Lets just throw some ideas out there... what do you think would be some positive steps to take care of our national health care issue?

Like, maybe offering pharmaceutical companies tax breaks for lowering prices?
Or say, a static tax of $5 a month out of your paycheck, to perhaps make a dent in the deficit?

I believe it would take a combination of things to fix health care... lets just not follow canada on this one.

Well we COULD ban fast food, firearms, and tobacco....


But that might drive up violent crime, so it's kind of a wash.

I've given up the latter two, but hands off the tater tots, cause i could always buy back the firearms :)

As of July 2007, the US population was 301,139,947
An estimate as of 2006 places the unemployment rate at 4.8%

Just to work a few numbers, if the population is 301,139,947, and take it as a family of four, half work, the other half students, and add in working grandparents, and minus the unemployment rate, i'll say that 68% of the population is working. With that number [204,775,164] working in the US, with a static tax of $5 a month [$2.50 a paycheck per two weeks] would be $1,023,875,820 a month towards health care, and $12,286,509,840 annually. Now, I don't have numbers on the amount of the health care deficit or anything, but a little over 12 billion dollars a year in tax money doesn't seem that bad to help it.

Offering pharmaceutical companies tax breaks for lowering prices? 43% of r & d is done by them, the rest is done by the tax payers (via universities etc...) I say that is a break enough...they need to chill on the advertising and taking doctors to puerto rico for power point presentations to cut costs. Hello? LOL

I just asked for ideas... But I would also ask, who do you think are the major players in health care who keep costs so high? There has to be a way to take them down a few notches to help alleviate costs.

As of July 2007, the US population was 301,139,947
An estimate as of 2006 places the unemployment rate at 4.8%

Just to work a few numbers, if the population is 301,139,947, and take it as a family of four, half work, the other half students, and add in working grandparents, and minus the unemployment rate, i'll say that 68% of the population is working. With that number [204,775,164] working in the US, with a static tax of $5 a month [$2.50 a paycheck per two weeks] would be $1,023,875,820 a month towards health care, and $12,286,509,840 annually. Now, I don't have numbers on the amount of the health care deficit or anything, but a little over 12 billion dollars a year in tax money doesn't seem that bad to help it.


Sorry man, I already pay out the nose for my health care...You'll never get me to willingly give up MORE for somebody else's...Or tax me for it ON TOP OF what I already pay privately.

maybe there could be a solution to cover you so you don't have to pay for private health care...

And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

OGTS, you have seen bruce almighty...

But always count on someone to turn the conversation south. I think we need to get out of the current mindset about health care and turn to some non-conventional ways of thinking.

People say, I already pay for it privately, or my job takes care of it. Well, your private company may drop you one day, or you may lose your job. Everything is not set in stone.

Yeah, because the writers of Bruce Almighty coined the phrase? :rolleyes: I've been saying that for over 30 years and I certainly didn't invent it.


As for the conversation turning south, my post may have been in jest, but it rings of truth. Getting people to agree on universal or socialized healthcare is pretty much unpossible. Some pretty smart people on this site (including doctors) have discussed it WAY above my level of understanding of the matter, and nobody changed each other's mind. Put that on the national stage, throw some partisanship in there, and inject a good healthy dose of incompetent bloviating press...And VOILA! Wedge issue with 10,000 different axes to grind.

I just asked for ideas... But I would also ask, who do you think are the major players in health care who keep costs so high? There has to be a way to take them down a few notches to help alleviate costs.

My suggestion of a place to start is revising the tort laws dealing with health care. If you look at what doctors and hospitals have to pay in malpractice protection you would see a great deal of what ails the health care system in the US.

I think we should go to another tort system much like England's. If you sue and lose you pay the party who won court costs and lawyer's fees. I believe they also limit what a lawyer can make on a judgement. We would save a lot of lawsuits and probably have fewer lawyers in the process.

Just to be plain...

You Need a New Lawyer When...
1. During your initial consultation he tries to sell you Amway.
2. He tells you that his last good case was a "Budweiser".
3. When the prosecutors see who your lawyer is, they high-five each other.
4. He picks the jury by playing "duck-duck-goose".
5. During the trial you catch him playing his Gameboy.
6. He asks a hostile witness to "pull my finger".
7. A prison guard is shaving your head.
8. Every couple of minutes he yells, "I call Jack Daniels to the stand!" and proceeds to drink a shot.
9. He frequently gives juror No. 4 the finger.
10. He places a large "No Refunds" sign on the defense table.
11. He begins closing arguments with, "As Ally McBeal once said..."
12. Just before he says "Your Honor," he makes those little quotation marks in the air with his fingers.
13. The sign in front of his law office reads "Practicing Law Since 2:25 P.M."
14. Whenever his objection is overruled, he tells the judge, "Whatever".
15. He giggles every time he hears the word "briefs".

When I think of National Health Care the first thing I think of is the DMV.

Picture health care being ran like the DMV or FEMA.

Our government screws up everything they have their hands in now. The last thing I want them doing is making my health care descisions.

I can see it now, sorry sir you cannot have your much needed surgery. Congress has cut back those kinds of surgeries until the next Fiscal Year.

However, here is a nice pamplet read.

Oh and BTW if you want to see National Healhcare in action just stop by any VA hospital. The VA runs the worst medical system in the world. I would rather be seen by drunk Veternarian then a sober VA Doctor.

Offering pharmaceutical companies tax breaks for lowering prices? 43% of r & d is done by them, the rest is done by the tax payers (via universities etc...) I say that is a break enough...they need to chill on the advertising and taking doctors to puerto rico for power point presentations to cut costs. Hello? LOL

Blazerfan, I'm curious if you have anything to back up specific claims you're making. I do marketing in this industry, not saying it's a perfect industry by any means, but some of your claims lie far fetched to me. Pharma companies that do R&D on a drug to my knowledge are almost completely funded by the pharma company or a partnership of pharma companies. They own the "patent" to a particular type of drug or compound. Universities are either funded through themselves, grants, both or pharma companies. If a university is doing a study for a pharma company, they are usually funded from the pharma company for that study. Yes universities do conduct a ton of studies with their own private funding or through grants.

I'm all for lower prescription drug prices/better healthcare, however I don't see that happening anytime soon unfortunately.

FYI..the FDA has become real strict on "perks" given to physicians like they used to. Flying a Dr. and his wife to a 3-4 day luxury vacation is no longer the norm. They do still have conferences for physicians doing the research trials, however they are very business related these days much similar to any other industry. There are hours worth of powerpoint presentations, but they are also going over protocol, procedures, drug efficacy and safety, etc. I imagine most people want their doctors familiar as possible with proper protocol and procedure in different scenarios, especially with new medications or procedures. Most conferences I've ever seen are in the U.S. and perks severely diminished before I even got in the industry.

On another note, isn't there a more appropriate forum for this topic than OKC Metro Area?

When I think of National Health Care the first thing I think of is the DMV.

Picture health care being ran like the DMV or FEMA.

Our government screws up everything they have their hands in now. The last thing I want them doing is making my health care descisions.

I can see it now, sorry sir you cannot have your much needed surgery. Congress has cut back those kinds of surgeries until the next Fiscal Year.

However, here is a nice pamplet read.

Oh and BTW if you want to see National Healhcare in action just stop by any VA hospital. The VA runs the worst medical system in the world. I would rather be seen by drunk Veternarian then a sober VA Doctor.

The government should be involved in the FINANCING of health care - but not providing it. So, the VA is a bad example. A more fitting example for government-financed healthcare would be Medicare. How many people are willing to go on record as opposing Medicare? Do you have a mother, father, grandparents that you propose leaving on their own for their healthcare?

Do you propose simply leaving our inhumane system it as it is? Insurance companies making decisions on your care based on profit? Millions without insurance to face huge deposits for needed cancer treatments? What's your plan?

I agree with Metro - this should be moved from OKC Metro Talk.

As of July 2007, the US population was 301,139,947
An estimate as of 2006 places the unemployment rate at 4.8%

Just to work a few numbers, if the population is 301,139,947, and take it as a family of four, half work, the other half students, and add in working grandparents, and minus the unemployment rate, i'll say that 68% of the population is working. With that number [204,775,164] working in the US, with a static tax of $5 a month [$2.50 a paycheck per two weeks] would be $1,023,875,820 a month towards health care, and $12,286,509,840 annually. Now, I don't have numbers on the amount of the health care deficit or anything, but a little over 12 billion dollars a year in tax money doesn't seem that bad to help it.

us employed population is around 150 million. health care spending in united states is around 2 trillion per year. the government pays about half of that. hillary's plan to cover uninsured is estimated to cost around 200 billion/yr.

this thread should be moved.

Doesn't seem like the right forum for this topic...

OK.. so what would be a better forum? I just picked one.

@solitude. You bring up a good point about Medicare.
@RabidRed. Thanks for the laughter.

I also think a petitioner/plaintiff should pay the other side's legal fees and court costs if they lose.

Seems like the more the government subsidizes healthcare costs, the more they charge - and why not if they know they will get paid? I deal with indigents who have Medicaid. Up to the cap, the social workers, doctors and clients spend like a drunken sailor. As soon as the cap is reached, it is all over. Not fair to the poor sap who really needs money beyond the cap, and not fair to the rest of us saps paying taxes for the rest of them. Stupid system. I completely agree that the best way to "pay" for health care is for individuals to lose weight, get off their butts and move, quit smoking and start living smart.

I completely agree that the best way to "pay" for health care is for individuals to lose weight, get off their butts and move, quit smoking and start living smart.

All of that is great, but that won't stop a tumor from growing in the brain and it sure as hell won't pay for the healthcare costs involved.

I don't think too many of us would begrudge helping out in an emergency. The best way to pay for that is to make sure our dollars aren't eaten up with chronic and avoidable illnesses. Moreover, there are other ways to get healthcare besides a national system. A lot of people make decisions in choosing jobs and education with that in mind. I worked for the government most of my life FOR THE BENEFITS. I could have made a ton more money doing something else but it was a choice I made FOR THE BENEFITS. Other people may make different choices and I respect that. But I don't think people who arrange their lives to make SURE they have health coverage should have to be penalized because other people think they should be able to make other choices and still have their health benefits covered by the public, i.e., me.

The same argument could be made that people who don't go to school or continue their education or work should be entitled to an equivalent salary as those folks who studied hard to go to school, or otherwise worked dawn to dusk to have a good paying job.

I don't think too many of us would begrudge helping out in an emergency. The best way to pay for that is to make sure our dollars aren't eaten up with chronic and avoidable illnesses. Moreover, there are other ways to get healthcare besides a national system. A lot of people make decisions in choosing jobs and education with that in mind. I worked for the government most of my life FOR THE BENEFITS. I could have made a ton more money doing something else but it was a choice I made FOR THE BENEFITS. Other people may make different choices and I respect that. But I don't think people who arrange their lives to make SURE they have health coverage should have to be penalized because other people think they should be able to make other choices and still have their health benefits covered by the public, i.e., me.

The same argument could be made that people who don't go to school or continue their education or work should be entitled to an equivalent salary as those folks who studied hard to go to school, or otherwise worked dawn to dusk to have a good paying job.

Part of the appeal of Universal Health Care is to remove the "benefit" obstacle as per employment. There are people working in jobs they hate because they must stay in order to continue their health care benefits. Especially if you (or a family member) are already sick. First World people all over the globe hear that and think we're crazy. What kind of system is that?

You should have been free to pursue your dreams back when you say you could have made a ton of money - instead you stayed with the workaday job - for the health care benefits! There's millions just like you -- and they resent it. And well they should. The state of your health should never depend on the size of your wealth - or the status of any job. Nobody should EVER be in the position of not being able to make changes in their careers, move on to another field of work, start a new business, etc. simply because they - or a family member - are not in perfect health. We must disconnect the employment/health care trap that many find themselves in through no cause of their own.

A GREAT point solitude. If for just a moment, we could forget about, "Well, this will happen if that happens" scenarios and try to establish a forethought on what could happen optimistically. If all the planets were to align per-say. Things are the way they are because we choose to let them stay the same, thinking nothing can be done to change it because of all the "horrific" scenarios that could occur. Maybe its just that lack of thought because of self ignorants or self arrogance. I KNOW what some of the problems are with a universal health care system, but still... there has to be some opportunities to change SOMETHING.

i'll be getting off my soapbox now.

Nobody should EVER be in the position of not being able to make changes in their careers, move on to another field of work, start a new business, etc. simply because they - or a family member - are not in perfect health. We must disconnect the employment/health care trap that many find themselves in through no cause of their own.

Honestly, I cannot imagine this mentality. Who says we are entitled to the job of our dreams? SOMEONE has to work the sewage plants, the dead animal clean up and the chicken plucking jobs. Just who is going to take those jobs if we have some sort of highbrow freedom to do whatever we want to fulfill ourselves?

I am well educated, by choice, so I don't have to work those jobs and can make a living in something I can tolerate. People make choices all the time about their jobs and plenty of them are going to end up with the cruddy ones because they haven't got better options - the good jobs go to the people with skills and education. The only "right" anyone has is the right to try to improve their skills so they can compete for the good jobs.

The fact that I might have a sick family member is just the luck of the draw and something that tends to happen to ALL families at one point or another (just lost my mother last year and I was her sole caregiver - since then, people have poured out of the woodwork). I had no idea so many people have "been there" although it is obvious if I 'd open my eyes.

There is a notion afoot that somehow we should not have to slow down or make hard choices simply because we are sick or have a sick relative. That it should not result in a personal sacrifice of our time, money or overall happiness. From my perspective, sickness in families is part of life. Families - all families - adjust and make sacrificies because it is family and that is what you do when it comes to loved ones. If families make smart choices, the funds are there. If they don't, they have got their heads in the sand because if anyone thinks illness and old age won't come knocking, they aren't paying attention. Alzheimers, strokes, diabetes, heart disease, the Big C. Trust me, it is coming. One way or the other. My suggestion is to get saving and make smart plans.

WHY should I be guaranteed health coverage, no matter what employment/life choices I make?

I just shelled out $450.00 for my DOG at the vet, yesterday. I'm not happy about it because it costs money but I didn't blink because it needed to be done. That dog is family. I'd do the same thing for my mom or sister or child or husband. A lot of people, before they'd shell out 10 bucks for their Aunt Sally, would be complaining that they "shouldn't have to pay this." Why? Who came up with the idea that our health care costs should not be out of pocket or a personal responsibility. NOTHING is more important than our health. People who buy jet skies and take luxurious vacations and multiple trips with the kiddies to Disneyworld seem to think someone else should pay for their kids' vaccinations or their gall bladder surgery. That someone is ME and other tax payers. I couldn't afford jet skies or Disney trips when my kids were coming up. I am not complaining, they turned out fine.

I take jobs with health benefits because illness is a fact of life that I have to plan for. That is fundamental. The big problem I see is that young people think they are bullet proof and take employment routes that don't consider the obvious. By the time they are in their 30's and 40's illness comes knocking (big surprise) and they may be caught without proper health coverage. Whose fault is THAT? It isn't like it is a horrible surprise. Many employees tend to jump from job to job and get caught in the problem of having pre-existing conditions or no health benefits as a result. Again, whose decision is it to make those jumps? Ignoring the problem does NOT fix it. The solution being offered by some appears to be, essentially, to be able to do what you want, not exercise self restraint and insist that someone else needs to pay your medical bills so you have that "freedom."

The last time I had that sort of safety net I was about 14 years old and living with my mom. Part of being an adult is making good choices and making the sacrifices that come with that.

Health care is out there for people who make good choices. So make good choices. For those young people negotiating for jobs, change the corporate climate by restricting your job hunts to places that offer benefits - you'll all benefit.

I also think a petitioner/plaintiff should pay the other side's legal fees and court costs if they lose.

You'll have three groups of plaintiffs then.

First, there'll be the poor who are judgment proof anyhow and won't care if they loose because they have no assets for the prevailing party to go after.

Second, there's the wealthy who will actually be able to afford the risk.

Finally, there's the middle class. Oftentimes, such a rule will keep a meritorious suit out of court because of the fear that it'll be a loser and the already injured party will lose even more.

Since you've been a lawyer for awhile, you should know how wildly unpredictable a jury can be. The English Rule system has some merit to it. I think I'd rather see one of two things -- bifurcated proceedings wherein first, the jury determines guilt/damages and second, the jury awards attorneys fees; or give judges more discretion to award attorneys fees when cockamamie cases are filed. Automatically awarding attorneys fees, however, is a really bad idea.

You should have been free to pursue your dreams back when you say you could have made a ton of money - instead you stayed with the workaday job - for the health care benefits! There's millions just like you -- and they resent it. And well they should. The state of your health should never depend on the size of your wealth - or the status of any job.

Why?

Why is it fair to force me to pay for someone else to pursue their dreams?

Oh.. I get it.. my labor doesn't belong to me, it belongs to the poor.

I mean health care for all - not just the poor. You wouldn't be paying for the poor - you would be paying for yours.

Keep in mind every industrialized western country has some kind or another of national health care and looks at our system as barbaric. We lag far behind in just about every single health barometer.

The East Coast Okie response was way off the mark from what I'm talking about. The USA is UNIQUE (only one) who ties health care with employment. What does one have to do with the other except it being a part of our bizarre labyrinthian medical care sysyem? Our jobs have become "home base" for our health care --- WHY? It's that way only because, "it's always been that way." And the thinking that baffles me (you used "mentality") is the thinking that one should have to stay in a job simply because it offers health care benefits they can't afford to lose because they would be uninsurable if they left. That's a good system? You don't understand a "mentality" that thinks there's a better way - as the rest of the world has managed to do?

And your damn right one should be able to pursue the job of their dreams! We are not slaves. To pursue the best one can be is a basic and fundamental libertarian concept - an American concept! - and yes, a right! What does "free" mean? In fact, it's called the "American Dream!" Is everyone capable of doing more than your example of dead animal cleanup? No, but they should be able to quit and flip burgers if they want. There's no reason in the world health care shouldn't be portable. What job you have at any given time shouldn't have anything to do with it.

I'm 48 years old, have always had health coverage and it's not a personal concern. It's a concern for the country that we can't sustain the astronomical increases in the costs of health care and the huge percentage that go to middlemen to administer our overly complicated medical maze. This country can and should do better.

I mean health care for all - not just the poor. You wouldn't be paying for the poor - you would be paying for yours.

Ah.. okay, who pays for the poor then?


Keep in mind every industrialized western country has some kind or another of national health care and looks at our system as barbaric. We lag far behind in just about every single health barometer.

Yes, because we should endeavor to be more like France.

Keep in mind most of these industrialized western countries define themselves as being socialist. Despite having a Democratic party which would lean that way, we have not managed to reach that point as of yet.


The East Coast Okie response was way off the mark from what I'm talking about. The USA is UNIQUE (only one) who ties health care with employment. What does one have to do with the other except it being a part of our bizarre labyrinthian medical care sysyem? Our jobs have become "home base" for our health care --- WHY? It's that way only because, "it's always been that way." And the thinking that baffles me (you used "mentality") is the thinking that one should have to stay in a job simply because it offers health care benefits they can't afford to lose because they would be uninsurable if they left. That's a good system? You don't understand a "mentality" that thinks there's a better way - as the rest of the world has managed to do?

Our jobs are tied to our health care because it's more economically efficient for health care providers and employers to do it that way. Further, if you want a decent PPO, you can go and buy one yourself. This "lack of access" to medical insurance because of your job thing is a myth -- at least in Oklahoma.


]and your damn right one should be able to pursue the job of their dreams! We are not slaves. To pursue the best one can be is a basic and fundamental libertarian concept - an American concept!

:Lies:

It is not a libertarian concept that I could ever expect anyone else to subsidize my lifestyle or my pursuit of my dreams. Having the right to achieve those things for myself and the right to make the choices that get me there is a libertarian concept. I shall live for no man and I shall not ask any other man to live for me.


- and yes, a right! What does "free" mean? In fact, it's called the "American Dream!" Is everyone capable of doing more than your example of dead animal cleanup? No, but they should be able to quit and flip burgers if they want. There's no reason in the world health care shouldn't be portable. What job you have at any given time shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Insurance companies are private entities. Why should the be forced to do business in a certain inefficient way just because you want them to? They exist to make a profit, not to make you feel more 'free.' You are free of course to go with the many single-payer plans out there. They do exist.

Automatically awarding attorneys fees, however, is a really bad idea.

I know where you are coming from and I can't dispute your analysis. A frustration I have is that so many judges, certainly those in state court, even when faced with a ridiculously frivolous case, simply won't pull the trigger on attorney fees. I tend to do guardian ad litem work and frequently watch opposing counsel slug it out. Sometimes, one side is really far out there in terms of bringing frivolous claims, etc. The kids suffer as a result, which is where my ox gets gored. Unfortunately, the judges where I practice just won't address it. I wish they would because a lot of people simply get outgunned because they are going pro se against an attorney, or they have to let their attorney go mid-stream because the other side has frivolously run up costs and the well runs dry in the interim. Money that could go to the kids goes to the lawyers who run up fees with impunity.

Selfish and Greedy. Why should I have to pay for someone else, well, I guess our military doesn't have to PAY with their lives to defend your freedom to have your own damn health insurance.

<<And your damn right one should be able to pursue the job of their dreams! We are not slaves. To pursue the best one can be is a basic and fundamental libertarian concept - an American concept! - and yes, a right! What does "free" mean? In fact, it's called the "American Dream!" Is everyone capable of doing more than your example of dead animal cleanup? No, but they should be able to quit and flip burgers if they want. There's no reason in the world health care shouldn't be portable. What job you have at any given time shouldn't have anything to do with it.>>

If you don't want to settle for a "cruddy" job with good benefits, go make enough money and buy your own policy. There is your portability. Or pay as you go. Lots of people do that. I don't think I should have to finance "your" dream job. That may make YOU free but it puts a collar around MY neck. I don't know of any society, at any time in history, that seriously included the premise that people should be able to work at whatever job they want and not have to make sacrifices. There are too many people out there barely scraping by and working hellish jobs to take care of their families (and damned grateful that they can put food on the table) for me to have much concern for someone wanting to fulfill themselves on the back of other's labor.

I know where you are coming from and I can't dispute your analysis. A frustration I have is that so many judges, certainly those in state court, even when faced with a ridiculously frivolous case, simply won't pull the trigger on attorney fees. I tend to do guardian ad litem work and frequently watch opposing counsel slug it out. Sometimes, one side is really far out there in terms of bringing frivolous claims, etc. The kids suffer as a result, which is where my ox gets gored. Unfortunately, the judges where I practice just won't address it. I wish they would because a lot of people simply get outgunned because they are going pro se against an attorney, or they have to let their attorney go mid-stream because the other side has frivolously run up costs and the well runs dry in the interim. Money that could go to the kids goes to the lawyers who run up fees with impunity.

Oh God.. arguing for the prevailing party in a family case??? That is even worse. Now you're giving a powerful and coercive incentive to parties to lie even more than they do.

Courts could be better gatekeepers, but an English rule system would just be terrible in family court.

I suppose you'd set up a system where the wealthier parent would always win. I've seen what should be slam dunk custody cases go down in flames for inexplicable reasons. I'm sure you have as well. In such cases, if the party is wealthy, that's fine, but that's usually not the case. Loser pays sounds fine at first blush, but when you start applying it automatically, you really run into some inequitable situations.

Selfish and Greedy. Why should I have to pay for someone else, well, I guess our military doesn't have to PAY with their lives to defend your freedom to have your own damn health insurance.


Sorry, I am not sure what you are saying. Explain? Are you saying soldiers are dying because I am not in favor of universal health care? No? Yes?

<<And your damn right one should be able to pursue the job of their dreams! We are not slaves. To pursue the best one can be is a basic and fundamental libertarian concept - an American concept! - and yes, a right! What does "free" mean? In fact, it's called the "American Dream!" Is everyone capable of doing more than your example of dead animal cleanup? No, but they should be able to quit and flip burgers if they want. There's no reason in the world health care shouldn't be portable. What job you have at any given time shouldn't have anything to do with it.>>

If you don't want to settle for a "cruddy" job with good benefits, go make enough money and buy your own policy. There is your portability. Or pay as you go. Lots of people do that. I don't think I should have to finance "your" dream job. That may make YOU free but it puts a collar around MY neck. I don't know of any society, at any time in history, that seriously included the premise that people should be able to work at whatever job they want and not have to make sacrifices. There are too many people out there barely scraping by and working hellish jobs to take care of their families (and damned grateful that they can put food on the table) for me to have much concern for someone wanting to fulfill themselves on the back of other's labor.

You make MY argument for me - I don't get it. You are right, many people work hard at cruddy jobs and alot of them would like to move on to something bigger and better but are STUCK because of their health insurance! Hello? You can't run out and buy a personal policy if you are already diagnosed with just about anything! Also, have you priced individual policies? Even with high $5000 deductibles - we're talking astronomical! You sound like a very conservative, far right Republican who thinks about me, me, me before thinking about how that kind of thinking will destroy our country for future generations.

You also need to become educated on how Universal Health care would work. You make it sound like a '60's era giveaway program. Read up and don't get all your information from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all those who do the bidding of Big Pharma, the HMOs, the big insurance companies and everyone who WINS with our current economic Darwinian system of providing (or not providing) health care.

Oh God.. arguing for the prevailing party in a family case???

No, no, very poor example on my part. I don't think the prevailing party should win in a family law case. I just used that as an admittedly poor example of how judges in frivolous cases STILL won't pull the trigger. I was thinking of the alternative you offered about having judges award fees in frivolous cases as opposed to automatically awarding the prevailing party. If they'd slap frivolous petitioners/plaintiffs, I think that would go a long way to keeping frivolous cases from running up fees and clogging the courts. My experience is that they usually don't.

Sorry, sorry. I've muddled the discussion.

You make MY argument for me. I don't get it. People work at hard, cruddy jobs and would like to move on to something bigger and better but are STUCK because of their health insurance! Hello?

Yeah, real life is hard, isn't it? The choices free people must make.

Why would any job that is "bigger and better" not have health insurance? Isn't that part of what someone would reasonably consider in judging whether it actually IS bigger and better? Where are all these great jobs out there that don't provide health care? Independent contractors? That would make them self employed, which means they are the boss, which means that they can choose whether they want to provide health care to themselves or not. It is a cost of doing business. And you get tax credits, btw. I always worked at jobs with health benefits and am now self employed. You can bet that health care was high on my list of things I needed before I took that step.

My suggestion is for people to think about what it is that they want and what they need. If health care is on the list, they know what to do. Personally, I think a daily massage would go a long way to making me feel fulfilled and free. It is probably healthy, too. I am not about to insist that the taxpayers pay for it.

And BTW - I struggled as a young woman with no health care - went to free clinics, stood in line, hat in one hand, child's hand in another. It sucks. I make the employment decisions I make, in part, considering that experience. You can bet that health care benefits are high on my list of what I need from a job. I am not about to expect the rest of the country to provide health care so I can go find myself, flip burgers, be a sidewalk artist or whatever. My dreams are mine to follow. They aren't anyone else's responsibility.

You also need to become educated on how Universal Health care would work. You make it sound like a '60's era giveaway program. Read up and don't get all your information from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all those who do the bidding of Big Pharma, the HMOs, the big insurance companies and everyone who WINS with our current economic Darwinian system of providing (or not providing) health care.

I think there has been discussion about how liberals invariably accuse people who don't agree with them of getting their opinions from Fox, Rush, etc. You don't know anything about me or whether I am a fan of anyone on your list. It is so predictable that I am embarassed for you, frankly. I am not sure who I know that last "did the bidding" of Big Pharma, the HMOs, etc. (did you really write that and push send???). Sounds sort of like there is a vast right wing conspiracy going on. I didn't get the memo so I'm not in the know.

Sorry, I am not sure what you are saying. Explain? Are you saying soldiers are dying because I am not in favor of universal health care? No? Yes?

OK, that's taking the whole damn statement out of context. People say they wouldn't want to pay a tax into a national/universal health system because they would being paying for the poor. Well, from the statement I made, ANY working person would have the SAME tax, rich or POOR, taken out. I said it was SELFISH/GREEDY to say that. IMAGINE, if a soldier said, eh.. i don't want to go fight, i'll be protecting the freedom of some poor person. But do they? NO. You know the government spends more on war than they do health care... but that's another subject all together.

Imagine, I was ignorant enough to say soldiers were dying because you didn't support a universal health care system. What person would say that?

mmonroe, by "the same tax," do you purport to mean the same amount of money as a flat number of dollars, or do you mean the same percentage of income?

To claim that the latter is "the same tax" is dreadfully misleading. Be clear about what you're talking about.

In previous posts i've made, i mentioned a flat tax.

A percentage of income tax on the wealthy is hardly the same amount of tax.

You said this:


ANY working person would have the SAME tax, rich or POOR

If I make $100,000 and you make $20,000, under your program, do I pay the "same tax, rich or poor" that you do? Of course not. I'm paying the same percentage, but I'll be paying five times as much tax.

And a flat tax will never happen. Read through the IRS Code (I have) some time. There are far too many industries protected under the current IRS code who wouldn't be under a flat tax regime (for example, a pipeline in Alaska is capitalized at a far quicker rate than a pipeline in any other state [thank you Ted Stevens!]).

There would be too many oxes getting gored there, so forget about it. The income tax in its current form, subject to an adjustment of rates, is here to stay.

I think there has been discussion about how liberals invariably accuse people who don't agree with them of getting their opinions from Fox, Rush, etc. You don't know anything about me or whether I am a fan of anyone on your list. It is so predictable that I am embarassed for you, frankly. I am not sure who I know that last "did the bidding" of Big Pharma, the HMOs, etc. (did you really write that and push send???). Sounds sort of like there is a vast right wing conspiracy going on. I didn't get the memo so I'm not in the know.

I guess you're denying you are pretty radically to the right to write what you did in all the posts above? If John McCain were to say them he would be written off in November on that kind of radicalism alone. Truth be known - you are FAR to the right of Senator McCain. You are trying to confuse the issue of Universal Health Care with somebody wanting something for nothing and some such nonsense. I pointed to Limbaugh and Hannity because they spew that crap and get away with it by screening their calls. There's no screening at OKCTalk - it won't work here.

solitude, if you have a point, make it.

solitude, if you have a point, make it.

????

I haven't made my point?

Are you okay today? You sound unusually personal against me. We don't always agree on every issue - but I don't remember you being this way with me. Using the "You lie" icon a few posts back, the above post, etc. I hope all is well. I'm not sucking up or trying to change the subject, I'm really wondering if everythingi s okay. It's just different for you.

A percentage of income tax on the wealthy is hardly the same amount of tax.

You said this:



If I make $100,000 and you make $20,000, under your program, do I pay the "same tax, rich or poor" that you do? Of course not. I'm paying the same percentage, but I'll be paying five times as much tax.

And a flat tax will never happen. Read through the IRS Code (I have) some time. There are far too many industries protected under the current IRS code who wouldn't be under a flat tax regime (for example, a pipeline in Alaska is capitalized at a far quicker rate than a pipeline in any other state [thank you Ted Stevens!]).

There would be too many oxes getting gored there, so forget about it. The income tax in its current form, subject to an adjustment of rates, is here to stay.

Ok, try reading this post I made, when I said Previous Posts:
http://www.okctalk.com/health-fitness/12887-national-health-care.html#post143285

Again, things like the way the IRS is conducted, can be changed. What part of the constitution is hard to understand, that if we don't like something, it can be changed. Sure, it will take people, time, perhaps money, but change can happen.

I guess you're denying you are pretty radically to the right to write what you did in all the posts above? If John McCain were to say them he would be written off in November on that kind of radicalism alone. Truth be known - you are FAR to the right of Senator McCain. You are trying to confuse the issue of Universal Health Care with somebody wanting something for nothing and some such nonsense. I pointed to Limbaugh and Hannity because they spew that crap and get away with it by screening their calls. There's no screening at OKCTalk - it won't work here.

This is a post about a political position? I pointed out that liberals routinely assume (in a snearing manner) that anyone who disagrees with them get their information from a certain "disapproved" list of sources. Frankly, I don't know if I am to the right or left or sitting right on top of McCain and am not worried about it, a bit. At my age, I have my own opinions based on my own research, experience, education and value set. That there is some sort of list of disapproved information sources (based on how often I see liberals fall back on it) strikes me as sort of creepy.

I wish you'd quit swearing - it isn't necessary and certainly isn't helping your argument.

Universal health care costs money. Someone has to pay it. I've heard a lot of arguments as to why it should be adopted but your argument, that you have some sort of right to the job of your choice so the rest of us should subsidize your happiness, takes the cake. I think a lot of us MIGHT subsidize universal health care for certain reasons and under certain conditions, but the happiness level of our fellow citizens who think they should have jobs of their choice isn't doing it, for me.

OK, that's taking the whole damn statement out of context. People say they wouldn't want to pay a tax into a national/universal health system because they would being paying for the poor. Well, from the statement I made, ANY working person would have the SAME tax, rich or POOR, taken out. I said it was SELFISH/GREEDY to say that. IMAGINE, if a soldier said, eh.. i don't want to go fight, i'll be protecting the freedom of some poor person. But do they? NO. You know the government spends more on war than they do health care... but that's another subject all together.

Imagine, I was ignorant enough to say soldiers were dying because you didn't support a universal health care system. What person would say that?

When I posted, it was an honest question. No offense, but I have no idea what you were saying. I still don't, to be perfectly frank. Are you saying that soldiers are willing to die for the poor but that the civilians are not even willing to pay for them? Are you making the contrast to shame the civilians? If that is not what you are saying, the rest of this post won't make sense.

In the first place, soldiers are a different breed than citizens. And I say that with respect. I can't imagine why they are willing to die, or why they put their lives and the lives of their families on hold for us. But they do. They are fighting for our way of life. Why they care about so many of us is something I don't understand. But they do.

As a civilian, I want to make it worth the sacrifice, to the extent possible. Calling on my fellow citizens to get off their butts, make decent decisions in their lives, take care of themselves and their families, show initiative and not expect the rest of us to subsidize their happiness level is about being a better, more productive citizen. I should think a soldier would be much more willing to lay it all down when we are doing what we can to live our lives the way that makes them proud. It should be more about what sort of people we want to be and less about what can I get and who else can I get to pay for it? After all, I deserve it! And why? Because I was born here?

We citizens need to be the kind of people that soldiers are proud to defend. The soldiers die for the poor because of the kind of people THEY are, not the kind of people the poor are. It is up to the citizens to do what be can to not be poor. There is no shame in being poor if you are a new immigrant; a young person who has not made it, yet; sick; or otherwise hit by something beyond your control. There is shame in being poor because you repeatedly make bad decisions; don't save your money when you can; won't work; have babies you can't afford; or don't learn a skill or get an education. This is the land of opportunity. A lot of people aren't taking the opportunity.

Ask not what your country can do for you...

That post was in reply to someone who said they pay for their own private health care and would not want to pay a tax to pay for the poors health care.

Not wanting to subsidize universal health care is in perfect keeping with the post.

????

I haven't made my point?

Nope. You're just accusing her of being a conservative -- as if that makes her opinion any more or less valid. It's completely irrelevant. I suppose I should have said that if you have something relevant to say, say it. The "you're bad because you said what Rush Limbaugh" might have said.


Are you okay today? You sound unusually personal against me. We don't always agree on every issue - but I don't remember you being this way with me. Using the "You lie" icon a few posts back, the above post, etc.

hehe.. I guess you took it a little personally when I pointed out that you had completely mischaracterized the libertarian philosophy. You tried to use libertarianism to justify a government entitlement -- a proposition which is beyond absurd. Nothing personal, you just got it wrong :)


I hope all is well. I'm not sucking up or trying to change the subject, I'm really wondering if everythingi s okay. It's just different for you.

Nope. Everything's fine. I guess my online 'tongue' is just a little sharper today than usual.