Will Soldiers Have to Use Private Ins?
Maybe someone else has posted this, but it was news to us here at the hospital. Ya'll, this is just wrong.
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is considering making veterans use private insurance to pay for treatment of combat and service-related injuries.
The plan would be an about-face on what veterans believe is a longstanding pledge to pay for health care costs that result from their military service.
But in a White House meeting Monday, veterans groups apparently failed to persuade President Barack Obama to take the plan off the table.
I saw a long story about it somewhere yesterday and then an interview on, I believe CNN. Obama met with 11 guys from a bunch of different Veterans groups. There was some privatized 3rd party plan he ad that would save 500 million .... It looks like Obama is gonna drop this idea pretty quick. He got slammed by all 11 groups and apparently the D's he floated it to as well.
We'll see.
Yeah. That's just wrong. Whether or not you agree with whatever war we're in at the time, the men and women who give their all should have war injuries etc. taken care of. It's part of the cost of making war.
I could see it as part of a plan to have everyone in the country covered by medical insurance, with the advantage that vets would have a choice to go somewhere besides the VA hospital. Other than that, no.
I don't know any of the details of this, so am just commenting with no facts, but if he was floating a plan to privatize the medical care, but still pay for it with taxpayer money, then I don't see any problem with that. If you can keep or improve the care, and save money, it's all good.
The
American Legion is pissed.
EVERY veterans organization is pissed.
All the same organizations that were previoulsy bitching about the current system are now bitching that it's being changed. Right?
Looking at Jinx's link, it looks like it would actually be the worst of both worlds: the soldiers would still get treated at the VA, but then their insurance would be required to reimburse the VA for any services. On the one hand, I guess I can understand the idea that these people have private insurance anyway, so why not save some taxpayer money... but it certainly shouldn't operate under the same rules for deductibles, maximum benefit limits, etc.
LEAD BALLOON ALERT
This will not fly.
Will Soldiers Have to Use Private Ins?
Only until he is promoted. After that, I guess they will have to use Private Parts.
I could see it as part of a plan to have everyone in the country covered by medical insurance, with the advantage that vets would have a choice to go somewhere besides the VA hospital. Other than that, no.
Yes, or I could see it as soldiers needing care, and being refused because of some reason the insurer pulls out of their ass.
Vets, and everyone, should be allowed to go to whatever doctor they want, and get the care they need. We reeeeally need to get rid of insurance companies and have a single-payer system like most other countries. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies just make costs higher and they really don't provide the coverage a lot of people think they do. Let doctors get back to caring for people, like they want to and like they should. There are too many rules with insurance companies. They are too corrupt and only care about making money. Frankly, I was disturbed when I heard Obama was meeting with all those indusrty people to help reform health care. Why let the foxes gaurd the henhouse?
In addition, I think we need to something about frivolous lawsuits without hindering the need to hold people accountable when they really do harm. I think they should put cameras in all operating rooms, for the purpose of determining if there is fault when people try to sue surgeons. Sometimes shit just happens and people die. Sometimes, a doctor makes a serious mistake. If there were cameras, the hospital could make a generous offer to the patient and maybe deter a lawsuit, and bad doctors could be stopped from practicing medicine and fucking it up for good doctors.
I remember Mike Yon saying the Brits in Iraq hoped for a head wound, if they were wounded. I seems wounded Brits were evacuated home and put into the national health system, but if it was a head wound they were sent to the American hospital in Germany.
We reeeeally need to get rid of insurance companies and have a single-payer system like most other countries.
sar/ Great idea! - We could have one really large company handle it - That way they'll be too big to fail. /casm
Frankly, I was disturbed when I heard Obama was meeting with all those (indusrty) people to help reform health care. Why let the foxes (gaurd) the henhouse?
I think its great that he TALKED to them. Who the heck else is he supposed to talk to about it? He is relatively inexperienced - remember. I applaud that he is trying to learn first and then act.
Who would you like him to speak with, sugarpop?
I imagine she would like him to speak with her.
I imagine she would like him to speak with her.
Too bad - it's just not in the stars. :rolleyes:
Bad mood. Looks like to me some of posters don't have any dog in the hunt. Other than the lowly job of tax payer.
Today I got a letter from VA telling me that they no longer perform elective GI procedures due to a shortage of GI physicians. Hey I didn't ask for this test, my Dr. did. I'm not real interested in them using the light that came from someones butt.( other news post). But they're going to farm this test out to Humana. So is this a test of health care at VA? Maybe my test will be in Wheeling, WVA.
While I'm on this horse. The VA hospitals are teaching hospitals. When the intern class graduates it leaves a hole, which isn't filled till next class. See what I call a real Dr.? Good luck. Can you say Guinea pig?
Buster - while I am not personally involved, I am VERY interested in whats going on with this. I was just doing some research and it appears that the meeting yesterday was successful for the Vet organizations. The plan has reportedly been shelved.
The only link I can find is
here
President Obama, after an uproar by veterans groups, has scrapped a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service.
"In considering the third-party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday in a written statement. "However, the president listened to concerns raised by the [veteran service organizations] that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans' and their families' ability to access health care.
"Therefore, the president has instructed that its consideration be dropped," Gibbs said.
Class. Only trouble for me I see, down the road, is WW11 vets are dieing around 1k a day. So someone is going to call for a budget cut.
I'm wondering why, Humana? I see campaign donations.
I don't know any of the details of this, so am just commenting with no facts, but if he was floating a plan to privatize the medical care, but still pay for it with taxpayer money, then I don't see any problem with that. If you can keep or improve the care, and save money, it's all good.
The government saves money. All private insurance has caps and deductables. That would be the rub.
I think its great that he TALKED to them. Who the heck else is he supposed to talk to about it? He is relatively inexperienced - remember. I applaud that he is trying to learn first and then act.
Who would you like him to speak with, sugarpop?
You're right. I just don't want them to change HIS image of what he wants to do, and get
their agenda enacted instead of what's best for the country and the people. I don't want it to end up like Cheney meeting with ernergy people to write energy law. ya know what I mean? Of course, Obama ain't Cheney... :D
And most VET organizations didn't want it either. Right?
I imagine she would like him to speak with her.
Don't be hatin'
He is no Dick and thats certainly a good thing. What happens after he talks to them... Thats why you voted for him, you gotta trust that he'll do whats best.
I know. And I do. I just also know what happens to most politicians once they're in office. He will have to compromise to get it passed. I just hope he doesn't compromise the wrong parts.
They came up with an idea, threw it out there, listened to the people who would be affected as to the reasons why they felt it was unfair, and decided it was a bad idea. Isn't that the way it should work?
Plus, it has the amusing benefit of getting Republicans to cry out in support of socialized medicine.
Plus, it has the amusing benefit of getting Republicans to cry out in support of socialized medicine.
Nice try. They are treated as separate groups. There is no way you can equate the contract soldiers make to the US government to the masses of non-soldiers requiring health care.
They came up with an idea, threw it out there, listened to the people who would be affected as to the reasons why they felt it was unfair, and decided it was a bad idea. Isn't that the way it should work?
Absolutely Yes- This was a huge plus for Obama. He did EXACTLY as he should have. I hope it doesn't get buried with all the other crap thats out there right now.
There is no way you can equate the contract soldiers make to the US government to the masses of non-soldiers requiring health care.
I didn't. I just thought it was amusing that the Republicans thought that a move making a socialized medical plan more like the plan the rest of us have would be a bad thing for the veterans.
I mean, it obviously would be, but it's fun to see the Republicans admit it.
I didn't. I just thought it was amusing that the Republicans thought that a move making a socialized medical plan more like the plan the rest of us have would be a bad thing for the veterans.
I mean, it obviously would be, but it's fun to see the Republicans admit it.
You can't compare apples and oranges. Soldiers do something for their health insurance. The rest do not.
They do something to get it, and their reward is socialized medicine. Government-run medicine is a reward. Having to use private insurance and pay deductibles would be a diminishment of their reward.
It's fun to see Republicans touting government-run healthcare as a reward.
They do something to get it, and their reward is socialized medicine. Government-run medicine is a reward. Having to use private insurance and pay deductibles would be a diminishment of their reward.
It's fun to see Republicans touting government-run healthcare as a reward.
It is not a reward. It is a contractual relationship. It is funny to watch people try to compare groups who do nothing and expect the goverment to give them free handouts to people who have a contract to give their life away for periods of years and say they are somehow the same.
They do something to get it, and their reward is socialized medicine. Government-run medicine is a reward. Having to use private insurance and pay deductibles would be a diminishment of their reward.
It's fun to see Republicans touting government-run healthcare as a reward.
:D
Hmmm, I view the VA in the same way I see my dad's insurance plan. He retired from a company where he had a contract (UAW negotiated). Part of that contract was insurance for life paid for by the company he entered the contract with.
Military members have an enlistment contract that provides for medical care for life (with limitations) provided by the employers they entered into the contract with.
I don't see the socialized medicine angle.
It is not a reward. It is a contractual relationship.
Is it? Is the VA actually in the contract, or is it legislatively mandated that veterans get in the VA? I don't know, but either way the distinction isn't particularly relevant. I wasn't using "reward" in a sense that is incompatible with a contractual relationship; I was using it in the sense of being a good thing provided in return for another good thing, which certainly can apply to a contract.
What I am drawing attention to is that this has forced the Republicans to tout socialized medicine as a good thing. Instead of saying how bad socialized medicine is, they have to say that the rest of us don't deserve it.
Hmmm, I view the VA in the same way I see my dad's insurance plan. He retired from a company where he had a contract (UAW negotiated). Part of that contract was insurance for life paid for by the company he entered the contract with.
Another thing the Republicans love to attack - paying for retired workers? We have to renegotiate those contracts to save the car companies!
Military members have an enlistment contract that provides for medical care for life (with limitations) provided by the employers they entered into the contract with.
I don't see the socialized medicine angle.
Not only is it paid for by the government, it is also administrated by the government, and not run through private insurers. I don't know the specifics of your dad's UAW deal, but I would guess they paid premiums on your dad's behalf to a private insurer.
but but The thing what you said was wrong, BECAUSE!
Another thing the Republicans love to attack - paying for retired workers? We have to renegotiate those contracts to save the car companies!
I'm not sure on your angle there. He worked for a farm implement company and they did renogiate their contracts repeatedly. The benefits were significantly less than what the original agreements allowed for but at least now they actually can expect to get what they've agreed upon indefinitely.
Not only is it paid for by the government, it is also administrated by the government, and not run through private insurers. I don't know the specifics of your dad's UAW deal, but I would guess they paid premiums on your dad's behalf to a private insurer.
Fair point but I don't really see the relevance. I've worked for companies that had large group plans that were serviced by a name brand insurance company even though the company self insured 100% of the payouts. How is that any different than this employer (military/government) deciding they can self insure for less than they would have to pay another organization?
All insurance by nature is a form of socialized medicine in that we pay a fee to a company to spread the risk over greater numbers so the obligation isn't too great for any one individual. I believe that is different than the single payer government run medical system some seem to want.
How is that any different than this employer (military/government) deciding
they can self insure for less than they would have to pay another organization?
Because SOCIALIZED MEDICINE is BAD!!! Didn't you hear? The government can't do anything right! lol
I know you're joking because... well you're Flint, but there are two very good points in your post.
1) socialized medicine is bad. It isn't bad. Good and bad are subjective labels thrown at things we either like or don't like. I don't like it because I don't believe it is consistent with the focus on the individual that our country was founded on. That's just my opinion. Socialized medicine has some excellent points and under different circumstances I would support it. It would have to operate in a vaccuum free from personal agendas and political maneuvering, and the other important part takes us into your second important point.
2) The government can't do anything right! While a truism it isn't really the truth. The government can't do anything efficiently - and sometimes that is right. When we are making international agreements I don't want a quick efficient process with too much opportunity for mistakes and misunderstandings. As frustrating as it is, the slow, seemingly unproductive nature of international interaction is useful in that each government has time to choose words and positions carefully with plenty of opportunities to clarify and reclarify until they reach a point where noone is really happy, but each can live with the agreement.
Things like the military, legal system, and currency are areas which ONLY a government can do right.
It is in every other area that the government falters. While intentions may be good the tendency to build up personal empires for the sake of personal power is what makes the government horribly inefficient at most tasks they take as their own. It isn't the idea but the execution that is flawed usually.
What I am drawing attention to is that this has forced the Republicans to tout socialized medicine as a good thing. Instead of saying how bad socialized medicine is, they have to say that the rest of us don't deserve it.
Well what I am drawing attention to is that health care received by soldiers is not socialized medicine. Where socialized medicine that the Republickins bitch about is provided by government to anyone, because they breath. Not because they have a contractual relationship, like soldiers, but because they don't have to do anything to get it and in many cases pay nothing into the system who gives it to them. Apples and oranges. No comparison.
I'm not sure on your angle there. He worked for a farm implement company and they did renogiate their contracts repeatedly. The benefits were significantly less than what the original agreements allowed for but at least now they actually can expect to get what they've agreed upon indefinitely.
Or until the next of the repeated renegotiations. I was referencing the common thread of anti-union rhetoric complaining about the cost of retired workers.
Fair point but I don't really see the relevance. I've worked for companies that had large group plans that were serviced by a name brand insurance company even though the company self insured 100% of the payouts. How is that any different than this employer (military/government) deciding they can self insure for less than they would have to pay another organization?
They also run their own hospitals.
All insurance by nature is a form of socialized medicine in that we pay a fee to a company to spread the risk over greater numbers so the obligation isn't too great for any one individual. I believe that is different than the single payer government run medical system some seem to want.
Well, that description in particular is exactly what a single payer government run system would involve, minus the company, though there would be other differences.
But either way, my point is that there is, in the United States, a government funded, administered, and operated medical plan that is good enough and well enough run that a hue and cry is raised over the idea that veterans would have to instead use a private plan that they are
already covered under.
Any arguments against the single payer plan will have to come from somewhere other than competence. There are any number of other arguments against it, but we do know that the government can do it.
the idea that veterans would have to instead use a private plan that they are already covered under.
in all honesty I don't know too many vets who would go to the VA if they had any other option. BusterB's experiences are but a sliver of some of the stories to trickle out of the joint.
You can't compare apples and oranges.
Apples and oranges. No comparison.
Apples and oranges: a comparison.
Like I said, you have to go with "everyone else doesn't deserve it", rather than "the Government can't do it well".
But either way, my point is that there is, in the United States, a government funded, administered, and operated medical plan that is good enough and well enough run that a hue and cry is raised over the idea that veterans would have to instead use a private plan that they are already covered under.
That would be a change in the contract. Soldiers don't have to pay co-pays for care given in the service hospitals or VA's. Retired people pay for Tricare Prime if they want it, a one time fee of $450 for a family. Tricare Standard requires no payment but services are significantly reduced.
Movement to a civilian system of insurance would put them in a pool with everyone else unless the government would pay the fees and costs with no caps, unlikely, and it would subject them to someone who is often not trained to reject care they would otherwise be eligible for in the current system.
Like I said, you have to go with "everyone else doesn't deserve it"...
It's a tough world out there. I don't have the answer or solution to the larger problem. Becareful what you wish for.
Movement to a civilian system of insurance would put them in a pool with everyone else unless the government would pay the fees and costs with no caps, unlikely, and it would subject them to someone who is often not trained to reject care they would otherwise be eligible for in the current system.
Worse than that- it would subject them to someone who
is trained to reject care they would otherwise be eligible for in the current system.
Worse than that- it would subject them to someone who is trained to reject care they would otherwise be eligible for in the current system.
SO we agree to disagree. Those people lack the skills to reject care. They do it on a cost basis only.
oh my semantics alert just went off
They came up with an idea, threw it out there, listened to the people who would be affected as to the reasons why they felt it was unfair, and decided it was a bad idea. Isn't that the way it should work?
yepparoo.
Nice try. They are treated as separate groups. There is no way you can equate the contract soldiers make to the US government to the masses of non-soldiers requiring health care.
Here's the rub, EVERYONE should get EQUAL care and benefits, IMO. I know some veteran's hospitals are way underfunded, my roommate in LA used to work at the VA hospital there. I think it's atrocious the way vets have been treated in this country with regard to their care after they've gone and fought and put their lives on the line. In some cases, the government completely denies there is anything wrong with them (Gulf War Syndrome). They
should have the
exact same care the president gets. And I believe everyone in this country should have access to that same care. But that's just me...
And I believe everyone in this country should have access to that same care. But that's just me...
Well in a perfect world that would be the case. In ours it is not.
It is not a reward. It is a contractual relationship. It is funny to watch people try to compare groups who do nothing and expect the goverment to give them free handouts to people who have a contract to give their life away for periods of years and say they are somehow the same.
Sorry, but a lot of people who don't have health insurance work their ASSES OFF for increasingly diminished pay, and they
pay taxes, in many cases paying MORE TAXES than rich people. Socialized health care is NOT FREE. It's paid for with taxes. I'm sick of people like you claiming somehow people who pay taxes don't deserve health care because it would be free, when it wouldn't be.
Sorry, but a lot of people who don't have health insurance work their ASSES OFF for increasingly diminished pay, and they pay taxes, in many cases paying MORE TAXES than rich people. Socialized health care is NOT FREE. It's paid for with taxes. I'm sick of people like you claiming somehow people who pay taxes don't deserve health care because it would be free, when it wouldn't be.
Sure it would be free to many if not most who would get it, esp under the Obama plan, from what we can see. The taxes are federal income taxes and those are not paid for by the lower end of the earning spectrum. We have been through this before. Don't confuse taxes you pay for stuff you buy or services you receive and federal income taxes. Federal taxes do not come from stuff you buy. We are talking about a federal program of health care. Just because you work your ass off for McDonalds does not promise you get anything.
I know you're joking because... well you're Flint, but there are two very good points in your post.
1) socialized medicine is bad. It isn't bad. Good and bad are subjective labels thrown at things we either like or don't like. I don't like it because I don't believe it is consistent with the focus on the individual that our country was founded on. That's just my opinion. Socialized medicine has some excellent points and under different circumstances I would support it. It would have to operate in a vaccuum free from personal agendas and political maneuvering, and the other important part takes us into your second important point.
I would just like to make the point that many people pay for insurance, but when they get sick, they are denied coverage. So private insurance ain't all that either, sometimes. The thing that would actually be GOOD about socialized medicine, is that it wouldn't be about profit. That would reduce a TON of waste, and leave more for the actual practicing of medicine.
2) The government can't do anything right! While a truism it isn't really the truth. The government can't do anything efficiently - and sometimes that is right. When we are making international agreements I don't want a quick efficient process with too much opportunity for mistakes and misunderstandings. As frustrating as it is, the slow, seemingly unproductive nature of international interaction is useful in that each government has time to choose words and positions carefully with plenty of opportunities to clarify and reclarify until they reach a point where noone is really happy, but each can live with the agreement.
Things like the military, legal system, and currency are areas which ONLY a government can do right.
It is in every other area that the government falters. While intentions may be good the tendency to build up personal empires for the sake of personal power is what makes the government horribly inefficient at most tasks they take as their own. It isn't the idea but the execution that is flawed usually.
You may be right about international contracts, but as far as the government being inefficient, I don't completely agree with that. The Post Office works pretty damn well. Some state colleges are very good, better than private ones. Some public schools are very good, others, not so much. So the system needs to be revised, but it is not completely bad and inefficient. (and I realize you didn't say it was.)
Honestly, I don't know why people pick on the government so much. I wonder how things would run if we had NO government. I don't think privitization of everything is good, because there is always greed involved, and that is never good for the people as a whole. the whole problem with health care right now is beause of the greed and corruption of insurance companies.
Well what I am drawing attention to is that health care received by soldiers is not socialized medicine. Where socialized medicine that the Republickins bitch about is provided by government to anyone, because they breath. Not because they have a contractual relationship, like soldiers, but because they don't have to do anything to get it and in many cases pay nothing into the system who gives it to them. Apples and oranges. No comparison.
If it is run by the government and financed with taxes, it is socialized.
The thing that would actually be GOOD about socialized medicine, is that it wouldn't be about profit. That would reduce a TON of waste, and leave more for the actual practicing of medicine.
You are completely misinformed. Read some of this.
http://www.derbygripe.co.uk/nhs.htmIf it is run by the government and financed with taxes, it is socialized.
Wrong. It is socialized if it is available to everyone regardless of how rich or poor they are.
Wrong. It is socialized if it is available to everyone regardless of how rich or poor they are.
We will have to agree to disagree on that. You know where I stand. Right now we have socialist corporatism, not capitalism. Corporations get bailed out and are subsidized by the government, and they get to keep the profits. In many cases, their employees are on state funded medicaid programs because they get no insurance from their employers, even though they get government money, and they make hundreds of millions, sometimes billions, of dollars. I'm fucking sick of it. The system we have is B-R-O-K-E-N. We need to FIX it. Corporations are to greedy and corrupt to be trusted. The only system left is the government. Sad as that is.
Here's the rub, EVERYONE should get EQUAL care and benefits, IMO.
Why? If I can afford it and feel it is worth it, why shouldn't I be able to pay for better or more extensive care? I have had a catastrophic coverage plan for quite awhile because on the whole that is the best balance for my family. A guy I know has the full boat plan through the same company. He feels it is worth the extra expense. We each get what we pay for. I kind of like that.
in many cases paying MORE TAXES than rich people.
BS. People who work their asses off and still don't have healthcare are typically not earning enough to pay
ANY taxes so you can take that myth off the plate.
Socialized health care is NOT FREE. It's paid for with taxes.
Nope, it isn't free. It would entail some pretty hefty taxes. Those taxes would have to be paid by someone, certainly not the lower income earners who we certainly don't want to raise taxes for. That means going back to the well of the people who already pay the majority of the taxes for yet another benefit that actually doesn't benefit them in any way. So while the program wouldn't be free, it would be free to the people who actually want it.
I would just like to make the point that many people pay for insurance, but when they get sick, they are denied coverage. So private insurance ain't all that either, sometimes.
Which is no different than any of the government run programs currently in place. That's life, aribitrary lines are drawn because they have to be drawn somewhere. That means someone will inevitably be just on the other side of the line and feel slighted.
The thing that would actually be GOOD about socialized medicine, is that it wouldn't be about profit. That would reduce a TON of waste, and leave more for the actual practicing of medicine.
While there is a lot of waste in the world of medicine, let me just ask this: which organization is more likely to run cost efficiently, one who has no concern over costs and profits or one who is trying to get the job done and turn a profit?
Corporations are to greedy and corrupt to be trusted. The only system left is the government. Sad as that is.
So you are assuming the government isn't motivated by greed?
snip~ Nope, it isn't free. It would entail some pretty hefty taxes. Those taxes would have to be paid by someone, certainly not the lower income earners who we certainly don't want to raise taxes for. ~snip
But, but, with better health care these workers would work harder,
making more money for their employers,
who would in the spirit of appreciation would pay those workers more money,
so the government would collect more taxes,
making the health care costs moot.
:lol2:
To me, universal health care means affordable and accessible to all.....not free or government run (socialized).
And from what I have read, the Obama plan, at least in the short term, is based on that concept.....there is little to suggest that it means "socialzed health care for all."
Persons currently covered through an employer-based plan (the vast majority of those with health insurance now) could continue with their current plan, where many have a choice of coverage at varying costs. Employers would receive tax incentives to lower or stabilize the cost of the employees share.
Not socialized.
Small businesses would be encouraged to create health pools through regulatory relief and tax incentives and then offer their employees a choice of coverage at varying costs similar to the federal government employees plan.
Again, not socialized....but a choice of private providers through a centrally managed program that might be government administered.
To the comment that "people who work their asses off and still don't have healthcare are typically not earning enough to pay ANY taxes" is just incorrect, IMO.
There are millions of working people paying taxes and just not able to afford health insurance....primarily because they work for small businesses who dont offer insurance and have to purchase health insurance on the open market and can expect to pay at least $12-15,000/yr for the most basic family coverage.
Which was why the SCHIP program was expanded by Obama this year (after being vetoed twice by Bush) to cover 4 million more children of working families making up to more than twice the poverty level threshold. Many (most) of these workers certainly pay taxes.
That leaves, the unemployed and the option here is Medicaid, not the best option but better than none, IMO.
Bingo....universal coverage - accessible and more affordable...not free or socialized.
Soldiers don't have to pay co-pays for care given in the service hospitals or VA's
I'm non-service connected for my health care at VA. I get too much money to receive travel pay for trips to VA So I pay 8 bucks per 30 days of meds, just don't let some asshole give you aspirin. You'll pay 24 bucks for 100. Some I get at Wal-Mart, it's cheaper. 90 days for ten bucks. But if the meds are N², like a Z-pack, it still cost me 8 dollars at VA.
I wonder, sometimes if they could run a two car funeral without a screw up.
But it's about all I got.
This should stir some crap. IMHO. Most of this started when the Gov. said
lets get people off welfare and lets have a dose of affirmative action.
So they gave some a Gov. job.I am with you BB. I think the VA system is a bit different. I can get my meds from an AD hospital system at no charge, if I use Tricare it is usually covered but not always. We do pay a minor copays but nothing like a private insurance system.
So you don't want the VA privatized, but you don't want the private system "socialized" either? Now I'm confused. What exactly is it we should all have? Whats good for one should be good for the other, no?
I'm torn on this issue. I want the privatization for some reasons, yet I think there should be much more affordable healthcare for more Americans. What I don't want is the Gov't managing it. How that gets accomplished...dunno.
So you don't want the VA privatized, but you don't want the private system "socialized" either? Now I'm confused. What exactly is it we should all have? Whats good for one should be good for the other, no?
I'm torn on this issue. I want the privatization for some reasons, yet I think there should be much more affordable healthcare for more Americans. What I don't want is the Gov't managing it. How that gets accomplished...dunno.
Is it better to have insurance companies running it? I don't think so. look at how weel that's worked out.
What we need is for health care to NOT be about profits, but about
helping people. And it would probably cost less if we focused more on preventative care, and less on disease care. Wouldn't it be better (and less expensive) to stop illness before it actually IS illness?
Why? If I can afford it and feel it is worth it, why shouldn't I be able to pay for better or more extensive care? I have had a catastrophic coverage plan for quite awhile because on the whole that is the best balance for my family. A guy I know has the full boat plan through the same company. He feels it is worth the extra expense. We each get what we pay for. I kind of like that.
Spoken like a true rich person. Why should only wealthy people or really poor people have access to really great health care? My god, we are always talking about how this is the greatest (and richest) country ever. What is so fucking great about having such an unfair and unequal system? And ftr, you know some people have really great insurance, and when it comes time to pay up, the companies find ANY REASON
not to pay. Do you know how many bankruptcies are filed every year because of THIS problem? And how it has destroyed many people's lives? Not to mention the fact that American BUSINESSES can't compete globally, because corporations in other countries don't have that expense. (Imagine that, me arguing FOR corporations!)
BS. People who work their asses off and still don't have healthcare are typically not earning enough to pay ANY taxes so you can take that myth off the plate.
WOW. Really? You know this how?
Nope, it isn't free. It would entail some pretty hefty taxes. Those taxes would have to be paid by someone, certainly not the lower income earners who we certainly don't want to raise taxes for. That means going back to the well of the people who already pay the majority of the taxes for yet another benefit that actually doesn't benefit them in any way. So while the program wouldn't be free, it would be free to the people who actually want it.
You are under this myth that rich people pay more taxes. They don't. Generally they pay about 17%. And, since they mostly make money off investments, and capitals gains taxes are only, what, 15%, they actually pay even less.
Which is no different than any of the government run programs currently in place. That's life, aribitrary lines are drawn because they have to be drawn somewhere. That means someone will inevitably be just on the other side of the line and feel slighted.
There shouldn't BE lines. IF you need a certain treatment, you should be able to get it. It's wrong that insurance companies (or the government) would withhold a treatment that could save a life or make a life more productive and better. Medicine should be between a doctor and their patient, not being dictated by insurance or government people who know nothing about medicine.
While there is a lot of waste in the world of medicine, let me just ask this: which organization is more likely to run cost efficiently, one who has no concern over costs and profits or one who is trying to get the job done and turn a profit?So you are assuming the government isn't motivated by greed?
I would say the health care industry is out of control BECAUSE of companies trying to turn excessive profits at the expense of the people they are supposed to be serving.
The people they are serving are their shareholders, just like any other company. They make money for their shareholders by serving clients in as cost effective manner as possible. Welcome to business. They aren't there to be everybody's friend, they are there to turn a profit. If they don't turn a profit they don't stay in business and then they don't get to serve anyone.
There shouldn't BE lines. IF you need a certain treatment, you should be able to get it.
Sounds great, but unless you can convince everyone in the medical fields to work strictly as volunteers then it must be paid for somehow. Any ideas other than "our government should do it"?
You are under this myth that rich people pay more taxes. They don't. Generally they pay about 17%. And, since they mostly make money off investments, and capitals gains taxes are only, what, 15%, they actually pay even less.
Not that many of the so called rich people live purely off capital gains and dividends. If your 17% is accurate then I have two thoughts: 1) you can thank your
progressive tax system for that, and 2) that 17% still equates to the lion's share of the tax dollars collected.
WOW. Really? You know this how?
Let's think this one through slowly. If they earn so little they are unable to pay for insurance, then they most likely earn so little they aren't paying income taxes either. You know those people who get more back than they paid in each year?
Spoken like a true rich person.
I wish. the beautiful thing is that if I work hard and make some good choices I can achieve some manner of financial independence in the future.
My god, we are always talking about how this is the greatest (and richest) country ever. What is so fucking great about having such an unfair and unequal system?
This is a great country. For the most part, the harder/smarter I work the more I produce. The more I produce the more I get to keep. Sounds pretty fucking fair to me. Unfair is making it so everyone gets the same thing regardless of their abilities and choices along the way.
And ftr, you know some people have really great insurance, and when it comes time to pay up, the companies find ANY REASON not to pay. Do you know how many bankruptcies are filed every year because of THIS problem? And how it has destroyed many people's lives?
I know it quite well. I have no idea how many BK's are filed each year because of this. I only know about my own some years ago when the insurance companies applied the letter of the law and chose not to cover my wife's problem pregnancy. It didn't ruin our lives one little bit.
There is absolutely nothing in the constitution or other documents of the time to suggest the goal of the founding fathers was for all americans to achieve the same level of success and have all the same things. We are promised
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To people who whine and complain about the differences we see based on our work and decisions all I have to say is quit your bitching and start pursuing. It's up to you to achieve what you want.
...Let's think this one through slowly. If they earn so little they are unable to pay for insurance, then they most likely earn so little they aren't paying income taxes either. You know those people who get more back than they paid in each year?
Cite, please.
Here is how I would think this one through.
Approximately half of those w/o insurance work for small businesses who dont offer insurance.
Over 90% of persons who earn so little that arent pay income taxes (get more back than they pay) are earning less than $20,000/yr.
Are you suggesting that most small business employees earn less than $20,000/yr.
One reason that SCHIP was expanded was that an increasing number of parents of working families did not have access to affordable health insurance.....this includes people making more than 200% of the poverty level. They pay taxes!
On a simple H&R block Calculator a family of four earning $50,000 annually with no special deductions owes exactly $0 in federal income tax.
Calculator
The same family earning $72,000 and deducting RE taxes and mortgage interest owed $1,548.
That same family bumped up to $105,000 owe $7,388 in federal income tax.
I'm self employed and so is my wife. Many small businesses may not offer medical insurance but most have access to plans that aren't paid for by the company. It is more expensive (I currently pay about $9,000 in medical insurance premiums) but that is a risk/reward calculation for the individuals.
I'll stick with my earlier statement - if they earn so little as to be unable to pay for insurance they most likely earn so little they aren't paying income taxes either.
Incidentally, that same family earning $249,000 pays $51,086 to the feds.
On a simple H&R block Calculator a family of four earning $50,000 annually with no special deductions owes exactly $0 in federal income tax.
Calculator
The same family earning $72,000 and deducting RE taxes and mortgage interest owed $1,548.
That same family bumped up to $105,000 owe $7,388 in federal income tax.
I'm self employed and so is my wife. Many small businesses may not offer medical insurance but most have access to plans that aren't paid for by the company. It is more expensive (I currently pay about $9,000 in medical insurance premiums) but that is a risk/reward calculation for the individuals.
I'll stick with my earlier statement - if they earn so little as to be unable to pay for insurance they most likely earn so little they aren't paying income taxes either.
If you are saying that a a family of four earning $50,000 annually with no special deductions pays no income taxes.....that is just incorrect.
I assume you are referring in part to the earned income tax credit that caps at about $38k.
When I have time, I will post IRS (or CBO) data that a family with children making $50k pay about 15-18% of their income in federal income (and FICA) taxes.
I have seen no data anywhere that most
employed persons who w/o health insurance pay no income taxes.
I didn't input any information other than what I posted. the results are consistent with what I saw while working a project with some CPA's last year.
@ 72,000 I do believe the normal tax would be nearer to $5000 for a family of four.
Then it's on H&R Blocks head, not mine. I entered the same family of 4. W-2 income. $1500 property tax, $15,000 mortgage interest, and $500 charitable giving in each scenario.
That mortage interest is really high...3X what we pay.
Whats the monthly on a mortgage like that? $200O? That would really cut into the take home pay when you only earn $72000 a year.
I guess we just like to live within our means.
Lol. You won't find many people in Arizona and probably none in California who have a mortgage of less than $250,000.
Incidentally, that same family earning $249,000 pays $51,086 to the feds.
Good.
IF you need a certain treatment, you should be able to get it. It's wrong that insurance companies (or the government) would withhold a treatment that could save a life or make a life more productive and better.
[trolling]Why should we be providing any treatment to anyone? I thought you were in favor of
"Natural selection and all of that." If people have a disease, maybe they're supposed to die.[/trolling]
Whats the monthly on a mortgage like that? $200O? That would really cut into the take home pay when you only earn $72000 a year.
FWIW - thats pretty common hereabouts too. Personally, I have neighbors that are doing that on combined incomes under 100k many less than 70k.
I guess we just like to live within our means.
You rebels you! ... :thumbsup:
FWIW - thats pretty common hereabouts too. Personally, I have neighbors that are doing that on combined incomes under 100k many less than 70k.
You rebels you! ... :thumbsup:
That is what ours is, a little higher but close.
Lol. You won't find many people in Arizona and probably none in California who have a mortgage of less than $250,000.
They pay 500k in a lot of places in Calif for a cardboard box. Another good reason to live in the SE.
A cardboard box? LUXURY! When I was a lad we lived for three years in the shadow of a hole in the road and trucks would ....
sorry.
A cardboard box? LUXURY! When I was a lad we lived for three years in the shadow of a hole in the road and trucks would ....
sorry.
Yea, well when I lived in that hole in the lake, now that was some tough times!
I lived in the center of a volcano once. I was finally shot out of it, and landed here on the cellar. Now water comes out of taps!! Good times!! :)
[trolling]Why should we be providing any treatment to anyone? I thought you were in favor of "Natural selection and all of that." If people have a disease, maybe they're supposed to die.[/trolling]
urdoinitrong
I lived in the center of a volcano once. I was finally shot out of it, and landed here on the cellar. Now water comes out of taps!! Good times!! :)
:D
The people they are serving are their shareholders, just like any other company. They make money for their shareholders by serving clients in as cost effective manner as possible. Welcome to business. They aren't there to be everybody's friend, they are there to turn a profit. If they don't turn a profit they don't stay in business and then they don't get to serve anyone.
Sorry, but a corporation is there to supply a service or product to the public, and jobs to people. Shareholders profits should come after the people doing the work are actually compensated fairly for that work. If it weren't for the workers, there would be no product - no product, no profit. without workers, they go out of business.
Sounds great, but unless you can convince everyone in the medical fields to work strictly as volunteers then it must be paid for somehow. Any ideas other than "our government should do it"?
Why would they have to work as volunteers? I believe doctors and nurses and others in medicine make a very comfortable living in other countries that have a single payer system. Why should medicine be about profit? You see where it's gotten us?
Not that many of the so called rich people live purely off capital gains and dividends. If your 17% is accurate then I have two thoughts: 1) you can thank your progressive tax system for that, and 2) that 17% still equates to the lion's share of the tax dollars collected.
I'm talking about the top 2%. You are talking about average rich people with jobs instead of empires. If the progressive tax system was not riddled with loopholes it would be a very fair system. And so what? Why do hate the majority of the people in this country?
Let's think this one through slowly. If they earn so little they are unable to pay for insurance, then they most likely earn so little they aren't paying income taxes either. You know those people who get more back than they paid in each year?
If you have a family, then you should know how much insurance costs. AVERAGE insurance policies for an individual are over 5k/year, and for a family average over $15k/year. Even people who make $50k-60k/year would have trouble paying that, depending on where they live.
I wish. the beautiful thing is that if I work hard and make some good choices I can achieve some manner of financial independence in the future.
Maybe, maybe not. Hard work means nothing. If executive pay keeps rising the way it has, and nothing is done to address the wages of everyone else, even your job might be outsourced, or insourced, to cheaper workers.
This is a great country. For the most part, the harder/smarter I work the more I produce. The more I produce the more I get to keep. Sounds pretty fucking fair to me. Unfair is making it so everyone gets the same thing regardless of their abilities and choices along the way.
See, I never said everyone should get the same, and if you think I did, you haven't been listening. When you make more, you do keep more, even if you pay more in taxes, because you are making a much larger slice of the pie. And if you think people are rewarded simply for hard/smart work in this country, think again. There are tens of millions of really smart people out there, working really hard, who are completely taken advantage of and not paid fairly, which is why I am for unions.
I know it quite well. I have no idea how many BK's are filed each year because of this. I only know about my own some years ago when the insurance companies applied the letter of the law and chose not to cover my wife's problem pregnancy. It didn't ruin our lives one little bit.
It could have. You were lucky. It is happening a lot more now than in the past. It has gotten much worse over the years.
There is absolutely nothing in the constitution or other documents of the time to suggest the goal of the founding fathers was for all americans to achieve the same level of success and have all the same things. We are promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To people who whine and complain about the differences we see based on our work and decisions all I have to say is quit your bitching and start pursuing. It's up to you to achieve what you want.
I never said all Americans should achieve the same level of success or have all the same things. You keep putting those words in my mouth, and nowhere have I said that. But by the same token, it also isn't the Constitution that people should get obscenely rich while walking all over everyone else. They wanted a more equal and fair society. That doesn't mean completely equal in the sense that everyone has the same things. Corporations were not meant to have the power they have now.
[trolling]Why should we be providing any treatment to anyone? I thought you were in favor of "Natural selection and all of that." If people have a disease, maybe they're supposed to die.[/trolling]
heh. I am, but since we have medicine, why should only people with means have access to it? ;) Natural selection would apply to everyone, the way I think of it. That means even rich people wouldn't have access to any treatment they couldn't do themselves.
I am, but since we have medicine, why should only people with means have access to it?
Because medicine is a product and service like anything else. If you want things, whatever those things are, you need to work for them.
Because medicine is a product and service like anything else. If you want things, whatever those things are, you need to work for them.
Medicine should not a be a product/service like every other product/service. We can just agree to disagree on that point because I can see where that argument is going.
Sorry, but a corporation is there to supply a service or product to the public, and jobs to people.
Dream on ya hippie. The corp/company is there to MAKE MONEY. Whatever they do that is the primary goal.
I believe doctors and nurses and others in medicine make a very comfortable living in other countries that have a single payer system. Why should medicine be about profit? You see where it's gotten us?
Really? I have no idea, but many do come here too.
Where has medicine for profit gotten us? Please elaborate.
I'm talking about the top 2%. You are talking about average rich people with jobs instead of empires. If the progressive tax system was not riddled with loopholes it would be a very fair system.
How much does the "average rich" person make?
AVERAGE insurance policies for an individual are over 5k/year, and for a family average over $15k/year.
False. I pay for my own (ee+fam on a two tier system) and its about $432 a month - you do the math. Its an HMO with a very large company.
Medicine should not a be a product/service like every other product/service. We can just agree to disagree on that point because I can see where that argument is going.
I agree with Jinx.
Sorry, but a corporation is there to supply a service or product to the public, and jobs to people. Shareholders profits should come after the people doing the work are actually compensated fairly for that work. If it weren't for the workers, there would be no product - no product, no profit. without workers, they go out of business.
When I snap my fingers you will open your eyes slowly. Take a deep breath... did you feel like you were dreaming? I don't know what planet you are from but companies are not public service organizations. They exist to make a profit above all else. If they do, then employees will benefit.
If you have a family, then you should know how much insurance costs. AVERAGE insurance policies for an individual are over 5k/year, and for a family average over $15k/year.I do know. I am self employed and pay my own way.
because you are making a much larger slice of the pie.
the problem here is that you think income is a pie. That implies that it is zero sum. If I make 10% more someone has to make that much less. That isn't how it works. If I make more it is because I provided a service to more people. That service isn't robbing them of anything, in truth it is adding something to them. They win, I win. Then the beautiful thing is I take my new higher income and spend a bit of it, thus increasing the income of another service provider. One person getting rich does not necessitate another getting poor.
But that money you take as income, you could have used to buy turkeys and taken them up in a helicopter and let them fly to the poor starving people at the mall.
But that money you take as income, you could have used to buy turkeys and taken them up in a helicopter and let them fly to the poor starving people at the mall.
Or drop them frozen out of the helicopter onto the housing project.
Sorry, but a corporation is there to supply a service or product to the public, and jobs to people. Shareholders profits should come after the people doing the work are actually compensated fairly for that work. If it weren't for the workers, there would be no product - no product, no profit. without workers, they go out of business.No, they are there to make a profit off a product. Private corps exist to sell something to people who want their product and in the long run they do only to make money. They need people to help them make that profit, so they hire them at a wage that people will accept to do the work. People can choose not to work there if they think the pay is to low or if they did not feel they were being fairly compensated.
[quote]Why would they have to work as volunteers? I believe doctors and nurses and others in medicine make a very comfortable living in other countries that have a single payer system. Why should medicine be about profit? You see where it's gotten us?
Who sets the bar for what is "comfortable"? There is no way you can compare anything about "a very comfortable living" in the US to say "a very comfortable living" in Spain, or Somalia. In this country medicine is a for profit business, that is just the way it is, I think that is unlikely to change in our life time. Many aspects of the field of medicine require people to go to school and training for many more years than the average person is willing to do, and incur mounds of debt. If everyone could do it the job would be easy to get and easy to do. It is not.
[quote]I'm talking about the top 2%. You are talking about average rich people with jobs instead of empires. If the progressive tax system was not riddled with loopholes it would be a very fair system. And so what? Why do hate the majority of the people in this country?
Hate?
If you have a family, then you should know how much insurance costs. AVERAGE insurance policies for an individual are over 5k/year, and for a family average over $15k/year. Even people who make $50k-60k/year would have trouble paying that, depending on where they live.
I agree, we don't have a health care crisis, we have a health insurance crisis. Thank the people who let the HMO's and insurance companies take over your care. I promise you the federal government is not going to do a better job for you. And when and if they do you will get what you pay for.
But by the same token, it also isn't the Constitution that people should get obscenely rich while walking all over everyone else. They wanted a more equal and fair society. That doesn't mean completely equal in the sense that everyone has the same things. Corporations were not meant to have the power they have now.
The framers of the Constitution and what they thought have very little to do with where we are in our economy today. We have evolved. "Pursuit of happiness", not a promise or right to happiness.
But that money you take as income, you could have used to buy turkeys and taken them up in a helicopter and let them fly to the poor starving people at the mall.
I swear to God I thought turkeys could fly.
[youtube]iafzqOCaxA4[/youtube]
Wikipedia
Turkey Trot
One of the longest traditions in Yellville is the annual Turkey Trot festival. Beginning in 1945 with the first turkey dropped from the roof of the Marion County Courthouse, the festival continues today. It is held every second weekend of October with the best-known attraction being live turkeys that are dropped from airplanes over the town square. October 2005 marked the 60th anniversary of this festival. The 1970s television show, WKRP in Cincinnati, parodied the turkey drop on one of their best-known episodes. Yellville and the Turkey Trot Festival were also included in the American supermarket tabloid The National Enquirer in 1989 with photographs of the festival and commentary on animal cruelty. Due to the bad press, the turkey drop ceased for a few years. It has since resumed. The Turkey Trot festival also includes a Miss Turkey Trot Pageant, a Miss Drumstickz Competition (best legs), dinners, musical entertainment, a 5 kilometer run, a parade (which has included former Arkansas governor and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee), and a nationally recognized turkey calling contest sponsored by the National Wild Turkey Federation. Crafts and tools related to the hunting of wild turkeys are also sold in streetside booths along the town square. Entertainment at Turkey Trot has ranged in recent years from famous acts like John Conlee singer of "Rose Colored Glasses" and Jeannie Kendall from the Grammy-award winning group The Kendalls, to more local entertainment by area groups such as The Muddles, South 14, Joe Sasser and Friends, and Carnes McCormack.
Edit: Oh, and
here's more.
And pictures.
I am surprised that PETA isn't there to protest.
I support dropping PETA members from low flying aircraft.
I support dropping them from really high flying aircraft. Really high.
Pico: thanks for posting the WKRP in Cincinnati tube. Classic!
. Classic!
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat??????????
Why are you yellin at me again?
I support dropping them from really high flying aircraft. Really high.
I support shooting them with harpoons. Really, really big fucking harpoons.
They should appreciate that. At least I'm not shooting whales.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat??????????
Why are you yellin at me again?
Because you just never LISTEN. :lol:
But that money you take as income, you could have used to buy turkeys and taken them up in a helicopter and let them fly to the poor starving people at the mall.
That was on an episode of WKRP in Cincinnati. :D
No, they are there to make a profit off a product. Private corps exist to sell something to people who want their product and in the long run they do only to make money. They need people to help them make that profit, so they hire them at a wage that people will accept to do the work. People can choose not to work there if they think the pay is to low or if they did not feel they were being fairly compensated.
Well, since wages suck pretty much everywhere for many people, how exactly do you suggest they do that? Corporate America has been taking advantage of workers for years, and it gets worse all the time. My god, I made more money waiting tables in the late 70s/early 80s than many professional people make today. WTF? When the minimum wage was enacted, it should have been raised every year to keep up with cost of living. If it had, we might find ourselves in a much more equitable situation today. Corporations should not be allowed to to give ceos and execs boatloads of money while ingoring the very people who actually MAKE the product. It's just wrong.
Who sets the bar for what is "comfortable"? There is no way you can compare anything about "a very comfortable living" in the US to say "a very comfortable living" in Spain, or Somalia. In this country medicine is a for profit business, that is just the way it is, I think that is unlikely to change in our life time. Many aspects of the field of medicine require people to go to school and training for many more years than the average person is willing to do, and incur mounds of debt. If everyone could do it the job would be easy to get and easy to do. It is not.
Why? European countries are just as civilized (one might argue more) as we are. Doctors in those countries have to go to school too. And I am not saying doctors, or lawyers, or other professionals, who go to school and get degrees do not deserve to earn more money, they do. I am arguing against insurance companies, because they are scams. My god. We have corporations in this country who are nothing more than
scam artists and loan sharks.
Hate?
You do seem to have a real aversion to people who are less fortunate, who don't have much money. Not personally, but when arguing these big questions.
I agree, we don't have a health care crisis, we have a health insurance crisis. Thank the people who let the HMO's and insurance companies take over your care. I promise you the federal government is not going to do a better job for you. And when and if they do you will get what you pay for.
I just don't believe it. I think it would be a LOT better if we got rid of insurance companies, and allowed doctors to treat their patients as they see fit, and then the government pays for it. It works in other countries.
The framers of the Constitution and what they thought have very little to do with where we are in our economy today. We have evolved. "Pursuit of happiness", not a promise or right to happiness.
I would argue that we haven't evolved, but devolved. Where is the humanity in our governing?
Because medicine is a product and service like anything else. If you want things, whatever those things are, you need to work for them.
I agree with you. but when medicine has become so costly that many millions of people can't afford it, there is something VERY WRONG with that picture. And it is just getting worse. Some things just should not be about profit. Medicine is one of them.
Dream on ya hippie. The corp/company is there to MAKE MONEY. Whatever they do that is the primary goal.
Whatever. I disagree.
Really? I have no idea, but many do come here too.
Where has medicine for profit gotten us? Please elaborate.
Well, just look at the mess we're in now. THAT'S where it's gotten us.
How much does the "average rich" person make?
Not 5 million/year.
False. I pay for my own (ee+fam on a two tier system) and its about $432 a month - you do the math. Its an HMO with a very large company.
I was going by all the statistics put out during the campaign, and also basing it on some people I know who can't afford insurance but make a reasonable income.[/QUOTE]
Some things just should not be about profit. Medicine is one of them.
What about food? We all need food even more than we need medicine. Should the distribution of food be a non-profit model as well?
I don't think food should be taxed, and I don't like the way big agri-business has taken over and put small farms out of business. And I don't think water should be taxed, and I believe we deserve clean, pure water to drink, and pesticide-free food to eat. I don't really think it's fair that now we as a people have to either buy bottled water, or filters, in order to have pure water. WE didn't pollute the water, business did.
As far it being non-profit, I don't know. Working a farm is HARD, I know, my mother was raised on a farm and my uncle had a working farm. I really think that, over the past 30 years, profit has become such a motivating factor in everything that it has polluted the capitalist model. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, but there is something seriously wrong with making a profit at the cost of health, and fairness, and the benefit of society.
I really think that, over the past 30 years, profit has become such a motivating factor in everything that it has polluted the capitalist model.
That is one of the most amusing statements I've ever read.
I don't think food should be taxed,
And I don't think water should be taxed
So what do you think should be taxed? Where/how do you determine what should be from taxation and what should be taxed? Where do you draw the line?
WE didn't pollute the water, business did.
What business did? Who the heck is running these big bad evil businesses and corporations that you keep referring to? Are they some sort of alien overlords or something? There are people making the decisions.
I really think that, over the past 30 years, profit has become such a motivating factor in everything that it has polluted the capitalist model.
Wow! It started in the 70's or 80's then? What was the "motivating factor" before then?
I really think that, over the past 30 years, profit has become such a motivating factor in everything that it has polluted the capitalist model. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, but there is something seriously wrong with making a profit at the cost of health, and fairness, and the benefit of society.
I wouldnt put it quite like that.
But I do think that deregulation over the last 30 years (Reagan, Clinton, Bush) has not always been in the best public interest.
So what do you think should be taxed? Where/how do you determine what should be from taxation and what should be taxed? Where do you draw the line?
Maybe the necessities should not be taxed. You know, utilities, food, water.
What business did? Who the heck is running these big bad evil businesses and corporations that you keep referring to? Are they some sort of alien overlords or something? There are people making the decisions.
Well gee, mercury certainly doesn't make it into the water supply all by itself, neither do other toxic chemicals and biological agents. And e coli and salmonella didn't make it into spinach and carrots all by themselves. In addition, drinking water also now has traces of pharmacueticals in it, probably from people dumping pills in the toilet.
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanwater/
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/waterpollution.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution
http://www.nrdc.org/water/default.asp
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/archive/x1574803042
Wow! It started in the 70's or 80's then? What was the "motivating factor" before then?
I'm not saying profit hasn't always been a motivating factor, and that greed hasn't always been around. I am saying it has gotten out of control, at the expense of society as a whole.
Maybe the necessities should not be taxed. You know, utilities, food, water.
Many states have groceries, prescription drugs and sometimes clothing exempt from general sales tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States#State_by_state_sales_taxes
(look at shaded green)
Yes, but even states like PA that have no sales tax on food/drugs/clothing, have plenty of hidden taxes that drive the cost of those items. Of course it's better than the states that do both.
I don't think food should be taxed, and I don't like the way big agri-business has taken over and put small farms out of business.
Small farms don't feed cities.
Small farms don't feed cities.
Urban agriculture can hopefully make an impact if it starts growing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_agriculture
Lots of benefits to it.
That's a pipe dream.
First of all, in order to grow food for the city on the surrounding land, you have to tear down the suburbs that are already there. The people that live on the fringes of the city, while they love the bucolic view, soon bitch about the smells, insects, dust, etc, that go along with agriculture.
Now, the people of a particular city could get fresh veggies grown closer... in season. But, not every veggie can be grown everywhere, so the best you can hope for is some produce, some of the year, that costs more.
But for grains, meat, tropical fruits, fugetaboutit.:headshake
That's a pipe dream.
First of all, in order to grow food for the city on the surrounding land, you have to tear down the suburbs that are already there. The people that live on the fringes of the city, while they love the bucolic view, soon bitch about the smells, insects, dust, etc, that go along with agriculture.
The ancient city-state setup isn't the only urban agriculture option. Green roofs are getting increasingly popular and a few cities (Vancouver and Portland) have started planting large gardens in unused lots with some success. It wouldn't be profitable now, but if sources of energy became cheaper entire buildings could be dedicated to the growth of vegetables and maybe even fruits and grains.
Also, preventing excess water runoff is becoming a large issue in cities and methods or preventing runoff can easily coincide with urban agriculture.
Small farms don't feed cities.
I never said they did. I said I don't like the way big agri-business has taken over everything at the expense of smaller farms. And you know, it didn't always exist, yet people always seemed to have food before. (yes, I know how naive that sounds. It is still the truth.)
I never said they did. I said I don't like the way big agri-business has taken over everything at the expense of smaller farms. And you know, it didn't always exist, yet people always seemed to have food before. (yes, I know how naive that sounds. It is still the truth.)
Over half the population used to farmers as well.
The ancient city-state setup isn't the only urban agriculture option. Green roofs are getting increasingly popular and a few cities (Vancouver and Portland) have started planting large gardens in unused lots with some success. It wouldn't be profitable now, but if sources of energy became cheaper entire buildings could be dedicated to the growth of vegetables and maybe even fruits and grains.
Also, preventing excess water runoff is becoming a large issue in cities and methods or preventing runoff can easily coincide with urban agriculture.
And I think that is AWESOME! It also helps cut down on energy usage with heating and air conditioning, because it helps regulate the indoor temperature. Don't they have rooftop gardens in Chicago?
Fruits and grains take a lot of area to produce a substantial crop. Grains have to be milled in substantial quantity to make it economical. Buildings have to reinforced to carry the load of soil, unless you're not doing some sort of expensive hydroponic deal. And growing in buildings? Have to ever compared a garden tomato with hothouse grown?
Rooftop/vacant lot growing of in-season veggies is a good idea, but will never be more than a supplement to the normal food supply. Our success with feeding over 300 million people is based on Mother Nature wiping out a crop over here doesn't devastate us because we're growing more over there.
Can't you be just a little bit positive about it Bruce? It is a small solution, one that I hope grows, that targets more than one thing, energy efficiency and food. Every little bit will help in creating a greener, more sustainable future.
Fruits and grains take a lot of area to produce a substantial crop. Grains have to be milled in substantial quantity to make it economical.
That's why I said maybe, I am not well versed on growing grains and fruits along with the economics of it.
Buildings have to reinforced to carry the load of soil, unless you're not doing some sort of expensive hydroponic deal.
Yup, that's a problem as of now but urban agriculture will not be widespread in one sweep, if ever. Buildings will naturally be rebuilt and restructured so in the future they can be designed to handle the extra load.
And growing in buildings? Have to ever compared a garden tomato with hothouse grown?
No, but I know people will be working their asses off to lessen the disparity. Its always a possibility that can be used in the future.
Rooftop/vacant lot growing of in-season veggies is a good idea, but will never be more than a supplement to the normal food supply.
A full replacement was never the idea. Urban agriculture can make an impact with food production and if real problems do occur in the future, diet changes are a possibility, making urban agriculture even more efficient. What people eat is largely dependent on what is available. If locally grown foods become more available and foreign grown foods become less available, people will start eating locally grown foods, making urban agriculture more significant.
We have no idea how our food production setup will be in 100 years, but having a homegrown source can never be bad. Not to mention the multiple other benefits from urban agriculture that has nothing to do with food production.
Our success with feeding over 300 million people is based on Mother Nature wiping out a crop over here doesn't devastate us because we're growing more over there.
True, but how does urban agriculture go against that? If we have crops growing in 100 cities across the United States, I don't think availability of certain foods will be a problem.
Maybe the necessities should not be taxed. You know, utilities, food, water.
Bout 20 years ago somebody did a study of all the taxes that merely apply to a loaf of bread. Not the sales tax on the bread itself, but the fuel tax on the gas used to transport it from bakery to store, the tax on the phone call to place the order for it, etc. They found like 150 taxes that led to an increase in the price of a loaf of bread.
S'complicated
Yes it is, which is a good reason why we really should have more local farms, and depend less on shipping goods from far off places. That, of course, applies to other kinds of products as well. Yes, we have to pay more to American workers to make things, but the overall cost to ship things, which is about more than just money, outweighs the cost to make things in this country.
Whew. Yup - everyone should have their own manufacturing facility and a garden on their roof. That'd do it.
But then where will we all put our satellite dishes, hmm?
The question is, what should we grow in our satellite dishes. :D
Will the garden interfere with my tv reception?
Whew. Yup - everyone should have their own manufacturing facility and a garden on their roof. That'd do it.
What?
Yes it is, which is a good reason why we really should have more local farms, and depend less on shipping goods from far off places.
Well, then. Sucks to be in Arizona, if that's to be the case.
TGRR,
Knows nothing grows here besides cotton.
I never said they did. I said I don't like the way big agri-business has taken over everything at the expense of smaller farms. And you know, it didn't always exist, yet people always seemed to have food before. (yes, I know how naive that sounds. It is still the truth.)
Yeah. Back when 40-50% of the population was agrarian.
AZ factsArizona would be ok if we adopt the pie in the sky everybody have a farm and a factory lifestyle.
We've got corn, alfalfa, melons, citrus, beans, and loads and loads of self propelled foodstuffs.
TGRR,
Knows nothing grows here besides cotton.
__________________
Lookout,
Knows TGRR is just making shit up again.
Will the garden interfere with my tv reception?
No, but the TV dish may interfere with your pot plants on the roof top garden. :)
AZ factsArizona would be ok if we adopt the pie in the sky everybody have a farm and a factory lifestyle.
We've got corn, alfalfa, melons, citrus, beans, and loads and loads of self propelled foodstuffs.
Lookout,
Knows TGRR is just making shit up again.
Dear Pedantic Retard,
Perhaps that applies to you soft little girls up North.
While we're at it, please demonstrate where Obama admitted using
crack. Thanks.
Actually is was Cocaine. But essentially crack is a form of cocaine.
Actually is was Cocaine. But essentially crack is a form of cocaine.
And heroin is a form of morphine. But calling them the same thing is both inaccurate and - in this case - blatantly dishonest.
Here, maybe you can help. I'm trying to calibrate my honesty scale... is saying AZ can't grow anything but cotton more or less honest than saying Obama smoked rock... knowing full well he preferred to jam blow up his nose?:rolleyes:
Here, maybe you can help. I'm trying to calibrate my honesty scale... is saying AZ can't grow anything but cotton more or less honest than saying Obama smoked rock... knowing full well he preferred to jam blow up his nose?:rolleyes:
Remember, kids: A little hyperbole is no different than an outright lie!
Way to rationalize your bullshit, Lookout.
blatantly dishonest.
BS. It is common for people to use the term cocaine when speaking of crack.
Ok, using cociane illegally is not nearly as bad as using crack illegally. I mean other than the penalties.
BS. It is common for people to use the term cocaine when speaking of crack.
But not the other way round. Crack is a type of cocaine; cocaine is not a type of crack.
But not the other way round. Crack is a type of cocaine; cocaine is not a type of crack.
True in fact. But many lay people confuse the 2. Tigger is making this sound like Lookout intentional meant to deceive, aka "lie", and that is BS. This is a stupid playground attempt by Tigger to say LO lacks credibility, I call BS on that.
For the record, I'll cop to using crack in my snarky comment rather than cocaine not out of maliciousness but rather a lack of concern. I don't care if he snorted, smoked, or mainlined... I never bothered to give the issue any thought during the election and I don't now. Other than as fodder for a snarky comment. In the future I promise to do more research and get a second set of eyes for proofreading and factchecking before I take a dig at a public figure.
Get over it TGRR.
BS. It is common for people to use the term cocaine when speaking of crack.
But not to refer to cocaine as crack.
Ok, using cociane illegally is not nearly as bad as using crack illegally. I mean other than the penalties.
Absolutely correct.
Cocaine takes a little while to fuck you up. Crack is damn near instantaneous, relatively speaking.
True in fact. But many lay people confuse the 2. Tigger is making this sound like Lookout intentional meant to deceive, aka "lie", and that is BS. This is a stupid playground attempt by Tigger to say LO lacks credibility, I call BS on that.
Darn those facts.
And I would expect you to defend LO no matter what, as he's on the same side of the left/right paradigm you've bought into.
You literally would be unable to NOT defend him.
:)
TGRR,
Wasn't kidding, of course.
Well, then. Sucks to be in Arizona, if that's to be the case.
TGRR,
Knows nothing grows here besides cotton.
Good grief. Arizona, right next to California, the biggest produce state in the country. We still have to ship food, I'm just saying, why do we have to ship it so far? We should try to buy locally as much as possible. SOME produce can certainly be grown in Arizona, can't it? Why yes, it can!
http://www.arizonalocalfood.com/For the record, I'll cop to using crack in my snarky comment rather than cocaine not out of maliciousness but rather a lack of concern. I don't care if he snorted, smoked, or mainlined... I never bothered to give the issue any thought during the election and I don't now. Other than as fodder for a snarky comment. In the future I promise to do more research and get a second set of eyes for proofreading and factchecking before I take a dig at a public figure.
Get over it TGRR.
hmmm, bush admitted to using cocaine, so I have to wonder if you ever said he did crack? Did you use it here because Obama happens to be
black?
That was completely uncalled for :Redcard:
That was completely uncalled for :Redcard:
Why? I thought it was totally appropriate.
No, a black card would have been appropriate.
:bolt:
hmmm, bush admitted to using cocaine, so I have to wonder if you ever said he did crack? Did you use it here because Obama happens to be black?
yes. absolutely 100 times yes. me and george bush hate black people.:right:
You've now crossed the line from being an irritatingly naive idealist to being a fucking moron. i'll assume you have nothing of value to say from this point on.
lol - exactly!
What are you talking about Classicman?
I am asking what you define as "it" in your quote, "Whew. Yup - everyone should have their own manufacturing facility and a garden on their roof. That'd do it?"
Or at least to explain your completely idiotic strawman. You do seem to love those.
Can't you be just a little bit positive about it Bruce? It is a small solution, one that I hope grows, that targets more than one thing, energy efficiency and food. Every little bit will help in creating a greener, more sustainable future.
I was positive... positive it will never be more than a supplement to the supply of fresh, in season, veggies.
I know more than a little about both farming and agricultural history.
Little things like how much land it takes to produce each type of veggie, grain, fruit, dairy, etc, for a city of say a million or three, precludes this plan from possibly being more than a supplement to the supply.
Add the economics, peoples buying/eating habits, questions of property/produce ownership, weather/location, and I am positive. ;)
yes. absolutely 100 times yes. me and george bush hate black people.:right:
You've now crossed the line from being an irritatingly naive idealist to being a fucking moron. i'll assume you have nothing of value to say from this point on.
Why? Because I called you out on something you said?
Crack is used more by black people, cocaine is used more by white people. That is a fact. Crack has much stiffer penalties, probably because it is a "black" drug, which is unfair, so more black people end up in prison, and this country has a long history of having stricter penalties for drugs that are used by minorities. Obama is black; Bush is white. Both admitted using cocaine. You said Obama used crack, not cocaine, so I wanted to know if you ever said Bush used crack as well. If you didn't, the statement you made is racist. If you did, it wasn't. Plain and simple.
And I am not a moron, thank you very much. I am not naive either. You seem to be the one who is naive, probably because the industry you work in is under attack and under a very large microscope. I suppose it is natural that you would want to defend it. But sinking to personal attacks by calling me a moron is low.
I was positive... positive it will never be more than a supplement to the supply of fresh, in season, veggies.
I know more than a little about both farming and agricultural history.
Little things like how much land it takes to produce each type of veggie, grain, fruit, dairy, etc, for a city of say a million or three, precludes this plan from possibly being more than a supplement to the supply.
Add the economics, peoples buying/eating habits, questions of property/produce ownership, weather/location, and I am positive. ;)
I never thought it would solve anything or replace the way food is currently produced. I just think it will help, in more ways than one, as I mentioned. ;)
What are you talking about Classicman?
I am asking what you define as "it" in your quote, "Whew. Yup - everyone should have their own manufacturing facility and a garden on their roof. That'd do it?"
Or at least to explain your completely idiotic strawman. You do seem to love those.
You call me idiotic and you still want me to explain a post that had NOTHING to do with you. ok, I'll bite, but just cuz I like you. Another poster implied something that I replied to. It had nothing to do with you. In short, NOYB.
I was the one who brought up garden roofs and how urban agriculture can make an impact in food production. How can you direct it at Sugarpop and not me when we were talking about the same thing?
Small farms don't feed cities.
Urban agriculture can hopefully make an impact if it starts growing.
That's a pipe dream.
Green roofs are getting increasingly popular and a few cities (Vancouver and Portland) have started planting large gardens in unused lots with some success. It wouldn't be profitable now, but if sources of energy became cheaper entire buildings could be dedicated to the growth of vegetables and maybe even fruits and grains.
Whew. Yup - everyone should have their own manufacturing facility and a garden on their roof. That'd do it.
How can you direct it at Sugarpop and not me?
Because I chose to respond to her and not you.
I was the one who brought up garden roofs and how urban agriculture can make an impact in food production. How can you direct it at Sugarpop and not me when we were talking about the same thing?
Because I'm an easier target? :D I seem to have a bullseye on my forehead. Or maybe it's on my ass. :eek:
hey, I was joking. See the little icons? What is life if I can't make fun of myself sometimes.
