[speechlesstx]

I know, it's hard to figure out to get enough of other people's money to make us all equally healthy and wealthy.

[Wondergirl]

I know, it's hard to figure out to get enough of other people's money to make us all equally healthy and wealthy.

If you were poor and not healthy, what would your resources be? What would you do?

[speechlesstx]

If you were poor and not healthy, what would your resources be? What would you do?

I fail to see the relevance to my post. In spite of the constant rhetoric it's well documented that I am all in favor of a safety net for those in need. The question is how does one reach this alleged goal of "equality?" There is nothing fair in hurting one person to help another and I think you'd be hard pressed to find me some examples of such experiments that haven't hurt the people while enriching the elite and creating shortages and chaos.

How's that working out in Sean Penn's hero's state?

As Venezuelans Rush To Appliance Stores, Maduro Urges Calm | Fox News Latino

[talaniman]

Its not other peoples money its OUR money pooled to help US all. That's what I hate about Ted Cruz, he enjoys his cadillac insurance from his wife, and tells poor people, working people, old people they don't deserve it, and tries to destroy any plan that helps them.

[speechlesstx]

Its not other peoples money its OUR money pooled to help US all. That's what I hate about Ted Cruz, he enjoys his cadillac insurance from his wife, and tells poor people, working people, old people they don't deserve it, and tries to destroy any plan that helps them.

I would expect that response from you. Your side thinks our children don't belong to us, it's no surprise you don't think our money belongs to us - but we've known that for a long time. Sorry dude, I support paying a reasonable tax but stop EXPECTING us to be happy when you take more of our money or FORCE us to spend what's left how YOU choose.

[speechlesstx]

FYI, another Democrat has experienced the reality of the crap sandwich Obama gave her. Kirsten Powers is not happy...

My blood pressure goes up every time they say that they’re protecting us from substandard health insurance plans,” Powers told Bret Baier. “There is nothing to support what they’re saying.”

“I have talked to about how I’m losing my health insurance,” she continued. “If I want to keep the same health insurance, it’s going to cost twice as much. There’s nothing substandard about my plan.”

“All of the things they say that are not in my plan are in my plan,” Powers lamented. “All of the things they have listed — there’s no explanation for doubling my premiums other than the fact that it’s subsidizing other people. They need to be honest about that.”

Don't hold your breath over the emperor being honest about anything, Kirsten. Which reminds me, what were the official numbers enrolled today? Any demographics on that? How many were just in the shopping cart?

[talaniman]

I would expect that response from you. Your side thinks our children don't belong to us, it's no surprise you don't think our money belongs to us - but we've known that for a long time. Sorry dude, I support paying a reasonable tax but stop EXPECTING us to be happy when you take more of our money or FORCE us to spend what's left how YOU choose.

Does that include the 900,000 vets on food stamps? Well some of them will lose that access.

170,000 Veterans May Lose Access To Food Stamps | Food Rant | Food | KCET

The reasons that vets utilize SNAP is multi-dimensional and, sadly, somewhat predictable:

Veterans returning home from service have more trouble finding work than other folks, and rely more heavily on the food stamp program. The unemployment rate for recent veterans--those who have served in the past decade--is about 10 percent, almost 3 points above the national unemployment rate. War-related disabilities are one reason why. About a quarter of recent veterans reported service-related disabilities in 2011. Households that have a disabled veteran who is unable to work are twice as likely to lack access to sufficient food than households without a disabled service member.

Nearly 1 Million Vets Face Food Stamps Cut | Military.com

About 900,000 veterans and 5,000 active duty troops face cuts in their food stamp benefits beginning Thursday as $5 billion is automatically trimmed from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program for low-income families.

"The coming benefit cut will reduce SNAP benefits, which are already modest, for all households by 7 percent on average, or about $10 per person per month," according to an analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.......The SNAP program received a boost under the 2009 Recovery Act, or stimulus bill aimed at lifting the nation out of recession, but that temporary increase will expire Thursday as Congress continues to debate a new farm bill which would separate farm subsidies from food stamp benefits.

Non action is not a good option.

[paraclete]

Does that include the 900,000 vets on food stamps? Well some of them will lose that access.

170,000 Veterans May Lose Access To Food Stamps | Food Rant | Food | KCET

Nearly 1 Million Vets Face Food Stamps Cut | Military.com

Non action is not a good option.

The problem with stimulus is it becomes an entitlement and cannot be withdrawn without hardship

[tomder55]

yup it becomes new base line ....in this case we are now in the 53rd month of the worse recovery since the Great Depression. Now we are told that this week's whopping "higher-than-expected" 2.8% real GDP gain is a result of this massive stimulus spending .But the driver any GDP increase is the energy sector's fracking development on private lands .
Meanwhile this almost non-recovery recovery was purchased with the national debt jumping from $10 to $17 trillion dollars in the time since the emperor took office.

[paraclete]

yup it becomes new base line ....in this case we are now in the 53rd month of the worse recovery since the Great Depression. Now we are told that this week's whopping "higher-than-expected" 2.8% real GDP gain is a result of this massive stimulus spending .But the driver any GDP increase is the energy sector's fracking development on private lands .
Meanwhile this almost non-recovery recovery was purchased with the national debt jumping from $10 to $17 trillion dollars in the time since the emperor took office.

Yes one day soon you will have to pay the piper, economics suggests that should be by a massive devaluation of your currency, but even if that happens it won't help your industries because they are already offshore and those businesses who thought to profit from Chinese cheap labour will feel the greatest pinch, so goodbye big executive salaries for doing nothing

[Tuttyd]

I fail to see the relevance to my post. In spite of the constant rhetoric it's well documented that I am all in favor of a safety net for those in need. The question is how does one reach this alleged goal of "equality?" There is nothing fair in hurting one person to help another and I think you'd be hard pressed to find me some examples of such experiments that haven't hurt the people while enriching the elite and creating shortages and chaos.

Depends on the type of equity you are trying to promote. Regardless of the system you had and regardless of the system you will end up with in the future you probably will still have a system whereby a person's economic circumstances determines the level of health care they receive. This is actually a recipe for inequality. You end up hurting the poor into order to favour the wealthy.

The type of equity that should be promoted is the brand that attempt to afford all people( regardless of economic circumstances) the same access to medical care.

So if a wealthy person finds the need to visit a doctor once a week for a year, the same medical opportunity is afford to the person who has little money. It is this attempt at equity that diminishes inequality in medical terms. So less people suffer because the pain in shared around.


I don't think the example you posted is relevant. For some reason there seems to be an inability to understand that equity of health is not necessarily the same as economic equity

[tomder55]

Tutt you know that is not attainable .It's utopian delusions of what's possible . Even in your system there is a so called "universal " basic care and then a 2nd coverage system for those with the means to buy in.

[Tuttyd]

Tutt you know that is not attainable .It's utopian delusions of what's possible . Even in your system there is a so called "universal " basic care and then a 2nd coverage system for those with the means to buy in.

Yes, I think everyone knows that. This is why I used the words, "attempt at" and "promoted" So yes, it is an attempt at something that will never be actually realized. In terms of medical access this is not argument against the attempt.

[paraclete]

Tutt you know that is not attainable .It's utopian delusions of what's possible . Even in your system there is a so called "universal " basic care and then a 2nd coverage system for those with the means to buy in.

Tom I would like to answer your supposition, the basic difference between our systems is the provision of basic care, this is not dependent upon circumstance, it is a right, a benefit of being a citizen. It is provided for by a levy on those who don't have health insurance, it wasn't always so, but outside ideas have permetated our nation. The second tier provides access to care in private hospitals. What this gives you is quicker access for elective procedures, not to life saving procedures.

I was in hospital a short time ago, all my extra cover would have provided in that instance is a free television, every thing else was covered.

What I would say to you is our utopian delusions have been realised and what stops you from doing the same is an ideological trap. Now I know we have had forty years experience in implementation you don't have, and we had the same misgivings in the beginning and it was not without the rebellion of the medical profession but in the end it has worked out for the benefit of everyone

I can tell you there is a co-payment in some instances but this is the perogative of the doctor, not the system and those who can't afford it don't use those doctors

[tomder55]

and what is mandated as essential basic care ? Because here the emperor is dicatating that everything except the kitchen sink get covered.

[speechlesstx]

And the elite will still get richer, more powerful and all the care they want.

[tomder55]

In terms of medical access this is not argument against the attempt.

Unless it destroys a system that worked well and served most of the nation more than sufficiently .

[paraclete]

and what is mandated as essential basic care ? Because here the emperor is dicatating that everything except the kitchen sink get covered.

well Tom the way it works is you go to the GP, a large number of whom are in the system, if he thinks you need something extra he refers you, basic pathology is covered and what the specialist charges is up to him, but a basic benefit is paid. if you need a hospital procedure and you have health cover you go to a private hospital otherwise you wait for a public hospital bed to be available, that is in the case of elective procedures. There is a pharameutical benefits scheme which covers at least part of the cost and there is an annual threshold above which you pay nothing. Health insurance covers stuff like chiropractic, extra dental, drugs not in the scheme, private hospitals, ambulance. Basically public hospitals are free. we don't have state taxes so the federal goverment finances the state systems, at least in part. It works off an ID card, no card you pay.

Costs are covered by a levy on income, unless you have insurance so once you have a reasonable income level it is stupid not to have insurance. If you are on welfare, etc you don't have to pay anything. Lots of people don't have enough income to have insurance, basically a family would need an income of $50,000 before they could afford insurance (ie, the insurance becomes cheaper than the levy)

Now I know I have made it look simple but it is all backed up by good software which links it all together and soon they will be implementing a national medical records scheme so the doctors are connected everywhere

[tomder55]

so there are many fewer defined and mandated benefits . Thought so .

[talaniman]

If I understand Clete, they use financial incentives in place of mandates.

basically a family would need an income of $50,000 before they could afford insurance (ie, the insurance becomes cheaper than the levy)