Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
535 days ago.
by R1KRA8
TheFrog
#1

Members of Congress should not undermine the U.S. government

United States Congressmen should not threaten the existence of the United States government simply because those Congressmen do not like a program. It is the height of fiscal irresponsibility for a Congress to threaten to not pay debts that it has incurred because it does not like a program that it has created. Voters should pay closer attention to the behavior of their elected officials and ask themselves whether those officials really represent them, of if those officials are instead paid-for hires of immoral billionaires who spend their time shoving cocaine up their nostrils.

 
 

Member Comments

Valveguy

Scrappile: do you think maybe they pay a lot higher taxes in Canada to pay for their free health care? Also, Obamcare is not FREE. You have to go buy insurance. That is the big difference between free Gov’t health care and Obamacare. Also, are you one of the people who think your insuracne premiums will go DOWN under the Affordable (LOL) Health Care Act/ Unless you are on Medicare, I hope you post once you find out what it cost once you visit the exchange.

The news reports are starting to fill up will shell shocked insuracnt shoppers

Posted 572 days ago.

Valveguy

The Kaiser Family Foundation has a calculator, recommended by the gov’t site of healthcare. gov and it allows you to get an estimate of what your cost will be for healthcare on the new exchange. I am currently paying ~$300 per month for employer based insurance. I did the calculator and it said that a bronze plan would cost me $950 per month if I did not have company insurance. The is just for my wife and I. Their site it kkf . org

Posted 572 days ago.

scrappile

Due to a catastrophic event.....

Posted 572 days ago.

Valveguy

In a recent speech Obama threw out the number of 15 million Americans who will now be able to get health insurance.

That means the whole health care thing has been about taking care of ~5% of the citizens of the USA. Couldn’t we have done that without the other 95% being drug into this train wreck?

Posted 572 days ago.

scrappile

you have to be gainfully employed to immigrate to Canada, now 1 blood test that is needed once a month is 280.00, now how does aperson making minimum wage pay this, in Canada its paid for, in the U.S., he simply bypasses the test, leading to complications and more expense in the future, or gets medicaid.....I also knew canucks pleased withtheir healthcare and never filed bankruptcy due to medical bills, or lost everything they spent 10-20 years building......

Posted 572 days ago.

luvthesouth

scrappile, a quick search yielded an answer to your cost of drug question. it was answered by a doctor. they gave a two part answer. 1) the cost of medication is regulated by a review board. but the board also has the ability to nix newer or higher cost introductory drugs. 2) the canadian standard of living was listed at 20-30% below the standard of living here in the United States. i feel certain that would be an average as i am sure there are highs and lows in both countries. i will agree that both parties have contributed to every woe in this country, but the true responsibility falls on the voting public. we give them permission to do as they please and power over us at each election. the one telling thing to me during the mid-term election was when the tea party was attacked by both the democrats and the republicans. it was obvious that our two major parties are really one party. good cop vs. bad cop. flip when necessary.

Posted 573 days ago.

luvthesouth

practitioner referral to treatment by a specialist was 17.7 weeks in Canada. Despite substantial increases in both health spending and federal cash transfers to the provinces for health care over the past 15 or so years, that wait time was 49 per cent longer than the overall median wait time of 11.9 weeks back in 1997. It was 91 per cent longer than the overall median wait time of 9.3 weeks back in 1993." sometimes cheap is not always a great deal. btw...hope to see you in taxfreebia! bring your sun screen.

Posted 573 days ago.

luvthesouth

scrappile, good evening. i did a quick search on your canada question and found that some articles celebrated the lower cost...but at what price to the average canadian???? well it seems that from a huffington post canada article the canadians seem to be getting what we may look forward to having....at least those that will have to suffer through obamacare...you know us exempt folks. here are two short paragraphs as an example. "Canadian taxpayers are not receiving the same sort of value that their counterparts in other nations are when it comes to universally accessible health care. This despite the fact some 68 per cent of personal income taxes paid in aggregate are required to cover the cost of Canada's taxpayer-funded health care program. In fact, Canadians spend much more for their health care and receive lower quality care than other countries with universal-access systems." "Consider the case of waiting lists. In 2012, the median wait time from general practition

Posted 573 days ago.

luvthesouth

BeRight, i suppose that it could be repealed as it would theoretically not be needed. however, the anti-discrimination inference of the law could be an excuse for keeping it on the books as a just in case. but as you say...if everyone is covered then all will be served.

Posted 573 days ago.

scrappile

No profit, yes fantasyland is right next to taxfreebia, why do certain scripts, therapies, tests, cost 10 times less in Canada, a real country:-) , than in the U.S....Our congress has had more than enough time to work on these answers, but political theatre is both parties method of choice, and big pharma contributions get much more influence,than the ghost of Tom Joad lobby....

Posted 573 days ago.

BeRight

LTS: if Obamacare mandates all to have insurance, does this old Reagan law go by the boards? As we know, some will have insurance that will not cover their needs so what happens?

Posted 573 days ago.

luvthesouth

sorry about the misspellings, i was distracted by the preview for hello-kitty.

Posted 573 days ago.

luvthesouth

friends, relatives and co-workers. excuse me but hello-kitty just came on and i can't miss it.

Posted 573 days ago.

luvthesouth

in discussion. your cancer vs. profit scenario is interesting in that my reference to free treatment involved cancer. but on to the pessimistic side of my personality. so are you saying that if one has cancer that the treatment and time for the doctor, nurses and other support staff should be free? taxpayer-funded is a broad net in which to cast. however, i have thought that in the past that any medication or treatment that was a direct result of public funds should be sold or invoiced at cost. the problem being that unless the government is honestly producing the medication or wholly providing treatment can you possibly begin to have a zero profit situation. that will never happen since costs change as well as salaries and benifits along with production costs and naturally you have to raise taxes or borrow as we do now to put off paying the piper. it will not happen except in fantasyland. i looked at the world map and it does not exist. pass that along to all of your idealistic frien

Posted 573 days ago.

luvthesouth

scrappile, the act you are refencing is called the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act" or commonly known as the anti-dumping act whereby hospitals that receive fderal funds such as medicaid and medicare can not refuse to treat the non-insured. strings were and are attached to any federal dollar. to add insult to injury, medicare and medicaid only reimburse that which they deem reasonable. which in most cases does not always adequately cover the costs. at the time there was a Democratic House and a Republican Senate with reagan as president. i'll assume that, like now, any refusal to pass "heart-string" legislation would be political suicide. regarding the judicial question...you are aware that many times a payout without guilt is made more often than not just to save the litigation of claims which can be very costly in both time and money. i only mentioned that scenario as an example of the rising costs of healthcare that many people do not consider

Posted 573 days ago.

scrappile

I believe there was one answer to rising premiums in the question, reagan signed that law, which also raised premiums by treating those that can't afford, who is paying, for that consumers of healthcare, one answer is to do away with the 3rd party payer system, but not being able to be compensated for negligence, that is not only in the healthcare system, so why should that system be exempt from the judicial system. Greed, do you believe one should profit from anothers cancer, especially if taxpayer funded research brought about the treatment.....

Posted 573 days ago.

BeRight

More good news on Gov't shutdown: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency will “effectively shut down” unless Congress approves stopgap funding by Oct. 1, according to a report from the Associated Press.

Without the stopgap funding, McCarthy said the agency will be unable to pay employees, and only a core group of staff members would remain on duty in case the agency has to respond to a significant emergency. According to the Associated Press, most EPA function like drafting regulations and enforcing rules would remain stalled until government operations resume.

Posted 573 days ago.

luvthesouth

military-style system...namely you can't sue and retire rich for any medical malfeasance. if you are not aware, many smaller regional hospitals have gone belly-up and could have been appropriated at a very reasonable cost and then staffed with government hired phsycians and support staff. rest assured however, that unless there was a medical treatment facility at their doorstep and god forbid anyone would have to travel for FREE care, the complaining and b itching would never stop. now maybe other than your end-all Greed reason, you could explain why premiums (as well as everything else) have risen steadily and the not share some blame on the perpetual poor and working poor.

Posted 573 days ago.

luvthesouth

scrappile, you posed an excellent question. i can tell you from first hand experience that there are/were several ways to get the medical care and surgery at a minimal cost that one may need prior to this abortion called Obamacare. many of the poor/homeless do not seek out ongoing or preventative healthcare for a variety of reasons. many of those reasons do not support destroying our current systen only to be made subject to I.R.S. domination. this program does nothing but further enslave our precious middle-class and working poor. how you can't see it is beyond me. apparently you did not read the bill either. quite possibly you and Pelosi may wish to have a chat. the government already runs a very efficient and large healthcare system. the U.S. military healthcare system. it befuddled me as to why the dumbocrats did not use the military as a model for "free" or "subsidized" healthcare. the one caveat would be the strings and restrictions associated with use of the

Posted 573 days ago.

BeRight

I hope it goes all the way to Gov’t shutdown. Since the last shutdown, the Democrats made more and more Gov’t employees “essential” workers who would not be affected. A Gov’t shutdown would result in the same thing the Big Bad Sequester: talking points for the media and Obama but in realty a F A R T in a windstorm.

Posted 573 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or