California Budget

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

Please quit spouting this bull$hit


and also this B.S.




You also receive an exuberant bill the emergency room services!!!

I guess you didn't read this part of the eligibility requirements,
or you don't want to face the truth. Let me sum this up for you



You have to sell real property and be nearly broke in order to qualify

Regardless whether you think this is an equitable deal or not,
it is not the same as Euro basic health insurance, which is what you stated earlier

---

Aparently you didn't see the part about applying for Medicaid if you have high medical bill which you can not pay. I have no problem with people having to seel real property and be nearly broke in order to qualify. If you have enough money for real property then you have enough money to plan ahead and get insurance (it is not that expensive, even full private, and with tax breaks it would be even more affordable). And if you're nearly broke ... well that's the whole point of the program.

What BS am I spouting? I have two points. Number 1 is that 85% of Americans have healthcare, why screw their system up? The second point is that there is a system in place that takes care of the other 15%. That system is a mess, let's fix it before we screw around with the healthcare of the MAJORITY of Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

What kind of logic is this?!

1) If everyone has to pay than everyone sacrifices some of their income, not only you! :rolleyes:

2) BTW maybe you should be in their shoes and than we'll see what line you will tow around here, if you will still afford an internet connection, not to mention having a computer.

---

1) That is the issue here. 100% of people paying taxes (about 50% of the population) already pay into a broken healthcare system, Medicare/Medicaid, that takes care of about 15% of the population. So now you are talking about adding the other 85% of the population into that system. How on earth does 50% of the population pay for 100% of the population to have healthcare? And do it without sacrificing all the other stuff we are already paying for? And doing all this without raising taxes on anyone making less that $250,000 a year? Go crunch those numbers and get back to me with a workable plan.

2) So now I'm to be punished for being successfull and planning ahead? You don't lift anyone up by tearing people down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What BS am I spouting?

---

Must I post it again?
I stated it precisely in post number 75
If you continue to imply Medicaid = health insurance in the manner you had before you lost your job
I will continue to call Bull$hit.
Considering you have since-wise qualified it. I think we have both made our points :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

Must I post it again?
I stated it precisely in post number 75
If you continue to imply Medicaid = health insurance in the manner you had before you lost your job
I will continue to call Bull$hit.
Considering you have since-wise qualified it. I think we have both made our points :)

---

I never once intended to say that Medicaid was equal to health insurance that you may have had before you lost your job. If I implied that, I'm sorry for the confusion.

I've been trying to say that there is a "safety net" of sorts. It is a very flawed system that NEEDS to be fixed. But there is no one in the US that can not recieve needed medical treatment. That is all I've been trying to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I never once intended to say that Medicaid was equal to health insurance that you may have had before you lost your job. If I implied that, I'm sorry for the confusion.

I've been trying to say that there is a "safety net" of sorts. It is a very flawed system that NEEDS to be fixed. But there is no one in the US that can not recieve needed medical treatment. That is all I've been trying to say.

---

You'll never get an arguement from me about our health care system needing to be fixed! :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

You'll never get an arguement from me about our health care system needing to be fixed! :up:

---

I don't think ANYONE would argue that something needs to be done. It's just the methods proposed that are debatable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

What kind of logic is this?!
If everyone has to pay than everyone sacrifices some of their income, not only you! :rolleyes:

BTW maybe you should be in their shoes and than we'll see what line you will tow around here, if you will still afford an internet connection, not to mention having a computer.

---

If everyone has to pay. But in reality, tax brackets (percentage of taxes paid) is based on income level. So at some point, many people pay no income taxes at all, to the state or federal government. As your income level increases and/or deductions and credits decrease, you pay a higher percentage.

But this form of taxation fails in several areas. You could be a wealthy person, owning property in the way of homes, vehicles, etc, but also show (for taxable purposes) a low income and thus be subject to very little in taxes.

As an example, I own my home, all our vehicles, and everything in them outright. Due to the fact that we have nothing but basic living expenses, at the time my income is not very high. Why should people still working harder or more hours to get ahead pay for my insurance (or a larger portion than I would pay) if I'm not first willing to either get a higher paying job or take a loan against my home or property to pay my bills or insurance myself?

Nor should I pay more in taxes to pay for insurance for someone who has chosen to not work when they are capable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Why should people still working harder or more hours to get ahead pay for my insurance (or a larger portion than I would pay) if I'm not first willing to either get a higher paying job or take a loan against my home or property to pay my bills or insurance myself?

---

Not everyone can get a higher paying job, even if they wanted to. Why should you depart from the property you have already earned while at the same paid high taxes just because you happen to have a bad patch in your life at the moment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Nor should I pay more in taxes to pay for insurance for someone who has chosen to not work when they are capable.

---

In June 2009, about 500,000 people more we unemployed in the US and the unemployment rate was 9.5%:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Do you think that all those half a million people just chose to quit their jobs? I know the unemployment rate in the US has been below 5% sometimes. Have the Americans become more lazy?

Insurances are like taxes in the way that every insurance holder pays, but some pay more than they receive. However, private insurance companies are supposed to make profit for the owners, so it's actually more expensive for you than non-profit taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Not everyone can get a higher paying job, even if they wanted to. Why should you depart from the property you have already earned while at the same paid high taxes just because you happen to have a bad patch in your life at the moment?



In June 2009, about 500,000 people more we unemployed in the US and the unemployment rate was 9.5%:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Do you think that all those half a million people just chose to quit their jobs? I know the unemployment rate in the US has been below 5% sometimes. Have the Americans become more lazy?

---

Eki try to reason, exchanging comments back and forth with somebody who write empty-headed nonsense such as above is silly.

For so many on these forums from the USA, everything is a) very simple and b) always the individual's fault.

So when say GM's executives decide to build unsalable junk, and thousands are laid off in a locality, naturally if they cared, they could "get a higher paying job".
When Finacial speculators and bandits plunder companies, risk hundrds of billions of other people's money on risky ventures---and make salaries of tens of millions per year and drive the Investment banking system to the edge of collaspe and credit freezes, causing millions to lose their jobs, well those out of work, according to the economic geniuses here, should just "get a loan" (at some extortionate rate of interest).

Simple! See?
If they don't "get a higher paying job" or get a loan, then it's their fault.

Impeccable thinking.

Can't you see?

What would happen if everybody contributed some money to a collective Insurance pool for Unemployment, or retraining?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

What would happen if everybody contributed some money to a collective Insurance pool for Unemployment, or retraining?

---

We do. If you are employed and have insurance, you pay for something called COBRA. That program extends some bennifits for people in "transtion" between jobs. As tax payers we also contribute to Medicare/Medicaid which a lot of unemployed people can qualify for. And there are numerous private and government run retraining programs out there. How much more must I pay to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling that "we're all doing our part"?

I really don't think that anyone would argue against some sort of safety net programs. At least I wouldn't. What I do have a problem with is paying for the 6-10 million people that have a job, can afford health insurance, and choose not to. We do still have some freedoms in this country, and one of those freedoms is the freedom to fail. And I'm sorry, maybe I'm heartless or whatever, but if you fail there needs to be consequences. If there are no consequences for failure then there is no motivation to try something better or different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

We do. If you are employed and have insurance, you pay for something called COBRA. That program extends some bennifits for people in "transtion" between jobs. As tax payers we also contribute to Medicare/Medicaid which a lot of unemployed people can qualify for. And there are numerous private and government run retraining programs out there. How much more must I pay to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling that "we're all doing our part"?

I really don't think that anyone would argue against some sort of safety net programs. At least I wouldn't. What I do have a problem with is paying for the 6-10 million people that have a job, can afford health insurance, and choose not to. We do still have some freedoms in this country, and one of those freedoms is the freedom to fail. And I'm sorry, maybe I'm heartless or whatever, but if you fail there needs to be consequences. If there are no consequences for failure then there is no motivation to try something better or different.

---

Yeah yeah let me put a point of agreement: if YOU, or as the rest of the English speaking says to make it clear, if ONE fails---from their own sloth, or willful stupidity, sure.

But what to do when the failures of supposed "superiors" business owners, managers, bureaucrats in Education Departments who bend to political pressures and dumb down school curricula to the point that little Johnny is set up for failure cause he's uneducated AND SURLY means one is a serial failure.

(It's called systemic or 'structural' reasons)

F**k 'em cause the company they work for went broke cause the current owners are spoiled prats listening to advice from Ivy League frat boys?

Seems pretty harsh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

If there are no consequences for failure then there is no motivation to try something better or different.

---

There are. If I for example lose my job, I'll lose about 40% of my income. Of course I would try to get that 40% back somewhere else. However, since I won't lose 100%, I can keep my home, my car, my Interenet connection and my cell phone. It's much easier to try and find a new job when you have a phone, computer, internet, car and a postal address than if you lived under a bridge or in a trash can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Yeah yeah let me put a point of agreement: if YOU, or as the rest of the English speaking says to make it clear, if ONE fails---from their own sloth, or willful stupidity, sure.

But what to do when the failures of supposed "superiors" business owners, managers, bureaucrats in Education Departments who bend to political pressures and dumb down school curricula to the point that little Johnny is set up for failure cause he's uneducated AND SURLY means one is a serial failure.

(It's called systemic or 'structural' reasons)

F**k 'em cause the company they work for went broke cause the current owners are spoiled prats listening to advice from Ivy League frat boys?

Seems pretty harsh.

---

Did I ever say F**k 'em? No I said their are safety nets out there. I don't advocate for getting rid of them. But I also don't advocate for increasing the cushion on the net. If you feel like you've been screwed over by a spoild prat or Ivy League frat boy, there is nothing stoping you from going out there and beating them at their own game. Sure it's hard, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact that is the way that many, many successful businesses get started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

There are. If I for example lose my job, I'll lose about 40% of my income. Of course I would try to get that 40% back somewhere else. However, since I won't lose 100%, I can keep my home, my car, my Interenet connection and my cell phone. It's much easier to try and find a new job when you have a phone, computer, internet, car and a postal address than if you lived under a bridge or in a trash can.

---

That's all great and wonderful for you. But I would much rather do things on my own. I have too much pride to take other people's money. I scrimp and save every penny that I can. I do this to prepare for the unfortunate day if/when I ever loose my job.

But that's just me, and I am in the minority on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I have too much pride to take other people's money.

---

It's not that bad, if you remember that other people take your money when you're lucky and they are unlucky. It's a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" kind of deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

It's not that bad, if you remember that other people take your money when you're lucky and they are unlucky. It's a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" kind of deal.

---

I would rather no one took anyone else's money. I'll watch my own back, if you watch yours.

Now if something REALLY bad happens, I will help you out. Notice I said "I" will help you out. Not go to the government and see what they'll "help" you with.

Alot of people in the US are told that socialised healthcare is bad. Told by the people who work in the Pharmaceutical and insurance sectors.

If the US ever gets a socialised healthcare system, its those sectors that will be the biggest loosers. At the end of the day, the current healthcare system in the US its not about taking care of people, its how much profit it can make.

Here is what the issue with the new Healthcare plan is. All the people who are against the plan are the ones who will loose out. The big greedy pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

They base socialised healthcare on the Canadian system, which we all know is not the best example.

Then they pay the greedy lobbyists in Washington to spread the fear and lies onto the tv and radio stations, which seeps through into the brains of many gullible Americans. If you dont want to pay higher taxes for this healthcare plan, tell your government to stop wasting billions of your dollars on invading other countries and starting pointless wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Now if something REALLY bad happens, I will help you out. Notice I said "I" will help you out. Not go to the government and see what they'll "help" you with.

---

Thanks, but I still believe that even after my friends and relatives are gone, my government and my trade union will still be here, and they have a legal obligation to help me, unlike my friends and my family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Thanks, but I still believe that even after my friends and relatives are gone, my government and my trade union will still be here, and they have a legal obligation to help me, unlike my friends and my family.

---

Please don't take this as an insult or a slam, as it isn't meant to be, but could maybe be seen that way.

This is the difference between the US and Europe, at least to some extent it still is, things are changing quite quickly though. The US has always been a nation of individuals. We are rugged and self relient. We want just enough government that things run fairly, and we all have an equal oportunity. That doesn't mean we all have equal results. We just want a fair shake. In basic quick terms that is the how and why this country was founded. We don't want government telling us what to do and how to do it. We want them the heck out of our way so that we can get on with doing what we want. We rely on our friends, families, and neighbors to help us get through the bad patches. This is because we know that those people will not try to exert contol on us (government can not give something without first taking it). They will help out because they care. They know our individual situations much better than any government entity ever will or ever could know. Therefore, we will recieve better "care" from our families than the government ever could provide. A legal obligation to do something does not inspire confidence with me that I will recieve what I need. I've delt with enough legal obligation run-around to know that doesn't mean anything is done quickly, correctly, or even at all. However, I have seen the flip side of that. People with compassion for another human being will, more often than not, lend a hand quickly, effectivly, and with very positive results.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop now. I've got to give you all a chance to bash me for "romanticizing the American Experience" or some other nonsence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Thanks, but I still believe that even after my friends and relatives are gone, my government and my trade union will still be here, and they have a legal obligation to help me, unlike my friends and my family.

---

Also I see that you placed your trade union in there. Are they not in many sences of the word your family?

:rolleyes: Well if Trade Unions are family, I wonder if a family member could tell us where Jimmy Hoffa's remains are! :laugh:
You know give the bloke a decent burial in sacred ground mate! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

We rely on our friends, families, and neighbors to help us get through the bad patches. This is because we know that those people will not try to exert contol on us (government can not give something without first taking it). They will help out because they care. They know our individual situations much better than any government entity ever will or ever could know. Therefore, we will recieve better "care" from our families than the government ever could provide.

---

Depends on your family and your government. Not everyone have wealthy relatives or friends. They can be even worse-off than you are. Therefore I find the government more fair and equal. Everyone gets help according to their needs and the rules are the same for everyone. Of course you could still get extra help from your family and friends, but the government fulfills your basic financial needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Also I see that you placed your trade union in there. Are they not in many sences of the word your family?

---

No, I see them more as a government or an insurance company. First I have to pay a yearly membership fee (tax deductible) before I can get anything from them. I don't have to pay a membership fee to my family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

:rolleyes: Well if Trade Unions are family, I wonder if a family member could tell us where Jimmy Hoffa's remains are! :laugh:
You know give the bloke a decent burial in sacred ground mate! ;)

---

Yes, what Italian-Americans consider family is probably a bit different than here. Here a family usually means your parents, your siblings and your kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

what Italian-Americans consider family is probably a bit different than here. Here a family usually means your parents, your siblings and your kids.

---

Wrong Eki :arrows:
It means the same thing here. Sibling, parents, offspring. and maybe an occasional cousin!
I believe Italian Americans have the same family values as other decent people.
What I posted is what's commonly referred to as a "joke"!
Not an indictment of labor unions, or anything else of a serious nature!
You may be laboring under a cultural misconception.
Which is totally understandable. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

What I posted is what's commonly referred to as a "joke"!

---

I know, and I continued from that. Aren't the Mafia supposed to have been involved in the dissappearing of Hoffa? The Mafia has "families" like the Corleone family in the Godfather movies. See?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Aren't the Mafia supposed to have been involved in the dissappearing of Hoffa? The Mafia has "families" like the Corleone family in the Godfather movies. See?

---

Than you should have stated Mafia Families!
That's like saying all Muslims are members of Al Qaeda, or The Taliban
Uncool Bro!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Depends on your family and your government. Not everyone have wealthy relatives or friends. They can be even worse-off than you are. Therefore I find the government more fair and equal. Everyone gets help according to their needs and the rules are the same for everyone. Of course you could still get extra help from your family and friends, but the government fulfills your basic financial needs.

---

Your family doesn't have to be wealthy to help out.

Perhaps your government is better than ours. I honestly don't deal with the Finnish government so I can't pass judgement. However, I do deal with the US government personally, and I hear stories from others. And the US government does not operate smoothly or effectively in many cases. I do not want them taking care of me in my time of need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

No, I see them more as a government or an insurance company. First I have to pay a yearly membership fee (tax deductible) before I can get anything from them. I don't have to pay a membership fee to my family.

---

But of course you can choose to be in or out of the trade union, or the insurance company for that matter. We have no choice once the government takes over something.

Back to the US government taking over healthcare.

Lets look at in simple terms. The government already has three programs that deal with healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. Those programs are not run very well (at least by most accounts I've read), and they are going broke.

So in simple terms you have 100 people paying for 20 people to get care (not the right numbers I know, but it's for illustrative purposes only). Having those 100 people pay is not enough because the quality of care is poor and it is not on strong financial footing. Now we're told the solution to all the problems of healthcare are to add the 100 people into the system? That somehow adding MORE people to a program that already doesn't have enough money will somehow make it more financially sound? How does that make sence to anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

But of course you can choose to be in or out of the trade union, or the insurance company for that matter. We have no choice once the government takes over something.

---

In that sense, I think government is more like a family. You can not choose your family either. In a family you have a moral obligation to help your family members in need and as a tax-paying citizen you have a legal obligation to help your fellow citizens in need. You could see the US as a family with 300 million members. All for one and one for all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

In that sense, I think government is more like a family. You can not choose your family either. In a family you have a moral obligation to help your family members in need and as a tax-paying citizen you have a legal obligation to help your fellow citizens in need. You could see the US as a family with 300 million members. All for one and one for all.

---

Your family (in my definition anyway) extends beyond those with whom you share some blood. It includes friends, neighbors, and even charitable strangers. In some cases I would totally exclude blood relatives. Don't get too hung up on my use of the word "family".

Like I keep saying a legal obligation to do something does NOT mean that that "something" will be any good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Back to the US government taking over healthcare.

Lets look at in simple terms. The government already has three programs that deal with healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. Those programs are not run very well (at least by most accounts I've read), and they are going broke.

---

VA going broke?? Well stop invading other countries and starting wars with countries that dont cater to your every whim then maybe the amount of injured soldiers would not be so high.

Medicare and Medicaid have never been funded well either. In the US its refered to as the 'poor mans healthcare', because poor people are often given inadequate treatment or no treatment at all because treating the poor is not profitable.

http://www.essortment.com/all/nationalizedhea_rtqq.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Your family (in my definition anyway) extends beyond those with whom you share some blood. It includes friends, neighbors, and even charitable strangers. In some cases I would totally exclude blood relatives. Don't get too hung up on my use of the word "family".

Like I keep saying a legal obligation to do something does NOT mean that that "something" will be any good.

---

We on these here forum are one big family...

:love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

1) VA going broke?? Well stop invading other countries and starting wars with countries that dont cater to your every whim then maybe the amount of injured soldiers would not be so high.

2) Medicare and Medicaid have never been funded well either. In the US its refered to as the 'poor mans healthcare', because poor people are often given inadequate treatment or no treatment at all because treating the poor is not profitable.

http://www.essortment.com/all/nationalizedhea_rtqq.htm

---

1) Seperate issue that really doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion. Look out here comes Eki to tell us how bad Bush is.

2) That is my whole freaking point! We have a system that is not funded. Why not fix THAT first before we go adding a bunch more people to the system? I really don't understand how this is so hard for people to grasp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

We on these here forum are one big family...

:love:

---

A disfunctional family I suppose. But as much as I may disagree with some people, if they really needed some help, I'd probably do what I could. As I'm sure many others would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

1) That is my whole freaking point! We have a system that is not funded. Why not fix THAT first before we go adding a bunch more people to the system? I really don't understand how this is so hard for people to grasp.

---

I do agree with you on that one!

Yes get a government funded health plan in the USA, but the current issues with Medicare and Medicaid need to be sorted out.

This i fear could be the reason why SO many people are against a government funded health plan??

We are still arguing over Healthcare? Eki thinks the government is the solution to everything that ails everyone, Anthony is everyman for himself and most of the rest are in the middle.

It is pretty simple. Ideally you would no cost healthcare AT all. But in the world all us have to live in, healthcare is damned expensive, and in the US moreso because of idiocy in the courts over malpractice. As a result docs run tests and procedures often to cover their @sses running up the cost of health care.

I have said it before, government running healthcare is a blessing and a curse.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

We are still arguing over Healthcare? Eki thinks the government is the solution to everything that ails everyone, Anthony is everyman for himself and most of the rest are in the middle.

It is pretty simple. Ideally you would no cost healthcare AT all. But in the world all us have to live in, healthcare is damned expensive, and in the US moreso because of idiocy in the courts over malpractice. As a result docs run tests and procedures often to cover their @sses running up the cost of health care.

I have said it before, government running healthcare is a blessing and a curse.....

---

How about doing away with malpractice suits and accepting that some times errors get made, mistakes happen and 'get over it'.

Whilst they are at it get rid of this ridiculous notion that people in the States have regarding trying to sue the ar$e of everyone and never taking responsibilty for their own actions, because someone else 'is to blame' or is at fault.

Admittedly sometimes a witch hunt is needed but not if you scald yourself because you are too stupid to realise that a cup of coffee you are holding may in fact be hot. :)