Republicans introduce new health care bill This Week!

[frigidweirdo]

Again, the cost in the US is TWICE AS MUCH. Your claims would indicate that it would be cheaper. It is not.

Clearly there is something wrong, and Insurance is a part of that problem.

Insurance is part of the problem? Yes it is, but is it any cheaper hiring government employees to do the same job? Probably not. Given the fraud that takes place in government programs, it would probably be more of a loss. It's just that you wouldn't see it because you'd never get a bill for it. Just add it to the 20 trillion in debt we already have.

But as I've said from the beginning, insurance just isn't necessary. Cut it out, get rid of it. Why do you need it at all? Just have people turn up to hospital and get treated. Its will save you 7%.

So who's going to pay the people at the hospital? They have to bill somebody. People have to keep records of what's going on; why you were admitted; who treated you and so on.

And before you say government should just take care of everything, that's not going to happen. Trial lawyers are big contributors to the Democrat party come election time. Government run facilities can't be sued and neither can their employees.

Who is going to pay? The government is going to pay.

You say it's not going to happen. It's been happening since the 1950s in the UK.

Yes, the US isn't run by the people for the people, it's run by special interests for special interests. Except, you vote for this shit, and yet you keep voting for this shit, and your argument is "we can't change it, so let's not bother". Oh, wow.

We are trying to change it. What do you think we are doing now?

So government pays the providers. Then government grows larger and larger because they would have to hire people to do the work insurance companies used to do. So where is the savings? That's besides the fact that when Democrats gain leadership again, they will load the system with more red tape because the more people we have working for government, the more likely Democrat voters.

Thinking you can lower healthcare cost by attacking insurance companies is like thinking you can help put out a three alarm house fire by pissing on it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't see change. I see the same old, just different name, slightly different way of operating, but still people getting fucked over and many leeches on the take.

No, you don't understand. In the UK there is no work for what the insurance companies do. It's simply NOT THERE. This is why the UK govt spends HALF what the US pays for healthcare, and yet treats MORE people, per capita.

Thinking I can lower costs is like thinking I've seen it happen. I mean, the US has the MOST EXPENSIVE system in the world. If you can't lower costs from the most expensive, then you really, really have a problem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Insurance is part of the problem? Yes it is, but is it any cheaper hiring government employees to do the same job? Probably not. Given the fraud that takes place in government programs, it would probably be more of a loss. It's just that you wouldn't see it because you'd never get a bill for it. Just add it to the 20 trillion in debt we already have.

But as I've said from the beginning, insurance just isn't necessary. Cut it out, get rid of it. Why do you need it at all? Just have people turn up to hospital and get treated. Its will save you 7%.

So who's going to pay the people at the hospital? They have to bill somebody. People have to keep records of what's going on; why you were admitted; who treated you and so on.

And before you say government should just take care of everything, that's not going to happen. Trial lawyers are big contributors to the Democrat party come election time. Government run facilities can't be sued and neither can their employees.

Who is going to pay? The government is going to pay.

You say it's not going to happen. It's been happening since the 1950s in the UK.

Yes, the US isn't run by the people for the people, it's run by special interests for special interests. Except, you vote for this shit, and yet you keep voting for this shit, and your argument is "we can't change it, so let's not bother". Oh, wow.

We are trying to change it. What do you think we are doing now?

So government pays the providers. Then government grows larger and larger because they would have to hire people to do the work insurance companies used to do. So where is the savings? That's besides the fact that when Democrats gain leadership again, they will load the system with more red tape because the more people we have working for government, the more likely Democrat voters.

Thinking you can lower healthcare cost by attacking insurance companies is like thinking you can help put out a three alarm house fire by pissing on it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't see change. I see the same old, just different name, slightly different way of operating, but still people getting fucked over and many leeches on the take.

No, you don't understand. In the UK there is no work for what the insurance companies do. It's simply NOT THERE. This is why the UK govt spends HALF what the US pays for healthcare, and yet treats MORE people, per capita.

Thinking I can lower costs is like thinking I've seen it happen. I mean, the US has the MOST EXPENSIVE system in the world. If you can't lower costs from the most expensive, then you really, really have a problem.

Yes, we do have the most expensive healthcare in the world, that's because we attract the best doctors and have the most advanced technology in the world.

It's the old rule of law: you get what you pay for.

You keep laying the onus on insurance companies instead of the real problem which is government. Yet you think the solution is to have more government.

Only a fool believes that the entity that created the problem will find a solution to it. Healthcare cost is the problem--not healthcare insurance companies.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But as I've said from the beginning, insurance just isn't necessary. Cut it out, get rid of it. Why do you need it at all? Just have people turn up to hospital and get treated. Its will save you 7%.

So who's going to pay the people at the hospital? They have to bill somebody. People have to keep records of what's going on; why you were admitted; who treated you and so on.

And before you say government should just take care of everything, that's not going to happen. Trial lawyers are big contributors to the Democrat party come election time. Government run facilities can't be sued and neither can their employees.

Who is going to pay? The government is going to pay.

You say it's not going to happen. It's been happening since the 1950s in the UK.

Yes, the US isn't run by the people for the people, it's run by special interests for special interests. Except, you vote for this shit, and yet you keep voting for this shit, and your argument is "we can't change it, so let's not bother". Oh, wow.

We are trying to change it. What do you think we are doing now?

So government pays the providers. Then government grows larger and larger because they would have to hire people to do the work insurance companies used to do. So where is the savings? That's besides the fact that when Democrats gain leadership again, they will load the system with more red tape because the more people we have working for government, the more likely Democrat voters.

Thinking you can lower healthcare cost by attacking insurance companies is like thinking you can help put out a three alarm house fire by pissing on it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't see change. I see the same old, just different name, slightly different way of operating, but still people getting fucked over and many leeches on the take.

No, you don't understand. In the UK there is no work for what the insurance companies do. It's simply NOT THERE. This is why the UK govt spends HALF what the US pays for healthcare, and yet treats MORE people, per capita.

Thinking I can lower costs is like thinking I've seen it happen. I mean, the US has the MOST EXPENSIVE system in the world. If you can't lower costs from the most expensive, then you really, really have a problem.

Yes, we do have the most expensive healthcare in the world, that's because we attract the best doctors and have the most advanced technology in the world.

It's the old rule of law: you get what you pay for.

You keep laying the onus on insurance companies instead of the real problem which is government. Yet you think the solution is to have more government.

Only a fool believes that the entity that created the problem will find a solution to it. Healthcare cost is the problem--not healthcare insurance companies.

Of course.

The problem here is that the MAJORITY can't afford to pay for the best. They just want to get treated. They don't need super fucking soft beds. They don't need 5 Michelin star chefs. They want HEALTHCARE. The NHS is, for the most part, sufficient for the UK.

The problem in the US is that you pay for the best healthcare, but then you pay extra on top. All of the corruption, all of the unnecessary. Why?

If the NHS in the UK spend an extra 50%, it would have an amazing system, could attract even better doctors with more time. Instead the govt has decided to cut back on spending because it wants to save the rich money. All the while telling people the country can't afford it. Er... the UK can't afford healthcare half that of the US?

Your views are the views of people like Rand Paul who go around telling people that the problem isn't the rich, when it clearly is.

Again, we come back to the same issue. The ONLY way of solving the US's problems is by changing to Proportional Representation.

 

[JoeB131]

So government pays the providers. Then government grows larger and larger because they would have to hire people to do the work insurance companies used to do. So where is the savings? That's besides the fact that when Democrats gain leadership again, they will load the system with more red tape because the more people we have working for government, the more likely Democrat voters.

Thinking you can lower healthcare cost by attacking insurance companies is like thinking you can help put out a three alarm house fire by pissing on it.

Are you possibly retarded?

The thing is, there are two major things the Insurance companies spend on that provide no value to health care.

Huge salaries for executives.
Stock dividends for shareholders.

Neither of these produce any net value for the patient's care.

The reason why the government spends so much on health care is that there are people that the insurance companies won't touch at all, and other they won't touch without a government subsidy.

Let's say we got rid of all government involvement in health care, and simply let people negotiate directly with insurance companies.

The private insurance system would collapse within a year. The old and sick wouldn't be able to afford insurance, companies would just pay their employees extra to buy their own. The young and healthy simply wouldn't bother buying health insurance at all.

Instead the insurance companies whine about "the government", but they are the first ones to belly up to the trough... SCHIP, Medicare Part C... all subsidies to big insurance, the biggest corporate welfare queen of them all.

again, rest of the world has figured this out.

 

[JoeB131]

Nah, it's the one-percenters who call our company (or our other customers) and give us work.

I told you before Joe, if we took all the poor people in this country, put them on an island somewhere, not only would nobody miss them, but it would benefit our country greatly. But if you took all the wealthy people in this country, put them on an island somewhere, the country collapses.

Actually, if we fairly distributed the wealth, like the Europeans and Japanese do, we wouldn't have half the problem we have.

ALso, poor is subjective. By my standards, you are probably poor. And, no, I wouldn't miss you if they sent you to an Island with all the darkies you hate so much.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nah, it's the one-percenters who call our company (or our other customers) and give us work.

I told you before Joe, if we took all the poor people in this country, put them on an island somewhere, not only would nobody miss them, but it would benefit our country greatly. But if you took all the wealthy people in this country, put them on an island somewhere, the country collapses.

Actually, if we fairly distributed the wealth, like the Europeans and Japanese do, we wouldn't have half the problem we have.

ALso, poor is subjective. By my standards, you are probably poor. And, no, I wouldn't miss you if they sent you to an Island with all the darkies you hate so much.

At least I live with those drakies and I'm not a self-hating white like you. Let me ask you Joe, if we distributed the wealth, who would want to become wealthy? After all, if the tax rate were 0% in this country, the government would collect 0 dollars. If the tax rate was 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?

"Just how much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So who's going to pay the people at the hospital? They have to bill somebody. People have to keep records of what's going on; why you were admitted; who treated you and so on.

And before you say government should just take care of everything, that's not going to happen. Trial lawyers are big contributors to the Democrat party come election time. Government run facilities can't be sued and neither can their employees.

Who is going to pay? The government is going to pay.

You say it's not going to happen. It's been happening since the 1950s in the UK.

Yes, the US isn't run by the people for the people, it's run by special interests for special interests. Except, you vote for this shit, and yet you keep voting for this shit, and your argument is "we can't change it, so let's not bother". Oh, wow.

We are trying to change it. What do you think we are doing now?

So government pays the providers. Then government grows larger and larger because they would have to hire people to do the work insurance companies used to do. So where is the savings? That's besides the fact that when Democrats gain leadership again, they will load the system with more red tape because the more people we have working for government, the more likely Democrat voters.

Thinking you can lower healthcare cost by attacking insurance companies is like thinking you can help put out a three alarm house fire by pissing on it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't see change. I see the same old, just different name, slightly different way of operating, but still people getting fucked over and many leeches on the take.

No, you don't understand. In the UK there is no work for what the insurance companies do. It's simply NOT THERE. This is why the UK govt spends HALF what the US pays for healthcare, and yet treats MORE people, per capita.

Thinking I can lower costs is like thinking I've seen it happen. I mean, the US has the MOST EXPENSIVE system in the world. If you can't lower costs from the most expensive, then you really, really have a problem.

Yes, we do have the most expensive healthcare in the world, that's because we attract the best doctors and have the most advanced technology in the world.

It's the old rule of law: you get what you pay for.

You keep laying the onus on insurance companies instead of the real problem which is government. Yet you think the solution is to have more government.

Only a fool believes that the entity that created the problem will find a solution to it. Healthcare cost is the problem--not healthcare insurance companies.

Of course.

The problem here is that the MAJORITY can't afford to pay for the best. They just want to get treated. They don't need super fucking soft beds. They don't need 5 Michelin star chefs. They want HEALTHCARE. The NHS is, for the most part, sufficient for the UK.

The problem in the US is that you pay for the best healthcare, but then you pay extra on top. All of the corruption, all of the unnecessary. Why?

If the NHS in the UK spend an extra 50%, it would have an amazing system, could attract even better doctors with more time. Instead the govt has decided to cut back on spending because it wants to save the rich money. All the while telling people the country can't afford it. Er... the UK can't afford healthcare half that of the US?

Your views are the views of people like Rand Paul who go around telling people that the problem isn't the rich, when it clearly is.

Again, we come back to the same issue. The ONLY way of solving the US's problems is by changing to Proportional Representation.

We do have government healthcare already. Let's look at some of them:

The VA, which has had it's huge share of problems from letting our veterans die to suicide because they can't get treated. Big wigs cutting money for care so they can get a larger bonus.

Medicare, which is not only going broke, but only pays a portion of the bill for their patients. Providers have to increase prices for services to private insured customers to make up the loss. That's a huge reason our premiums keep going higher and higher.

Medicaid, not only the worst healthcare coverage in the country, but has most states in the red trying to fund their part of it. Like Medicare, some doctors and facilities are refusing to treat new government patients because they can't take the loss any longer.

So there's your government (non-insurance) systems. And you think we should start another one?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Who is going to pay? The government is going to pay.

You say it's not going to happen. It's been happening since the 1950s in the UK.

Yes, the US isn't run by the people for the people, it's run by special interests for special interests. Except, you vote for this shit, and yet you keep voting for this shit, and your argument is "we can't change it, so let's not bother". Oh, wow.

We are trying to change it. What do you think we are doing now?

So government pays the providers. Then government grows larger and larger because they would have to hire people to do the work insurance companies used to do. So where is the savings? That's besides the fact that when Democrats gain leadership again, they will load the system with more red tape because the more people we have working for government, the more likely Democrat voters.

Thinking you can lower healthcare cost by attacking insurance companies is like thinking you can help put out a three alarm house fire by pissing on it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't see change. I see the same old, just different name, slightly different way of operating, but still people getting fucked over and many leeches on the take.

No, you don't understand. In the UK there is no work for what the insurance companies do. It's simply NOT THERE. This is why the UK govt spends HALF what the US pays for healthcare, and yet treats MORE people, per capita.

Thinking I can lower costs is like thinking I've seen it happen. I mean, the US has the MOST EXPENSIVE system in the world. If you can't lower costs from the most expensive, then you really, really have a problem.

Yes, we do have the most expensive healthcare in the world, that's because we attract the best doctors and have the most advanced technology in the world.

It's the old rule of law: you get what you pay for.

You keep laying the onus on insurance companies instead of the real problem which is government. Yet you think the solution is to have more government.

Only a fool believes that the entity that created the problem will find a solution to it. Healthcare cost is the problem--not healthcare insurance companies.

Of course.

The problem here is that the MAJORITY can't afford to pay for the best. They just want to get treated. They don't need super fucking soft beds. They don't need 5 Michelin star chefs. They want HEALTHCARE. The NHS is, for the most part, sufficient for the UK.

The problem in the US is that you pay for the best healthcare, but then you pay extra on top. All of the corruption, all of the unnecessary. Why?

If the NHS in the UK spend an extra 50%, it would have an amazing system, could attract even better doctors with more time. Instead the govt has decided to cut back on spending because it wants to save the rich money. All the while telling people the country can't afford it. Er... the UK can't afford healthcare half that of the US?

Your views are the views of people like Rand Paul who go around telling people that the problem isn't the rich, when it clearly is.

Again, we come back to the same issue. The ONLY way of solving the US's problems is by changing to Proportional Representation.

We do have government healthcare already. Let's look at some of them:

The VA, which has had it's huge share of problems from letting our veterans die to suicide because they can't get treated. Big wigs cutting money for care so they can get a larger bonus.

Medicare, which is not only going broke, but only pays a portion of the bill for their patients. Providers have to increase prices for services to private insured customers to make up the loss. That's a huge reason our premiums keep going higher and higher.

Medicaid, not only the worst healthcare coverage in the country, but has most states in the red trying to fund their part of it. Like Medicare, some doctors and facilities are refusing to treat new government patients because they can't take the loss any longer.

So there's your government (non-insurance) systems. And you think we should start another one?

Which shows what? Shows that if you don't put enough money into something it won't work? Oh, what a surprise. The NHS has worked well. So....? Maybe it's just the US govt doesn't work, and isn't working on healthcare right now because it's too expensive.

Seems whichever way you look at it, there are massive problems, regardless of whether it's govt run or not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We are trying to change it. What do you think we are doing now?

So government pays the providers. Then government grows larger and larger because they would have to hire people to do the work insurance companies used to do. So where is the savings? That's besides the fact that when Democrats gain leadership again, they will load the system with more red tape because the more people we have working for government, the more likely Democrat voters.

Thinking you can lower healthcare cost by attacking insurance companies is like thinking you can help put out a three alarm house fire by pissing on it.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't see change. I see the same old, just different name, slightly different way of operating, but still people getting fucked over and many leeches on the take.

No, you don't understand. In the UK there is no work for what the insurance companies do. It's simply NOT THERE. This is why the UK govt spends HALF what the US pays for healthcare, and yet treats MORE people, per capita.

Thinking I can lower costs is like thinking I've seen it happen. I mean, the US has the MOST EXPENSIVE system in the world. If you can't lower costs from the most expensive, then you really, really have a problem.

Yes, we do have the most expensive healthcare in the world, that's because we attract the best doctors and have the most advanced technology in the world.

It's the old rule of law: you get what you pay for.

You keep laying the onus on insurance companies instead of the real problem which is government. Yet you think the solution is to have more government.

Only a fool believes that the entity that created the problem will find a solution to it. Healthcare cost is the problem--not healthcare insurance companies.

Of course.

The problem here is that the MAJORITY can't afford to pay for the best. They just want to get treated. They don't need super fucking soft beds. They don't need 5 Michelin star chefs. They want HEALTHCARE. The NHS is, for the most part, sufficient for the UK.

The problem in the US is that you pay for the best healthcare, but then you pay extra on top. All of the corruption, all of the unnecessary. Why?

If the NHS in the UK spend an extra 50%, it would have an amazing system, could attract even better doctors with more time. Instead the govt has decided to cut back on spending because it wants to save the rich money. All the while telling people the country can't afford it. Er... the UK can't afford healthcare half that of the US?

Your views are the views of people like Rand Paul who go around telling people that the problem isn't the rich, when it clearly is.

Again, we come back to the same issue. The ONLY way of solving the US's problems is by changing to Proportional Representation.

We do have government healthcare already. Let's look at some of them:

The VA, which has had it's huge share of problems from letting our veterans die to suicide because they can't get treated. Big wigs cutting money for care so they can get a larger bonus.

Medicare, which is not only going broke, but only pays a portion of the bill for their patients. Providers have to increase prices for services to private insured customers to make up the loss. That's a huge reason our premiums keep going higher and higher.

Medicaid, not only the worst healthcare coverage in the country, but has most states in the red trying to fund their part of it. Like Medicare, some doctors and facilities are refusing to treat new government patients because they can't take the loss any longer.

So there's your government (non-insurance) systems. And you think we should start another one?

Which shows what? Shows that if you don't put enough money into something it won't work? Oh, what a surprise. The NHS has worked well. So....? Maybe it's just the US govt doesn't work, and isn't working on healthcare right now because it's too expensive.

Seems whichever way you look at it, there are massive problems, regardless of whether it's govt run or not.

Which has been my point all along. I can dig up plenty of stories and horror stories of countries with socialized healthcare. As much as people like to talk how great it is, they have plenty of their own problems too.

So instead of turning our great system into something everybody else has, it's time we make huge improvements to our system starting out with affordability.

Every time this subject is discussed, those on the left express so many concerns about the poor. Who cares about the poor? When we decide to give provisions to one group of people over another, we place a value on that group. Why is it the poor has a higher value than the working people?

It makes no sense because the poor get free healthcare via Medicaid, and working people who can't afford healthcare for themselves pay taxes so that the non-working are taken care of. Does that make sense to you? The poor contribute nothing to our society, in fact they don't contribute--they only take.

So I say step one is not to focus on the poor, and focus on the middle-class. Take from the poor if needed. When we working people can provide for ourselves, then we should look at the poor.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't see change. I see the same old, just different name, slightly different way of operating, but still people getting fucked over and many leeches on the take.

No, you don't understand. In the UK there is no work for what the insurance companies do. It's simply NOT THERE. This is why the UK govt spends HALF what the US pays for healthcare, and yet treats MORE people, per capita.

Thinking I can lower costs is like thinking I've seen it happen. I mean, the US has the MOST EXPENSIVE system in the world. If you can't lower costs from the most expensive, then you really, really have a problem.

Yes, we do have the most expensive healthcare in the world, that's because we attract the best doctors and have the most advanced technology in the world.

It's the old rule of law: you get what you pay for.

You keep laying the onus on insurance companies instead of the real problem which is government. Yet you think the solution is to have more government.

Only a fool believes that the entity that created the problem will find a solution to it. Healthcare cost is the problem--not healthcare insurance companies.

Of course.

The problem here is that the MAJORITY can't afford to pay for the best. They just want to get treated. They don't need super fucking soft beds. They don't need 5 Michelin star chefs. They want HEALTHCARE. The NHS is, for the most part, sufficient for the UK.

The problem in the US is that you pay for the best healthcare, but then you pay extra on top. All of the corruption, all of the unnecessary. Why?

If the NHS in the UK spend an extra 50%, it would have an amazing system, could attract even better doctors with more time. Instead the govt has decided to cut back on spending because it wants to save the rich money. All the while telling people the country can't afford it. Er... the UK can't afford healthcare half that of the US?

Your views are the views of people like Rand Paul who go around telling people that the problem isn't the rich, when it clearly is.

Again, we come back to the same issue. The ONLY way of solving the US's problems is by changing to Proportional Representation.

We do have government healthcare already. Let's look at some of them:

The VA, which has had it's huge share of problems from letting our veterans die to suicide because they can't get treated. Big wigs cutting money for care so they can get a larger bonus.

Medicare, which is not only going broke, but only pays a portion of the bill for their patients. Providers have to increase prices for services to private insured customers to make up the loss. That's a huge reason our premiums keep going higher and higher.

Medicaid, not only the worst healthcare coverage in the country, but has most states in the red trying to fund their part of it. Like Medicare, some doctors and facilities are refusing to treat new government patients because they can't take the loss any longer.

So there's your government (non-insurance) systems. And you think we should start another one?

Which shows what? Shows that if you don't put enough money into something it won't work? Oh, what a surprise. The NHS has worked well. So....? Maybe it's just the US govt doesn't work, and isn't working on healthcare right now because it's too expensive.

Seems whichever way you look at it, there are massive problems, regardless of whether it's govt run or not.

Which has been my point all along. I can dig up plenty of stories and horror stories of countries with socialized healthcare. As much as people like to talk how great it is, they have plenty of their own problems too.

So instead of turning our great system into something everybody else has, it's time we make huge improvements to our system starting out with affordability.

Every time this subject is discussed, those on the left express so many concerns about the poor. Who cares about the poor? When we decide to give provisions to one group of people over another, we place a value on that group. Why is it the poor has a higher value than the working people?

It makes no sense because the poor get free healthcare via Medicaid, and working people who can't afford healthcare for themselves pay taxes so that the non-working are taken care of. Does that make sense to you? The poor contribute nothing to our society, in fact they don't contribute--they only take.

So I say step one is not to focus on the poor, and focus on the middle-class. Take from the poor if needed. When we working people can provide for ourselves, then we should look at the poor.

The problem is you can dig up something bad about EVERYTHING. I can do the same for the US healthcare system. In fact I've been doing it. The amount of money being spent on corruption is at the very least 3% of US GDP. Yes, 3% of all money in the US goes on healthcare corruption.

We could go on all day about showing things that don't work. Well, if both sides can fail, and do fail, then what do you do?

Okay, you want to start with affordability with the healthcare system. Well, clearly, the easiest place to start is with this is corruption. But you can't change this until you change the political system, because too many politicians want to keep things the way they are because too many people profit from this system and they take a slice of the pie.

You just said the poor aren't working people. Er... what? That's a bad place to start, because you're wrong.

You also seem to want to put people above other people. Why? Let's just make things a little more equal. People need healthcare. Not just those who aren't working, but everyone. Sure, if people want to pay more for better, then that's fine, but in the UK everyone has healthcare and it's cheaper. To make a good system you need to spend a certain amount, but it'd still be LOWER than what the US pays now.

No, don't focus on the Middle Class. Focus on the country as a whole.

 

[JoeB131]

At least I live with those drakies and I'm not a self-hating white like you. Let me ask you Joe, if we distributed the wealth, who would want to become wealthy? After all, if the tax rate were 0% in this country, the government would collect 0 dollars. If the tax rate was 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?

"Just how much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"

I think the problem is you see greed as a virtue, and not a vice. Frankly, I wonder what kind of person wants to be so rich he can own dancing horses and car elevators, and is willing to put thousands of people out of work to get them.

The thing is, the rich aren't working, they are taking advantage of the hard work of others. I think you'd get that, considering you (according to you) work your ass off and you can't even get your one percenter boss to pony up for decent health care.

 

[JoeB131]

Which has been my point all along. I can dig up plenty of stories and horror stories of countries with socialized healthcare. As much as people like to talk how great it is, they have plenty of their own problems too.

So instead of turning our great system into something everybody else has, it's time we make huge improvements to our system starting out with affordability.

Except our system isn't "Great". We have the highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectency in the western world... and we spend twice as much to get there.

Every time this subject is discussed, those on the left express so many concerns about the poor. Who cares about the poor? When we decide to give provisions to one group of people over another, we place a value on that group. Why is it the poor has a higher value than the working people?

The problem you have is you think "the Poor" and "Working People" are two different groups. They aren't. Most of us are one paycheck away from poverty, and you know it. One slip on the ice, and most of us are moving in with mom.

It makes no sense because the poor get free healthcare via Medicaid, and working people who can't afford healthcare for themselves pay taxes so that the non-working are taken care of. Does that make sense to you? The poor contribute nothing to our society, in fact they don't contribute--they only take.

You see, this is where your confusion comes in.

Let's look at the budgets of the following Health Care Programs.
Medicare- for middle class working people who are too old to work, is 646.2 billion in 2015. Medicaid spent $545.1 billion in 2015.

Meanwhile, private Health care spending was 2 Billion.

Also, of those poor people who get Medicare you hate so much because they make enough less to qualify and you don't...

most of them have jobs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, we do have the most expensive healthcare in the world, that's because we attract the best doctors and have the most advanced technology in the world.

It's the old rule of law: you get what you pay for.

You keep laying the onus on insurance companies instead of the real problem which is government. Yet you think the solution is to have more government.

Only a fool believes that the entity that created the problem will find a solution to it. Healthcare cost is the problem--not healthcare insurance companies.

Of course.

The problem here is that the MAJORITY can't afford to pay for the best. They just want to get treated. They don't need super fucking soft beds. They don't need 5 Michelin star chefs. They want HEALTHCARE. The NHS is, for the most part, sufficient for the UK.

The problem in the US is that you pay for the best healthcare, but then you pay extra on top. All of the corruption, all of the unnecessary. Why?

If the NHS in the UK spend an extra 50%, it would have an amazing system, could attract even better doctors with more time. Instead the govt has decided to cut back on spending because it wants to save the rich money. All the while telling people the country can't afford it. Er... the UK can't afford healthcare half that of the US?

Your views are the views of people like Rand Paul who go around telling people that the problem isn't the rich, when it clearly is.

Again, we come back to the same issue. The ONLY way of solving the US's problems is by changing to Proportional Representation.

We do have government healthcare already. Let's look at some of them:

The VA, which has had it's huge share of problems from letting our veterans die to suicide because they can't get treated. Big wigs cutting money for care so they can get a larger bonus.

Medicare, which is not only going broke, but only pays a portion of the bill for their patients. Providers have to increase prices for services to private insured customers to make up the loss. That's a huge reason our premiums keep going higher and higher.

Medicaid, not only the worst healthcare coverage in the country, but has most states in the red trying to fund their part of it. Like Medicare, some doctors and facilities are refusing to treat new government patients because they can't take the loss any longer.

So there's your government (non-insurance) systems. And you think we should start another one?

Which shows what? Shows that if you don't put enough money into something it won't work? Oh, what a surprise. The NHS has worked well. So....? Maybe it's just the US govt doesn't work, and isn't working on healthcare right now because it's too expensive.

Seems whichever way you look at it, there are massive problems, regardless of whether it's govt run or not.

Which has been my point all along. I can dig up plenty of stories and horror stories of countries with socialized healthcare. As much as people like to talk how great it is, they have plenty of their own problems too.

So instead of turning our great system into something everybody else has, it's time we make huge improvements to our system starting out with affordability.

Every time this subject is discussed, those on the left express so many concerns about the poor. Who cares about the poor? When we decide to give provisions to one group of people over another, we place a value on that group. Why is it the poor has a higher value than the working people?

It makes no sense because the poor get free healthcare via Medicaid, and working people who can't afford healthcare for themselves pay taxes so that the non-working are taken care of. Does that make sense to you? The poor contribute nothing to our society, in fact they don't contribute--they only take.

So I say step one is not to focus on the poor, and focus on the middle-class. Take from the poor if needed. When we working people can provide for ourselves, then we should look at the poor.

The problem is you can dig up something bad about EVERYTHING. I can do the same for the US healthcare system. In fact I've been doing it. The amount of money being spent on corruption is at the very least 3% of US GDP. Yes, 3% of all money in the US goes on healthcare corruption.

We could go on all day about showing things that don't work. Well, if both sides can fail, and do fail, then what do you do?

Okay, you want to start with affordability with the healthcare system. Well, clearly, the easiest place to start is with this is corruption. But you can't change this until you change the political system, because too many politicians want to keep things the way they are because too many people profit from this system and they take a slice of the pie.

You just said the poor aren't working people. Er... what? That's a bad place to start, because you're wrong.

You also seem to want to put people above other people. Why? Let's just make things a little more equal. People need healthcare. Not just those who aren't working, but everyone. Sure, if people want to pay more for better, then that's fine, but in the UK everyone has healthcare and it's cheaper. To make a good system you need to spend a certain amount, but it'd still be LOWER than what the US pays now.

No, don't focus on the Middle Class. Focus on the country as a whole.

Focus on the country as a whole means making wealthy and working people pay for services non-wealthy people get. After all, that's the only way it can work.......right?

There is no corruption that you speak of, and if there is, please provide evidence of it.

I didn't say put people over other people, what I said is the Democrats have already done this with Commie Care. But if we are to place value on groups of people, shouldn't the value of people who make this country work be larger than people that don't???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

At least I live with those drakies and I'm not a self-hating white like you. Let me ask you Joe, if we distributed the wealth, who would want to become wealthy? After all, if the tax rate were 0% in this country, the government would collect 0 dollars. If the tax rate was 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to work?

"Just how much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"

I think the problem is you see greed as a virtue, and not a vice. Frankly, I wonder what kind of person wants to be so rich he can own dancing horses and car elevators, and is willing to put thousands of people out of work to get them.

The thing is, the rich aren't working, they are taking advantage of the hard work of others. I think you'd get that, considering you (according to you) work your ass off and you can't even get your one percenter boss to pony up for decent health care.

He ponied up for 20 years, and then Commie Care became the law of the land. He, like many other business owners found that as a way to quit providing that benefit because DumBama and the other commies wanted to create as many government dependents as they could.

But leftists like yourself who watch way too many movies and television shows think it's realty that every business owner is a one-percenter who sits in his (or her) office all day practicing putts on their astroturf within their office. My employer lives in a nice middle-class suburb, comes to work every single day, works for 9 hours, and then takes work home with him. Sorry to burst your little bubble.

But in as many times as I've explained this to you, I realize talking to a liberal is like talking to a wall because liberals only hear what they want to hear, and you'll be bringing up my factitious one-percenter boss in following posts. Liberals never seem to learn anything.

You want to see greed? Greed were unions who thought they had the right to force employers to overpay workers that sent our jobs overseas. Greed are the environmentalists who did the very same by petitioning our politicians to create so many regulations and laws that businesses had no choice but to move out of the country. Greed are those Democrats who depend on Walmart not giving a shit if they purchase cheap overseas products---as long as they can buy as many as their budget allows. Greed is thinking you have the absolute right to take money from people that have more than you. That's greed.

"A liberal believes that if you make money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You see, this is where your confusion comes in.

Let's look at the budgets of the following Health Care Programs.
Medicare- for middle class working people who are too old to work, is 646.2 billion in 2015. Medicaid spent $545.1 billion in 2015.

Meanwhile, private Health care spending was 2 Billion.

Also, of those poor people who get Medicare you hate so much because they make enough less to qualify and you don't...

most of them have jobs.

So who's fault is it they have jobs where they can't make enough money? Need a job? We have plenty in my field of work, it's just that we can't get Americans to do the job. Right now, we need over 60,000 new drivers industry can't find. That's why they are turning to foreigners.

Lazy Americans have their government cell phones, enough food stamps to feed a military, a HUD home in the suburbs (like the one next door to me) free healthcare under Medicaid or Commie Care, paid utilities and more. In fact, in NYC, being a total government dependent pays more than a new school teacher. Losers who use all of our so-called safety nets do better than those who are median income earners.

The problem you have is you think "the Poor" and "Working People" are two different groups. They aren't. Most of us are one paycheck away from poverty, and you know it. One slip on the ice, and most of us are moving in with mom.

Bullshit. All those people of working age not in the workforce are on these programs. If you can't give up smoking pot and work lower wage jobs (like my former tenants) to avoid drug tests, then it's your fault, not anybody else. If you decide to start a family before you can bring in sufficient income to support that family, how is that not their fault?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course.

The problem here is that the MAJORITY can't afford to pay for the best. They just want to get treated. They don't need super fucking soft beds. They don't need 5 Michelin star chefs. They want HEALTHCARE. The NHS is, for the most part, sufficient for the UK.

The problem in the US is that you pay for the best healthcare, but then you pay extra on top. All of the corruption, all of the unnecessary. Why?

If the NHS in the UK spend an extra 50%, it would have an amazing system, could attract even better doctors with more time. Instead the govt has decided to cut back on spending because it wants to save the rich money. All the while telling people the country can't afford it. Er... the UK can't afford healthcare half that of the US?

Your views are the views of people like Rand Paul who go around telling people that the problem isn't the rich, when it clearly is.

Again, we come back to the same issue. The ONLY way of solving the US's problems is by changing to Proportional Representation.

We do have government healthcare already. Let's look at some of them:

The VA, which has had it's huge share of problems from letting our veterans die to suicide because they can't get treated. Big wigs cutting money for care so they can get a larger bonus.

Medicare, which is not only going broke, but only pays a portion of the bill for their patients. Providers have to increase prices for services to private insured customers to make up the loss. That's a huge reason our premiums keep going higher and higher.

Medicaid, not only the worst healthcare coverage in the country, but has most states in the red trying to fund their part of it. Like Medicare, some doctors and facilities are refusing to treat new government patients because they can't take the loss any longer.

So there's your government (non-insurance) systems. And you think we should start another one?

Which shows what? Shows that if you don't put enough money into something it won't work? Oh, what a surprise. The NHS has worked well. So....? Maybe it's just the US govt doesn't work, and isn't working on healthcare right now because it's too expensive.

Seems whichever way you look at it, there are massive problems, regardless of whether it's govt run or not.

Which has been my point all along. I can dig up plenty of stories and horror stories of countries with socialized healthcare. As much as people like to talk how great it is, they have plenty of their own problems too.

So instead of turning our great system into something everybody else has, it's time we make huge improvements to our system starting out with affordability.

Every time this subject is discussed, those on the left express so many concerns about the poor. Who cares about the poor? When we decide to give provisions to one group of people over another, we place a value on that group. Why is it the poor has a higher value than the working people?

It makes no sense because the poor get free healthcare via Medicaid, and working people who can't afford healthcare for themselves pay taxes so that the non-working are taken care of. Does that make sense to you? The poor contribute nothing to our society, in fact they don't contribute--they only take.

So I say step one is not to focus on the poor, and focus on the middle-class. Take from the poor if needed. When we working people can provide for ourselves, then we should look at the poor.

The problem is you can dig up something bad about EVERYTHING. I can do the same for the US healthcare system. In fact I've been doing it. The amount of money being spent on corruption is at the very least 3% of US GDP. Yes, 3% of all money in the US goes on healthcare corruption.

We could go on all day about showing things that don't work. Well, if both sides can fail, and do fail, then what do you do?

Okay, you want to start with affordability with the healthcare system. Well, clearly, the easiest place to start is with this is corruption. But you can't change this until you change the political system, because too many politicians want to keep things the way they are because too many people profit from this system and they take a slice of the pie.

You just said the poor aren't working people. Er... what? That's a bad place to start, because you're wrong.

You also seem to want to put people above other people. Why? Let's just make things a little more equal. People need healthcare. Not just those who aren't working, but everyone. Sure, if people want to pay more for better, then that's fine, but in the UK everyone has healthcare and it's cheaper. To make a good system you need to spend a certain amount, but it'd still be LOWER than what the US pays now.

No, don't focus on the Middle Class. Focus on the country as a whole.

Focus on the country as a whole means making wealthy and working people pay for services non-wealthy people get. After all, that's the only way it can work.......right?

There is no corruption that you speak of, and if there is, please provide evidence of it.

I didn't say put people over other people, what I said is the Democrats have already done this with Commie Care. But if we are to place value on groups of people, shouldn't the value of people who make this country work be larger than people that don't???

The point would be that health is important. Should a person not get health insurance simply because they're born not so smart? Doesn't really seem fair, does it?

It's not like health care is some kind of luxury, it's not like it's something people can do without.

Poorer people still work and that can make richer people richer. So why should rich people pay more? Is the US a society or is it just a "everyone for themselves"? Get rid of the police then. Everyone pays into a pot for the police, don't they? And then they all get the services of the police. Why not just have it where the rich pay for their own protection and the poor go without?

There is no corruption? Oh, come on.

The first level of corruption is with the US govt. The govt that is supposed to represent the people, and yet sets up a system which isn't designed for the people.

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/mspa...lobal Report on Corruption--2006--pp16-22.pdf

Here's an article about US healthcare corruption from Harvard. It appears to be from 2005.

"health care economists have traditionally paid very little attention to corruption, fraud, waste and abuse in the US health care delivery system. They do not factor it into their cost models, they say, because ‘there is no data on that’."

"As a risk to be controlled, fraud and corruption in the health care system exhibits all the standard challenges of white-collar crime: well orchestrated criminal schemes are invisible by design and often go undetected."

"Health care delivery is largely contracted out. Health care is mostly delivered by the private sector, or independent, not-for-profit entities. But the services are paid for by government programmes such as Medicare" "This means that payers have no reliable information about which services were performed, or were necessary, other than the word of the providers."

"
Fee-for-service structure and payment on trust.
Medical suppliers and providers constitute main loci of corruption.
Highly automated payment systems.
Absence of verification and focus on processing accuracy.
Multiple methods of cheating, and centrality of the false claims problem.
Poor measurement of overpayment rates.
Investments in control do not match the scale of the problem."

Study Exposes Corruption of U.S. Health Care, How Big Pharma Manufactures Consumer Demand

"
Study Exposes Corruption of U.S. Health Care, How Big Pharma Manufactures Consumer Demand"

Is the U.S. too corrupt for single-payer health care?

"
Is the U.S. too corrupt for single-payer health care?"

This is the argument you made, that because there is too much corruption things shouldn't change. Go figure.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We do have government healthcare already. Let's look at some of them:

The VA, which has had it's huge share of problems from letting our veterans die to suicide because they can't get treated. Big wigs cutting money for care so they can get a larger bonus.

Medicare, which is not only going broke, but only pays a portion of the bill for their patients. Providers have to increase prices for services to private insured customers to make up the loss. That's a huge reason our premiums keep going higher and higher.

Medicaid, not only the worst healthcare coverage in the country, but has most states in the red trying to fund their part of it. Like Medicare, some doctors and facilities are refusing to treat new government patients because they can't take the loss any longer.

So there's your government (non-insurance) systems. And you think we should start another one?

Which shows what? Shows that if you don't put enough money into something it won't work? Oh, what a surprise. The NHS has worked well. So....? Maybe it's just the US govt doesn't work, and isn't working on healthcare right now because it's too expensive.

Seems whichever way you look at it, there are massive problems, regardless of whether it's govt run or not.

Which has been my point all along. I can dig up plenty of stories and horror stories of countries with socialized healthcare. As much as people like to talk how great it is, they have plenty of their own problems too.

So instead of turning our great system into something everybody else has, it's time we make huge improvements to our system starting out with affordability.

Every time this subject is discussed, those on the left express so many concerns about the poor. Who cares about the poor? When we decide to give provisions to one group of people over another, we place a value on that group. Why is it the poor has a higher value than the working people?

It makes no sense because the poor get free healthcare via Medicaid, and working people who can't afford healthcare for themselves pay taxes so that the non-working are taken care of. Does that make sense to you? The poor contribute nothing to our society, in fact they don't contribute--they only take.

So I say step one is not to focus on the poor, and focus on the middle-class. Take from the poor if needed. When we working people can provide for ourselves, then we should look at the poor.

The problem is you can dig up something bad about EVERYTHING. I can do the same for the US healthcare system. In fact I've been doing it. The amount of money being spent on corruption is at the very least 3% of US GDP. Yes, 3% of all money in the US goes on healthcare corruption.

We could go on all day about showing things that don't work. Well, if both sides can fail, and do fail, then what do you do?

Okay, you want to start with affordability with the healthcare system. Well, clearly, the easiest place to start is with this is corruption. But you can't change this until you change the political system, because too many politicians want to keep things the way they are because too many people profit from this system and they take a slice of the pie.

You just said the poor aren't working people. Er... what? That's a bad place to start, because you're wrong.

You also seem to want to put people above other people. Why? Let's just make things a little more equal. People need healthcare. Not just those who aren't working, but everyone. Sure, if people want to pay more for better, then that's fine, but in the UK everyone has healthcare and it's cheaper. To make a good system you need to spend a certain amount, but it'd still be LOWER than what the US pays now.

No, don't focus on the Middle Class. Focus on the country as a whole.

Focus on the country as a whole means making wealthy and working people pay for services non-wealthy people get. After all, that's the only way it can work.......right?

There is no corruption that you speak of, and if there is, please provide evidence of it.

I didn't say put people over other people, what I said is the Democrats have already done this with Commie Care. But if we are to place value on groups of people, shouldn't the value of people who make this country work be larger than people that don't???

The point would be that health is important. Should a person not get health insurance simply because they're born not so smart? Doesn't really seem fair, does it?

It's not like health care is some kind of luxury, it's not like it's something people can do without.

Poorer people still work and that can make richer people richer. So why should rich people pay more? Is the US a society or is it just a "everyone for themselves"? Get rid of the police then. Everyone pays into a pot for the police, don't they? And then they all get the services of the police. Why not just have it where the rich pay for their own protection and the poor go without?

There is no corruption? Oh, come on.

The first level of corruption is with the US govt. The govt that is supposed to represent the people, and yet sets up a system which isn't designed for the people.

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/msparrow/documents--in use/Corruption in Health Care--The US Experience--TI Global Report on Corruption--2006--pp16-22.pdf

Here's an article about US healthcare corruption from Harvard. It appears to be from 2005.

"health care economists have traditionally paid very little attention to corruption, fraud, waste and abuse in the US health care delivery system. They do not factor it into their cost models, they say, because ‘there is no data on that’."

"As a risk to be controlled, fraud and corruption in the health care system exhibits all the standard challenges of white-collar crime: well orchestrated criminal schemes are invisible by design and often go undetected."

"Health care delivery is largely contracted out. Health care is mostly delivered by the private sector, or independent, not-for-profit entities. But the services are paid for by government programmes such as Medicare" "This means that payers have no reliable information about which services were performed, or were necessary, other than the word of the providers."

"
Fee-for-service structure and payment on trust.
Medical suppliers and providers constitute main loci of corruption.
Highly automated payment systems.
Absence of verification and focus on processing accuracy.
Multiple methods of cheating, and centrality of the false claims problem.
Poor measurement of overpayment rates.
Investments in control do not match the scale of the problem."

Study Exposes Corruption of U.S. Health Care, How Big Pharma Manufactures Consumer Demand

"
Study Exposes Corruption of U.S. Health Care, How Big Pharma Manufactures Consumer Demand"

Is the U.S. too corrupt for single-payer health care?

"
Is the U.S. too corrupt for single-payer health care?"

This is the argument you made, that because there is too much corruption things shouldn't change. Go figure.

My point is you want to surrender our healthcare system to the people responsible for the disaster that it is. I explained to you that I worked in the field for about ten years of my life. I seen it first hand.

As for police, everybody agrees we need law enforcement in our society. Everybody benefits even if they never use the police because simply having police is a deterrent to crime. Rich, poor, or anybody in between funds the police and fire departments with tax money usually deducted from their paychecks, property taxes, or both. Where I live, it's both. It doesn't matter if you work at McDonald's, deliver pizza, or own a business. Even if you rent, property taxes are one of the many things landlords set their rental prices on. There is no law that you have to have a police force. You can opt to not have one if voters don't want to fund it.

On the federal level, not everybody wants socialized medicine. In fact, most people don't. Before Commie Care, most people were happy with their healthcare. So what did Obama Care do? It was all politics. If you don't make very much money, you can get insurance perhaps for the first time in your life. If you are middle-class, upper middle-class or wealthy, you either couldn't afford the plans or you paid out of your ass to get one. The politics is the poor and lower income people generally vote Democrat.

So if we ever go to a socialized system, look for more of this "corruption" as you call it. Look for more politics too. After all, there are good doctors and good hospitals. There are not so good doctors and not so good hospitals. So which doctor and hospital do you want? Yeah.....me too. I want the good doctors and hospitals. So how do we decide who gets good medical care and who doesn't? Most likely it will depend on which party has the power at the time. If Democrats are running the show, the people who pay the least will get the best care, and the people who pay the most will get the worst.

 

[JoeB131]

Focus on the country as a whole means making wealthy and working people pay for services non-wealthy people get. After all, that's the only way it can work.......right?

There is no corruption that you speak of, and if there is, please provide evidence of it.

Ed Hanaway getting paid 99 Million to retire after he denied a liver transplant to Nataline Sarkisyan (and lot of other people) isn't corruption.

Oh, yeah, and she's someone whose father had a job and insurance.

I didn't say put people over other people, what I said is the Democrats have already done this with Commie Care. But if we are to place value on groups of people, shouldn't the value of people who make this country work be larger than people that don't???

Actually, health care should be a public service just like police and fire protection and roads. Period. The idea that you should only get something because of your relative value is just plain wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, health care should be a public service just like police and fire protection and roads. Period. The idea that you should only get something because of your relative value is just plain wrong.

Yet, when Obama and the Democrats did just that, you were fine with it.

Ed Hanaway getting paid 99 Million to retire after he denied a liver transplant to Nataline Sarkisyan (and lot of other people) isn't corruption.

Oh, yeah, and she's someone whose father had a job and insurance.

Well post a link so I know WTF you're even talking about.

 

[JoeB131]

He ponied up for 20 years, and then Commie Care became the law of the land. He, like many other business owners found that as a way to quit providing that benefit because DumBama and the other commies wanted to create as many government dependents as they could.

You mean he provided you shit insurance that didn't really cover anything, and when he couldn't get away with that anymore... he stopped. And you blame the black guy.

But leftists like yourself who watch way too many movies and television shows think it's realty that every business owner is a one-percenter who sits in his (or her) office all day practicing putts on their astroturf within their office. My employer lives in a nice middle-class suburb, comes to work every single day, works for 9 hours, and then takes work home with him. Sorry to burst your little bubble.

I don't have to watch a movie to know the one percenters are assholes. I've worked for too many of them. Like the one who fucked me over when I busted up my knee. But even THOSE guys knew they had to at least pretend to provide insurance. They might have tried to fire you when you got injured or pregnant.

But in as many times as I've explained this to you, I realize talking to a liberal is like talking to a wall because liberals only hear what they want to hear, and you'll be bringing up my factitious one-percenter boss in following posts. Liberals never seem to learn anything.

Again, if this guy gave a shit about his employees, he'd find a way to provide you with decent insurance. My guess, you still won't have insurance even after Trump works through whatever his replacement will be.

You want to see greed? Greed were unions who thought they had the right to force employers to overpay workers that sent our jobs overseas. Greed are the environmentalists who did the very same by petitioning our politicians to create so many regulations and laws that businesses had no choice but to move out of the country. Greed are those Democrats who depend on Walmart not giving a shit if they purchase cheap overseas products---as long as they can buy as many as their budget allows. Greed is thinking you have the absolute right to take money from people that have more than you. That's greed.

Oh, man, if this isn't a Stockholm Syndrome Conservative, I don't know what is. or maybe a battered housewife conservative. Someone else is always responsible for the bad behavior of the 1%. If those damned liberals hadn't demand fair wages and clean water, they totally wouldn't have moved their factory.

So who's fault is it they have jobs where they can't make enough money? Need a job? We have plenty in my field of work, it's just that we can't get Americans to do the job. Right now, we need over 60,000 new drivers industry can't find. That's why they are turning to foreigners.

And yet you can't get a job that pays decent health care with all this demand?

Lazy Americans have their government cell phones, enough food stamps to feed a military, a HUD home in the suburbs (like the one next door to me) free healthcare under Medicaid or Commie Care, paid utilities and more. In fact, in NYC, being a total government dependent pays more than a new school teacher. Losers who use all of our so-called safety nets do better than those who are median income earners.

Salaries. For 2017-18, starting salaries for teachers will range from $54,000 (bachelor's degree, no prior teaching experience) to $81,694 (master's degree, eight years teaching experience, plus additional coursework). New teachers with a master's degree but no prior teaching experience earned $60,704.

Salary & Benefits | Apply to Teach in New York City Public Schools

Okay, buddy, please show me what kind of creative math you come up with where a "loser" can make that kind of money in NYC.

Bullshit. All those people of working age not in the workforce are on these programs. If you can't give up smoking pot and work lower wage jobs (like my former tenants) to avoid drug tests, then it's your fault, not anybody else. If you decide to start a family before you can bring in sufficient income to support that family, how is that not their fault?

Why are we still doing drug tests for pot? At all?

And frankly, do you know what child care costs these days?