If Obma gets elected and turns america into a socialist wasteland...

Well, here it's not, no. I was giving all the details of my situation. In the movie, a couple lives in a country where the healthcare is provided by the government Another benefit she receives is 100% salary compensation during her time off. If her employer pays only a certain percentage for her leave, the government covers the rest. That's part of their healthcare system. And our government certainly does not provide free in-home assistance during the first weeks of parenthood.

That's all I'm sayin'.septemberluc

Some employers pay 100%. It should be between employee and employer. And I'm glad they don't provide home care. If you can't take care of you baby...don't have one. Sorry...but taxpayers are not an endless well of mommy and daddy money.

[QUOTE="Ontain"]*accidentally erased post*LJS9502_basic

Nonetheless, I did not make it up.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"] Well, here it's not, no. I was giving all the details of my situation. In the movie, a couple lives in a country where the healthcare is provided by the government Another benefit she receives is 100% salary compensation during her time off. If her employer pays only a certain percentage for her leave, the government covers the rest. That's part of their healthcare system. And our government certainly does not provide free in-home assistance during the first weeks of parenthood.

That's all I'm sayin'.LJS9502_basic

Some employers pay 100%. It should be between employee and employer. And I'm glad they don't provide home care. If you can't take care of you baby...don't have one. Sorry...but taxpayers are not an endless well of mommy and daddy money.

News radio shows, your bastion of impartial news. *bashes NPR up side the head with a baseball bat*Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] News radio shows, your bastion of impartial news. *bashes NPR up side the head with a baseball bat*LJS9502_basic

Yes, some employers do pay 100%. But for people who work for a company that doesn't, it is nice to know that government has your back.

And as for the home care, I don't know for sure if you've ever experienced a c-section, but rest assured that if you ever do, you would appreciate the offer.septemberluc

[QUOTE="TSCombo"]

[QUOTE="septemberluc"]

Bill O'Reilly brings guests onto his show under the pretense of an interview or a debate, and then interrupts them every time they attempt to speak, blasting them with his opinions and then says he'll give them the last word, but after "the last word" is given, he throws in one last undercut before going to commercial.

Bill O sucks.septemberluc

In your opinion, how many times does that happen per show? It may be troubling to watch two people with opinions talk and one of them be different from your own but you will be very misinformed if you don't consider the other side. Bill has gotten heated b4 (Barney Frank) but he is very direct in his interviews for the most part. Peope who don't even watch the show characterize him as "evil" and mean. LOL

Cool. 2-3 time a week for a 1-hour show with multiple interview/debates isn't bad IMO and that means that the majority of the interviews aren't to that level. The amount of time that things don't get heated and the other person gets their view across is way higher than when things aren't civil. People have issue with Bill's views and label his entire show as if he is Rush Limbaugh in a KKK outfit.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"] Yes, some employers do pay 100%. But for people who work for a company that doesn't, it is nice to know that government has your back.

And as for the home care, I don't know for sure if you've ever experienced a c-section, but rest assured that if you ever do, you would appreciate the offer.LJS9502_basic

You're not insinuating that NPR is not biased are you?Vandalvideo

It's rare I listen to radio...:lol:

I've had family members that had c-sections....can't say I ever did.:P They managed alright. But if it's a hassle you can pay for home care...and that is the fair way to handle it. Taxpayers are not meant to pay to raise people. LJS9502_basic

who decides? the people right?

Look, all I'm saying is I want to have my cake and eat it too. I don't ask much, I just want everything. Is that so bad?

My wife and I certainly managed. She's back to work, we've got two healthy kids and everything is fine now. It just would have been nice to have the burden eased for us, as it is for people in other countries.septemberluc

Fine...as long as I don't have to pay for you cake.

They pay much much more in taxes. That is a burden as well.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I've had family members that had c-sections....can't say I ever did.:P They managed alright. But if it's a hassle you can pay for home care...and that is the fair way to handle it. Taxpayers are not meant to pay to raise people. Ontain

who decides? the people right?

[QUOTE="TSCombo"]

[QUOTE="streak000"]Living in Australia as I do, I don't even get MSNBC. I've never watched the channel, and therefore am not exposed to their "liberal agenda". I do get Fox News, however, and I'm exposed to Conservative nonsense all the time. How can anyone take people like Sean Hannity seriously? Can't you see he's not only stupid, but also downright evil? ******* bigots, all of them. I would argue that you're the one who's misinformed. streak000

Hannity is a commentator and so is his Left-wing co-host.

Please... His "left wing" co-host is just as dumb as him, except uglier. Fox News know that the presence of such an impotent "liberal" just makes Hannity look better. And let's not forget old Bill O, who is more intelligent than both of them combined, but is just as evil and bigotted as the whole network. Fair and Balanced my arse. Fox News really disgusts me. If you're going to start defending it, we really have nothing to talk about, because it's as though we come from different planets. I just can't believe so many people are unable or unwilling to see through their propaganda.

Well said.

Colmes is the best Murdoch could get to counter Hannity? Please. Colmes has been and will always be a joke to the Democratic party.

Look, all I'm saying is I want to have my cake and eat it too. I don't ask much, I just want everything. Is that so bad?

My wife and I certainly managed. She's back to work, we've got two healthy kids and everything is fine now. It just would have been nice to have the burden eased for us, as it is for people in other countries.septemberluc

i watched a BBC documentary that said that a lot of the social changes in Europe(esp UK) happened after WWII when they all suffered so much and knew that they had to work together and help eachother like they did to get through the war.

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I've had family members that had c-sections....can't say I ever did.:P They managed alright. But if it's a hassle you can pay for home care...and that is the fair way to handle it. Taxpayers are not meant to pay to raise people. LJS9502_basic

who decides? the people right?

you said that Taxpayers are not meant to pay. who decides this if not the ppl with the way they vote?

[QUOTE="septemberluc"]
Look, all I'm saying is I want to have my cake and eat it too. I don't ask much, I just want everything. Is that so bad?

My wife and I certainly managed. She's back to work, we've got two healthy kids and everything is fine now. It just would have been nice to have the burden eased for us, as it is for people in other countries.LJS9502_basic

Fine...as long as I don't have to pay for you cake.

They pay much much more in taxes. That is a burden as well.

We do pay more taxes in Australia, but it's not as bad as you keep trying to suggest. It's certainly not "much" more until you start earning millions. Then they slog ya. But that's fair enough. I like our free, universal healthcare (which you can choose to ignore in favour of private insurance), and I like our welfare system, which basically ensures that noone starves on the street when they fall onto bad times. You might see this as Socialism, I see it as responsible government.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"]
Look, all I'm saying is I want to have my cake and eat it too. I don't ask much, I just want everything. Is that so bad?

My wife and I certainly managed. She's back to work, we've got two healthy kids and everything is fine now. It just would have been nice to have the burden eased for us, as it is for people in other countries.LJS9502_basic

Fine...as long as I don't have to pay for you cake.

They pay much much more in taxes. That is a burden as well.

you said that Taxpayers are not meant to pay. who decides this if not the ppl with the way they vote?

Ontain

To further your comment about voting...many politicians are voted in for the wrong reason. IE...lesser of two evils and not because the majority like the policies. Obama is getting votes because quite a lot merely don't want another conservative after Bush. You should have read several of those comments over the last few months.

In addition you may like one candidates stance on a couple issues better and enough to vote for him...but that does not actually mean you agree with everything he wants to do. Thus, it's more the House and Senate...and only if people do get involved enough to let them know straight out what they as a constituent believe....that matters. Not so much the president...though have any party with majority in the House...the Senate...and giving them the presidency is usually not the wisest course of action.

I am willing to pay more in taxes for that kind of healthcare system.septemberluc

The better solution I think is creating effective and reasonable costs for services provided. Aspirins do not cost $4.00 each. Once the cost is more in line the insurance won't need to be as high. If insurance comes down more employers will be able to provide and if not the cost will be reasonable for those that don't have coverage through an employer...though the government can give tax breaks to employers that provide it...which acts as an incentive.

The government should however, provide insurance...or make it so that a percentage of each insurance carrier has to have "uninsurable" people covered. Thus, those that are chronically ill won't be denied medical insurance.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"]
I am willing to pay more in taxes for that kind of healthcare system.LJS9502_basic

The better solution I think is creating effective and reasonable costs for services provided. Aspirins do not cost $4.00 each. Once the cost is more in line the insurance won't need to be as high. If insurance comes down more employers will be able to provide and if not the cost will be reasonable for those that don't have coverage through an employer...though the government can give tax breaks to employers that provide it...which acts as an incentive.

The government should however, provide insurance...or make it so that a percentage of each insurance carrier has to have "uninsurable" people covered. Thus, those that are chronically ill won't be denied medical insurance.

compromiseseptemberluc

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

you said that Taxpayers are not meant to pay. who decides this if not the ppl with the way they vote?

LJS9502_basic

yes so you suggest no education system, disaster relief, EPA, FDA, public water, regulations on product safety, etc.

times change and we have a government that changes with the times.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"] compromiseJandurin

[QUOTE="septemberluc"] compromiseJandurin

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="septemberluc"] compromiseseptemberluc

[QUOTE="septemberluc"]
I am willing to pay more in taxes for that kind of healthcare system.LJS9502_basic

The better solution I think is creating effective and reasonable costs for services provided. Aspirins do not cost $4.00 each. Once the cost is more in line the insurance won't need to be as high. If insurance comes down more employers will be able to provide and if not the cost will be reasonable for those that don't have coverage through an employer...though the government can give tax breaks to employers that provide it...which acts as an incentive.

The government should however, provide insurance...or make it so that a percentage of each insurance carrier has to have "uninsurable" people covered. Thus, those that are chronically ill won't be denied medical insurance.

how do you propose to lower the drug costs without government intervention that you dislike?

I am willing to pay more in taxes for that kind of healthcare system.septemberluc

I am partial to Obama but I don't think socialized heathcare is going to work. Hawaii had to end their Universal Child Health Care system because people figured out that if they just quit their current plan and go for the state paid one, and it got to a point where the state couldn't afford it.

Link

yes so you suggest no education system, disaster relief, EPA, FDA, public water, regulations on product safety, etc.

times change and we have a government that changes with the times.

Ontain

Nonetheless you asked what decides...and this country was set up specifically to attempt big government. I answered your question which you had assumed was the taxpayers decision.

[QUOTE="septemberluc"]
I am willing to pay more in taxes for that kind of healthcare system.flazzle

I am partial to Obama but I don't think socialized heathcare is going to work. Hawaii had to end their Universal Child Health Care system because people figured out that if they just quit their current plan and go for the state paid one, and it got to a point where the state couldn't afford it.

Link

how do you propose to lower the drug costs without government intervention that you dislike?

Ontain

I in no way said to remove the private sector from health care which is what many advocate. Government has been proven to not be able to manage much of anything. See Social Security if you have any questions. Private business is more effective. The difference is there are no checks on the cost.

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

how do you propose to lower the drug costs without government intervention that you dislike?

LJS9502_basic

I in no way said to remove the private sector from health care which is what many advocate. Government has been proven to not be able to manage much of anything. See Social Security if you have any questions. Private business is more effective. The difference is there are no checks on the cost.

Nobody is removing the private sector from health care.

Nobody is removing the private sector from health care.

Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Nobody is removing the private sector from health care.

LJS9502_basic

There can be both systems. I do not advocate removing private care, although I do wish for a universal system in the US. That's what Obama is proposing.

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

how do you propose to lower the drug costs without government intervention that you dislike?

LJS9502_basic

I in no way said to remove the private sector from health care which is what many advocate. Government has been proven to not be able to manage much of anything. See Social Security if you have any questions. Private business is more effective. The difference is there are no checks on the cost.

you realize that some european countries have private insurance companies but with regulations and some government assistance for the poor (like out medicare/medicaid) that provides healthcare for all. Universal healthcare doesn't have to be all government run. just like car insurance is for everyone that drives but is private sector.

There can be both systems. I do not advocate removing private care, although I do wish for a universal system in the US. That's what Obama is proposing.

Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

There can be both systems. I do not advocate removing private care, although I do wish for a universal system in the US. That's what Obama is proposing.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

There can be both systems. I do not advocate removing private care, although I do wish for a universal system in the US. That's what Obama is proposing.

LJS9502_basic

That didn't happen to schools. You can send your kid to a private school if you want, but public school is there as well. Same thing.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

There can be both systems. I do not advocate removing private care, although I do wish for a universal system in the US. That's what Obama is proposing.

LJS9502_basic

http://www.physorg.com/news143439214.html

If you start with universal healthcare....private will disappear. Those that are currently paying would stop paying. Employers would soon stop paying as well. You can't create a both systems and expect it to work that way. Who will volunteer to pay if a "free" system is enacted? And the cost will be prohibitive. LJS9502_basic

False. Universal HC != government owned healthcare. it can be regulated as well. and those system aren't volunteer. you're required to have health insurance and the price is based on income.

you realize that some european countries have private insurance companies but with regulations and some government assistance for the poor (like out medicare/medicaid) that provides healthcare for all. Universal healthcare doesn't have to be all government run. just like car insurance is for everyone that drives but is private sector.

Ontain

While changes need to be made...this is not the way to do it. It will create more problems than it will solve. Most of the currently uncovered people....are young males in their twenties that simply don't want to spend the money on healthcare as they feel they don't need it. Which they don't...until they get sick.

The state of Pennsylvania has a program for children. All children will be covered. The cost varies by income...but it is free for those that don't earn much. Now...the problem is the working adults that don't wish to pay. How is that my problem to provide them with what they don't wish to have? I need my money as well you know...

False. Universal HC != government owned healthcare. it can be regulated as well. and those system aren't volunteer. you're required to have health insurance and the price is based on income.

Ontain

BTW, my opinion is going off of what my friend from the UK has told me. kingyotoX

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

False. Universal HC != government owned healthcare. it can be regulated as well. and those system aren't volunteer. you're required to have health insurance and the price is based on income.

LJS9502_basic

everyone. that's just how insurance works too. I can't afford my cancer care? those other ppl are paying for it (well at least till the insurance co. finds a way to stop funding my care)

Crystal ball much?Jandurin

I read something similar that happened in Hawaii. They put a free healthcare system for kids or something...soon kids that already had private healthcare, moved onto the new 'free' healthcare program. It collapsed soon after.

FragStains

Exactly.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] Crystal ball much?LJS9502_basic

I read something similar that happened in Hawaii. They put a free healthcare system for kids or something...soon kids that already had private healthcare, moved onto the new 'free' healthcare program. It collapsed soon after.

FragStains

Exactly.

If Hawaii can't do it, no one can :cry:

everyone. that's just how insurance works too. I can't afford my cancer care? those other ppl are paying for it (well at least till the insurance co. finds a way to stop funding my care)

Ontain

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Jandurin"] Crystal ball much?Engrish_Major

I read something similar that happened in Hawaii. They put a free healthcare system for kids or something...soon kids that already had private healthcare, moved onto the new 'free' healthcare program. It collapsed soon after.

FragStains

Exactly.

If Hawaii can't do it, no one can :cry:

The Scandnavian countries have managed to pull it off perfectly well.