It’s the CHICAGO WAY…we didn’t know that when we got Obama we got all the benefits of decades of corrupt government, crony capitalism, favor trading, thuggery, graft and sleeze. Obama learned at the feet of the masters
Well, I got you down to three short paragraphs. I’ll call that a victory. lol
I wish I was going to be around to say…" I told you so."
I think I remember hearing that in 2008, when the Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate and majority in the House. What happened in 2010?
I never worry about the rich, and rarely think of them at all. Around here, it’s impossible to tell the rich from the poor by appearances. The local joke is that the only way you can tell which person is a factory worker and which one is the millionaire is that the factory worker’s pickup truck is newer.
Bendan:
I’m sorry, but there is nothing ambiguous about that statement. That is the most racist statement I have read on this forum.
Agreed.
Is this sarcastic? I read the article which pointed out the Illinois approach of hitting the taxpayers with covering the over reaching union demands has been a disaster while Scott Walker’s approach of asking for some contribution to pensions, releasing employees from having dues extracted without their permission and reducing collective bargaining from everything to certain areas of compensation has been quite successful for the PEOPLE of Wisconsin.
) But, what is truly significant - one Democrat broke ranks from the lock-step nonesense that Harry Reid has had them march to - and voted against it! Maybe there is some hope for at least a few Dems.
)I particularly appreciate the first paragraph since I hear from well meaning people that “healthcare is a right” when in fact slavery has been against the law for over a century. Unfortunately our society has focused on rights instead of balancing it with responsibilities. While most doctors I know are compassionate folks and quite honestly ours don’t have a clue about a patient’s insurance (or lack thereof) they do have to keep the doors open, pay their employees, the rent, supplies, malpractice etc. When I started with this clinic Medicare paid $5181 for a specific surgical procedure. That was in l987. They now pay $1783 for the same procedure. How many of us could accept less than 50% of our compensation from 1987 today? At any rate when someone says they have the RIGHT to a professional’s services without any sort of compensation (assuming they are not destitute) that does smack of servitude. And instead of appealing to our better angels, our current administration has made it MORE difficult to provide charity patients because of Obamacare. It could have been done differently and actually increased access and decreased costs…but then what would the trial lawyers, big insurance companies, and big pharma have done seeing their oxes being gored?Hi, LisaA,
Thanks for the clarification.
Well, unless we are going to turn physicians into indentured servants - they are free to accept or reject any form of payment they wish - they just can’t accept Medicare from Patient ‘A’ but refuse it for Patient ‘B’. Honestly, as bad as it may sound, either the government pays for the services they have been promising everyone (and have others pay for it like a genuine Ponzi scheme!) or it will experience more docs not only limiting their practice but shutting their doors.
And as far as old Billionare Buffett - well, in reality, there just aren’t enough of those guys, and even millionares, too, that if you cut off the access to SS pension benefits that it would make any difference in the solvence of this government program! This, however, is fully in keeping with Obama’s class envy strategy - creating the illusion that ‘fairness’ exists and somehow you have been victimized by those ‘wealthy’ people (of which Mr. & Mrs Obama are in that group!!!
God bless
I am not saying it does. I could be a consequentialist libertarian supporting anarcho-capitalism. But I would support it because I thought it was the most effective way to organize a society and bring happiness and well-being to people’s lives. I would not support it because I thought rich people really deserved their money. My problem is with that mentality - a mentality that leads to a lot of ill-feeling towards the poor. Just listen to the ugly and hateful rhetoric towards the poor in today’s political climate. Personally I am disgusted by it.
You’re so far off it’s not even funny. I am interested in doing what works, whatever that is. We should strive towards fairness where it’s possible, but we will always have differences in talents and capacities. We ought to give incentives for people to develop and exercise those talents and capacities, but the reasons for why we give the incentives matters a great deal.
Where have I ever said the poor deserve to be poor?
I didn’t say that you did. The plea was made to certain types who seem enamored with what has become a marriage between deontological libertarianism/anarcho capitalism and religion. I think it’s utter nonsense, and I’ve had enough of it.Where have I ever said the poor deserve to be poor?
First point: Patient dumping. Possibly I used the wrong terminology. Physicians are slow to take on patients with chronic conditions and very eager to take on well patients now, because the well patients (“preventive care”) are well reimbursed, whereas endless repeats for chronic patients are less so. The relative reimbursements for both have recently changed. But I will also add that “patient dumping” in the sense of finding “noncompliance” and refusing to continue with the patient because of it. Good examples of that are “not losing weight as instructed”, “continuing to smoke, ama”; “not taking his meds as instructed”; “noncompliance with diet”, the sorts of things that poorer patients fail at. It’s a bit like finding a way to fire an employee “for cause” so you don’t have to pay unemployment benefits or run afoul of EEOC.Hi, Ridgerunner,
But, there are at least two area where I do disagree:
In 1986 EMTALA became federal law which prohibits patient dumping - and provides significant penalties for those who try to do this. I have worked in an Emergency Department as an RN and can tell you that, at least at this hospital, the Federal Law was being followed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
SS and Medicare for Billionaire Buffett? You bet! He earned it and according to Federal Law neither of these programs are means tested - and it has been that way since 1935. Ultimately, any of us could claim that he does not ‘need’ it (but, he was just diagnosed with early prostate cancer … so, who knows how he will address the payment for these new health related expenses!) But that is not the issue. If we want to exclude certain groups (like those with 10-figure balance sheets) from receiving a particular benefit - then just change the law. To suggest it should be taken away is really inappropriate and actually threatens all of us by encouraging arbitrary decisions against individuals. If someone in government decided that you did not deserve a benefit you would other-wise be entitled to - how would you feel?
The really good news for eveyone is that the Senate buffeted Obama’s Buffet Rule (yes, an outrageous pun if ever there was one!
This country is the jewel it is because we not only encourage innovation, invention and success verbally, we allow individuals to financially benefit from their contributions. Naturally, this is a generalization - as the Bank Bailout proved … but, for the most part I think this is the way the system is designed to work and the way most people want it to work. It is very hard to ‘hate the rich’ when we want to be counted in their ranks.
God bless