The working class in Texas is screwed

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom Hartmann A...
Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture

Governor Good Hair, Rick Perry, announced on Monday that he will drop his state out of Obamacare and not set-up free-market health insurance exchanges where Texans could buy health insurance without being denied for pre-existing conditions.   He’s also refusing to expand his state’s Medicaid program to cover 1.2 million more low-income Texans.  In doing so – Governor Perry is turning down $164 billion in federal money that can help millions of Texans finally get health insurance.

And to make matters worse, Perry doesn’t have a single idea on how to insure his citizens.  After serving as Governor of Texas for nearly a dozen years, Rick Perry oversees the nation’s worst health care system – where 6.5 million people – roughly a quarter of the population – don't have health insurance.  In 2010, Texas hospitals absorbed more than $4.6 billion in unpaid emergency room medical costs.

Obamacare can go a long way toward fixing this problem, but Governor Good Hair would rather play politics instead.

Comments

DynoDon
it's always been known you

it's always been known you don't want to be poor in Texas.

Commonsense461
Or rather save that state

Or rather save that state mOney it cant afford to spend . We  have to balance our budget, I know that's a foreign concept to you but we do.

DynoDon
Do you have to balance the

Do you have to balance the budget on the backs of the poor?

Commonsense461
No by not giving services to

No by not giving services to illegals.

DynoDon
Here in CA you have to prove

Here in CA you have to prove citizenship for Medicaid.

Redwing
Redwing's picture
DynoDon wrote: Here in CA you

DynoDon wrote:

Here in CA you have to prove citizenship for Medicaid.

Whaaaat?  Show an I.D.to get benefits?  Are they trying to disenfranchise illegal aliens?  Maybe the disenfranchised illegals can vote this stupid law out in the next election.

DynoDon
Just providing a little

Just providing a little truth.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
THA, " In doing so – Governor

THA, " In doing so – Governor Perry is turning down $164 billion in federal money that can help millions of Texans finally get health insurance."

Why don't we help get millions of Texans health CARE instead of health INSURANCE? Why do we need to pay billions to health insurance corporations so that their CEOs can continue to make millions to hundreds of millions in salary and bonuses and not deliver one bit of healthCARE or see one patient?

THA, "Texas hospitals absorbed more than $4.6 billion in unpaid emergency room medical costs."

Let's see, $164 billion for insurance corporations and their HIGH paid CEO's and the rest of their paper pushers versus $4.6 billion in unpaid ER costs? Can anybody figure out why there needs to be a middleman in this equation?

 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
The corporate/government

The corporate/government collusion marches on....

anonymous green
camaroman wrote: The

camaroman wrote:

The corporate/government collusion marches on....

You're right idiot, Chevrolet conspired with the Gummint to copy the Mustang, and you fell for it.

Commonsense461
http://m.cnbc.com/id/47818860

http://m.cnbc.com/id/47818860

CNBC disagrees with that as they rank the best state to live work and do buisness in.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Thom Hartmann A

Thom Hartmann A wrote:

Governor Good Hair, Rick Perry, announced on Monday that he will drop his state out of Obamacare and not set-up free-market health insurance exchanges where Texans could buy health insurance without being denied for pre-existing conditions.  

As far as pre-existing conditions and health insurance options go, I know that only counts now if you are on a corporate program ('individual insurance' can still factor in pre-existing conditions to up the charge of the policy or limit its coverage pertaining to that pre-existing condition--and insurance companies can get quite 'creative' with what all may be a pre-existing condition and what other problems may pertain to it)--AND if you are on a corporate program AND you stay employed AND you don't miss too much time between corporate jobs (missing more time than what COBRA will cover after becoming unemployed and not finding similar corporate-benefit employment now gives the insurance company the ability to factor in pre-existing conditions, once again).   So, unless you are claiming that the poor hold corporate jobs with health insurance benefits and they keep that job--or don't take too much time finding another--I'm not sure how this is to 'the poor's advantage'--it is to the corporate advantage because it creates the incentive not to lose your job.....even if you don't like it....unless you can quickly find another with corporate health insurance benefits....which doesn't seem likely in today's economy--especially if you are poor and without special skills....

And, although I'm not sure, I don't think that Obamacare changes that issue about corporate employment, individual insurance policies, and pre-existing conditions.   In fact, I believe that Thom has pointed out that insurance companies don't want those prospects removed because someone may just wait to buy insurance if and when needed--once they get, or recognize, a pre-existing condition.   Again, the 'right to health insurance' is NOT the same thing as the 'right to health care'.... 

Thom Hartmann A wrote:

 He’s (Perry) also refusing to expand his state’s Medicaid program to cover 1.2 million more low-income Texans.

Believe me, I'm not a fan of Governor Perry--I have never voted for him.   However, Texas does have in its Constitution the requirement of the state to balance its budget.   And, I don't see Perry wanting to increase taxes to do that--the state does already cover for most of what is paid for most pregnant patients, most trauma patients, most burn patients, etc.  

Thom Hartmann A wrote:

Governor Perry is turning down $164 billion in federal money that can help millions of Texans finally get health insurance.

The 'right to health insurance' is NOT the same thing as the 'right to health care'....and, I'm not quite sure why that distinction isn't made clearer when Obamacare is discussed....

 

workingman
workingman's picture
camaroman wrote: THA, " In

camaroman wrote:

THA, " In doing so – Governor Perry is turning down $164 billion in federal money that can help millions of Texans finally get health insurance."

Why don't we help get millions of Texans health CARE instead of health INSURANCE? Why do we need to pay billions to health insurance corporations so that their CEOs can continue to make millions to hundreds of millions in salary and bonuses and not deliver one bit of healthCARE or see one patient?

THA, "Texas hospitals absorbed more than $4.6 billion in unpaid emergency room medical costs."

Let's see, $164 billion for insurance corporations and their HIGH paid CEO's and the rest of their paper pushers versus $4.6 billion in unpaid ER costs? Can anybody figure out why there needs to be a middleman in this equation?

 

Why do you care how much the corporate ceo gets paid? How does their pay affect your life? Do you lose your insurance policy so he can get paid more?

I do not care what a company does with its money, I do care what the government does with mine.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
workingman wrote: Why do you

workingman wrote:

Why do you care how much the corporate ceo gets paid? How does their pay affect your life? Do you lose your insurance policy so he can get paid more? 

There's workingman coming in with those industry colluded remarks, again.   Point being, workingman, if Obamacare is putting tax money into the hands of the insurance companies, I, as a tax payer, am damned concerned as to why a health insurance CEO gets paid millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars without seeing, or before financing, one patient--and I wonder why that doesn't bother you (unless you don't pay taxes--or, maybe, your money is made by other people's taxes).

And, actually, now that I'm thinking about, I, as a health insurance policy holder, am damned concerned as to why the CEO makes millions while the insurance company may restrict any payment out for my benefits that don't amount to near that much.   You don't have a problem with that, either, workingman?    Is it the 'free market' to go find another insurance company as one's 'choice for health care'? 

I know that you, workingman, as the industry-colluder that you are, don't care (and there is a corporate-government collusion going on here), but I want to know what that CEO does for the application of health care that is worth millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars without seeing, and before financing, one patient....So, why don't you want to know the same?   Huh? 

 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
camaroman, "THA, " In doing

camaroman, "THA, " In doing so – Governor Perry is turning down $164 billion in federal money that can help millions of Texans finally get health insurance."

Did you get that, workingman? Do you comprehend that statement? You must not. Perry is turning down $164 billion in  tax money, yours(if you pay any taxes) and mine tax dollars to help millions of Teaxanx get health INSURANCE. Who is that tax money going to help the millions of Texans or health INSURANCE corporations. How big of a percentage of those millions are going to need that INSURANCE  as opposed to how much of that money will those INSURANCE corporations pay for actual HEALTH care and still that Inurance corporation CEO will get his millions to hundreds of millions and yet never pay for or see a patient.

camaroman, "THA, "Texas hospitals absorbed more than $4.6 billion in unpaid emergency room medical costs."

In stead of paying a middleman (big health INSURANCE corporations and their HIGH paid CEOs) wouldn't it make more sense to use that money for the direct paymant of health CARE and cut out the profit making off the backs of the taxpayers. And probably save money to boot. Can't you see what's wrong with this picture?

DynoDon
What have you done with the

What have you done with the real camaroman? Give him a break-he can't help it if he is a fan of the 2nd best ponycar in the 60's-next to the MUSTANG!

workingman
workingman's picture
Kerry wrote: workingman

Kerry wrote:

workingman wrote:

Why do you care how much the corporate ceo gets paid? How does their pay affect your life? Do you lose your insurance policy so he can get paid more? 

There's workingman coming in with those industry colluded remarks, again.   Point being, workingman, if Obamacare is putting tax money into the hands of the insurance companies, I, as a tax payer, am damned concerned as to why a health insurance CEO gets paid millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars without seeing, or before financing, one patient--and I wonder why that doesn't bother you (unless you don't pay taxes--or, maybe, your money is made by other people's taxes).

And, actually, now that I'm thinking about, I, as a health insurance policy holder, am damned concerned as to why the CEO makes millions while the insurance company may restrict any payment out for my benefits that don't amount to near that much.   You don't have a problem with that, either, workingman?    Is it the 'free market' to go find another insurance company as one's 'choice for health care'? 

I know that you, workingman, as the industry-colluder that you are, don't care (and there is a corporate-government collusion going on here), but I want to know what that CEO does for the application of health care that is worth millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars without seeing, and before financing, one patient....So, why don't you want to know the same?   Huh? 

 

the ceo's pay is just like every other persons pay in the insurance company not one of them sees a patient. The fact that they receive tax dollars goes back to my point you just do not understand. No welfare for any one for any reason ever. Get the government out of the charity business.

yes it is a free market system if i do not like the insurance i have i can change. however i like the idea of medical bank accounts that way i have control And the only insurance i need is for major accedents or illness like cancer. That way i am in control

DynoDon
You should care if your

You should care if your employer offers medical insurance through a company that gives its execs big pay and raises and then raises your premiums every year. I want the option of a govt program with its 3-5% overhead instead of the for profit companies 15-30% overhead. I care about corporate efficiency.

drc2
Hey bossman, hold onto your

Hey bossman, hold onto your "controls" real tight and hope that they are not fake.  You are being taken for a ride.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
In trying to do a little

In trying to do a little research about how the programs of medicare and medicaid are acutally run, I stumbled across this article. But when I tried to research the finances of these companies, either I am limited in my computer skills to find the information, or it was not available. One site that I opened on WellCare Health Plans, INC produced a page of chinese looking &&^$%)*(&E#@#$%bullshit. Anyway:

Quote, "Managed-care companies, including St. Louis-based Centene, Tampa, Florida-based WellCare Health Plans Inc. (WCG) and Amerigroup Corp. of Virginia Beach, Virginia, cover almost half of U.S. Medicaid recipients. While such plans help officials control costs, they operate under loophole-ridden standards, some earn poor grades on quality and many spend less of their revenue on care than commercial insurers do, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Government from the five most populous states. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-27/teen-fights-for-benefits-as-medicaid-contractor-says-no.html

And to top it off, WellCare just bought Amerigroup.

On July 9, 2012, Amerigroup Corporation (the "Company"), WellPoint, Inc. ("WellPoint") and WellPoint Merger Sub, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of WellPoint ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of WellPoint (the "Merger").

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/120709/agp8-k.html

I got curious when it was disclosed that goodhair will be turning down $164 billion to help approx. 6.5 million uninsured Texans. The money covers the next decade with Texas' part being $27 billion for that same 10 years. Folks that's nearly $30,000 per person or 120,000 per family of 4.

After learning that private insurance companies manage these programs for the state (at a profit of course), why couldn't medical savings accounts be set up instead of private companies profitingt off of the taxpayers to supposedly help the poor? And instead of health INSURANCE, that money could be spent on health CARE. If anybody understands this better that I do, please enlighten an uninformed person on this.

al3
al3's picture
Seems like there are some

Seems like there are some common sense things that could happen to help reduce the price of healthcare.  Some of these were discussed during the ACA debate.  From a layperson.

1.) Eliminate the antitrust exemption for Health Insurance companies

2.) Make Doctors and Hospitals post prices for reasonably common services, or make Insurance companies maintain databases of prices for the same.

3.) Increase the cap on the number of Doctors (I assume AMA caps this?)

4.) Make hospitals and Doctors give patients their records and test results EVERY visit so patients can be provided with portability, thus more likely to spur choice and competition.  Now patients feel they have to stay with one Doctor, because they have all their records.  Portability.

5.) Make Health Insurance companies offer a few standardized health plans that are easily compared by shoppers. 

6.) Increase HSA contributions limits and incentives.

7.) Conservatives like the "across state lines" solution, but that would only result in a race to the bottom by states who want the jobs Health Insurers provide.  THis solution would be OK but only if there were strict regulations to prevent this. 

The ACA tries to reform healthcare without many many common sense, simple ideas, which I'm sure were lobbied furiously against. 

 

Commonsense461
[quote=al3] Seems like there

[quote=al3]

Seems like there are some common sense things that could happen to help reduce the price of healthcare.  Some of these were discussed during the ACA debate.  From a layperson.

1.) Eliminate the antitrust exemption for Health Insurance companies

2.) Make Doctors and Hospitals post prices for reasonably common services, or make Insurance companies maintain databases of prices for the same.

3.) Increase the cap on the number of Doctors (I assume AMA caps this?)

4.) Make hospitals and Doctors give patients their records and test results EVERY visit so patients can be provided with portability, thus more likely to spur choice and competition.  Now patients feel they have to stay with one Doctor, because they have all their records.  Portability.

5.) Make Health Insurance companies offer a few standardized health plans that are easily compared by shoppers. 

6.) Increase HSA contributions limits and incentives.

7.) Conservatives like the "across state lines" solution, but that would only result in a race to the bottom by states who want the jobs Health Insurers provide.  THis solution would be OK but only if there were strict regulations to prevent this. 

The ACA tries to reform healthcare without many many common sense, simple ideas, which I'm sure were lobbied furiously against. 

 

[/quote=al3] 

If Texas is so bad why are people flocking to the state? Could it be that they added 35k in may alone which accounted for half the jobs created in total for the us. http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/states/

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/01/news/economy/may-jobs-report/index.htm

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
One of the shows covering ACA

One of the shows covering ACA said TX was not expanding Medicaid, but on top of that it's rejecting participation in the Medicaid they now participate in. It's always been voluntary, AZ signed up in '82, 16 years after it became law. TX already had the smallest window to qualify for Medicaid, dumping it altogether might go unnoticed. Their family planning has been on the chopping block for ages. They just dropped TX women's care plan [a state run medical ins. plan]. Perry is planning on running again, and killing a bunch of poor people, poor women, excites the base. Maybe he's planning on refusing EMTALA, too. Take it to SCOTUS for a ruling now that commerce clause has been deemed inapplicable on medicaid by this court.

Getting his hospitals a waiver on EMTALA will keep them off his back for the Medicaid expansion. When illegals start dying in ERs legally, they will move to another state.

Commonsense461
douglaslee wrote:One of the

douglaslee wrote:
One of the shows covering ACA said TX was not expanding Medicaid, but on top of that it's rejecting participation in the Medicaid they now participate in. It's always been voluntary, AZ signed up in '82, 16 years after it became law. TX already had the smallest window to qualify for Medicaid, dumping it altogether might go unnoticed. Their family planning has been on the chopping block for ages. They just dropped TX women's care plan [a state run medical ins. plan]. Perry is planning on running again, and killing a bunch of poor people, poor women, excites the base. Maybe he's planning on refusing EMTALA, too. Take it to SCOTUS for a ruling now that commerce clause has been deemed inapplicable on medicaid by this court. Getting his hospitals a waiver on EMTALA will keep them off his back for the Medicaid expansion. When illegals start dying in ERs legally, they will move to another state.
maybe they wouldn't be dying if they where legal and deserved having tax payer money spent on them to provide care.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
maybe they wouldn't be dying

maybe they wouldn't be dying if they where legal and deserved having tax payer money spent on them to provide care.

If EMTALA is suspended it won't make any difference if they are legal or not, they are allowed to die like the crowd wanted in the republican primary debate.

Commonsense461
douglaslee wrote:maybe they

douglaslee wrote:
maybe they wouldn't be dying if they where legal and deserved having tax payer money spent on them to provide care. If EMTALA is suspended it won't make any difference if they are legal or not, they are allowed to die like the crowd wanted in the republican primary debate.

Or that they would go to catholic hospitals that would still accept them legal or not.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
In continuing my research I

In continuing my research I discovered the the 5 largrest health insurers' profits were up over 8.25%

".of the increasing privatization of public health care programs.

A growing number of Medicaid and Medicare enrollees now receive their supposedly public coverage through private health insurers. Such outsourcing is often accompanied by new barriers to accessing care, an increase in denied claims, higher costs to enrollees, and sometimes even fraud. Such experiences recently led Connecticut to buck the national privatization trend and stop the outsourcing of its Medicaid program.

The Bloomberg Government study ("Despite Predictions, Health Insurers Prosper Under Overhaul", available only behind a subscription barrier) is summarized in an article on Bloomberg.com. From the article:

“[P]rofit margins at the companies widened to levels not seen since before the recession, a Bloomberg Government study shows. Insurers led by WellPoint Inc. (WLP), the biggest by membership, recorded their highest combined quarterly net income of the past decade after the [federal health reform] law was signed in 2010, said Peter Gosselin, the study author and senior health-care analyst for Bloomberg Government. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Managed Health-Care Index rose 36 percent in the period, four times more than the S&P 500. […]

[T]he companies saw their average operating profit margins expand to 8.24 percent in the six quarters since the overhaul became law, compared with 6.88 percent for the 18 months before it was passed. […]

Commercial business now accounts for less than half of the companies’ combined revenue for the first time in at least two decades, according to the study. That’s partly a result of the companies’ growing investments in plans that provide services to Medicare and Medicaid patients, the report said.

At the same time, quarterly revenue from Medicare, the $525 billion federal health program for the elderly and disabled, increased by one third, to $16.39 billion, for the four insurers that reported figures, the study shows. Medicaid revenue more than doubled to $4.11 billion. […]

Between now and 2014, health plans will be able to bid on an estimated $40 billion in state Medicaid contracts, the study found.”

http://www.nesri.org/news/2012/01/insurance-companies-profit-from-increasing-privatization-of-medicaid-and-medicare

And this, "A blog on Think Progress also expects that profits will continue to grow, reminding us that “a July 2010 report from PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded that the [health reform] law’s state-based health care exchanges provide private insurers with a lucrative new market in which they stand to gain up to $200 billion in revenue by 2019.”

Folks we are being ripped off by the corporate/government collusion regardless if obamacare is reprealed or not.

 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
It continues to get

It continues to get better:

WellCare has no commercial accounts; all its customers are state Medicaid programs and, at the federal level, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Of its Medicare enrollees, 971,000 are in drug-only plans, which are offered in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. WellCare also sells Medicare Advantage plans, which replace traditional Medicare.

 

WellCare has contracts with seven state Medicaid programs, but Florida is by far WellCare's largest client, with more than 450,000 enrolled in its health plans. Of the $1.7 billion the state paid HMOs last year, WellCare's two plans took in half, almost $850 million."

Still more!!!:

Soros-related firm raided by FBI (updated) Thomas Lifson, Ed Lasky American Thinker

WellCare Health Plans of Tampa, a firm which has made scads of money administering governmenthealth care, and huge profits for George Soros, who was once its largest shareholder, has been raided by the FBI and shuttered. The St. Petersburg Times reports:

The company, which went public in July 2004 at $17 a share, has had a meteoric rise, with its stock more than doubling in the past 12 months. On Wednesday, WellCare's shares dropped $6.77 or 5.5 percent, to $115.50 before trading was halted about 11 a.m. It ended the day down $7.10 at $115.17. Soros no longer holds WellCare. But according to Media General News Service in January 2005:The company's largest stockholder is Soros Private Equity Investors LP, aninvestment fund indirectly controlled by Soros, a fierce critic of Bush.

In April, WellCare settled a 2008 fraud scandal involving falsifying health records. The settlement cleared the way for WellCare to once again be a government contractor for the Medicare and Medicaid programs. WHAT!!!?

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Wait a minute, I thought

Wait a minute, I thought Soros invested in WellCare, oh wait he sold his investment.

Quote, "The company, which is one of the state's largest Medicaid providers,
along with its subsidiaries and executives spent $2.4 million on
political contributions in the 2004 and 2006 elections, according to
an analysis of campaign records by The Associated Press.

More than 95 percent of it went to Republicans, who pushed forward a
nationally watched plan that funnels more state and federal Medicaid
spending than ever through private companies like WellCare, which
profit most by providing the least care.

The Republican led legislature is trying to expand the Medicaid
privatization program statewide this year. "

But Soros' investment firm owned 80% of WellCare!!!

 Quote, "Soros Private Equity Investors had owned about 80 percent of WellCare at the time of its IPO. “In December [2004], Soros Private Equity Investors sold 5.6 million shares for about $170 million. In April [2005], Soros spun off the $1.3-billion private equity group and the new firm was renamed TowerBrook Capital Partners. TowerBrook is headed by Neal Moszkowski, who previously led Soros Private Equity. Moszkowski also is chairman of the WellCare board.”

Also on the board of directors: former Democrat U.S. senator and Florida governor Bob Graham."

But, they gave mostly to the republican party???

 

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Quote, " Essentially, the

Quote, "

Essentially, the private companies are hired to run managed-care plans as an alternative to the traditional fee-for-service plans provided by the two programs. Under the arrangement, the insurer receives a fixed amount from the state or federal authority ultimately responsible for a given Medicaid or Medicare population. In many cases, the insurer can then keep part of any savings it generates by managing the care of the covered population more cost-effectively.

The practice is attractive to states seeking to curb spending on Medicaid, which is funded with a combination of state and federal dollars. Privately run Medicare managed-care plans — called Medicare Advantage Plans — have also long been common.

The health-care law will actually reduce federal payments to Medicare Advantage Plans by $136 billion. Nonetheless, the study’s author, Peter Gosselin, posits that insurers still expect the plans to prove profitable, because the current national focus on debt reduction will give them political cover to manage beneficiaries’ care more tightly than was considered palatable in years past.

That same logic might explain why insurance companies and their investors appear unruffled by the possibility that the health-care law could be overturned by the Supreme Court or drastically altered by the next Congress.

In the absence of the law, Medicaid might not be expanded. But the political imperative will still be to reduce spending on both Medicaid and Medicare — and this would probably be done through further outsourcing to private companies."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/private-insurers-increasingly-reliant-on-government-business/2012/01/03/gIQAbLuXbP_story.html

Either way it is going to be a win-win for private health insurers. What a deal!!!

$800 billion federal budget and $89 billion from the states to be out sourced to private for profit health insurers. Folks the profits of the private health insurers is wherein the "death panels" exist. They will be puling every trick legal or not to save bottom lines. And you can bet that those CEOs and executives will be getting there multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses, all while never delvering on ounce of medical care or seeing one patient.

That is why so  much lip is given to health INSURANCE instead of health CARE. And we wonder why healthcare has skyrocketed in recent years. It's because of the third party payer system and government outsourcing medicare and medicaid to private health INSURANCE corporations and their corrupt operations. The corporate/government collusion marches on.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
It doesn't appear like many

It doesn't appear like many here want to jump on the bandwagon pointing out that this whole thing is a corporate-government collusion--even Obamacare.  And, they also don't want to seem to recognize the distinction between health insurance and health care and how people, like the industry colluder workingman, constantly resort back to discussing this as a health insurance issue instead of a health care issue--and, then, continue with the delusional assumption that the 'choice of health insurance' is a 'free market'.   Nothing in medicine represents a 'free market'--and hasn't since the snake oil days of over a century ago (do you want to go back to those 'free market' options?)--but, the sheeple appear to complacently accept the distorted view offered by the colluders without getting to the basic points that this issue should represent--with one of the primary distinctions being not 'is health insurance a right to all' but 'is health care a right to all'?  

If you don't do that, as camaroman's posts show, you will be led down the primrose path as the mantra of 'health insurance to all' claims the profits without providing 'health care to all' as centralized money-processing combines with centralized political initiatives that, as Jefferson warned over Hamilton's similar proposals with accumulating the states' debt in a national bank in Washington's very first Cabinet (as the first corporate-government collusion this nation dealt with), will create all sorts of unlimited corruptible prospects and possibilities for such collusions to profit off of against the interests of the people (unless 'health care for all' is not 'in the interest of the people'--and 'health insurance for all' is....)--and take the sheeple's money away with all sorts of distorted claims to its favor with it.....and it starts by not specifying the issue well enough when it is discussed (including realizing the difference between 'health insurance for all' and 'health care for all')....but, then, that apparently portends to a rational approach that some here claim 'we' have 'gone beyond' in some 'new paradigm' that magically thinks that the difference being made between 'health insurance for all' and 'health care for all' doesn't matter and isn't 'that big a deal'.    Which, only works in 'magical thinking'--once you actually get down to applying it, you will quickly start seeing the problem and why it IS such a big deal ('best intentions' don't work here without seeing it through....and neither does 'let the free market decide' when this is not a 'free market' in any way I can see it...especially if it is to have universal application even as 'health insurance for all'....I think that's exactly the 'centralizing corruptibility' that Jefferson was warning about...which, again, has nothing to do with a 'free market'...unless you let the colluders 'define' it without ever having to explain it, or see it through as envisioning how it is enacted--which results in the 'win-win' prospects for such liars that camaroman is describing above...).   But, if you let others claim that 'they' are 'doing it for you' in the 'free market', don't be too surprised when the greediest among us get off with the most making such false promises and relying on you not checking them over it.   Just like how a CEO in this 'industry' can make millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars without seeing, or even before financing, one patient when it comes to 'health insurance for all'.....  

 

workingman
workingman's picture
Kerry wrote: It doesn't

Kerry wrote:

It doesn't appear like many here want to jump on the bandwagon pointing out that this whole thing is a corporate-government collusion--even Obamacare.  And, they also don't want to seem to recognize the distinction between health insurance and health care and how people, like the industry colluder workingman, constantly resort back to discussing this as a health insurance issue instead of a health care issue--and, then, continue with the delusional assumption that the 'choice of health insurance' is a 'free market'.   Nothing in medicine represents a 'free market'--and hasn't since the snake oil days of over a century ago (do you want to go back to those 'free market' options?)--but, the sheeple appear to complacently accept the distorted view offered by the colluders without getting to the basic points that this issue should represent--with one of the primary distinctions being not 'is health insurance a right to all' but 'is health care a right to all'?  

If you don't do that, as camaroman's posts show, you will be led down the primrose path as the mantra of 'health insurance to all' claims the profits without providing 'health care to all' as centralized money-processing combines with centralized political initiatives that, as Jefferson warned over Hamilton's similar proposals with accumulating the states' debt in a national bank in Washington's very first Cabinet (as the first corporate-government collusion this nation dealt with), will create all sorts of unlimited corruptible prospects and possibilities for such collusions to profit off of against the interests of the people (unless 'health care for all' is not 'in the interest of the people'--and 'health insurance for all' is....)--and take the sheeple's money away with all sorts of distorted claims to its favor with it.....and it starts by not specifying the issue well enough when it is discussed (including realizing the difference between 'health insurance for all' and 'health care for all')....but, then, that apparently portends to a rational approach that some here claim 'we' have 'gone beyond' in some 'new paradigm' that magically thinks that the difference being made between 'health insurance for all' and 'health care for all' doesn't matter and isn't 'that big a deal'.    Which, only works in 'magical thinking'--once you actually get down to applying it, you will quickly start seeing the problem and why it IS such a big deal ('best intentions' don't work here without seeing it through....and neither does 'let the free market decide' when this is not a 'free market' in any way I can see it...especially if it is to have universal application even as 'health insurance for all'....I think that's exactly the 'centralizing corruptibility' that Jefferson was warning about...which, again, has nothing to do with a 'free market'...unless you let the colluders 'define' it without ever having to explain it, or see it through as envisioning how it is enacted--which results in the 'win-win' prospects for such liars that camaroman is describing above...).   But, if you let others claim that 'they' are 'doing it for you' in the 'free market', don't be too surprised when the greediest among us get off with the most making such false promises and relying on you not checking them over it.   Just like how a CEO in this 'industry' can make millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars without seeing, or even before financing, one patient when it comes to 'health insurance for all'.....  

 

Kerry You just do not seem to understand anything I have said about this issue. Health care for all is not a right that the government needs to provide, pay for or subsidize. You as a free american can choose to pay cash for your care, get a charity to pay or buy insurance to help cover the cost. Now you will bring up emtala malpractice laws. These laws do not treat health care as a right. They treat life as a right, the fact that you can sue for malpractice without paying is irrelevant because one hundred precent of the people that file suits have no intention of paying the bill. If you want to put the doctor/ patient back in charge, get the government and the insurance companies as far out of the system as possible. Regulate that all insurance companies need to use the same form, they all need to provide a minimum level of care. Allow citizens to set up medical savings accounts that they control when they enter the work force. Allow employeers to contribute to these accounts instead of paying the insurance premiums.

The ceo's pay even in the hundreds of millions of dollars amounts to a few fractions of a penny on a policy. The lawyers litigating malpractice get billions a year. Should we outlaw malpractice?

Kerry
Kerry's picture
workingman wrote: Health care

workingman wrote:

Health care for all is not a right that the government needs to provide, pay for or subsidize. You as a free american can choose to pay cash for your care, get a charity to pay or buy insurance to help cover the cost. 

Then, is 'health care for all' a right at all, workingman? Remember, EMTALA and medical malpractice litigation assume it is.   So, if it isn't, how are you going to change that?  But, if it is, how are you going to responsibly pay for it?  Moreover, how does 'health insurance for all' do so? 

workingman wrote:

Now you will bring up emtala malpractice laws. These laws do not treat health care as a right. They treat life as a right,

Of which, you have the right to have health care address it if your life is at risk.  That makes it a right, workingman.   EMTALA proves you have universal access for that.  Medical malpractice indicates you have the right to have that risk treated like anyone else--whether anyone pays for you or not.   And, this:

workingman wrote:

 the fact that you can sue for malpractice without paying is irrelevant because one hundred precent of the people that file suits have no intention of paying the bill. 

Has absolutely nothing to do with it.  It doesn't even relate to it.   The point of medical malpractice is that, whether you pay or not, you have the same right to the same life-threatening treatments in the same fashion as anyone--whether you, or anyone or anything else does so, pays for it.  I no oif absolute no other product or commodity in the 'market' in which you can do that--and you really cannot counter that with the same bullshit you come up with because it has nothing to do with that point.   Nothing government can 'give you'.   Nothing that anyone can 'sue for'.   Nothing, workingman.   It's a right--and it ijs seen that way legally.   Why is not seen that way financially to everyone?  

Again, I would love the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of EMTALA.  I doubt that our government can be that honest, anymore...as it colludes for corporate interest more than any citizen's interest....

workingman wrote:

If you want to put the doctor/ patient back in charge, get the government and the insurance companies as far out of the system as possible

Unless this system implodes (and it might), you'll never have that done.   But, once you have it done, remember, doctor groups used to squeeze out the greedy doctors that wouldn't do their part for the non-paying patients and the deadbeat patients that wouldn't do their part in taking responsibility for their care as they make inordinate demands on the physician's time.   Now, in today's corporate-government colluded environment, the greedy doctors (surrogated by corporate administrations) and the deadbeat patients (surrogated by ruthless medical malpractice lawyers) are running it...

workingman wrote:

Regulate that all insurance companies need to use the same form, they all need to provide a minimum level of care. Allow citizens to set up medical savings accounts that they control when they enter the work force. Allow employeers to contribute to these accounts instead of paying the insurance premiums.

Still the same, workingman.   What does that do for those that show up at the ER door with a life or limb threatening illness that cannot pay?  How does any of your proposals address that?    And, don't try to insert 'charity' here, either--what 'charity' are you claiming can afford every non-payer's costs?   Especially if you added the 20% that already take up 80% of the medical budget that government pays most of what is paid for them right now....

workingman
workingman's picture
Kerry wrote: workingman

Kerry wrote:

workingman wrote:

Health care for all is not a right that the government needs to provide, pay for or subsidize. You as a free american can choose to pay cash for your care, get a charity to pay or buy insurance to help cover the cost. 

Then, is 'health care for all' a right at all, workingman? Remember, EMTALA and medical malpractice litigation assume it is.   So, if it isn't, how are you going to change that?  But, if it is, how are you going to responsibly pay for it?  Moreover, how does 'health insurance for all' do so? 

workingman wrote:

Now you will bring up emtala malpractice laws. These laws do not treat health care as a right. They treat life as a right,

Of which, you have the right to have health care address it if your life is at risk.  That makes it a right, workingman.   EMTALA proves you have universal access for that.  Medical malpractice indicates you have the right to have that risk treated like anyone else--whether anyone pays for you or not.   And, this:

workingman wrote:

 the fact that you can sue for malpractice without paying is irrelevant because one hundred precent of the people that file suits have no intention of paying the bill. 

Has absolutely nothing to do with it.  It doesn't even relate to it.   The point of medical malpractice is that, whether you pay or not, you have the same right to the same life-threatening treatments in the same fashion as anyone--whether you, or anyone or anything else does so, pays for it.  I no oif absolute no other product or commodity in the 'market' in which you can do that--and you really cannot counter that with the same bullshit you come up with because it has nothing to do with that point.   Nothing government can 'give you'.   Nothing that anyone can 'sue for'.   Nothing, workingman.   It's a right--and it ijs seen that way legally.   Why is not seen that way financially to everyone?  

Again, I would love the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of EMTALA.  I doubt that our government can be that honest, anymore...as it colludes for corporate interest more than any citizen's interest....

workingman wrote:

If you want to put the doctor/ patient back in charge, get the government and the insurance companies as far out of the system as possible

Unless this system implodes (and it might), you'll never have that done.   But, once you have it done, remember, doctor groups used to squeeze out the greedy doctors that wouldn't do their part for the non-paying patients and the deadbeat patients that wouldn't do their part in taking responsibility for their care as they make inordinate demands on the physician's time.   Now, in today's corporate-government colluded environment, the greedy doctors (surrogated by corporate administrations) and the deadbeat patients (surrogated by ruthless medical malpractice lawyers) are running it...

workingman wrote:

Regulate that all insurance companies need to use the same form, they all need to provide a minimum level of care. Allow citizens to set up medical savings accounts that they control when they enter the work force. Allow employeers to contribute to these accounts instead of paying the insurance premiums.

Still the same, workingman.   What does that do for those that show up at the ER door with a life or limb threatening illness that cannot pay?  How does any of your proposals address that?    And, don't try to insert 'charity' here, either--what 'charity' are you claiming can afford every non-payer's costs?   Especially if you added the 20% that already take up 80% of the medical budget that government pays most of what is paid for them right now....

Emtala says you have the right to life you still have to pay for advanced care.

with the medical savings acount everyone that has a job would have money. If they do not have enough set up a payment plan.

As long as the product was not stolen you can sue the manufacture for defective product if you paid for the product or not.

The 20 percent should be cut off especially if they are not citizens of the u.s. stabilize them and ship them home. Send them a bill if they refuse to pay have them arrested for theift when they come back into the u.s.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Most of what comprises the

Most of what comprises the 20% are the ELDERLY on medicare and the poor and disabled on medicaid, workinman. My point is that private for profit health insurers are making billions off of that sector from the taxpayers money and frauding a lot of it. HEALTH CARE is a RIGHT for all, health insurance should be irrelevant. Especially in light of the amount of money the federal government and states fork over to private health insurance corporations that they get to profit from or even commit fraud, pay a small fine and, poof, their back in business handling and profiting off of taxpayer monies.

You want to cut off the elderly from a system they paid into , when that system promised to take care of them. Maybe that is what they get for trusting a corrupt corporate/government colluding system.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
What happend to the EXXON

What happend to the EXXON thread and the Libertarians can't live in modern society threads???

workingman
workingman's picture
camaroman wrote: Most of what

camaroman wrote:

Most of what comprises the 20% are the ELDERLY on medicare and the poor and disabled on medicaid, workinman. My point is that private for profit health insurers are making billions off of that sector from the taxpayers money and frauding a lot of it. HEALTH CARE is a RIGHT for all, health insurance should be irrelevant. Especially in light of the amount of money the federal government and states fork over to private health insurance corporations that they get to profit from or even commit fraud, pay a small fine and, poof, their back in business handling and profiting off of taxpayer monies.

You want to cut off the elderly from a system they paid into , when that system promised to take care of them. Maybe that is what they get for trusting a corrupt corporate/government colluding system.

The elderly on medicare have already paid for the Service throughout their working life time. That is their money not the governments. They are not part of the 20 prcent if they are the government is lying to you about tax dollars. Medicare is funding through working this puts no burden on anyone else.

The people i am saying to cut off are the freeloaders that suck up everything with out contributing.

drc2
Back to the mandate.  The

Back to the mandate.  The anti-freeloader penalty/tax.

If you feel pissed off about the people who need to use a lot of medical resources, I pity you.  I would rather be healthy and not need to use more than cheap preventative, but I am not going to be that lucky all the time.  Then there are the people who pay in and die before they can use any of "their" money.  Those are the real losers who have a right to complain that they cannot use.  Nope, being alive and well is worth losing the insurance and healthcare "bet" of "my" dollars.

Camarodude, healthcare is a Right.  Did you really say that.  So cool that it might even make up for some of that other stuff.  Credit is due.

workingman
workingman's picture
drc2 wrote: Back to the

drc2 wrote:

Back to the mandate.  The anti-freeloader penalty/tax.

If you feel pissed off about the people who need to use a lot of medical resources, I pity you.  I would rather be healthy and not need to use more than cheap preventative, but I am not going to be that lucky all the time.  Then there are the people who pay in and die before they can use any of "their" money.  Those are the real losers who have a right to complain that they cannot use.  Nope, being alive and well is worth losing the insurance and healthcare "bet" of "my" dollars.

Camarodude, healthcare is a Right.  Did you really say that.  So cool that it might even make up for some of that other stuff.  Credit is due.

The mandate is not an anti freeloader tax, because the tax does not kick in until 150 percent of the poverty level do the freeloaders Will still freeload.

the federal government should phase out mrdicare and social security they have no authority to provide those services.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Tell that to the 43 million

Tell that to the 43 million senior citizens that have paid into the systems for 40 years and now are being told the system is broke ( because the crooked, power mongers in DC have wasted, frauded and stolen the money).

Whether you agree or not, workingman, medical CARE, not insurance, should be seen as a RIGHT to all not a bankrupting priviledge to only a few.

chilidog
Commonsense461

Commonsense461 wrote:

http://m.cnbc.com/id/47818860

CNBC disagrees with that as they rank the best state to live... in.

From the link:

"Texas comes in 26th in Education and 35th in Quality of Life."

To its credit, Texas appears to be one of the few red states that actually contributes more in federal taxes than it gets back in federal spending.  I know Texas does not have an income tax and I think personal residences are exempt from bankruptcy, so if you have a $10 million estate you get to keep it.  So perhaps an inordinate proportion of high-income persons at least "claim" to reside in Texas.  On the other hand, it does have high property taxes... It's a mystery to me... Perhaps they have a very small population that is really poor...

workingman
workingman's picture
camaroman wrote: Tell that to

camaroman wrote:

Tell that to the 43 million senior citizens that have paid into the systems for 40 years and now are being told the system is broke ( because the crooked, power mongers in DC have wasted, frauded and stolen the money).

Whether you agree or not, workingman, medical CARE, not insurance, should be seen as a RIGHT to all not a bankrupting priviledge to only a few.

health care being a right you are saying that you have the right to other peoples labor. You are saying that you have the right to the doctors labor, the drug makers labor and anyone else that works in the medical industries labor. If i no longer have a right to my labor who does? Who is going to provide my labor to some one else? Who gets to decide or what force will be used to give my labor to someone else?

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
workingman wrote: camaroman

workingman wrote:

camaroman wrote:

Tell that to the 43 million senior citizens that have paid into the systems for 40 years and now are being told the system is broke ( because the crooked, power mongers in DC have wasted, frauded and stolen the money).

Whether you agree or not, workingman, medical CARE, not insurance, should be seen as a RIGHT to all not a bankrupting priviledge to only a few.

health care being a right you are saying that you have the right to other peoples labor. You are saying that you have the right to the doctors labor, the drug makers labor and anyone else that works in the medical industries labor. If i no longer have a right to my labor who does? Who is going to provide my labor to some one else? Who gets to decide or what force will be used to give my labor to someone else?

We haven't had a right to our own labor in this country since the creation of "jobs".  Your employer owns your labor and that's why you will never truly be paid what your labor is worth.  You will always be paid what your employer decides your labor is worth.  In working for a living YOU have decided to give your labor to someone else.  Participating in a communal effort to build a country such as ours DOES give you the right to other people's labor just as other people have a right to your labor.  That is what we call a civilized world that works TOGETHER for a greater purpose than just our own.

We the people are destined by the forefather's of this country to work out the details.  The air we breathe should always be free and not have a cost attached to it even if commerce is forced to maintain it.  Health care should be the same.  Actually clean air, water and basic food should fall under the category of health care.  Without those 3 basic items we would not have a chance for good health.  This should be sacred to our country even more than the right to bare arms for if there's not a healthy nation in which to protect from it's own government then what would be the point of a militia.

workingman
workingman's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: workingman

Bush_Wacker wrote:

workingman wrote:

camaroman wrote:

Tell that to the 43 million senior citizens that have paid into the systems for 40 years and now are being told the system is broke ( because the crooked, power mongers in DC have wasted, frauded and stolen the money).

Whether you agree or not, workingman, medical CARE, not insurance, should be seen as a RIGHT to all not a bankrupting priviledge to only a few.

health care being a right you are saying that you have the right to other peoples labor. You are saying that you have the right to the doctors labor, the drug makers labor and anyone else that works in the medical industries labor. If i no longer have a right to my labor who does? Who is going to provide my labor to some one else? Who gets to decide or what force will be used to give my labor to someone else?

We haven't had a right to our own labor in this country since the creation of "jobs".  Your employer owns your labor and that's why you will never truly be paid what your labor is worth.  You will always be paid what your employer decides your labor is worth.  In working for a living YOU have decided to give your labor to someone else.  Participating in a communal effort to build a country such as ours DOES give you the right to other people's labor just as other people have a right to your labor.  That is what we call a civilized world that works TOGETHER for a greater purpose than just our own.

We the people are destined by the forefather's of this country to work out the details.  The air we breathe should always be free and not have a cost attached to it even if commerce is forced to maintain it.  Health care should be the same.  Actually clean air, water and basic food should fall under the category of health care.  Without those 3 basic items we would not have a chance for good health.  This should be sacred to our country even more than the right to bare arms for if there's not a healthy nation in which to protect from it's own government then what would be the point of a militia.

So what you are saying is that everyone who works for the medical industry should be working for free because they do not control their labor. Their labor belongs to everyone else but them.

just because you work for some one else does not mean they own your labor. You And your employer decide what your labor is worth to him. If you do not like what he is offering you can move on taking your labor with you. No one is entitled to anyone elses labor democracy or not, community or not, my labor is my labor.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
workingman wrote: Bush_Wacker

workingman wrote:

Bush_Wacker wrote:

workingman wrote:

camaroman wrote:

Tell that to the 43 million senior citizens that have paid into the systems for 40 years and now are being told the system is broke ( because the crooked, power mongers in DC have wasted, frauded and stolen the money).

Whether you agree or not, workingman, medical CARE, not insurance, should be seen as a RIGHT to all not a bankrupting priviledge to only a few.

health care being a right you are saying that you have the right to other peoples labor. You are saying that you have the right to the doctors labor, the drug makers labor and anyone else that works in the medical industries labor. If i no longer have a right to my labor who does? Who is going to provide my labor to some one else? Who gets to decide or what force will be used to give my labor to someone else?

We haven't had a right to our own labor in this country since the creation of "jobs".  Your employer owns your labor and that's why you will never truly be paid what your labor is worth.  You will always be paid what your employer decides your labor is worth.  In working for a living YOU have decided to give your labor to someone else.  Participating in a communal effort to build a country such as ours DOES give you the right to other people's labor just as other people have a right to your labor.  That is what we call a civilized world that works TOGETHER for a greater purpose than just our own.

We the people are destined by the forefather's of this country to work out the details.  The air we breathe should always be free and not have a cost attached to it even if commerce is forced to maintain it.  Health care should be the same.  Actually clean air, water and basic food should fall under the category of health care.  Without those 3 basic items we would not have a chance for good health.  This should be sacred to our country even more than the right to bare arms for if there's not a healthy nation in which to protect from it's own government then what would be the point of a militia.

So what you are saying is that everyone who works for the medical industry should be working for free because they do not control their labor. Their labor belongs to everyone else but them. just because you work for some one else does not mean they own your labor. You And your employer decide what your labor is worth to him. If you do not like what he is offering you can move on taking your labor with you. No one is entitled to anyone elses labor democracy or not, community or not, my labor is my labor.

The only way that your labor is your labor is if you work for yourself.  You do not live in a freeloader country.  Whether you like it or not you are part of a community of citizens who must from time to time contribute to the whole of society in different ways.  It's just like you and those like you who jump onto this board and demand total freedom from participation in the very country that gives you your liberties and protections.  You want and expect all of your liberties without having to pay a price for it and at the same time complain that the "other" citizens are just here for a free ride.  It's hypocritical at best.  You won't even understand what I'm getting at because you are so programmed to filter out all thoughts of what it takes to make "The land of the free" to function.

You say that you and your employer agree to what your labor is worth "to him".  You didn't say that you and your employer agree to what your labor is worth to both you and him.  Citizens negotiate the same way with the government.  We eventually come to some kind of agreement as to what is fair taxes, fair cost of defense, etc.  That is what a democracy is all about.  You don't seem to want to participate in a democracy, you would rather dictate to everyone how much you will pay for taxes the cost of defense and etc.etc.etc.

If you truly want to live in a country as a truly free person then good luck on your search.  You may have to choose one of the two poles to find your dream world.

workingman
workingman's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: workingman

Bush_Wacker wrote:

workingman wrote:

Bush_Wacker wrote:

workingman wrote:

camaroman wrote:

Tell that to the 43 million senior citizens that have paid into the systems for 40 years and now are being told the system is broke ( because the crooked, power mongers in DC have wasted, frauded and stolen the money).

Whether you agree or not, workingman, medical CARE, not insurance, should be seen as a RIGHT to all not a bankrupting priviledge to only a few.

health care being a right you are saying that you have the right to other peoples labor. You are saying that you have the right to the doctors labor, the drug makers labor and anyone else that works in the medical industries labor. If i no longer have a right to my labor who does? Who is going to provide my labor to some one else? Who gets to decide or what force will be used to give my labor to someone else?

We haven't had a right to our own labor in this country since the creation of "jobs".  Your employer owns your labor and that's why you will never truly be paid what your labor is worth.  You will always be paid what your employer decides your labor is worth.  In working for a living YOU have decided to give your labor to someone else.  Participating in a communal effort to build a country such as ours DOES give you the right to other people's labor just as other people have a right to your labor.  That is what we call a civilized world that works TOGETHER for a greater purpose than just our own.

We the people are destined by the forefather's of this country to work out the details.  The air we breathe should always be free and not have a cost attached to it even if commerce is forced to maintain it.  Health care should be the same.  Actually clean air, water and basic food should fall under the category of health care.  Without those 3 basic items we would not have a chance for good health.  This should be sacred to our country even more than the right to bare arms for if there's not a healthy nation in which to protect from it's own government then what would be the point of a militia.

So what you are saying is that everyone who works for the medical industry should be working for free because they do not control their labor. Their labor belongs to everyone else but them. just because you work for some one else does not mean they own your labor. You And your employer decide what your labor is worth to him. If you do not like what he is offering you can move on taking your labor with you. No one is entitled to anyone elses labor democracy or not, community or not, my labor is my labor.

The only way that your labor is your labor is if you work for yourself.  You do not live in a freeloader country.  Whether you like it or not you are part of a community of citizens who must from time to time contribute to the whole of society in different ways.  It's just like you and those like you who jump onto this board and demand total freedom from participation in the very country that gives you your liberties and protections.  You want and expect all of your liberties without having to pay a price for it and at the same time complain that the "other" citizens are just here for a free ride.  It's hypocritical at best.  You won't even understand what I'm getting at because you are so programmed to filter out all thoughts of what it takes to make "The land of the free" to function.

You say that you and your employer agree to what your labor is worth "to him".  You didn't say that you and your employer agree to what your labor is worth to both you and him.  Citizens negotiate the same way with the government.  We eventually come to some kind of agreement as to what is fair taxes, fair cost of defense, etc.  That is what a democracy is all about.  You don't seem to want to participate in a democracy, you would rather dictate to everyone how much you will pay for taxes the cost of defense and etc.etc.etc.

If you truly want to live in a country as a truly free person then good luck on your search.  You may have to choose one of the two poles to find your dream world.

when you negotiate the cost of your labor with the boss it is about you And him. That is why i said you And him agreed on how much the labor.is worth.

you can own your labor and still participate in democracy without having the government force you to.carry the dead weight. You can be free contribute to the society without governmental coercion and force. There are some items that taxes are required. They are the 18 jobs listed in the constitution. All the other jobs that the federal government is currently doing including the safety net programs is theift of labor.

I want to live in the constitutional republic the founders set up not the socialist hell hole where 70 percent of my labor is confiscated to support people who are unwillilg to support themselves. Socialusm rewards freeloaders while punishing the people who work.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
I want to live in a live and

I want to live in a live and let live, free and sharing society.  Once again, YOU are the freeloader.  YOU have the ability to help but would refuse to if you could.  Those in society who need help do not have the ability to help themselves.  That is the difference.  They aren't freeloaders, YOU are.  YOU are selfish and self centered and you can live out your dreams on the North Pole.

70% of your labor is probably confiscated by your employer.  I would like you to show me how 70% of your paycheck is subtracted in order to help those that are "unwilling" to help themselves.  You probably contribute a sum total of a thousand dollars a year to the needy.  The vast majority of your taxes goes to pay for missiles and tanks in the name of freedom.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
We have very different ideas

We have very different ideas of freeloaders. People who inherit millions, and change the laws, buyout companies with borrowed money, move the jobs and equipment to China, and get tax breaks for their trouble seem like the biggest freeloaders. People who buy land and speculate are freeloaders.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
The Social Security and

The Social Security and Medicare systems are programs that people pay a portion of their wages into and in return are promised  an income based on that contribution and a percentag of their medical care expenses paid for. YOU, workingman, pay into that system and if you work for someone or a company the match what you pay in SS taxes. If you are self-employed,as I am, you pay all of that in the form of self-employment taxes. I do not consider those that have paid into that system as freeloaders in any way. They have contributed to that system and are owed that. Why do you have a problem with that? What I have a problem with is thart the government, politicians, have robbed that fund, using it for excessive wasteful and fraudulent purposes, that have nothing to do with what that money should be used for.

Government should stop spending money enriching the militsry industrial complex to protect EXXON and Chevrons oil interests in the middle east on unconstitutional, illegal and immoral wars empire building under the false pretense of spreading democracy. 

workingman
workingman's picture
Bush_Wacker wrote: I want to

Bush_Wacker wrote:

I want to live in a live and let live, free and sharing society.  Once again, YOU are the freeloader.  YOU have the ability to help but would refuse to if you could.  Those in society who need help do not have the ability to help themselves.  That is the difference.  They aren't freeloaders, YOU are.  YOU are selfish and self centered and you can live out your dreams on the North Pole.

70% of your labor is probably confiscated by your employer.  I would like you to show me how 70% of your paycheck is subtracted in order to help those that are "unwilling" to help themselves.  You probably contribute a sum total of a thousand dollars a year to the needy.  The vast majority of your taxes goes to pay for missiles and tanks in the name of freedom.

The 70 percent will not kick in until the governemt is in charge of our health care. I figure taxes will be at least that high on working people. Europe they average 50 percent but the u.s. Has more people on welfare than the population of europe.

I have no problem helping the poor through charities, however the federal government is not a charity.

So i am a freeloader because i pay my taxes to support people who are unwilling to support themselves. I am a freeloader because i want to keep what i earn instead of supporting someone else that lives better than i do off government confiscation of other peoples wealth.