BS: US Health Care Reform

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 03:12 PM

It's a hell of a lot less expensive in the counties that have universal care than it is here. We pay double the amount of money for health care in the United States than other developed countries do. So while it's not free, it's a hell of a lot cheaper in those countries than it is here, everyone is covered, and they get better results overall.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 03:47 PM

There seems to be a conservative notion that it's better to pay 100 dollars to a private entity than pay 10 dollars in taxes for the same services.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 03:58 PM

That's the efficiency of the marketplace. Dollars flow quickly upward.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 10:27 PM

I think it would make a great deal of sense to have public health coverage, but I can't see where anything that's been proposed so far nails down the details. Congress and the President need to agree on something to present to the American people.
             Max Baucus(sp?) presented his plan, and Sens. Rockerfeller and Menendez immediately came out against it. And they both sit on the same committee.
             How is anybody expected to make any sense out of this?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 19 Sep 09 - 11:06 PM

It sure won't be easy. I think the "Baucus plan" is America's Healthy Future Act here:

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/091609%20Americas_Healthy_Future_Act.pdf

As described and discussed by the CBO here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10572/09-16-Proposal_SFC_Chairman.pdf

Scheduled for mark up with a tidal wave of proposed amendments on Tuesday.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 09:57 AM

""You mean the fact that I am PRESENTLY paying a percentage of each paycheck for Medicare/medicaid ( like every other employed American) will now mean I pay how many times that to the fund?""




That's what stands in the way of healthcare for millions of Americans. The stupid, stubborn, refusal to learn the plain facts which are there for all to see.

"I've got mine, and I'm not paying a penny of my hard earned cash to support losers who haven't got the gumption to find a job with a medical plan as good as mine."

1. There really IS no such thing as a free lunch. Everything your government does is paid for with your taxes.

2. If you have a National health scheme which covers everybody free at point of use, you no longer need to pay a private insurance company massive premiums for a service which precludes payment for pre-existing conditions, and only pays a part of what you do incur in the way of treatment fees.

3. Because of 2. you will find that your total payout is less overall, and you will receive better service, because it ain't the doctors who say you must pay for your new hip if you had a football injury at college forty years ago.

4. If you are well off, and prefer to be ripped off by insurers, you will still be able to do so, and because they will be competing for your business with the National system, the premiums will be much lower.


Bottom line?......For every extra dollar you spend in tax, you will save much more in premiums, even if you still use private insurers for part of your care.

It's a no-brainer.....It's already working that way all over the Western Hemisphere.

Now, you may have company supplied care now, but can you really be sure where you will be a year from now?....Two years?....Ten years?

Of course not.

WHAT PRICE PEACE OF MIND for you, and those you care about?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 01:35 PM

Of course, one element of all of this is, some union health care programs have better coverage than the public option is intended to offer, so some union workers would be put in the position of having to pay premiums to get the increased coverage. That puts some Democrats in a pretty tough spot.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 01:38 PM

People who like their current programs would keep them.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruc
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 02:05 PM

CarolC,

"having everyone pay a slightly higher percentage of their income into the system "

You mean increase the tax they pay.

Which makes Obama a LIAR. Can't have that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 02:15 PM

People who like their current employer provided insurance benefits would keep them if their employers choose to continue them in an unmodified form.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 02:31 PM

A surcharge on Cadillac plans to help subsidize the currently uninsured is offset by reduced government funding of care to the currently uninsured AND reduced cost-shifting to other private payors. Call it a tax or don't but you can't help ptovide health care or health insurance to your neighbors in need for free.

Some article, I think in WSJ, says the CBO cost projections for the Baucus proposal are more inclusive and accurate than the HR 3200 estimates, so that apples to apples it is probably considerably less expensive to the federal budget.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 04:10 PM

It doesn't make him a liar if he decreases their taxes in some other area, resulting in no net increase in their total taxes, which he has said he will do.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 08:51 PM

I think it's a waste of breath, Carol. They don't really give a good Goddam whether it's cheaper or not, and they don't give a damn about those who suffer. They only care about the possibility they might have to part with a little cash, and they aren't smart enough to see what they will save.

The days of the good neighbour in the US of A seem to have died.

All they are interested in is their own benefit, but if the day ever comes when they lose that nice comfortable job based cover, just listen to them howl for somebody to help THEN.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 09:10 PM

"The days of the good neighbour in the US of A seem to have died."


                In the "days of the good neighbor," you had some control over who your neighbor was, and whether they were legally in the country or not.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Sep 09 - 11:54 PM

Nobody's ever had any control over who their neighbors were in this country except in the days of segregation, when White people knew they wouldn't have to live with Black people as their neighbors. But there's never been a way to know whether or not the recent immigrants living nearby were here legally or not.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 06:04 AM

Whether someone is legally in the country or not is completely irrelevant to whether they are a good neighbour or not. Of course if you think it is, you wouldn't be what I'd call a good neighbour, but that's a differemt matter.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 08:03 AM

I think having too many neighbors is what's led to all of this!

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 08:26 AM

As I mentioned above, 45,000 people die each year because of lack of access to medical care. I found out that's one person every 13 minutes. It's also the equivalent of fifteen 9/11 events every year. We have spent trillions of dollars fighting wars supposedly because 9/11, but some people think we can't spend any money at home to keep people safe from dying from treatable illnesses. Such people are not entitled to call themselves "pro-life".

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 08:29 AM

That should say, "45,000 people in the US die each year because of lack of access to medical care". I'm sure the numbers are far higher if one includes the rest of the third world.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 01:09 PM

As long as money exists, Doug, nothing will be free except the air you breathe...and people's advice. ;-)

No, universal health care such as is provided in Canada is not free...it's paid for by our taxes. However, we pay LESS tax per capita than Americans do for our health care, and we're ALL covered by it.

You pay MORE tax per capita than we do for government-guaranteed health coverage, many of you ALSO have to pay private health insurance companies big bucks on TOP of that, and many others are NOT covered at all.

And that's why you're way behind most of the developed world when it comes to health care.

Do you understand, Doug, that if 100,000 people all share in the support of each other's health care by paying an equal share through taxes...that ALL of them can afford it when a FEW of them actually need medical treatment? That's how the Canadian system works, and we can all easily afford our own share of the cost, BECAUSE we all take responsibility for EACH OTHER. We share the cost.

I pay less than $1,000 a year in my yearly taxes, Doug, to make my contribution to health care in Canada...and for that I get complete coverage by the Canadian system if I get sick and need medical help.

Match that.

No one ever said it was "free" here. We just said it was a fair and affordable system that leaves no citizen out in the cold when they are in need.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 01:43 PM

Clean air doesn't come free any more.

Ifvcourse, as with many other things, the people who dirty it for everyone don't have to pay the cost. I suppose you could call that a "free lunch".

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 06:20 PM

FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax
         
Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 12 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax. Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance — and fining them if they don't — isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

And the reason the fines are in the legislation is to enforce the coverage requirement.

"If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that's a tax," said Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. "If you don't pay, the person who's going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS."

Democrats aren't the first to propose that individuals be required to carry health insurance and fined if they refuse. The conservative Heritage Foundation called for such a mandate in the 1990s' health care debate, although its proposal differed from the ones pending in Congress. Heritage has since dropped the idea and now favors using tax credits to encourage people to buy coverage — carrots and not sticks.

During the 2008 political campaign, Obama opposed making coverage mandatory because of the costs. His position has shifted now that it's becoming clear such a requirement will be part of any legislation that Congress sends him. Conservative activists are calling it a violation of his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

"This is exactly what George Bush Sr. did when he said he wouldn't raise taxes, and it cost him the next election," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Obama is doing the same thing, but he's insulting people by telling them that if you don't call it a big purple banana, somehow it wouldn't be a tax."

Some liberals acknowledge that Obama might be vulnerable on the insurance requirement. But they say most people will understand as long as the legislation provides enough of a subsidy to make the coverage affordable. That's a central issue this week as the Senate Finance Committee starts voting on legislation.

"I think it's a metaphysical question as to whether it's a tax or not," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. "The real question that will determine whether people are upset is whether the insurance is affordable."

In an interview that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Obama insisted that the insurance requirement is not a tax.

"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said. "What it's saying is...that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.

"Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance," Obama added. "Nobody considers that a tax increase.

"You just can't make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," he added.

But a Democratic staff description of Sen. Max Baucus' bill calls the proposed fines an "excise tax." Penalties of up to $950 for individuals and $3,800 for families would be imposed on those who don't get coverage.

The House bill uses a complex formula to calculate the penalties, calling them a "tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage."

The coverage mandate is part of a political bargain under which the insurance industry would agree to take all applicants, regardless of prior medical history.

"If we're going to have coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions, it makes sense," said economist Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. "Otherwise people will come in the door the day they get sick." He sees no distinction between the requirement to get coverage and the fines themselves.

"The fact that it is imposed on people and they have no choice in paying it, and the fact that it's administered through the tax system all make it look like a tax," Williams said. The center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

It wouldn't be the first asterisk added to Obama's campaign pledge on taxes. Earlier this year, he signed a tobacco tax increase to pay for children's health insurance. Even that can be read as a violation of his expansive campaign promise.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly promised "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 06:41 PM

If you are required by law to register your motor vehicle, and pay the registration fee, and if found not having done so incurs a fine (and you still have to register it) you could argue that the fine is a tax, or that the registration fee is a tax, but you would really be stretching the meaning of the word considerably.

A fine for non-compliance is not an income tax. It is not a sales tax. It may be taxing but for cry-i let's quit the semantic quibbles. If you have a better plan, say so.

If all you can do is come up with "Obama stinks" stuff instead of specific ideas for better management, save your ASCII.


A

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 06:53 PM

sorry, no cookie on this machine.


Amos,


"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly promised "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." "


So, it is OK for him to lie for a good resaon- But that is what you stated Bush should be impeached for.

I await your call to impeach Obama for his lies.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 07:02 PM

Aren't Americans compelled by law to have motor insurance? What's the difference in principle? Is that a tax?

Or is that something bruce would like to see ended?

Of course my assumption there might be wrong, and in fact it might be that Americans doy not have to carry motor insurance. After all, that'd be no stupider than not having universal health cover...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 08:14 PM

** I ** have no problem with a president telling false statements for the good of the country- it is Amos who feels that presidents should be impeached for that. Except if he approves of them, of course. THEN it is ok.

I already pay for medical care for 110 million Americans, as does every working American. Medicare and Medicaid take 1.45% of each pre-tax dollar. So please let me know who is not already covered- the poor get Medicaid, the retired get Medicare. If they are working , they have income and can pay for it just like I do- most ( if not all) states have programns that already cover those who cannot get commercial insurance ( MHIP in MD.)

So please tell me why I should pay any more.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 08:33 PM

BB-
"So please tell me why I should pay any more. " I guess because they hate you, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 09:16 PM

14¢ out of ten dollars?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 09:40 PM

Holy crap you're right.

http://thomas.loc.gov/medicare/anne.html

so triple it to 43 cents out of ten dollars and solve ALL of our problems. Wow. That's perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 09:51 PM

Some posters on this thread seem to believe, because their health care is provided by their government, it is free. Does that mean that in those countries there really IS a free lunch?

DougR

Doug: Are you actually as much of an imbecile as posting this sort of drivel makes you appear?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 10:44 PM

There are many people who are not covered, and who cannot get coverage. JtS and I are two of them. We have pre-existing conditions (one of which is our age), and we are self-employed. So no insurance company is willing to insure us for an amount that we can afford, and we don't have access to employer based coverage. I feel quite confident that the amount we would have to pay is many thousands of dollars per year more than what the person in this thread who is questioning the existence of people who can't get coverage is paying for their insurance. Our state does not have any program that helps people who can't get coverage. Most states do not have any such programs.

And there are millions of other people who are in exactly the same situation as we are. 45,000 of them are dying every year for lack of access to medical care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 10:51 PM

One further point... the person in this thread who is questioning the existence of people who can't get coverage is already paying a lot of money in taxes to pay medical bills of those who can't get coverage. Such people often end up in emergency rooms with catastrophic problems and are unable to pay. It's the taxpayers who pay for those very expensive emergency room services. If those same people had access to good care before their conditions become serious, the taxpayers would pay a lot less in taxes for their care. So that would help everyone's taxes go down.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 10:55 PM

Where we stand in a nutshell:

Fast forward: Healthcare reform
From Public Affairs | 21 September 2009

BERKELEY —As President Barack Obama appeared on five Sunday morning news shows to discuss his healthcare plan, the NewsCenter queried several members of the Berkeley faculty for their insights into the debate. We asked about their hopes for a comprehensive healthcare plan, the compromises they expect to see, and their predictions for what Congress will decide.

Stephen Shortell, dean of the School of Public Health and professor of health policy and management
Any comprehensive healthcare plan that is meaningful must be affordable, accessible, and sustainable. What I think is going to happen is that by the end of the year, the President and Congress will be able to claim victory on something that they can label "healthcare reform." But, it will probably be far short of what is needed.

I certainly expect that there will be expanded coverage, that claims will no longer be rejected because of pre-existing conditions, that insurance coverage will be mandated for all and that insurance exchanges will be established at state and regional levels. There is actually considerable agreement on both sides of the aisle on those things. The survival of the public plan option is much less certain.

Not having some form of competition to private insurers will be disappointing. It would also be disappointing if the plan that passes fails to enact significant reforms to the payment system to restructure the way healthcare is delivered by hospitals, clinicians, and other providers. Health professionals should be given incentives and rewards based on quality and outcomes of care and not on the quantity of care delivered. The focus should be on rewarding cost-effective care and on investing in nutrition, physical activity, and tobacco-cessation programs

Melissa Rodgers, associate director, Berkeley Center on Health, Economic & Family Security
My greatest hope is that Congressional Democrats will take the long view and seize the historic opportunity they have to pave the way for a society in which no one lacks access to necessary healthcare. To this end, I hope Congress will pass a bill that includes a strong public plan: a health-insurance program that, like Medicare, is provided by the government.

I would be greatly disappointed by a compromise that fails to include a public option. Private insurance companies have demonstrated their commitment to their bottom line over the needs of the public; and they have also failed to rein in costs. I am concerned that Democrats will abandon the public plan. I am also concerned that employer contribution requirements will be watered down to a fee that does not create a real incentive for employers to cover their workers. Other probable compromises that concern me are cuts — in order to limit the bill's price tag — to subsidies for working families and the near-elderly, such that meaningful coverage will remain unaffordable to many. Finally, it disappoints me, but does not surprise me, that the proposals exclude undocumented immigrants.

I do predict that Congress will pass, and President Obama will sign, a comprehensive overhaul of the health-care system with a mandate that all individuals have health insurance, an "exchange" through which individuals and small businesses will be able to purchase insurance coverage, subsidies to make that coverage more affordable, private insurance market reforms, and Medicaid expansions.

Ken Jacobs, labor-policy specialist, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment
We have the greatest opportunity for meaningful health reform since the passage of Medicare. The proposals in congress are based on shared risk and shared responsibility. Both of those elements must be maintained in the final bill. Shared risk means creating a common risk pool for small businesses and individuals who do not have coverage on the job. Insurers would have to compete on price and quality, not cherry picking the healthy and dropping those who are not. A robust public option, as one of the choices in the exchange, is vital to help keep costs down and increase competition.

Shared risk will not work without shared responsibility. In the House and Senate HELP proposals, individuals are required to purchase coverage and employers to provide coverage that meets a certain minimum standard or to pay into the exchange. If the employer requirement is removed, the cost of reform to the federal government will increase considerably. One area that has not received the attention it deserves is the issue of affordability for consumers. We cannot require people to purchase coverage they cannot afford. The House and HELP bills would provide subsidies for low- and middle-income families if the cost of coverage exceeds a certain percent of their income. Senate Finance is proposing to reduce the subsidies to bring costs down. That would be a major mistake; it risks generating backlash in the middle class against reform. I predict Congress will get it done. The cost of inaction is too great.

William H. Dow, Henry J. Kaiser Associate Professor of Health Economics
A truly bipartisan health-care bill now looks quite unlikely, so the challenge at this point is for the Democrats to converge on a bill they can all compromise on, while bringing along at least one Republican vote in the Senate to avoid filibuster.

Forging a compromise will be no small feat, as Democrats are still quite divided on important issues such as the extent of subsidies for low-income individuals, and hence the overall cost of the bill, as well as the extent to which those costs are to be paid for through Medicare cuts and different types of new taxes. This is in addition to such contentious issues as the "public option." Many of these disagreements are based on disputes for which we have very imperfect analysis to guide us, given the difficulty of projecting the effects of different reform elements.
The real horse-trading will likely not happen until late night sessions sometime in November, as Congress works to adjourn. But there are already some signs of flexibility emerging, in part led by President Obama's concessions during his speech to Congress. The President has signaled significant new flexibility on issues such as the public option, taxation of high-value health benefits, and malpractice reform. It will take an all-out effort by the White House, though, to convince and coerce Congress to pass some compromise bill

The exact nature of the eventual compromise is hard to predict, but the general outlines have become much clearer. Democrats appear largely agreed that reform should focus foremost on reducing the number of uninsured. The most likely compromise bill would include an expansion of Medicaid to perhaps 133% of the poverty line; insurance- premium subsidies for other low/middle income persons; a mandate that all individuals buy health insurance; and some provisions incentivizing employers to offer insurance. The trick will be to find a middle ground whereby subsidies are large enough that lower- income individuals could afford to purchase insurance, hence making the individual mandate credible, but not so large that more fiscally conservative Democrats would oppose the bill as too expensive. The current Congressional proposals offer somewhat different combinations of subsidies and costs, but any of these would likely reduce the number of uninsured Americans by tens of millions.

The complementary aim of slowing the growth of health-care costs, however, appears unlikely to be tackled this year. Although this is a primary goal of Republicans, and an important secondary goal for Democrats, there are not many effective tools available for achieving it. The current Congressional bills do include numerous provisions designed to reduce cost growth, many of which may be useful for making the health care system somewhat more efficient; as a whole though, they are unlikely to bend the cost curve of projected future spending significantly. In studying those health-care systems that have more successfully slowed cost growth in recent decades, it appears that the key tools have been cost controls imposed by governments. While there are some examples of cost controls being used in the U.S., such as in the Veteran's Administration system or in Maryland's government panel that limits health care provider reimbursement rates in the state, the fears of government ineptitude are salient enough that such approaches are not currently politically feasible as part of broader health reform.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 11:02 PM

BB - "Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance — and fining them if they don't — isn't the same thing as a tax increase."

Hell, BB, it's a lot worse than a tax increase! It's a blatantly obvious gift to a bunch of big profit-making health insurance companies to force the public to become their customers whether the public is willing to or not. It's graft and corruption posing as a health insurance plan.

And that is what Dennis Kucinich has been saying all along, that what the government is doing is they are playing ball with the private health insurance companies and giving THEM help, not helping the general public.

And guess why that is? Because lobbying by private industry controls your government, that's why.

You should be getting upset about that, not drifing into a petty side issue about whether to call this graft a "tax" or not.

It would be a tax if the money was going to the government...but it looks like most of the money is going to go to the private health insurers to me.

I do not for a moment believe that either the Democratic or the Republican parties are going to come to the aid of the general public in the USA, because the public is not whom they serve. They just pretend to do that. They really serve the great Oligarchy of private corporate interests who feed on your society like a bunch of bloated vultures.

All this bipartisan squabbling between Democrats and Republicans (and their naive supporters) misses the real point: that your government has been hijacked long ago and is now just a compliant tool of corporate business interests...no matter WHO wins the damned election.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 21 Sep 09 - 11:42 PM

I just noticed something BB: That article is saying the mandate to get coverage for yourself is itself a "tax." They're not even talking about the surcharges on others as the "tax" in question.

How the hell can we be bitching about telling the free riders to get their hands out of the public purse and incur some expenses of their own to get coverage?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 10:48 AM

""In the "days of the good neighbor," you had some control over who your neighbor was, and whether they were legally in the country or not.""

Well, I wouldn't let it worry you Rig.

Thanks to the neighbourly attitude of people like you, 45,000 of those neighbours are dying each year, so if you can delay change long enough, you'll be rid of them all.

Of course 90% of them will be perfectly legal citizens, down on their luck, but Hey!...Can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, can you?

I think, on the whole, I'd prefer the illegals for neighbours. They've probably got rather more of the milk of human kindness.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 04:11 PM

"I'd prefer the illegals for neighbours. They've probably got rather more of the milk of human kindness."

               Yes, the get it through the WIC program. I get stuck behind them all the time at the super market.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 04:39 PM

I never forget what Benito Juarez once said, Rig:

"Poor Mexico. So far from God and so near the United States."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 05:30 PM

It's off-topic, but just for the record:

Mexico is one of ten wealthiest countries in the world.

It has oil, gold, silver, and other natural resources which should make it a world leader.

Mexico has mountains, fertile valleys, rivers and a amazing amount of coastline. Lots of warm water harbors and fishing.

Proximity to the US is not the problem. Their society with "elites" at the top and "peons" at the bottom. That is the problem. They have no real "middle class" and people seldom move up in social position.

They have also been attempting to increase their power by a population explosion. Mexico had but 18 million people in 1920. There are now about 160 million Mexicans, 40 million of whom are in the United States, some legally and some illegally.

The American people have no clear plan how the help Mexico and nobody on either side of the border would cooperate enough to make any plan work.

So, here we are.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 05:39 PM

They have also been attempting to increase their power by a population explosion.

Not just off topic, off planet...

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 05:59 PM

You mean they're NOT fucking their way to world supremacy, McGrath??

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 06:04 PM

You are quite right, pdq, that the Mexicans have mostly suffered because of dictatorial and corrupt rule by a tiny and rich elite over a population of peons.

However, they have also suffered much from their proximity to the USA, because the USA has waged some wars of convenience with the Mexicans, primarily for the purpose of stealing some of their best northern lands.

(The Texan war of independence was sort of an indirect case of that...but not directly attributable to actions by the US government itself...rather actions by American emigres to the area, and those actions were in some respects quite justified, I would say.)

The other wars between the USA and Mexico, however, were very much to the benefit of the USA and were due to American government policy. They resulted in Mexico losing what is now California and the American Southwest...plus being invaded a couple of times.

Mexicans know that and they have not forgotten it.

On the other hand, they have certainly also benefited from trade with the USA over the years.

As you can see...I am, as usual, quite willing to look at both sides of the picture. It's seldom a case of either side being "all good" or "all bad" when it comes to such situations.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 06:05 PM

"'They have also been attempting to increase their power by a population explosion.'"

"Not just off topic, off planet..."


                But true! Very very true.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 06:28 PM

I think that the powers running Mexico would be delighted to reduce the national birthrate if they could figure out how to...

You usually have a proportionately higher birthrate in lower income populations. This is true all over the world, not just in Mexico. When people become more affluent, the birthrate declines.

One place though where the birthrate has been drastically reduced through direct government policy is in China where people have been strongly encouraged to have single child families. It seems to be creating some social problems now for the Chinese, because the children from single child families are not as accustomed to sharing and getting along with other people as children who have grown up with brothers and sisters.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 06:43 PM

Little Hawk,

You only need to adjust your way of thinking a little and you will be nearer the Truth.

Think of the northern 40% of what is now Mexico as Indian Territory. No different than the rest of North America, Canada included.

These Indian tribes were historically bullied by the true Mexicans who were native to the plateau area around Mexico City.

Many tribes including the Kikapoo (Texas), the Papago (Arizona) and the Apache were divided when the border between the US and Mexico was finalized (see Gadsden Purchase).

The Spanish were bad enough, bringing disease and forcing the conversion to Roman Catholicism, but the Meijas were intolerable. The California and Texas Indians joined the Anglos and most Spanish in rejecting the claims that the new (1821) Mexican independant government made. The despute lasted from 1821- 1853 when a treaty was signed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 07:16 PM

The Mexican elite has benefited from trade with the US, perhaps, but the poor, the ones who are coming to the US in such great numbers, definitely have been hurt by it. Many of them are farmers who are unable to compete with the cheap, subsidized agricultural products with which US is flooding the Mexican market. That's why they're coming here instead of staying home with their families.

I find it ironic when Bush supporters criticize countries like Mexico for having no middle class, considering how determined the Bush administration was to eliminate the middle class in this country (and how much damage they were successful in doing to the middle class here). And also how resistant they are to supporting any measures that would help the middle class in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 07:19 PM

And how did those tribes that sided with the US against the Spanish fare under the US government after it took over their lands?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 07:35 PM

If you are asking "how did the divided tribes fair on the US side vs the Mexican side" the answer is obvious. I know people who have worked on both sides and the Mexicans treat their independant tribes like shit.

Otherwise, your question makes no sense. Many Californicos (ethnic Spanish) joined the Indians and Anglos and sent the enthnic Mexicans home. The numbers involved in the Bear Flag Republic are tiny: about 5000 Spanish, 700 Mexicans (mostly grunt labor) and perhaps as little as 350 Anglos. The Indians, with a population of 100,000, had the rightful claim to the area which was to become California.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 07:39 PM

And the US government treated those tribes well after it took over the lands that had been previously held by the Spanish?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 08:34 PM

""You usually have a proportionately higher birthrate in lower income populations. This is true all over the world, not just in Mexico. When people become more affluent, the birthrate declines.""

Unless of course the country in question is hag ridden by Catholic clergy, and denied the means of effective birth control by an omnipotent cleric who has no idea what effect unbridled breeding can have on a population deprived of the food, water, and industry necessary to an exploding population.

That's the true reason for this population increase, much as it may discomfit the "Christians", so called, of the USA.

Don T.