Ladies, are you receiving better healthcare in the United States?

[OlgaH]

However, the original point was that our tea and coffee required no additional payment so it was part of the value received for the $163.00.

Very reasonable IMO.

and I say the same things that it is a part of your $163.00 but not FREE 

[GQBlues]

Might it be that individuals have shirked their societal responsibilities for too long and there is a backlash occurring as a result?  I am asking.. I don't have an answer in mind.

Sculpto, I really don't need to tell you which members of our society gets taxed the most, do I?

WE, a society as a whole, probably amass the greatest amount of private charities within our localities than any other. Who do you think provide funding for those centers? Our problem was never the decreasing source of donations or recognition of the needs of the less than fortunate, our society's problems is the growing population of people who feels an intense sense of entitlement and the politicians who feasts on these sentiments to further their own political goals.

Like healthcare, the charitable system was not broken either albeit our government have now determined they are better suited to make these decisions for all of us.

Peggy Joseph?  Did i miss some mass media thing?

Likely. I believe she's related to Henrietta Hughes.

If you so denounced bureaucratic elitism, start with Ron Gettlefinger and his storied rise to prominence.

[OlgaH]

We have the best medical care available anywhere in the world.

It depends on what side of the fence you are on. When Robert and I are having a good time at City Place in West Palm Beach there is one reality when we visit some of our clients who are simple workers for whole their life there is the other reality... closer to stories below:

Chief financial officer Michael J. Roney said the hospital's policy is never to send an account to collection as long as the patient is paying something. Roney said his hospital's bad debt totaled $7.4 million last year, up from $7 million in 2006. A growing portion comes from working people asked by employers to pay more medical costs.
"People increasingly can't pay their portion," he said. "It's huge."
http://www.philly.com/philly/jobs/industries/healthcare/20081006_A_caregiver_is_denied_medical_care.html?viewAll=y


Sheila was surprised when she was rejected for an individual health-insurance policy by three different companies. She was even more shocked when she learned why: Her record with MIB listed her as having a history of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Sheila does suffer from asthma, but COPD is supposed to be used to indicate more severe diseases of the lungs, such as emphysema or severe bronchitis. No company would insure her with this damaging mark on her record.
She realizes perhaps her only shot at getting decent medical coverage is by finding a job that comes with health insurance. But the job prospects in this Hurricane Katrina-battered community are not good.
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2008/08/denied-insuranc.html

[Sculpto]

Sculpto, I really don't need to tell you which members of our society gets taxed the most, do I?

WE, a society as a whole, probably amass the greatest amount of private charities within our localities than any other. Who do you think provide funding for those centers? Our problem was never the decreasing source of donations or recognition of the needs of the less than fortunate, our society's problems is the growing population of people who feels an intense sense of entitlement and the politicians who feasts on these sentiments to further their own political goals.

Like healthcare, the charitable system was not broken either albeit our government have now determined they are better suited to make these decisions for all of us.

Likely. I believe she's related to Henrietta Hughes.

If you so denounced bureaucratic elitism, start with Ron Gettlefinger and his storied rise to prominence.

GQ I do not disagree that we are in general an incredibly charitable society.  Yet, certain communities remain entrenched in poverty, both material and spiritual and intellectual.  Those communities have not gotten better in my lifetime, in fact, they have gotten worse.  The problems that are endemic to those communities will not be solved with money or welfare, I agree 100%.  But, when the educational system is dysfunctional, in a community with dysfunctional families, the cycle of deprivation will never end.  Those same communities represent the highest number of uninsured, highest number of unemployed, highest rates of infant mortality, highest rates of crime and incarceration and so on. 

Fixing those problem communities has to start somewhere.  Healthcare is a good place to begin.  Follow that up with education and within 20 years those communities will no longer be the incredible drain on our society they are now.  Continue to ignore them and we are nothing more than a society of hypocrites and we risk an even greater implosion than that which is occurring now.  The problem isn't going to go away by ignoring it and depriving those people the basics of a dignified life.  On the contrary, it will only get worse and worse until there is no middle class left and we are a society of very rich and everyone else.  The rich will live behind guarded walls and all the ugly people will be kept as well out of view as possible. 

Is that really the country you want to live in?  Does that really represent the American dream we have all been taught to believe in?

It really isn't about dollars GQ.  Its philosophical.  Its about having the kind of idealism that Kennedy asked us to have.  Its not about ME ME ME ME ME.. its about those who are able getting off their asses to help those who are less able so we can all have a better life. 

[Blues Fairy]

Fixing those problem communities has to start somewhere.  Healthcare is a good place to begin.  Follow that up with education (...)
The problem isn't going to go away by ignoring it and depriving those people the basics of a dignified life. The rich will live behind guarded walls and all the ugly people will be kept as well out of view as possible. 

How about letting those rich people keep more of their riches and create more jobs for those deprived folks who just want a little opportunity to lead a dignified life.  Seems like a good place to start, doesn't it?  Health and education are not much use when there are no jobs to work.  As a matter of fact, rich people NEED those folks to get their a$$es off the couch and get to work so that their rich companies could create more wealth!  They NEED to pay those poor folks money to go to school/doctor, so that proper productivity is maintained.  Otherwise, their wealth is in jeopardy and their business prospects are sour; no guarded walls to hide behind and no money to pay the guards. 

As for keeping out the ugly people, the current health bill provides for that amply, with provisions for calculating value of life and rationing of health care based on those values.  Read the bill and read what Obama health advises have said on the subject. 

[Sculpto]

How about letting those rich people keep more of their riches and create more jobs for those deprived folks who just want a little opportunity to lead a dignified life.  Seems like a good place to start, doesn't it?  Health and education are not much use when there are no jobs to work.  As a matter of fact, rich people NEED those folks to get their a$$es off the couch and get to work so that their rich companies could create more wealth!  They NEED to pay those poor folks money to go to school/doctor, so that proper productivity is maintained.  Otherwise, their wealth is in jeopardy and their business prospects are sour; no guarded walls to hide behind and no money to pay the guards. 

Yes you are right, except you are putting the cart before the horse.  Regaining dignity is more complex than just having a job. 

As for keeping out the ugly people, the current health bill provides for that amply, with provisions for calculating value of life and rationing of health care based on those values.  Read the bill and read what Obama health advises have said on the subject. 

I will read a bit tomorrow and respond then.

[Blues Fairy]

Yes you are right, except you are putting the cart before the horse. 

And you are proposing to kill the horse.

[GQBlues]

It really isn't about dollars GQ.  Its philosophical.  Its about having the kind of idealism that Kennedy asked us to have.  Its not about ME ME ME ME ME.. its about those who are able getting off their asses to help those who are less able so we can all have a better life.  

"Philosophical" Sculpto?

You are too bright to be this naive. There's nothing philosophical about Nanci Pelosi chanting 'si se puede' a year away from the 2010 elections. That's being opportunistic and self-serving. There's not much logic and philosophy in that type of politics.

The very moment Pelosi were uttering those words, illegal aliens were/are planting marijuana fields on our state and local parks . One huge field was recently closed down in Yosemite that was heavily guarded by armed illegal aliens. What do you think would have happened if a hiking or camping family accidentally stumbled upon this field, or others like it?

Philosophical ~ hardly.

As for Social welfare, it IS the root of our society's problems. It teaches a person complacency and entitlement nothing more. For $400.00/mo. it easily destroys a person's sense of hope and dignity. 'Free' money is the worst form of addiction.

It's really ironic you'd even bring up Kennedy.

[OlgaH]

How about letting those rich people keep more of their riches and create more jobs for those deprived folks who just want a little opportunity to lead a dignified life.  

Back to the future  

George W. Bush's tax cuts:  $1.3 trillion in 2001, $96 billion in 2002, and $330 billion in 2003.
In 2006 and 2007 the Unemployment rate was almost on the same level as in 2001 the difference was just -0,1 according to US Bureau of Labor Statistics. So, how many jobs were created? Where is the beef? Who got the beef?

Year:           Unemployment Rate
2001            4.7
2002            5.8
2003            6.0
2004            5.5
2005            5.1
2006            4.6
2007            4.6
2008            5.8
June 2009     9.7

Supporters Of $1.3 Trillion Bush Tax Cuts In 2001 Now Call $900 Billion Recovery Plan Billion ‘Too Much’
http://vodpod.com/watch/1341977-supporters-of-1-3-trillion-bush-tax-cuts-in-2001-now-call-900-billion-recovery-plan-billion-too-much

JOBLESS RECOVERY TO JOB-LOSS RECOVERY
Publication Date: 01-MAR-04
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-238228/High-and-dry-the-economic.html

[bobb]

I imagine there are even some intelligent people who still think a provision in one of the bills calls for euthansia.  I know it was mentioned many pages ago in this topic.

http://factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/

[GQBlues]

So, how many jobs were created? Where is the beef? Who got the beef?

OlgaH-

You cannot present one static data to try to make a point. It doesn't work. This is a common mistake for people vent on simply scaling one static data without proper support and equation.

There are significant factors and data conveniently lost in your argument, so let me show you where the beef is:

2001-2008: Population growth: 280 million +/- to 304 million +/-
2001-2008: Labor Force growth: 139,000,000 to 153,100,000
2001-2008: GDP per Capita (PPP): $36,200 to $46,000
2001-2008: GDP (Pur.Pow.Parity): 9.9 trillion to 13.9 trillion
2001-2008: GDP (Real Growth Rate): average 3% annually

* note: all pertinent data show an ascending rate of improvement every year with the exception of 2002 which was a post-911 year.

There were significant number added to the labor force which were not balanced out by retirees. People have been working longer in recent years. The difference in labor force during those 8 years was roughly 14 million ( app. 1,750,000 million addition every year). If you make a quick exercise and allocate an average of median salaries within the 8 years, you can use $41,000.00. Multiply that number to 1.75 million you'll easily come up with $71.8 billion/yr.

The beef you seek can be found in the ability to absord the added number of new labor force while commendably maintaining the unemployment rate all through the subject 8 years. Or simply put, it created 14 million new jobs.

By chance, are you a Democrat?

[OlgaH]

OlgaH-

You cannot present one static data to try to make a point. It doesn't work. This is a common mistake for people vent on simply scaling one static data without proper support and equation.

Simple statistic in 2001 - 1.3 trillions tax cuts and in 2004 unemployment unemployment rate was 5.5% in comparison with 4.7% in 2001.

With the 2003 tax cut in place, the president's Council of Economic Advisors insisted, the economy would create 306,000 jobs a month from July 2003 to December 2004.

Hardly. When economic growth picked up in the final five months of 2003, the recovery finally stopped losing jobs. But the economy added a total of just 278,000 new jobs in those five months, with 80% of those job gains concentrated in temporary staffing, education, health care, and government. That is fewer jobs than the Bush team's promised monthly total. Even with those new jobs in the last five months of the year, the economy lost a net 331,000 jobs for 2003, on top of 1.5 million lost in 2002.

Do you really think that unemployment rate today has been increased due to population growth?    Sorry, but I don't buy it  

[GQBlues]

 Sorry, but I don't buy it  

 

You can do anything you want it will not change the fact.

You can wrestle and offer any article you want but the numbers will still be what they are. You can break down the subject years by the hour, by the day, weeks, months, years, no matter what and how you want to do it. Count the daily unemployed against the daily new hire - everyday, anyday, every minute on the hour; you will still arrive to the fact that the labor force population difference from 2001 to 2008 is 14 million.

Which easily means 14 million new jobs had to have been created for those 14 million new labor force to be accounted for.

[OlgaH]

OlgaH-


By chance, are you a Democrat?

I'm a person who meets the heard working people every day. I'm not afraid to shake their hands and offer a cup of coffee when they work on our house, cleaning our property. I'm not afraid to accept a cup of tea at their homes and talk to them when Robert and I make a documentaries. Probably it is difficult for a woman who has a secure life behind her husband's back to understand why other woman goes to work in walmart for part-time job for little money and no insurance. But I see it every day how it is difficult to survive when there is no any other jobs available in a small county and especially when her husband just lost his job, and sorry, not due to the population growth. Have you ever talk face to face to a 80 years old woman who whole her life worked her a$$ of bringing up her two children and now she is denied in health insurance coverage and her pension is not enough to pay for $300 injection?  I can continue but I guess it means nothing for some people with secure jobs and life insurance.  

[GQBlues]

 I can continue but I guess it means nothing for some people with secure jobs and life insurance.  

LOL. Was that last line meant to imply I am somehow the 21st century scrooge born with a shiny silver spoon in my mouth?

I legally came to this country with NO language skills (I barely have it today) and unlike Sculpto, we were dirt poor. I left home right after HS and worked. Went to college and uni while turning down the silly highly-discriminative and insulting affirmative action program along the way. Instead I worked mostly two, sometimes 3, of the type of jobs you described. Despite these challenges, I know it can be done. A little hard work, a little perseverance, a little fear, and a lot of determination.

I earned whatever benefit I get out of myself today because of those years and I do not and will not apologize for it. I certainly despise a government coming into my life today to decide what to do with my lot.

Yeah sometimes I also watch those folks working at Walmart too. Especially the native born folks. But my thoughts are different than yours. They had the same choices in life before. The only difference was they started from an advantageous position than was ever available for me.

[ECOCKS]

Well said, GQ.

[Blues Fairy]

I imagine there are even some intelligent people who still think a provision in one of the bills calls for euthansia.  I know it was mentioned many pages ago in this topic.

http://factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/

What a lovely place to get your "facts".  

HR 3200, Sec. 1122, Pg. 253, lines 10-23:
The government "validates work relative value units" (sets value of doctor's time), professional judgement, methods etc. - defining the value of humans.

Sec. 1177, Pg. 354 - Government will restrict enrollment of special needs people ("Extension of Authority of Special Needs Plans to Restrict Enrollment").

Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 4-12 - Government mandates end-of-life counceling.

Sec. 1233, Pgs 429-430 - Government may order end-of-life plans and determine which treatments to apply as patient's health deteriorates.

Look to the source and you'll find many interesting things.

[OlgaH]

Yeah sometimes I also watch those folks working at Walmart too. Especially the native born folks. But my thoughts are different than yours. They had the same choices in life before. The only difference was they started from an advantageous position than was ever available for me.

Yes, situations are different. One of our relative had all chances to study  at university but he is lazy and stupid, now barely finished two years at college he in his 25 sits on paycheck and going to have a second baby sucking his parents. I have no sympathy for him and most likely will not have.

One of our friends (he is now about 56) after giving to a wealthy company 20 years of his life had a problem with his insurance when due to all those stressful years he had problem with his heart, his boss "forgot" about his insurance, and our friend was told right into his face by his boss if he is going to have the health problem in the future he better to leave. And it is after 20 years of all his faithful service to the company.

Other our friend lost her job after 10 years working at a company, now she is trying to find another job and it is not so easy as somebody think. I just can not imagine if somebody will tell her "get you  
a$$ off the couch and get to work so that the rich companies could create more wealth"  or start to explain about choices






    

[Blues Fairy]

now she is trying to find another job and it is not so easy as somebody think. I just can not imagine if somebody will tell her "get you a$$ off the couch and get to work so that the rich companies could create more wealth"

Has she been a welfare recipient for years?
I imagine if she really needs to make a living (3 kids, no money to buy food etc), she will go and work at Starbucks if need be.  But as long as she can afford to keep looking, it's her right and privilege to keep looking as long as she desires.

[GQBlues]

OlgaH-

Yes I agree. Situations are different. The founding fathers of this nation knew that. The system was never in doubt. Never has been. However the problem is found on the people of power that try to define it according to their own personal goals.

To paraphrase: "...The government is NOT the solution, the government IS the problem.."

[OlgaH]

Has she been a welfare recipient for years?
I imagine if she really needs to make a living (3 kids, no money to buy food etc), she will go and work at Starbucks if need be.  But as long as she can afford to keep looking, it's her right and privilege to keep looking as long as she desires.

Starbucks also has its limit. Before talking about being a welfare recipient for years try to live on unemployment paycheck paying all your bills, car loans and mortgage or rent. You also can look for unemployment benefits applying rules and its extension and talk to people who lost their homes being unemployed.

[Blues Fairy]

Starbucks also has its limit. Before talking about being a welfare recipient for years try to live on unemployment paycheck paying all your bills, car loans and mortgage or rent. You also can look for unemployment benefits applying rules and its extension and talk to people who lost their homes being unemployed.

You see, creating more jobs seems to be the key thing in improving people's lives; your example points to this very conclusion. 
Ask your friend if she would prefer to stay unemployed and be enrolled in gov't sponsored health care plan, or be employed and enroll in an employer-sponsored plan. 

[OlgaH]

You see, creating more jobs seems to be the key thing in improving people's lives; your example points to this very conclusion. 
Ask your friend if she would prefer to stay unemployed and be enrolled in gov't sponsored health care plan, or be employed and enroll in an employer-sponsored plan. 

Yes, creating more jobs seems to be the key thing. But last history lessons showed that after Bush's tax cuts those rich people did not create to much jobs keeping more of their riches 

[BC]

What a lovely place to get your "facts".  

HR 3200, Sec. 1122, Pg. 253, lines 10-23:
The government "validates work relative value units" (sets value of doctor's time), professional judgement, methods etc. - defining the value of humans.

Sec. 1177, Pg. 354 - Government will restrict enrollment of special needs people ("Extension of Authority of Special Needs Plans to Restrict Enrollment").

Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 4-12 - Government mandates end-of-life counceling.

Sec. 1233, Pgs 429-430 - Government may order end-of-life plans and determine which treatments to apply as patient's health deteriorates.

Look to the source and you'll find many interesting things.

Limits do need to be set.

End of Life Counseling, all for it.. might as well face the facts.

Having decisions made maybe by a board of health professionals (that can be appealed anyway, even if in form of a lawsuit) limiting treatment that is determined will not support quality of life, also quite ok.

Establishing guidelines as to how much valuable doctor time is invested (and can bill) for particular treatment - a necessity unless the government is just going to give out salaries.

With more than 100 Billion Medicare dollars per year going to support folks in their last year on Earth, even now such decisions are being made in one form or the other.  With the population getting older this will only increase.  The above figure was from 2006, certainly higher now.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-18-end-of-life-costs_x.htm

[Blues Fairy]

Having decisions made maybe by a board of health professionals (that can be appealed anyway, even if in form of a lawsuit) limiting treatment that is determined will not support quality of life, also quite ok.

The text reads: "This genetically ill person will cost our people's community 60,000 marks over his lifetime. Citizens, that is your money"