treat the ER as their primary care physician, and walk in with the sniffles, or a broken arm that's been healing crooked for the last two weeks, or whatever. Then they either skip on the bill, or are simply unable to pay it. Either way, the hospital is out money, and the already-insured get to pay eighty bucks for a couple aspirin.

Yet I get these neocon idiots trying to tell me how things are so vastly superior to everywhere else in the world. 'We're #1 in cancer treatment!" Yeah.. for as long as the patient can afford treatment, before the insurance company simply dumps them, or they can't get insurance and are forced to die in a horrible and painful manner.

So.. yeah.

i see that exactly too! but seriously, isnt where the government is saying, if you currently have a good healthcare plan, to keep it? i mean, seriously, those that cant afford coverage (like myself) have to worry day after day (esp now with the swine flu) of not getting sick or injured! let the people who can afford it keep what they have, and let us get atleast SOMETHING.. i know its not going to be the SAME coverage as somone who IS paying for it, but its better than whats happening now!..

i swear, some americans can be very very selfish, wanting more more more, and give everyone else, less less less.. i mean thats commericalism.. BUY MORE! save less! but buy more of this, because this could happen to YOUUU.. etc..

and with cancer, frick, most of the healthcare coverage people have only cover a small FRACTION of the cost of cancer! (i should know, i sell cancer policies) everyone thinks that they are safe with their basic medical, that when somone in their immediate family, (or themselves) gets cancer, they have to sell their car, their house, and have to sacrifice sooo much, just to TRY to get better, all the while the medical insurance company sits on their butts, denying left and right coverage you need, just because they dont wanna pay whats due to you, and pay for that new mercedes benz for their spoiled 16 yr old daughter...

anyway, yeah.. *sigh*

Yeah, what I don't understand is that hospitals are donating to the anti-healthcare cause. I would think that hospitals would be all for it.. After all, then people would actually be able to pay their ER bills, complete their treatment, all that fun stuff. This is more money in the healthcare industry's pocket. Unless we're a lot more beholden to the insurance industry than I thought we were, a universal healthcare program can only be good for hospitals. After all, we're already required to treat anybody who shows up in the ER.. might as well make it so their bill actually gets paid.

well some hospitals think that if healthcare was universal, there would be an influx of patients and the staff would be over burdened. also, the private pharmicuitcal companies may lose out on perscription drugs if its government funded/regulated. basically it puts a cap on how much treatment can be covered without stepping into the private sector where its all about making money..and most hospitals are tied into those investors which is again, all about making money..

i also think i heard the excuse a while back "if its not broke, why fix it?" well.. the healthcare system actually IS broken.. just trying to fix it with people trying to stop you makes it hard..

but yes, why not actually have john doe be capable of having his bill paid for? or atleast a vast majority of it?

That's the weird part. Hospital staff are already overburdened. Hell, I'm the only person handling the phones for an entire hospital, for my entire shift. I have to get building maintenance to cover whenever I have to go pee. There's a lot of nurses who don't even have that much. It still is an absurd thought though.. If anything, the burden on hospitals should be lower, while private practices will certainly be in higher demand. But this means more people getting treatment sooner, preventing them from being forced to go to the ER because they've let stuff fester for way too long.

Personally, I still think that's just an incredibly selfish way to think about it, too. 'People should just be sick and die at home, so we don't have to work more/hire more people.' But I guess that just goes back to my original comment. :/

So yeah.. Gr.

This is why humanity sucks. There always has to be something fucked up or underhanded to screw over whatever progress humanity makes. America is too selfish while the rest of the country has to deal with it's shit.

We should all just die and get this shit done and over with. End all the bullshit in one shot because problems will escalate overtime.

Things haven't changed since humanity started minus the technology. everything else remains the same

"Selfish" and "shortsighted" should be used in the cultural aspect, not the individual. Americans have no idea how advanced the rest of the world is at the moment, because they are so damn focused on their own country.

For example, I'm a big supporter of nuclear power, and it shocks me how few people know that nuclear waste can actually be recycled and re-used. That's what the French and Japanese do! If Americans could be persuaded to look at how the rest of the world generates electricity, then they would know that practically everything they know about nuclear energy is completely wrong.

Also, most cars in Europe are diesel powered, and they are amazing. Many Americans still think diesel engines are dirty and unreliable, thanks to the sorry effort made by American auto companies back in the 80's. Thank goodness Subaru decided to try their diesel Legacy in the American market. Initially, they said they wouldn't. The more I research diesel engines, the more I like them. Even sports cars are starting to use them.

But, no... following Sept 11th, most of the international news channels disappeared from the TV. The rest of the world simply does not exist.

I actually work in a hospital, and everything that the anti-healthcare nuts are warning will happen.. is already happening. Has been happening, and for a long time.
Indeed. I wanted to schedule a regular checkup with my GP, and I was told it was a 9 month wait. My sister was charged $40 for two tablets of aspirin when she was in the hospital, and they didn't tell her it would be that much when she asked for them. I've had my fill of doctors telling me, "it should be fine", or, "let's wait and see". I can't imagine anything would get worse with nationalized health care, save for the same backhanded wheeling and dealing that's already persistent in the existing system.

I considered phrasing it that way at first, but there's just way too many people who are individually selfish. 'Why should I help them?' I dunno, maybe because altruism isn't actually a dirty word?

Yeah. The vast majority of the anti-nuclear sentiment is actually from wa back in the 60s/70s, when most of the recycling, safety, and general technology didn't even hold a candle to what we have now. But for whatever reason, people remember that. They can't remember that the economy's been freefalling for four years before Obama even got into office, but dammit, they can remember 'nuclear plants are bad, mm'kay?'

I never really noticed that about diesel, to tell the truth. o.o Every car nut I've ever overheard on the subject would go on wishing that European diesels were actually usable in the US, and something about sulphur levels. I'd have to agree, though. What i've seen, I like.

Yeah. My own GP has a three-week wait, on average, and he polices his patient roster very tightly; nearly all of his patients are hospital staff and their families. But too often, I get stories about... well, exactly what you said. About the only time the ER doesn't charge an arm and a leg for meds is when they're obviously not able to pay and the vendor recently left a crate of samples.

It doesn't help that medicine is more an art than a science, too. The human body is such a cobbled-together kludge of half-functioning organs and miswired bits that it's a wonder we function at all.

"It doesn't help that medicine is more an art than a science, too. The human body is such a cobbled-together kludge of half-functioning organs and miswired bits that it's a wonder we function at all."

This perception is why I don't like western medicine. The idea that you can distill the human body into individual parts and solely target those parts to treat disease is complete garbage. Heck chemotherapy is just a process where poison is put into your body in the hopes that you can survive more of it than your cancer can. The human body is actually an incredibly elegant inter dependent system where each part plays an important part and no organ is superfluous. They never mention the health effects of removing tonsils or the appendix because western medicine believes they're superfluous.

That isn't actually what I meant at all. The human body is full of parts that do jobs that they aren't well-suited for, or only partially formed in a particular direction. For example, I recall reading that our bodies are basically one step away from being able to synthesize vitamin C, but it can't, so we eat fruit. Then there are actually bits that at this point in our evolution, we could frankly do without. Wisdom teeth.

Actually, tonsils and appendix are quite important. Their purpose is mostly to draw infections away from more important body parts. The only time they're ever removed (at least, with a competent physician) is when their continued presence is a greater threat to the person's health than their removal. Ever had your tonsils swell up so much they cut off your breathing? I can tell you, it's not fun. :P

It's just that a lot of symptoms could be any number of things, in any combination, and often it requires context to even guess at what the problem is. Now stuff like broken bones, gunshot wounds, the sniffles.. Yeah, those are pretty easy. But mental disorders.. that's practically voodoo. Every psychologist and psychiatrist I know (and I know a few) are loopy in some way, and they kinda have to be to be able to help people.

Though, with the concept of the body as a modular system.. that isn't complete bunk. Otherwise, organ and tissue transplants wouldn't work at all. Granted, there's a good percentage of issues with organ rejection, but that's the way biology works. One tiny tweak of genetics, and all your work is ruined.

Wisdom teeth are actually not naturally vestigial. Cultures that still eat diets rich in tough meats and vegetables actually develop their wisdom teeth properly.

In Denmark we have healthcare, its pretty nice, then again we do pay around 50 % in taxes.
But that does give us free education and healthcare.

Thanks for sharing this.

-Insurance greatly inflates the cost of health care. Whole big conundrum there.

-If you also want to greatly reduce the cost of health care, remove any access to it for illegal aliens. Or at least require CASH up front.

I'm totally fine with nationalized health care myself... as long as I have the option to opt out. I happen to take Ron Paul's stance on this also: The problem is the highly inflated costs as regulated by insurance companies and the government, not our health care system itself. He's a doctor I'll trust. X3

So my mom and dad have worked their asses off to provide me and my sister a quality of life better than we really needed or deserved.
What seems to be the trend now? Increasing taxes to make the lives of our poor neighbors better.

So let me get this straight...
My mom works 50-55 hours a week.
My dad gets up at 4:00AM to go to work.
Our money goes to the seven kids next door to pay for college because their mother had too many fucking kids!

I mean, I (at one point) had $25,000 debt in student loans. It sure sounds like I didn't have the money for college, but for some reason the government determined that I was too responsible for free college money because my parents made $5,000 too much annually. Yay, for me.
Now %35 of my pay can go to building bombs, roads, AND paying for other people's education, all while I'm still paying for my own.

That really has nothing to do with the whole government healthcare issue but it does kind of shed light on why a lot of people think this socialist shit has to got to go.
It's not because they are just evil old misers. It's because they never got a hand out in their entire life of working their fingers to the bone. Now it makes them sick to their stomach that more of their pie is going to be taken and giving to people who don't want to work a full time job.

I really don't like the corrupt and unethical insurance companies. They can all go get fucked.
However, I cringe when I think of all the moochers and bottom feeders who will come out of the woodwork to take advantage.
The more free things we give to those who don't work, the more people who wont work we will have.
It's like living with your parent your whole life.

I guess I'm just bitter from working at a grocery store.
You see the rediculous shit people pay for with food stamps.
Oh, so you're buying this steak with your foodstamps? The rest in cash?
Oh, so you need all this candy and chips right? You're a full grown man, BUILD SOMETHING!'

People will always learn how to EXPLOIT anything that the government offers.

I guess I'll just go with the flow. I can live off the government after I lose control and punch my work laptop through the wall.

There is no statistical correlation between improved welfare benefits and more people getting on welfare.
Your income tax is not used for military spending (that comes from corporate income taxes) or roads (fuel taxes). The majority of your income tax goes towards repaying interest on the money the government borrows from the fed, which they could skip entirely by printing it themselves.

My pimp hand is a license to print money.

My crew rolls thick

Fair enough, I don't have a firm grasp on where my money goes too.

However the statistics... I'm not whether those will dictate the future.
I mean, people don't GET on welfare. To a degree, living on government aid is more of a lifestyle choice.

Increasing benefits and then counting the people on welfare might not be the best way to look at the issue.
If benefits were more widely available more people in the future might decide to keep a work free life (or getting paid under the table and claiming they have no money). I guess the question is, how/when did they start gathering these statistics. Once the culture accepts that mooching off the government is the smart thing to do (why pay when you can get amoxicillin for free?) more people will do it. Right now it's still frowned upon to be on welfare. Hopefully that doesn't change.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world.....ark-usat_N.htm

People ultimately have a desire to work regardless of social assistance. However when work is completely unrewarded and wages cannot support a person its often seen as a better alternative.

The problem isn't the availability of welfare, it's the greed of employers and businesses. The poorest of the nation are milked for the most money and in the US it's nearly impossible to raise your economic status.

Well yeah, of course greed is the root of all this unpleasantness.

Worker exploitation is the reason we made unions and then greed tore them down again.
I personally like the idea of unions. Are they always executed properly? No.

However, I worked as a cashier through School. The union gave me a decent wage, healthcare, and job security.
Same with my mom, her union is the only reason we still have a home. The post office would love to replace mail carriers with part timers (and they are trying to).

Though, union status can be exploited, I think it's important for laborers to stand together and demand fair compensation for the work that makes the world go round.

Chucklehead: "Unions are pointless, they are totally outdated and we don't need them. They made sense back when there was child labor and shit like that, but not anymore"

Really Chucklehead? You're the one working for $6.50 an our with no healthcare. Sounds like the man in charge is looking out for you, right?

...and as far as milking the poor. My family is right about in that perfect little bracket that has too much money for ANY kind of aid and has too little money to deal with increases to our taxes (plus we live near Chicago where taxes are nuts). Basically, they take any more of our money and we will BECOME poor.

So the question is. If we get taxed into poverty for the sake of the greater good. Will we get out own tax money back as aid? I wonder...

You don't get out much into the real world, do you?

Which real world are you talking about?

The world I live in?
Or the one you live in?

Are you implying that an illegal immigrant lives in the same world as a person of the upper middle class?

I don't see how walking outside might alter my perception.

Wow, you comment was very inspiring. I find myself lost in philosophical thought.

Thanks SimbaB. Tell SimbaA I said 'Hi'

Actually, your comment is kind of incoherent. I can't tell if you're playing the "It's hard out here for a Pimp" card or if you are the last person in America who believes Horatio Alger stories are real. Or something else. It's hard to decode.

I'm guess you still haven't moved out of Mommy and Daddy's place so maybe that explains it.

Thanks SimbaB. Tell SimbaA I said 'Hi'

No one has ever, EVER made fun of my username before. And in that way too!

'Bottom feeders'. Niiiice. Why don't you get out of your fucking subdivision once in a while and see how the rest of us live, you worthless twat.

Wow, you're making a lot of assumptions.

I'm assuming you hail from the bad part of town where you can't afford anything except internet and cell phones.

...and I don't think I was talking about you, unless you immediately associated yourself with food stamp abusers and people who abuse the system by using it as a life style rather than a safety net.

I think you're doing a fine job of trolling up this comment thread.

food stamp abusers and people who abuse the system by using it as a life style rather than a safety net.

Yes, please keep digging that hole by showing yourself to be a classist shitheel. What a cunt you are.

...are you actually implying that these sort of people don't exist.

Even though I'm a white-bread honky I've experienced people who go through exasperating amounts of effort to make sure they get an extra government check in the mail. There are people who INTENTIONALLY try to milk the system for all that it's worth. They aren't all poor black people either so you can stop calling me white-devil.

Once you're used to an extra $1,200 a month you generally don't want to give it up, even after you find work.

So, the next time you want to infer that I'm a racists, classist, fascist, etc.. why don't you get i through your head that I'm just describing my personal observations.

It may be different in your world, but around here we have an abundance of "poor" people who live in section 8 housing and get food stamps who drive around in Escalades with designer clothes on their backs. That's what I'm talking about. People who could afford to live on their own but CHOOSE to receive aid to bring their standard of living ABOVE those who work their asses off.

...and don't say that shit it doesn't happen.

We're off subject. Just drop it, I'm not trying to start another riot.

Once you're used to an extra $1,200 a month you generally don't want to give it up, even after you find work.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

HA.

HA.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You really ARE clueless aren't you?

You obviously aren't here to make any sort of point.

..are you saying 1,200 is too high or something? Try having a few kids and they will bump up your monthly allowance.

I'm done talking to you.

Just go back to your hood with your simba plushy hanging around your neck. You're a real crusader for the real world.

are you saying 1,200 is too high or something? Try having a few kids and they will bump up your monthly allowance.

Yeah, when will those brown people stop having so many kids?

Dude, it's not like you can spend that money on hookers and blow, you know.

Yeah, try having a bunch of kids.

Then $1,200 won't seem like a jackpot.

There's a method to the madness :X

It aint a jackpot obviously, but if you started getting a check for 1,200 in the mail every month you wouldn't complain, would ya?

Hey, I know there are circumstances when aid is warranted and absolutely necessary for the welfare of a child.

I just prefer we try to aim that money directly at the child rather than fling it at their irresponsible parents ("Hello, I had a kid in High School, dropped out, now I can't work because I have to take care of my baby. Oh, and I'm preggo again") to spend on their Go-Phone.

They have WIC checks (at least in IL) that can be used to pay for cereal, baby food, formula (which is damn expensive) and other foods and products that the child needs. That's a great system. The money saved in baby food and formula can go toward rent, car insurance, etc.

They should have a program to get poverty stricken mothers free condoms. A limitless supply.
...and the deadbeat dads who run out on their children should just lose their balls.




I agree with you. That's right, I agree with you.
The world is a fucked up place. I am not trying to see mothers and babies starving to death. However, as more and more government intervention becomes a part of our culture I wonder where the end will be.

It's funny; you said that your parents make only $5,000 over the limit for financial aid in college. So you're not exactly rolling in dough, yet you seem to possess unbounded racially-tinged hatred for the poors. Interesting, that.

I'll tell you a little bit about myself: I am independent of my parents (who made well over the limit for financial aid when I was your age) and I am attending college on a Pell Grant and state aid for free. I already have an associate's degree and in three years I will have my master's degree. After I go to work I hope that I can support myself and my partner, who will quit his job and go back to school, or do whatever he wants.

When I have made my fortune, I will gladly pay taxes on that money to help people do the same as I did. I will also send a note to the IRS with my tax returns, asking that you be taxed at the top-bracket marginal tax rate from the 1950s--90 percent. Then I will ask that this money specifically be allocated for an unemployed black woman who drives an Escalade, has an aspiring rapper boyfriend who is not the father of her nine children, and needs a little government scratch to support her crack cocaine habit.

It's only racially tinged because you see it as that.
...and for the last damn time I'm not ripping on POOR people. I'm talking about assholes who EXPLOIT the system.
Stop putting words in my mouth. That is... unless Escalade is a racial slur now.

Hey! Y'know by the time you and your mate graduate, I'll still be paying off student loans for a bachelors AND paying taxes.
Hm, maybe if I would have represented myself as being totally without other options I could have gotten a free education. Of course, it wouldn't have been the truth.

I wholeheartedly support you engaging in fraud. Maybe you can be in jail then, where you won't have the ability to embarrass yourself.

Why, oh WHY, won't those black^Wpoor people act white^Wlike us rich folk?

There you go again, tossing away a perfectly good discussion by acting like a 13 year old.

"when I was your age"

Since you are referring to your parent financial status back when you were my age. I assume you are now older than me.

"I am attending college on a Pell Grant and state aid for free"

Why is it that a full grown man can't PAY for the education you WANT? You can't work a job and get a loan like so many other people? Or do you just not feel like paying your way?

Your example doesn't really explain, at all, why you shouldn't have to support yourself.

Or do you just not feel like paying your way?

OH MY GOD SOME WANKER ON THE INTERNET FIGURED ME OUT. What am I going to do?

Guess I'll just have to pull up my bootstraps and suck it up like a MAN!

But YES. Let's get back on topic because that's clearly in your best interest, Mr. Bitter-From-The-Grocery-Store.

You are bitching about taxes and invoking racial and class stereotypes, even though, as you yourself noted, your parents don't exactly rake in the dough. So, as you are no doubt aware, under this Brave New World your taxes would DROP. So you are in effect sucking the dicks of the people whose taxes would rise, who can more than afford a THREE PERCENT INCREASE on income past the $250,000 mark.

Good work! Use that college education! Because you have to justify being raped by a bank for interest SOMEHOW....

Ok, so pell grants are intended to help those who can't otherwise afford an education get ahead.

Or in this case they give an education to a full grown man who is perfectly capable of taking care of himself.

I guess I know why you got so defensive. If you actually had to pay for the things you wanted you might have to work.

You are so very proud for a moocher.

Is the government going to finish paying off your mortgage too?

Oh, and it's not up to you to decide how much money rich people have to give. It's their money. Then again, you're all about charity and giving. That is, because you're on the receiving end of it.

Any man with dignity can see that you're just a sponge.

I'd give tax money to 1,000 crack head mothers before I gave a cent to you.

Oh, and I'll try to keep in mind that being on welfare is now a racial stereotype.
I guess that says a lot toward all your real world experience.

Ok, so pell grants are intended to help those who can't otherwise afford an education get ahead.

Hey, it actually knows something!

Or in this case they give an education to a full grown man who is perfectly capable of taking care of himself.

Because all full grown men are capable of paying for college educations. Which is why you took out student loans to pay for yours.

I guess I know why you got so defensive. If you actually had to pay for the things you wanted you might have to work.

Yeah! Because I'm unemployed, and you know this because your ass told you so.

Oh, and it's not up to you to decide how much money rich people have to give. It's their money. Then again, you're all about charity and giving. That is, because you're on the receiving end of it.

It's kind of cute to watch lower middle class types like you so viciously defend the superrich, because you think that one day you could be one of them. Mentally, you think you already are. Yet, reality says you never will be, yet those same wealthy folk will gladly take your charity in the form of a reliable voting bloc that consistently votes against it's own interests.

But you're not a poor or on welfare or anything, so you are automatically better. Than somebody, thank heavens.

Oh, and I'll try to keep in mind that being on welfare is now a racial stereotype.
I guess that says a lot toward all your real world experience.

No one who claims they are "bitter from working in a grocery store" and says the multitude of other stupid and clueless things you've said has ANY room to talk about "real world experience".

Sorry, hun, life isn't like Meadowbrook Estates for the vast majority of us. I know mommy and daddy have sheltered you, but that can't stop the rest of us from laughing at your sorry clueless ass.

You're getting to be a real clown.

I'm not middle class you asshat. My dad is a mechanic. My mom delivers mail.
Everything I was given in life came from their blood, sweat, and tears.

I didn't grow up in a damn subdivision. Of course I didn't grow up in the super-hard ghetto zone like you with parents "who made well over the limit for financial aid when I was your age". So where are you from anyway?

Why does paying my student loans and my car payment make me sheltered?

Yes, adults who work are expected to pay for what they want. Whether it's an education, or a car, or a house. Only children think they get things just because they want them.

I also fail to see what working at a grocery store in highschool has to do with anything. They have those in the ghetto too. Find something more substantial to rant about.

You have any brilliant points to make about why everyone else owes you a masters degree?

And since you don't know when you've been beaten, pwned, and raped over and over again, I'm going to offer you a deal: Hit me with your best shot, and rest assured I won't respond. But when you do, I want you think about how you have dug yourself a massive hole in the ground, and you are so thick that you think it's your own asshole, and that you'd better get your head further up it.

It's the Internet flamewar equivalent of a pity fuck.

Enjoy!

I'm done playing your game.

Go back to 4chan.

I'll mail you a few more bucks for snacks.

Give your boyfriend a poverty fuck for me!

Sorry to fuck up your journal Mif.

Bye

It may be different in your world, but around here we have an abundance of "poor" people who live in section 8 housing and get food stamps who drive around in Escalades with designer clothes on their backs. That's what I'm talking about. People who could afford to live on their own but CHOOSE to receive aid to bring their standard of living ABOVE those who work their asses off.

Oh come on, just say the damn N word. You know you want to.

I guess I'm just bitter from working at a grocery store.

I lol'd. If you are a troll, then well played sir, that's genius.

Otherwise you might be the most unaware stereotype of suburban white bread I've ever seen.

Either way, shit like that is pure gold.

Why because I worked at a grocery store during college?

Is that a white thing to do?

No, actually. I have been thinking about this line. It's genius, it really is.

I'm thinking you could rap about this. "I'm just bitter from working in a grocery store." I can just hear the rap beat behind that.

You could be like this guy: http://www.boston.com/ae/sidekick/b.....vanillaice.jpg

http://www.youaredumb.net/archive/all/2009/7/30

This is my personal favorite on the subject of why the system is hopelessly broken as it stands.

I agree with this 100%

I also agree that even with every single negative argument presented by those that oppose the idea, it's still better than what people currently have.

ouch

I strongly support socialised health care, but even in Canada, where "FREE HEALTH" is touted everywhere, it's not what most private-pay healthcare patients would assume it to be.

Yes. We have free doctors' visits. However, barring the same sort of employer-based health care system, we do not get things like vision or dental coverage. Prescriptions are paid out of pocket. A lot of surgeries are considered optional unless they are conclusively terminal.... meaning some things are left too late, if the doctors aren't watching closely enough.

Translation: Socialised health care is not going to up your taxes 9001% percent. You may still have some problems that will be a long-term financial burden (IE, diabetes means you're paying for your insulin for life.) However, you won't drop dead because you can't afford to have (for instance) your necrotized leg debrided before it infects your vital organs.

Could it be better? Depends. At what point does the expense balance against the quality of life increase?

exactly as i pointed out before, its not going to be anything like private coverage.. but atleast its SOMETHING... i mean, if i got into a car accident and needed treatment, i would have to pay for EVERYTHING... atleast get coverage for SOMETHING.. rather than nothing at all which its currently the case.. ><

Exactly. Because that's the sort of thing that's responsible... certainly not the person's fault. Should be covered - in not in full, at least in large proportion; though conversely, full coverage for methedone recovery programs is a slap in the face to responsible tax-paying adults having to support people that pissed away half their lives and went "crap, now I retire in ten years and have no money."

If I understand what's happened in Canadian politics in the last two or three decades, it's that you suffered much of the same damage that Britain did under Thatcher and the U.S. did under Reagan, and that the public healthcare system in Canada has been greatly reduced by conservative politicians much in the same way the Republicans have had success with antitax rhetoric in the U.S.

To a strong degree, yes. Do a bit of research on Mike Harris if you're interested in details; but gradually, things are being added back on.

Much of the stated problems in the US healthcare system could be mitigated by some fairly simple measures:

1) No more individual states dicking around with with requirements that policies be this way or that way and something that's good for State A is illegal in State B. If you can get a policy in one state, you should get it in any other state. Furthermore, if you move to a different state, nothing should change on your policy except your address and phone number.

2) Allow heath expenses to be deducted from your taxes. This is particularly important for people who have to get their health coverage on their own. Employers are allowed to write off insurance benefits, but if you buy it yourself, you can't do the same thing. Why?

3) Encourage the use of medical savings accounts; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medica.....nited_States). With a regular health insurance policy, you pay a lot of money into a pool that is tapped fairly often (doctor visit, medication, etc). What happens to that money if you don't incur as much as you put in? Nothing. You just spent it on a bet and lost. A medical savings account is sort of like that except that the money you put into it remains YOUR MONEY. Don't use it all in a given year? No problem, it rolls over to next year. Suppose you die and there's money in the account, it goes to your heirs. Now, then, what do you do if you come down with something expensive to treat? That's what high-deductable insurance plans are for. If you come down with something that your MSA can't handle, such a plan will pick up where your MSA leaves off. Because expensive problems are rare, insurance against them is correspondingly cheap. Low or no deductable plans are expensive precisely because they get tapped so often.

4) Forbid insurance companies and government from getting into the doctor-patient relationship. Bureaucrats, both governmental and not, have no business deciding whether someone gets morphine because it's more cost-effective than the latest anti-cancer drug. A benefit of number three above is that NOBODY controls how your doctor is paid but you. You have a card that taps your MSA and that's that. No insurance twerp who's not a doctor will be second-guessing your doctor. Furthermore, that makes for much less paperwork, particularly for routine stuff.

5) Sever the relationship between employer and medical coverage. This started as a sly way around wage controls, but now it serves as a shackle to keep people working at a place, not because the pay and/or atmosphere is good, but because of fear of losing access to medical care.

I'm not sure on how to deal with the problem of not covering pre-existing conditions. At the very least, following the first four of these suggestions would do a lot to help. They're very simple and easy to understand. Number five would need something else to account for the indigent. Tax writeoffs could effectively mean that ANYONE can instantly afford medical coverage. We don't need to junk the entire system.

Ugh.. Just type in "medical savings account" at http://en.wikipedia.org/. Furaffinity's URL highlighting code botched things up there.