Archive for Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Sign him up

January 27, 2009

Advertisement

To the editor:

Reading Dolph Simons’ column in Saturday’s paper reminds me why I’m not a conservative and why we should always look at the facts, not the spin. In his article he postulates that by 2012, 50 percent of Americans could pay no federal taxes and have free health care. Obviously for him this is bad. Counting on free handouts from the government is a definite no-no. Wait a minute, free handouts; can you say billions of dollars to financial institutions with no apparent accountability?

So let’s introduce some interesting statistics relevant to our discussion. In the past 20 years the top 20 percent of income-earners have seen a 43 percent increase in income while the bottom 20 percent have seen a 9 percent decline. The top 20 percent make more than the rest of us put together. The top 40 percent make 72 percent of the income. The top 10 percent own 96 percent of the net worth of personal wealth. What’s my point? My point is the bottom 50 percent need all their income to keep their heads above water. Universal health care not only benefits the bottom 50 percent but also gives American companies help in competing internationally against companies in countries who already have universal health care.

Tell you what, give me $200,000 a year with a 40 percent federal tax rate and I’ll try to survive on the $10,000 a month I have left. Sign me up, I’ll make the sacrifice.

Randy Supernaw,
Perry

Comments

notajayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

The class jealousy of the people in this community is almost as mind boggling as their sense of entitlement.Hey, Randy, how about I quit my job and you pay for my healthcare and, for that matter, whatever else it takes to keep my head above water? That okay with you? What? No? You mean, it's only 'fair' when you're the one asking for a handout? You think you had a 'point' rattling off all those numbers, Randy? Here's a little something I'd like to ask. Regardless of how much wealth the top 10% own or how much of the income the top 20% earn (and I notice you somehow forgot to include the fact that the top 1% or taxpayers already pay over one-third of the total income taxes), just WTF makes you think you're entitled to a dime of it?

Richard Heckler 6 years, 3 months ago

60% of the current medical insured in the USA is paid with our tax dollars. This means some taxpayers are paying twice,once for their own and then for others. This also means those who have no medical coverage are paying for the mentioned 60%.None of this makes dollars or sense.Currently our legislators are still working on a new same old thing aka sticking with those who pay for their campaign debts = makes no dollars or senseI say demand that our legislators work with Rep John Conyers in supporting HR 676 National Health Insurance. This way all have health insurance and nobody pays twice or once for others and none for themselves.The health insurance industry and their investors have all kinds of horrible misinformation about HR 676 yet have no means to back up that misinformation. They always point to some other industrialized country who is acquiring USA jobs and say see look at that awful system. Does our system need to be designed like some other system.... of course not. Does the USA need to be attractive to new industry thus new jobs to replace the millions that went abroad... absolutely! Is HR 676 free? No way jose' Less expensive ....yep.HR 676 is the only way to go.

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

"Tell you what, give me $200,000 a year..."Tell you what, Randy, why don't you EARN 200k, ya know, like having the skills to garner such a salary. Gimme gimme gimme. That's an embarassing LTE. And a 9% decline for the bottom 20? I'd be interested to see those stats.

labmonkey 6 years, 3 months ago

I also noticed how the LTE forgot to mention how much the top 25% pay in taxes. The top 25% earn about 68% of the income, yet pay 86% of income taxes collected. The top 1% earns about 22% of the income while they pay 39% of the taxes. The top 1% pays as much as the bottom 95%. Where were those numbers in your LTE, Randy?

llama726 6 years, 3 months ago

Labmonkey... Do you make 250k plus per year? If so, GOOD FOR YOU. Problem is, our economy CANNOT have that many people making that much money, and let's be BLUNT and HONEST... A vast majority of economic class is INHERITED. There is less class mobility in our country than in the horribly leftist European countries you all despise so much. But from a business perspective... We could easily trim our budget with minimal tax adjustments to provide health care, which will take a huge burden off of employers... Maybe even allow them to retain employees, provide other benefits (educational assistance), etc. I guess I just don't see where the huge problem is with assuring that people (especially when we're looking at a potential 10% unemployment rate) get the health care they need without clogging up EMERGENCY ROOMS. Some of us don't see the point in building ballistic missiles, tanks, etc., as if we were going to enter a conventional war when 21st Century wars won't see a battlefield of tank fights. For all of you who keep touting personal responsibility, what about the sense of community? This country is supposedly Christian. Most of the Bible talks about helping the poor. Yet if you read this board, you'd think the Bible is actually only an anti-Abortion ad which tells poor people to screw off, because they aren't SKILLED like the rich folks. Please. When I see real evidence that the private sector will take care of things like health care (wait, it hasn't taken care of it, it's just made it huge, inefficient, and completely counter-productive), education (lol... profit driven schools sounds like a great idea to make sure kids can survive on their own SKILL), etc., maybe I would see it your way. But the profit motive, left un-checked, is as bad as outright government control of everything. "Everything in moderation."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

"Tell you what, give me $200,000 a year with a 40 percent federal tax rate and I’ll try to survive on the $10,000 a month I have left. Sign me up, I’ll make the sacrifice."Some of you are too (willfully?) dense to catch the sarcasm here. The letter writer's point is that complaints about high taxes by the wealthy are based in a self-centered cluelessness. Even after paying 40% in taxes, someone making $200,000 a year makes several times the income of the average worker. And the wealth of the wealthy would be nothing but numbers on a page if they didn't benefit from the work of poorly compensated low-income workers-- the ones who pick up their trash, clean their homes, pick their vegetables, slaughter their steaks-- the list goes on and on.There is no such thing as a "self-made" man or woman. Every wealthy person has gained that wealth on the shoulders of the rest of society. It's a privilege that's often earned with talent and hard work, but no one ever gets there all by their lonesome. They're only there because there are countless millions who toil every day with no prospect of riches-- they're just hoping to survive. A single-payer national healthcare plan would make survival much easier, and the fact is, it'd save us all a lot of money-- even the wealthy.

notajayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

To save the valued-readers' time this morning, allow me to sum up the posts made by merrill, boohoozo, and what will inevitably be a multitude of others who share their opinion:"They have more than me so I have some obscure right to take it to support my lazy ___."That about cover it?****merrill (Anonymous) says… "60% of the current medical insured in the USA is paid with our tax dollars."Even if that were true (I notice that in this, the 1,273,964,083rd time merrill has pasted this same drivel into a thread, he doesn't back up or explain that claim) - you volunteering to pick up the other 40%, merrill?***llama726 (Anonymous) says… "There is less class mobility in our country than in the horribly leftist European countries you all despise so much."The fastest-shrinking class is the middle class. The lower class hasn't grown a bit - it's the so-called 'rich' that has expanded to absorb the former middle-classers. But don't let the facts get in the way of your class jealousy.***clown_rants_from_bus (Anonymous) says..."There is no such thing as a “self-made” man or woman. Every wealthy person has gained that wealth on the shoulders of the rest of society."Yavo, herr klowne! Thank you for informing us all of how the proletariat must shake off the jack-boot of the rich from our throats and rise up! (How's that for sarcasm, clownie?)"A single-payer national healthcare plan would make survival much easier, and the fact is, it'd save us all a lot of money— even the wealthy."Funny the clown used the word "survival," since even the Canadian courts have found that their healthcare system is killing people.Hey, boys and girls, wanna' have some fun? Ask the clown to explain just what measure he uses to determine that healthcare in his beloved socialist countries is better than ours. I've asked him this more times than merrill repeats a post, and he can never even come up with one objective measure, let alone facts or figures showing it's better anywhere else. But 'better' isn't what boohoozo wants. boohoozo wants 'equal.' Everyone should die waiting for their turn on the waiting list, everyone should be the victim of the same shoddy healthcare. A socialist's dream.

mom_of_three 6 years, 3 months ago

Forgetting the figures about taxes, obviously people feel very strongly about universal health care. But here is what stands out. "Counting on free handouts from the government is a definite no-no. Wait a minute, free handouts; can you say billions of dollars to financial institutions with no apparent accountability?"What is the difference between the thought of universal health care and bailing out the financial and auto industry because those some of those guys (with great educations) making the big bucks, couldn't do their jobs. Is it okay that we bailed out the rich guys, who continue to waste money on trips and bonuses, but we can't help the poorer people because we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps?Heath care has got to be fixed, somehow, someway. There is no reason a family with health insurance should watch their child suffer from cancer because the treatment isn't covered or they have reached their max benefits or they can't afford it. No one should need a fund raiser to help cover medical bills (such as co-pays). If you have a job, you should have healthcare.

llama726 6 years, 3 months ago

Wow, some hateful stuff. I have a job. I have healthcare. I have a degree. I work constantly. I also volunteer in my community. I don't have any class jealousy. I live comfortably and I am certainly not begrudging those who earn a good wage, just don't act as though any poor sap can just miraculously get a great job. School costs $$$$$, and if you have no income, you don't qualify for a loan, now do ya? http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html. I hardly think taxpayer health care is the same thing as armed robbery. That's a pretty big stretch. So, I guess the gov't has broken into my house for 8 years to make me go to the "buy your own blown up building in Iraq" store.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

We're all mortal, and keeping us all alive against impossible odds is a difficult and expensive task. There is no healthcare system that can overcome that simple fact.But the simple fact, borne out in every industrialized country of the world which has it, is that a single-payer system delivers better healthcare to more people at lower cost than the ad hoc idiocy this country has. Your juvenile rants don't change that fact, nota.

BigAl 6 years, 3 months ago

The corrupt right wing media and the far right posters on here tend to ignore the fact that George W Bush handed over to Obama a nation in a terrible mess. Unlike how the republicans wasted time and $millions going after Clinton, I hope the dems don't go after Bush. Instead of wasting time like the republicans did, Americans need to get this country back on track. Hate filled and divisive people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and others need to be ignored while honest Americans work to restore our economy, our world standing and peace for all.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

"Unlike how the republicans wasted time and $millions going after Clinton, I hope the dems don't go after Bush."The US should instead get on board with the international criminal court, and let Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al face charges for their crimes against humanity there.

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 3 months ago

Thank God for the Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Bill Koch types of this world. They're the ones that provide jobs to millions of Americans, like Mr. Supernaw. Also, the total government take on America's top wage earners is closer to 60% when you consider local, state and federal income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

"Thank God for the Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Bill Koch types of this world. "Actually, they are perfect examples of people who have made their $billion precisely by standing on the shoulders of the many who came before, and taking advantage of the work of others who were not as well compensated. And the latter two in particular did so with very questionable ethical behavior.

alm77 6 years, 3 months ago

The only "fair" tax is a FLAT tax!!! 10% from everyone. Problem solved. Now, on the issue of welfare, there will be no fairness. Someone is always trying to game the system while others use it legitimately and temporarily. I go back and forth on the issue of socialized medicine, so count me willing to try it, with cautious optimism. What we're doing now sure isn't working...

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

The comments about "class jealousy" always surprise me.There are many reasons for reasonable intelligent people to be concerned about the inequities in our society. I am concerned about them, but have no "class jealousy". I have never wanted to be rich, and have always had enough.It has been documented that America spends more per capita for health care and education than other nations, and that the quality of our educational and health care systems are inferior.For nota, I will not go into all of the details, since I remember from previous posts of yours that none of the objective criteria used will ever satisfy you.It doesn't make sense to me to spend more and get less.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

Societies are formed around different ideas - one could certainly have a society that operated on the principle of trying to make things "fair".Also, I think logic's point is that those who claim to value personal responsibility and achievement fail to notice that the playing field is very unequal, and that many are "born on third base and think they hit a triple" as my father-in-law likes to say.If we are to claim that people succeed or fail on their own merits, then we'd have to equalize the situation first.

jafs 6 years, 3 months ago

I didn't say that anyone "decides merit" - I said that the claim that folks succeed or fail on their own merits could only be true if the playing field were an equal one.And, I believe Obama benefited from a number of government programs to help equalize it, like low-interest student loans.

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

An 'intellectual giant', bozo? Not hardly. Your intellectual superior? Without a doubt.logicsound,No doubt alot of money stays in the same circles due to inheritance, but those aren't the ones achieving 6 figure salaries. I'm sure you're not advocating that everyone start at zero if they were lucky enough to have the proverbial silver spoon, no matter the society there'll always be the have's and have-nots.I understand the desire to take more from those that have more, and it always happens. There's a theory, can't recall the name, where you take the baby straight from the womb and ask them what position in life they'd like to have: janitor making 40k in a 25% tax bracket or a doctor making 200k in a 40% bracket. And of course everyone would take the latter and be happy. The problem is and will always be there are those that are capable of performing certain tasks, and those that aren't; some that are smart enough, have the drive, perseverance, fortitude, etc., and those that don't. For an overwhelming majority of those that succeed to wealth it took exceptional sacrifice and hard work, years to attain their status and considerable talent in a specific area. And what makes this a great country is that everyone has these opportunities. It is more difficult for some than others, but again that's just life, them's the breaks. I don't think that I should be any more responsible for Forrest Gump or the misanthrope who prefers to skirt society's edges because they can't or won't achieve. They've already got plenty of pork in place to allow them to exist. If someone is struggling due to market forces, that's a bummer and I've been there before. Hell, I'm there now. But we each have the right, responsibility, and opportunity to go out and make our way in this country. It's up to us individually to do what we can with what we've got. So if you can earn the brass ring, spectacular. If you can't you shouldn't be whining like the LTE and sayin' gimme that and I'll be happy. Earn it. (I'm not meanin' 'you' as in 'you yourself' :)

kmat 6 years, 3 months ago

This is getting fun watching how disgusting and evil the right wingers are getting on these message boards now that republicans being in control is a thing of the past. You were all bad enough prior to the election, but you're going off the deep end now.I'm gonna go grab some popcorn and check back soon to see if any heads have exploded.Start tearing me apart. Don't care. It's just so much fun to see you folks squirm. From reading your posts, you'd think the world was ending.GObama!

fuel_for_the_fire 6 years, 3 months ago

"Way to go straight to the ad hominem attack" Look everybody, Bozo learned a new word!!!You're welcome, Bozo.

kmat 6 years, 3 months ago

Did I say that - WHO CARES. Good for Mr. Supernaw. He recognizes that there are great medical uses for marijuana. Go volunteer at a hospice or just spend time taking care of someone getting chemo treatments to see if you agree that medical marijuana should be legal. Even my elderly parents think it should be after caring for my sister who fought cancer for a year.Get a life.

Kryptenx 6 years, 3 months ago

NancyBoy, madmike:You both seem to forget that George Bush is responsible for the biggest example of socialism to date: the bail out. Not only that, but he gave away billions of tax payer dollars and provided absolutely no oversight. Nationalizing banks was started by Bush, and at least nationalization would provide the government with an ability to regulate the banks that the tax payers' now own enormous amounts of shares in. But I guess you both would prefer that we continue to just hand them money without any conditions, that way it doesn't seem so socialist. That's ridiculous, and way worse than nationalization.Did_I_Say_That: I sincerely hope that you are never lying in bed for weeks at a time, popping opiates like there's no tomorrow and getting no relief. Thankfully, people like Mr. Supernaw(and a whole host of others) recognize that marijuana is scheduled wrong, has amazing medicinal value to certain patients where other drugs provide no help, and is willing to endorse that view. Your post pointing out his views does nothing to tarnish his credibility and instead highlights your gross ignorance.

KansasPerson 6 years, 3 months ago

Jaywalker:1) No reason you should have to feel responsible for Forrest Gump. He made a bunch of money off his shrimp boat business! Don't you watch movies? :)2) Just to test the theory for myself, I asked a baby the janitor vs. doctor question, but he just drooled on me.Onward!

Richard Heckler 6 years, 3 months ago

Why HR676 National Health Insurance?• We’ll all receive identical health insurance coverage• Provides extraordinary leverage against suppliers• Protects families and business alike from being gouged by the health insurance industry• Treatment for serious illness such as cancer will not be cut off because a patient has reached the point insurance companies will pay no more…happens everyday• 60% of health insurance today is paid with tax dollars so why not 100% that covers all who need treatment.• Citizens will not be forced to lose all of their assets or file bankruptcy due to serious illness as does happen somewhere everyday as we speak• Eliminates health insurance dollars going into special interest campaign cookie jars• Eliminates health insurance dollars from financing golden parachutes• Veterans receive care immediately for whatever symptoms war has imposed on their physical or mental health. No more waiting on the Dept. of Defense• National Health Insurance eliminates over 1500 different policies thus eliminating tons of wasteful administrative costs. That money could be included towards 100% coverage. It is estimated todays administrative costs runs at 33%…that is a lot of dough. • Myth busters: http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/mythbusters_by_the_canadian_health_services_research_foundation.php

notajayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

kmat 6 years, 3 months ago

You're too lazy to check it out notajayhawk, so here it is for you. Googling would just be too hard, wouldn't it. World Health Organization's rankings. Good old USA at #37, behind Saudia Arabia, Costa Rica, UAE, Malta, dominica, etc.... It is obvious that you don't travel much or know people in other countries. The CEO at my company (had been a life long republican until now) did a comparison between what we pay out of pocket for insurance, medical expenses and in taxes compared to what the employees in our Canadian division pay. Guess what, they pay A LOT less in Canada. And the only things they have to wait for up there are just basic exams. You need routine exams, you schedule them in advance. No different than here, except everyone gets medical coverage. It, along with how Bush managed to screw everything up, turned him against the republican party.http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.htmlAnd poor little Tommy is getting so upset that now he has to use the "everything is Obama's fault", even though he's been prez for a week. Hmmmm, 9-11 wasn't Bush's fault, it was Clinton's according to the right wingers. The recession that started after Bush was prez was also Clinton's fault. I see a strange pattern here. If a republican is in power, nothing is their fault, it's their predicessors. But, everything is the democrats fault. Time for another tub of popcorn. Maybe next time I check in the righties heads will have exploded. You're better than watching Springer. I'm done, go back to your whining.

kmat 6 years, 3 months ago

you have to admit, did i say that, that your post did not come across as being nice about Mr. Supernaw. That's why two of us commented about it.I am sorry for your father, as I have been there. BUT, one has to assume ignorance when first reading your post. You should have clarified when you posted the link that it was to show that Mr. Supernaw is a compassionate person. BECAUSE, most people on here post negative things about medical use of marijuana.

drake 6 years, 3 months ago

Kmat,That's not what I hear about Canada:Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high--- http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/fraser-report.htmlMajority of Quebec dentists quit health-care system---http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080327/quebec_dentists_080327/20080327?hub=HealthI have many more. I for one think an average wait time of 4 1/2 months for surgery is ridiculous.

Kryptenx 6 years, 3 months ago

I, too, am sorry to hear about your father. Cancer is a horrible disease and the only thing worse than cancer is the chemo. That aside, my reply was directed at your post. If anyone is off topic for talking about MMJ, it would be the person who brought the issue up in the first place, not the two who replied.

drake 6 years, 3 months ago

Just make sure you don't catch colon cancer in the socialized medicine utopia of Canada:The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Carehttp://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

kmat 6 years, 3 months ago

You need to read what you posted drake. The problem in Canada is lack of doctors. That's why there are waits. The first article states the wait time is long to get into a specialist and then get additional services. I know someone with brain cancer who was in the hospital getting treatment in Toronto in less than 24 hours of being diagnosed. Urgent needs patients don't wait. You're having a heart attack, you're treated immediately.The article about the dentists, who are providing services to low income people, are mad because they want more pay. Same thing as the doctors in the US not taking new medicaid patients because they don't get paid enough from the govt. Dental care is not part of the standard care for all Canadian citizens.There will be delays if every citizen is receiving health care. That's why you need a pap smear, you schedule that routine test months in advance. You have symptoms that suggest you have cervical cancer, you will get screened immediately. You have the flu, you go to a walk in clinic and get on the spot care.I have some heart issues. I had to wait almost a month to see a specialist. They wanted additional tests, I waited weeks. Earlier this year I had kidney stones. By the time I could get seen and diagnosed, I had passed them. I should have been given good pain killers to help me get through it, but couldn't get in to have a CT scan to confirm it was stones (then had to wait 5 days for the scan to be looked at), so I had to suffer and pass 3 stones with no medicinal help. Let me tell you, that wasn't fun. And I have great health insurance (I pay a lot for it and should get better treatment for the insurance costs and out of pocket costs).All systems are going to have their flaws. BUT, even with all the issues that govt assisted health care systems face, they still rank higher in the world in health care than the US does. Check out the link I posted. We pay the highest cost per person, but get the crappiest care. If we are supposedly so great, why are we ranked #37 in the world? Answer that before posting more junk (one of which being an editorial and the other not even about socialized care).

JHOK32 6 years, 3 months ago

Thank you Randy for your comments. I could not agree with you more. Apparently, the rest of the nation agrees with our thinking as the entire country made a resounding statement on November 4th. Unfortunately, the Dolph Simons of the world will always be with us. Let's examine the Republican "leadership" of the last 8 years: Brother W and his multi-$Billion dollar CIA, FBI, NSA, ATF, etc, etc, were outsmarted by a handful of arabs with 99 cent boxknives. This was money well spent for all you reds keeping track of your tax dollars. 2. What resulted was yet another $50 Billion Federal agency called Homeland Security. The $50 Billion is Per Year since 2001 (approx $350 Billion total). 3. Then W invades Iraq, another $Trillion dollars (keeping track Dolph?). 4. Then the greed of the American Bankers, Wall street, etc, sends the entire nation into the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. 5. W won't sign a bill to help kids in poverty get health insurance, but he signs a bill with lightning speed to give these same big bankers who got rich, yet another $700 Billion dollars to "save" them. Lets see now, 1 $Trillion for a war that only benefits big oil & the defense industry (top 10% most wealthy Americans), another $350 Billion dollars to prevent another 911 (that should have never happened if we had anybody in charge that had a brain), another $700 Billion for bailout of big bankers who already got rich by their insatiable greed, (another top 10%)......OK, how much is the total now? - $2 TRILLION tax dollars spent for what?? Good thing we put the Republicans in office to cut our taxes!

Richard Heckler 6 years, 3 months ago

Drake,How can that compare to the USA? HR 676 is about insurance not health care. USA health care will remain private so nothing should change.The only part that changes is who pays the bills. Lots of americans wait aka appointments. Then wait after arrival. Then wait again in the patient room. Sooner or later the doctor shows up.

akt2 6 years, 3 months ago

I say the writer of this editorial is probably trying to justify the monthly Medicaid card he and/or his children receive.

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

Wow, JHOK, just ....wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Grundoon Luna 6 years, 3 months ago

Accusing people of class jealousy is completely junior high. The biggest a-holes in school would always say, "Oh, you're just jealous," when the only the opposite is true. I would never want to be anthing like those tools or any of the a-holes on this board screaming "class jealousy" that think a handout is great when it's for corporate America but screw the average American. Schmucks! All of you! And guess what, the GOP party is over!!! So start to deal with it because the GOP had zero credibility now and the more you all scream the quicker yours will evaporate as well. These bozos are going to be regulated like they have never seen before!Here's something for you to chew on: If the bailout money were given to every citizen over the age of 21 all would have gotten $400,000. Mortgage holders could have paid off their mortgages saving the banking industry. Those that don't own could have bought a house saving the housing market. Everyone could have bought a new car saving the auto industry. But what does the GOP do? Gives it to the crooks that messed everything up in the first place and they continue to screw the citizenry. Good going, N O T!The moment they found out they were getting bailed out they go on multi-million dollar junkets. And so many of you think that's just fine. Please, rectal asphyxiation is no way to live!!Singe me,Have good job, have health insurance, have head on shoulders instead of in my arse.

notajayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

kmat (Anonymous) says… "You're too lazy to check it out notajayhawk, so here it is for you. Googling would just be too hard, wouldn't it. World Health Organization's rankings. Good old USA at #37, behind Saudia Arabia, Costa Rica, UAE, Malta, dominica, etc…. It is obvious that you don't travel much or know people in other countries."Oh, well, if the WHO said it, it must be true. I'm not going to save you the trouble of Googling anything, kmat. It's not my job to educate the ignorant. I know that, as a good little disciple of Michael Moore, you have to believe that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't done their homework. I have, and it's obvious that you read one published opinion and were too lazy to look any deeper.Try looking into the court decision in one of Canada's largest provinces that ruled non-medicaid providers had to be allowed to offer services that competed with the national system, because the wait time for nationalized care was literally killing people. Try reading the surveys about how satisfied Canadians are with their own healthcare system. The majority of Canadians expect to be the victim of a medical error in a Canadian hospital, and the majority of Canadian nurses and hospital administrators agreed with them. The only group where a majority didn't agree (but a significant percentage did) was physicians (like the ones that wrote the WHO study? Imagine that).Everyone points to healthcare costing less in other countries. This is true. What is not true is that the savings are entirely attributable to having a nationalized system, or that converting our own system to copy theirs would result in any similar savings. The famous NEJM study that everyone bases their potential savings claim on is available online. Try reading it. There are some glaring faults in their methodology. Like, for instance, they did not include pharmacy in their study, a significant portion of U.S. healthcare spending and arguably among the most efficient. And they just assumed all healthcare providers at all levels spent as much time in administrative functions as physicians did (do you spend as much time in administrative functions as your boss, kmat?). The NEJM study is also dated. More and more healthcare providers have their billing computerized. Sending the bill to insurance company A vs insurance company B is no longer a matter of finding the right form and filling it out and getting it sent to the right place - it's a matter of hitting F9 vs F11 on the billing person's keyboard.[continued]

notajayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

[continued]Also, and more importantly, they explain what gets figured into those administrative costs = it is not all spent filing claims with the various insurers as many seem to think. A huge portion of administrative costs in this country have to do with regulatory compliance (can you say HIPAA?). Also, things just tend to cost more here, regardless of who pays for it. Physicians here make twice (or more) what their counterparts in those healthcare paradises make. And who do you think pays for those plasma screen TV's and children's play palaces in the waiting rooms? And how about the ungodly costs of malpractice insurance and litigation? None of those costs would be reduced by a single dollar if the fed started picking up the tab.Incidentally, a nice little tidbit from the NEJM study is that the Canadian nationalized system has higher overhead costs than private insurance companies in Canada. Imagine that.Another big argument being pushed for nationalized healthcare is that a system wouldn't deny services and cut people off the way private insurers do. Those who believe that fairy tale have obviously never dealt with Social Security or the VA. Those wonderful agencies routinely reject something on the order of 80% of new claims despite the fact that the majority of the rejections are eventually overturned (if the applicant lives that long).Not only do I know people in foreign countries, kmat, I've been to them. Members of my family who travel extensively have, of course, from time to time suffered illnesses or injuries outside the U.S., and the quality of healthcare they received was universally dismal. In some cases corrective procedures had to be done after returning home to fix what was screwed up overseas.About the only objective standard that studies can point to, and folks like boohoozo and, apparently, yourself are fixated on, is that everyone is covered in those countries. Yeah, great. Let's apply that same standard to another area, like transportation. One could argue that our current system is unfair because there are about 100 million people in this country who don't have automobiles. Now, we could pass a law that everyone takes the money that they spend on their cars and give it to the government, who (after taking out a big chink for administrative costs) hands out to every citizen a copy of the same car. Then everyone can drive.They'd all be driving Yugos, but they could all drive.There are limited resources available. I agree they could be distributed more equitably, but a nationalized system is not the way to do that. If you take what we have and spread it over a wider base, yes, everyone will have something, but for the vast majority, they'll have less. Thanks, but I'd prefer to keep paying more than to pay less - and die as a result.

notajayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

Azure_Attitude (Anonymous) says…"Here's something for you to chew on: If the bailout money were given to every citizen over the age of 21 all would have gotten $400,000."Might want to check your math here. I'm pretty sure there are more than 2 million citizens over the age of 21 in this country.Regardless of how you 'singed' yourself, your head does seem firmly implanted in that posterior place.(By the way, the 'junket' you referred to was planned prior to the bailout, the attendees were not employees of the company in question, and the company did not pay most of the costs - but hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.)

notajayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

Kryptenx (Anonymous) says… "You both seem to forget that George Bush is responsible for the biggest example of socialism to date: the bail out. Not only that, but he gave away billions of tax payer dollars and provided absolutely no oversight."While you seem to forget that his successor made one of his first priorities the release of the other half of the money - and a whooooole lot more.*****JHOK32 (Anonymous) says… "Apparently, the rest of the nation agrees with our thinking as the entire country made a resounding statement on November 4th"Wow, you're really serious, aren't you, JHOKer? I must have missed the ballot item that said we were voting for nationalized healthcare. (Hint: They couldn't get one passed during the most recent Democratic administration, either, JHOK.)

Kookamooka 6 years, 3 months ago

Republicans focus on things, Democrats focus on people.

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

"The fact that you are admitting that everyone would gladly take the higher net pay in spite of having to pay a higher tax rate is proof positive that it is an appropriate way to collect taxes."I guess we misunderstand each other. I have no problem with the way the tax system is set up right now. I find it equitable, though I'm nervous about what Obama might implement in the future when this recession winds down."Yes, everyone has the opportunity to marginally improve their life, but the number and quality of your opportunities is often directly related to your starting point"As far as your take on 'overwhelming majority', I'm not really referring to the uber-rich, more to those that rise to the low 6 or even 7 figure incomes. As to your above statement, I would disagree with the 'marginally improve' sentiment. Everyone has the opportunity to rise as high as they can. If their abilities or drive only allow that to be yay high, I say again, them's the breaks, and say it again in reference to the number of opps is proportional to one's starting point. My point on all this was in response to the LTE writer whining in defense of 50% of Americans paying no income tax and getting free health care, and basically saying he won't complain if someone 'gives' him 200k/year, as if such earners are responsible for his lot in life. I make (or did before the latest shinola hit the fan) a considerable income, wholly earned by my own sweat and tears, taken on by my risk and my funding. Put myself through college and am soley responsible for every dime I've made. And I'm also responsible for the welfare of my employees who to date have not lost a penny of their salary while I've gone the $1 salary route to make sure they keep their jobs. The taxes, worker's comp, health insurance, and enormous site insurance costs I'm obligated to pay just to do work on individual company sites is staggering. But I've worked my toockus off to get to the point I'm at, and hearing anyone advocate half the country not paying into the system while simultaneously receiving 'free' health care so they can perpetuate their lazy ass lifestyle pisses me off to no end. I have no problem (most days!) paying my fair share, just don't tell me I need to pay more because I've garnered the 'biggest advantage' in this system, because what I've garnered came from tireless, anxioius, and endless 80 hour weeks. (again, that's the hypothetical 'you', not you yourself). I pay more than enough as it is.

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

Azure_attitude,Wow, just.....wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Wait a minute........didn't I just say that to someone else?$400,000 per person? And I thought JHOK's post was moronic. Congrats.

Grundoon Luna 6 years, 3 months ago

If you think our government is going to pay only the cost specified in the legislation then you are the moron. This is going to costs far more than any of you small minded schmucks could even imagine. But go ahead, keep defending the indefensible.

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

Small minded shmuck? Don't think so. At least I can do simple math, ya know, like add, subract, and divide. And what the hell are you babbling about? 'cost specified in what legislation?' Are you saying you're extrapolating X amount of dollars per person based on the cost of the bailouts PLUS your personal guesstimation on how much money will actually be dumped on the market? And that's how you came up with 400k/per person? What color is the sky in your world?

notajayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

"The fact that you are admitting that everyone would gladly take the higher net pay in spite of having to pay a higher tax rate is proof positive that it is an appropriate way to collect taxes."Given the confines of the question. Ask the same people whether they'd rather be making $200K and paying 40% or making $200K and paying 5%. For that matter, ask whether they think the government should be funded through taxes or by voluntary contributions. If the majority picks the latter answer, is that then an "appropriate way to collect taxes?"

Left_handed 6 years, 3 months ago

Winston Churchill said if you're twenty and have a heart you're a liberal. He also said if you're forty and have a brain you're a conservative.How old are you, Mr. Supernaw?

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

logicsound and nota,Have you ever read The Fair Tax by John Lender? If so, I'd love to hear what you think about that system. Personally, I think it's a fantastic idea but probably has no chance of ever being implemented simply because our legislators would never agree to give up so much of their 'power'. But man, it sure would keep down 'wasteful spending' by those that can't afford certain things. I think it would help people live within their means and put a serious dent in this never-ending credit crisis.

rusty2 6 years, 3 months ago

tell it like it is Randy!you mean that all Sunflower Broadband employees are paid top dollar, right?

notajayhawk 6 years, 3 months ago

"The point is to demonstrate what people would choose given a trade-off: higher income with higher taxes or lower income with lower taxes."But it's a closed question. It's a lesser-of-two-evils choice. I understand your point, I'm saying you can't ask a closed question, limiting the choices to two possibilities, neither of which may be the one most people would choose, and make a blanket statement such as saying the result "is proof positive that it is an appropriate way to collect taxes." It is not "proof positive" of anything other than which of the unsavory choices most people would pick if those were the only options. It says nothing about appropriateness or equity.If you asked people whether they'd rather have dog poop or cat poop for dinner, regardless of whether most people choose cat poop, it is not "proof positive" that dog poop is an appropriate menu item.

jaywalker 6 years, 3 months ago

"In relation to the letter writer, he makes a good point about how the upper segment is seeing their earnings increase at a higher rate than the lower segments—are you really going to tell me that this phenomenon is due to the fact that those with wealth are just plain working harder than those without?"No, no, at least not entirely. Again, I guess it depends on which upper segment we're talking about -- the uber-rich or let's say millionaires down to 150k, say. I wouldn't say the uber segment works harder, and either way we can easily get into a gray area where we compare a suit working at a desk with AC to a mason.And I suspect the upper uber segment is seeing greater returns due to the advancement in years and wealth, i.e. interest accrued, portfolios, 10 million 10 years ago is same as 50 million today, etc.For people like myself, in many cases, I do believe working harder is part of my success over others. But you also have to take into account the 'risk' factor; many who attain a certain degree of wealth were simply willing to put themselves out there, start a biz, chase a dream, advance an idea. There's a sizable segment of our society who either won't attempt such an undertaking because of fear or doubt, or who have no such aspirations or are just happy to live where they're at. I would also guess that a part of the reason why the lower segment's earnings have not matched the upper's is because a lot of that work has been outsourced overseas. Manufacturing in urban areas has to be at an all time low. And lastly, probably due to the lack of industries such as manufacturing, the days of someone working for one company for numerous years are virtually gone. And when you don't stay with a company for a significant period of time there's going to be a loss on the average increase in wages for that segment of society. Raises come with longevity, etc. Now, in many such instances company's have adopted a policy of "Burn 'em out", whereby they work the hell out of an employee in order to burn them out, make them quit, and re-staff over and over again with a newbie so they don't have to support a higher salary. Seen it a lot in the construction industry and fiber optic industry, so I'm guessin' it's a fairly popular new policy all around. Should be criminal.But no, you're right, working harder alone does not make up that difference in all cases. I was fitting the argument into my world, too narrow a focus to be sure.

Left_handed 6 years, 3 months ago

kmat,Don't forget the Kool-Aid to wash that popcorn down.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.