Why should we have to pay in subscription fees? My income and sales tax should be considered my subscription fee. I don't want to pay for war, I don't want to pay for corn subsidies, and I don't want to pay corporations in tax breaks for exporting work.
I want goods and services for the taxes I already fucking pay!
Jophus
· 4 months ago
Does this icon make me look fat?
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
No, but you do look like a star.
Jophus
· 4 months ago
I want my old green star but pink. I tried but I cannot photoshop for shit. :-( I felt I needed to make it more gay.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
Google "pink stars" Go to images. That should give you some to choose from. Copy one you like.
PS. I don't think you look fat. You look FABULOUS!
Jophus
· 4 months ago
I want something more bold. I've been scouring the internet.. I'll figure something out. :-)
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
A pink elephant? That would be wrong on so many levels, wouldn't it?
Best on acid or shrooms. Especially at IMax or OmniMax.
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
It looks "lovely." (ha, ha, ha)
KerrynowCampau
· 4 months ago
You look like Patrick Star
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
Jophus -- ROFLMAO! Don't worry your pretty blonde head. You still have the girlish/guyish figger!
How do you add an "icon" like that? That's pretty cool.
Jophus
· 4 months ago
Go into your disqus profile. You can make your user name show up in red like kerrynow too and it is a link, in their case it takes you to twitter.
I think everyone should have icons. it makes it easier to remember who they are.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
I like this one better.
Jophus
· 4 months ago
Thanks, advocate. I do too. I worked really hard on a some web-program to make it myself. I could draw or paint this shit in 2 seconds, but digitally? Took me forever. I want to change my user name now, but them I'm afraid no one will know who I am.
HelenRainier
· 4 months ago
I went to Disqus. I don't have the radio button that says "Admin" that will allow me to make modifications. I looked for a "Contact Us" link to send them an e-mail but can't find one of those either. I can't even find a way to change the color of my font.
Strange. Thanks any way.
Jophus
· 4 months ago
Click on your empty icon space next to where it says helen, then read more comments, then account (all the way on the top and to the right), then profile, and the first option will be userpic, hit change userpic and go from there. When you get an icon respond to this, because I want to see it!
To get the red font that works as a link, type a website in the field that says website, underneath user pic.
goneover
· 4 months ago
This is ridiculous. Charge everyone at the median $75 a month, max $300 for a family, and make up the rest with tax revenues. Sliding scale down to zero for the very poor, and up to $150 per person per month, max $600 per month per families making $100K or so, or more. No deductibles, no copays. Like the rest of the civilized world has.
vkobaya
· 4 months ago
Health care overhaul bill suffers another setback By DAVID ESPO and ERICA WERNER (Associated Press Writers) From Associated Press July 09, 2009 7:19 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - The drive to remake the nation's health care system suffered yet another setback in Congress on Thursday when a pivotal group of House Democrats demanded numerous changes in legislation the leadership was drafting on a fast track.
Someone should take the traitorous Blue Dog Democrats out and shoot them. They claim their added options will protect rural people and small healthcare providers, but the reality is that they won't limit those "protections" to rural people and "small" healthcare providers. Reality, is they are just protecting the greedy, dishonest, health insurance industy making sure they continue to massively profiteer on our sickness, suffering and death.
vkobaya
· 4 months ago
I would not be surprised that provisions the healthcare industry would want included is the right to harvest the organs of terminal clients for profit.
mf_roe
· 4 months ago
Consider this, many people receive off label drugs and treatments -- legimate drugs and medical procedures but not yet proven safe and effective for a given medical condition. This is effectively reaserch being conducted on people without proper disclouse. This practice does yield good results when a new use for a drug or procedure is proven. But it is the case that people are used as expermential animals. Much cheaper for the drug companies than proper trials and less legal hassels.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
Oh, we are gonna go there again? "Off-label" indications DO NOT mean there has been no research or documentation. I'm not going to document all the details again, but just cut to the chase. If you had cancer and your chances of survival were not good, with no drugs left to try, would you try those CA drugs with "off-label" uses for your CA that had shown some promise to give you some extra time or not. Your choice. You don't have to take 'em. There are stark choices to be made.
Dateline_Molly
· 4 months ago
The other thing about off label is that many of those drugs HAVE been tested in randomized controlled studies - just not in the U.S.! There are many many drugs being prescribed in the U.S. for conditions not recognized by the FDA. But that doesn't mean other countries haven't done their research on the same meds.
blueoysterjoe
· 4 months ago
I guess this is where I sound really naive, but this is exactly where having a representational democracy is supposed to be important. We (citizens) don't have time to get into the nitty gritty of policy details, so we ask our elected officials to do it for us.
Unfortunately, this just isn't the way it works. In a perfect world, elected officials take our deliberate ignorance of detail and act as our patrons in congress. In our world, elected officials use our deliberate ignorance of detail to undermine what is in our best interest.
It's frustrating. Big duh, I know, but it's frustrating.
Jophus
· 4 months ago
I guess we have to pay for everything provided as a right in the constitution including representation.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
My first impression is that, if you float trial balloons on a really crappy plan, you can get a majority of the public to shoot it down. Then you can come back and say there is "no support for health care reform".
After that, you can then pull another stimulus plan out of your ass instead. After all, you didn't spend a lot on health care reform.
KerrynowCampau
· 4 months ago
That leaves hubby and me out
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
During the campaign, wasn't the "wealthy" threshold $150,000? For health care, it's half of that? Isn't that going in the wrong direction for our economic situation?
libertydan
· 4 months ago
They will give us healthcare without reading the bill like most bills nowadays
nicho
· 4 months ago
You can be absolutely sure that, as long as corporate money is essential to elections, there will be no bill that in any way affects the profits of the health-care industrial complex.
They may pass something called a "public options," but it will be a sham -- and worse than a sham. It will be designed to fail and it will set back the cause of single payer universal health care for at least a generation. Opponents will point to the failed public option and say "See, we tried it, it didn't work."
And the idiot voters will believe them.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
Yeah, but who elected those people putting together the plan? The idiot voters. Raise your hand if you voted.
Jophus
· 4 months ago
We need a serious anti-capitalist movement along with the equally as serious gay rights movement.
Indigo
· 4 months ago
Naitonal Health Care, when it happens, will be a Republican initiative as unlikely as Nixon going to China. Until then, Hillarycare fails every time.
Jophus
· 4 months ago
Is it possible to bring single payer to national attention, and explain what the term means?
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
My perception is that everytime anybody says "single payer" most Americans hear "socialized medicine". Most bloggers here know they are two very different things. I would certainly favor a uniform, single payer, one option plan for all Americans. If supplements were needed, they could be employer provided or purchased independently for things such as vision, dental, prescription drugs above and beyond the basic plan, additional nursing home benefits, private duty nurse, etc.
michtom
· 4 months ago
Actually, when a poll asks about single payer universal health care, about 75% say yes, ASAP.
devlzadvocate
· 4 months ago
Not much surprises me, but that does.
heathwood
· 4 months ago
I never get the opposition to a national health care plan. Wouldn't corporations do better if they didn't have health care costs? GM would have been profitable if they didn't have health care cost...as would every company and municipality. But its not like we are getting free health care. We pay for it either by taxes or premiums...I would rather the payments I have paid for all these many years went to other health care users instead of the dreaded Insurance Companies.
Jophus
· 4 months ago
Here is one issue I would side with most corporations. It is not their responsibility to provide health care to the nation. Their taxes may go up a bit, but it would still be cheaper than paying for healthcare.
This is basically what I'm saying. Why was single-payer never being discussed? The country should at least have looked over the up and downsides. Instead we ignored it all together. It would likely be way more beneficial.
So a lot of people are afraid it is socialism, then we need to get the greatest salesman ever (Obama) out there and explain what it really means. Their minds have to be changed now or later.
Dagobert2nd
· 4 months ago
This is bullshit, because even if $75k (which I'm not saying it is) is reasonable now, it won't be in the future. They are trying to make the whole thing worthless in the long run.
Reality
· 4 months ago
The real problem is that anything designed by a committee will always be a kluge. More specifically, most members of Congress are under the influence of the ultra-powerful health care lobby and/or looking out for the interests of businesses in their districts.
The American health care system has evolved to make illness and injury extremely profitable, which is why health care inflation rates have always been many times higher than the general rate. Don't think for a minute that the health care industry is going to give up it's golden fleece willingly. It'll fight tooth and nail and eliminate anything it doesn't like from legislation either up front or in subsequent bills and amendments to bills.
Over the last 30 years, every attempt at health care reform has failed outright or turned into a useless endeavor that produced nothing but temporary, cosmetic changes. Don't expect any more from this effort.
HR 676: United States National Health Insurance Act (or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act).
jimpharo
· 4 months ago
Want to know how health care reform is looking? Check the stock prices of United Health, Pfizer, etc. They are all doing just fine.
There will not be any meaningful reform any time soon. Too many powerful people make too much money from it the way it is.
Just move to Canada. Leaving -- it's the only way to be part of a civilized society.
obamacrat
· 4 months ago
If we are going to be forced to purchase health care insurance from these bandits, how is that different than a tax ? The only difference I can see is that you would get better coverage under the type of system they have in Canada then you are likely to get here and the "tax" payments are probably less burdensome. In Canada you are covered period. Here , who knows. A "government bureaucrat would just pay the claim. Under the "take no prisoners" method of claim management in the US, you may or may NOT be covered.
obamacrat
· 4 months ago
Where's our Tommy Douglas?
jeanieous
· 4 months ago
The issue was never defined in order to have a set goal to deliver health care. That's why any plan will probably be tinkered with until there is no real benefit left. From the outset, the goal should have been - How can we provide all Americans with the same comprehensive health care that members of congress enjoy. That would have allowed any number of solutions,including striking a hard bargain with their beloved insurance companies or just allowing Medicare for all after determining how much it would cost and how to pay for it. But now, the actual benefits are begin bargained away to meet costs.
tyler
· 4 months ago
From the outset, the goal should have been - How can we provide all Americans with the same luxury cars that members of congress enjoy. That would have allowed any number of solutions,including striking a hard bargain with their beloved car companies or just allowing free cars for all after determining how much it would cost and how to pay for it with tax money. This statement doesn't make any more sense than yours. This question was never asked because medicine is a service and a business in this country, unless you change this, you cannot provide luxury or free benefits for everyone. To make this change, the gov would have to provide medical education, tort reform would be required, insurance companies would be more or less eliminated, more doctors would need to be trained, the entire payscale of the medical profession would need to be changed; doctors in France make ~55k a year, nurses in the US easily make more than this. Doctors in countries with universal healthcare also work far fewer hours than US doctors, hence the need for MANY more doctors. ...and these are just the things I can think of off the top of my head.
michtom
· 4 months ago
"medicine is a service and a business in this country" Medicine is a business in the US, not a service.
"In France, the sicker you get, the less you pay. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and critical surgeries, such as a coronary bypass, are reimbursed at 100%. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Patients suffering from colon cancer, for instance, can receive Genentech Inc.'s (DNA ) Avastin without charge. In the U.S., a patient may pay $48,000 a year.
France particularly excels in prenatal and early childhood care. Since 1945 the country has built a widespread network of thousands of health-care facilities, called Protection Maternelle et Infantile (PMI), to ensure that every mother and child in the country receives basic preventive care. Children are evaluated by a team of private-practice pediatricians, nurses, midwives, psychologists, and social workers. When parents fail to bring their children in for regular checkups, social workers are dispatched to the family home. Mothers even receive a financial incentive for attending their pre- and post-natal visits."
Healthcare reform needs two things (none of them are money). First, return the care to the hand of the physicians, everything else is called ancillary services and that is what it is. Anyone in medicine for business, cut them off, make profit in healthcare similar to profit in other similar business (possibly 10-20%). Give Doctors control of care but you need to provide them with good income, especially primary care (compare that to even a plumber). Primary care and preventive medicine is the cornerstone of sound healthcare system. That does not cost much if you get business people and lawyers out of the system. For example, Medicaid (the most vulnerable) pay doctors $30 to see a patient for follow up visit. Doctor's overhead is $90/hr. tell me how that can happen. Either, the doctors does not see the patient with Medicaid, hire a nurse to see them, see them in lightening speed, etc... We have to agree as a society what we want to see and expect from a doctor, nurse or a hospital, price that and pay for it. Instead of playing politics. It is cheaper to have free clinics all over the country to see anyone who needs general preventive care than paying that evetually for emergency room and hospital visits. Everybody pays, not the so-called rich, not some groups. If we have to pay tax, let us be fair and everyone pay tax if we want a better system. However that probably will be much much cheaper if we cut all other waste in the system paid to businesses and lawyers who survive on healthcare dollars. If you need to see a doctor, pay for the visit (these days it is sometimes not much different than co-pays). If you need a test or scan, that is where system can intervene and save money. Governement can compete with providing services thought an affordable system and can actually make money. We do not need to look at every aspect of care but the business portion. If the hospital system making 30-40% profit that means they overvalue their products and cut their nurses (who are actually providing the care) , not the CEOs. Second, the money in healthcare needs to go for care. If a patient suffered a bad outcome, there is a need for case review including doctors and lawyers with no incentive to go one way or the other and established system for compensation.
michtom
· 4 months ago
Overall, CEOs, as of 2007, made 1723 times what the average worker gets. In 1970, the ratio was 40 to 1.
And, BTW, that is really 1723: seventeen hundred and twenty-three times as much as the average worker. - The Looting of America: How Wall Street's Game of Fantasy Finance Destroyed Our Jobs, Pensions, and Prosperity—and What We Can Do About It (Paperback) by Les Leopold
michtom
· 4 months ago
What we are supposed to have is representative democracy. What we have is "representational democracy."
All Comments
I want goods and services for the taxes I already fucking pay!
PS. I don't think you look fat. You look FABULOUS!
How do you add an "icon" like that? That's pretty cool.
I think everyone should have icons. it makes it easier to remember who they are.
Strange. Thanks any way.
To get the red font that works as a link, type a website in the field that says website, underneath user pic.
By DAVID ESPO and ERICA WERNER (Associated Press Writers)
From Associated Press
July 09, 2009 7:19 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - The drive to remake the nation's health care system suffered yet another setback in Congress on Thursday when a pivotal group of House Democrats demanded numerous changes in legislation the leadership was drafting on a fast track.
Someone should take the traitorous Blue Dog Democrats out and shoot them. They claim their added options will protect rural people and small healthcare providers, but the reality is that they won't limit those "protections" to rural people and "small" healthcare providers. Reality, is they are just protecting the greedy, dishonest, health insurance industy making sure they continue to massively profiteer on our sickness, suffering and death.
Unfortunately, this just isn't the way it works. In a perfect world, elected officials take our deliberate ignorance of detail and act as our patrons in congress. In our world, elected officials use our deliberate ignorance of detail to undermine what is in our best interest.
It's frustrating. Big duh, I know, but it's frustrating.
After that, you can then pull another stimulus plan out of your ass instead. After all, you didn't spend a lot on health care reform.
They may pass something called a "public options," but it will be a sham -- and worse than a sham. It will be designed to fail and it will set back the cause of single payer universal health care for at least a generation. Opponents will point to the failed public option and say "See, we tried it, it didn't work."
And the idiot voters will believe them.
This is basically what I'm saying. Why was single-payer never being discussed? The country should at least have looked over the up and downsides. Instead we ignored it all together. It would likely be way more beneficial.
So a lot of people are afraid it is socialism, then we need to get the greatest salesman ever (Obama) out there and explain what it really means. Their minds have to be changed now or later.
The American health care system has evolved to make illness and injury extremely profitable, which is why health care inflation rates have always been many times higher than the general rate. Don't think for a minute that the health care industry is going to give up it's golden fleece willingly. It'll fight tooth and nail and eliminate anything it doesn't like from legislation either up front or in subsequent bills and amendments to bills.
Over the last 30 years, every attempt at health care reform has failed outright or turned into a useless endeavor that produced nothing but temporary, cosmetic changes. Don't expect any more from this effort.
HR 676: United States National Health Insurance Act (or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act).
There will not be any meaningful reform any time soon. Too many powerful people make too much money from it the way it is.
Just move to Canada. Leaving -- it's the only way to be part of a civilized society.
This statement doesn't make any more sense than yours. This question was never asked because medicine is a service and a business in this country, unless you change this, you cannot provide luxury or free benefits for everyone.
To make this change, the gov would have to provide medical education, tort reform would be required, insurance companies would be more or less eliminated, more doctors would need to be trained, the entire payscale of the medical profession would need to be changed; doctors in France make ~55k a year, nurses in the US easily make more than this. Doctors in countries with universal healthcare also work far fewer hours than US doctors, hence the need for MANY more doctors.
...and these are just the things I can think of off the top of my head.
Medicine is a business in the US, not a service.
"In France, the sicker you get, the less you pay. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and critical surgeries, such as a coronary bypass, are reimbursed at 100%. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Patients suffering from colon cancer, for instance, can receive Genentech Inc.'s (DNA ) Avastin without charge. In the U.S., a patient may pay $48,000 a year.
France particularly excels in prenatal and early childhood care. Since 1945 the country has built a widespread network of thousands of health-care facilities, called Protection Maternelle et Infantile (PMI), to ensure that every mother and child in the country receives basic preventive care. Children are evaluated by a team of private-practice pediatricians, nurses, midwives, psychologists, and social workers. When parents fail to bring their children in for regular checkups, social workers are dispatched to the family home. Mothers even receive a financial incentive for attending their pre- and post-natal visits."
From http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07...
Read the whole thing.
If you need to see a doctor, pay for the visit (these days it is sometimes not much different than co-pays). If you need a test or scan, that is where system can intervene and save money. Governement can compete with providing services thought an affordable system and can actually make money. We do not need to look at every aspect of care but the business portion. If the hospital system making 30-40% profit that means they overvalue their products and cut their nurses (who are actually providing the care) , not the CEOs.
Second, the money in healthcare needs to go for care. If a patient suffered a bad outcome, there is a need for case review including doctors and lawyers with no incentive to go one way or the other and established system for compensation.
And, BTW, that is really 1723: seventeen hundred and twenty-three times as much as the average worker. - The Looting of America: How Wall Street's Game of Fantasy Finance Destroyed Our Jobs, Pensions, and Prosperity—and What We Can Do About It (Paperback)
by Les Leopold
That's where you've gone wrong, blueoysterjoe.