Clinton unveils mandatory health care insurance plan

[diesel96]

Since you can't talk rationally to a Conservative, let me expand your horizons with Republican Ideology. When it comes to health care, favoring a leaner government does not excuse the plight for the 46 million Americans who have no health insurance. Our health care system is not only unfair to American citizens but also to American corporations. Our largest corporations, the economic base for millions of American jobs, pay billions of dollars in employee and retiree health care costs while many of their foreign competitors are not required to do so. The United States needs universal health care to remain a nation devoted to freedom and to remain competitive in a globalized world.

From a "moral" standpoint, it is a shame and an outrage that in the wealthiest country in the world, almost 15 percent of our population has no health insurance. It becomes even more outrageous when leaving people without coverage is costing the government as well as the American taxpayer more money than it would to provide a reasonable standard of care. Recently I've read a bipartisan group of 150 major corporations, unions, health care organizations, religious groups and pension providers presented an analysis to Congress, which found that switching to a universal health care program could save the U.S. government $125 billion annually by 2010.

Providing health care as a basic service is also in line with conservative ideology concerning so called "personal responsibility" and "merit"(more like everyman for himself). Not worrying about escalating health care costs will allow individuals to hold steady jobs and make ends meet more easily. Uninsured families would be free to engage in private enterprise without the burden of paying for health care. They might choose to spend more money on consumer goods, thereby stimulating the economy, or to save money so they can send their kids to better schools and universities, thus making our workforce more competitive.

The American taxpayer and the uninsured will not be the only beneficiaries of universal health care. Corporations like General Motors, Boeing, Ford and Exxon that employ millions of Americans might save billions of dollars. By reducing health care costs to our businesses, we are creating excess capital, which in turn aids corporate growth and global competitiveness. In other words, globalization renders it impossible for American corporations to compete as long as they must pay for employee health care. Lowering health care costs would make American corporations more profitable and could save thousands of American jobs. Instead of outsourcing them creating more unemployment and more uninsured.

Again, to educate the minds of Reps' skeptics, universal health care does not mean that the American taxpayer is going to foot the bill for 100 percent of all health care costs for all Americans. That is socialized health care, which is vastly different from universal health care. Universal health care only means that everyone is covered. Depending on the program we put in place, the government could be paying only for those who cannot afford health insurance on their own. Nobody is advocating a 100 percent government controlled and managed health care plan. I believe letting insurance companies compete to provide insurance to Americans will help to lower costs. I simply oppose the denial of care to anyone born or naturalized as an American citizen.

This nation so blessed with wealth and power unmatched in history must provide health care for all its citizens. It must not fail its corporations by forcing them to compete against foreign rivals whose governments help them remain competitive. Universal health care can benefit both the American worker and corporate America, and it is uncommon for such different interests to align so perfectly. You uniformed conservatives must not let your opposition to big government blind you from the economic and social reality that is the necessity of health care for all Americans.

 

[av8torntn]

We have a health crisis in USA what part of that do you not understand.
I feel like I am talking to A alcoholic who is in denial because he has not gotten a
DUI or totaled their car. You have insurance and do not see the battle causalities of the health care crisis, you need to do much more research, keep A open mind.

Before the beginning of summer I had my annual medical. It was only a matter of seconds before my doctor, a decent old salt who's seen it all, began complaining about his lot. Like every doctor I've spoken to throughout the US in the past two or three years, he didn't know whether he could take the chaos of American health care much longer. The previous month, he had seen a very elderly patient who was already dying from malignant melanoma; but as he was examining the old man, he happened to notice that one of his toes had developed a bad fungal infection. He duly whipped off a prescription for the standard treatment - a daily dose of 250mg Lamisil tablets for 90 days - and thought nothing more of it.
But Americans will never accept - shock, horror, gasp - socialised medicine, will they? Letting the government dictate which doctor they should have and what treatment they receive? Like those poor old washed-up Brits? For decades, that contrived chorus of indignation from the combined might of the medical industry itself, the pharmaceutical giants, the supine politicians who do their bidding and the pliant, unquestioning media has worked wonders in perpetuating a con trick. The result until recently has been that, aided by stupendous self-delusion and ignorance, most Americans really have been brainwashed into thinking they have the best health care system in the world.

Typical all emotion no facts. You really live in denial but that is ok it is your choice. Yes I choose to make less money so I can have health insurance. Oh my goodness it is a crisis. What a joke. Your posts are typical of most liberals. You said you needed more information so I told you where you could find it. That was not good enough so next you cry that you need someone to post a link for you. I am sure that next you will need someone to read it for you. Someone works hard in school makes sacrifices becomes rich in America and since you did not they must be evil or the system must be wrong. After reading your link I see where you stole your lamisil story from. I will say they are very wrong on the price. I just came off of it. You love to post links that say the life expectancy in the US is lower in other countries so the health care here must be bad. So since we have more people die in automobile accidents than other countries how does that have anything to do with health care? Our population is very overweight. This decreases life span yet does not mean our health care is bad. Again our country was founded in part to break away from a large and overbearing government.


Diesel after reading your post earlier about building a stadium I really am having a little trouble seeing how it ties into health care and since you take it on yourself to be the stay on topic police maybe you could simplify it for me. It seems like you are complaining about people getting a tax refund that did not pay taxes. The only thing I can think of is you want to end the earned income credit. I am with you on this. We can stop this goofy health care "plan" first then tackle that next.

 

[av8torntn]

Our health care system is not only unfair to American citizens but also to American corporations.

Providing health care as a basic service is also in line with conservative ideology concerning so called "personal responsibility" and "merit"(more like everyman for himself). Not worrying about escalating health care costs will allow individuals to hold steady jobs and make ends meet more easily. Uninsured families would be free to engage in private enterprise without the burden of paying for health care. They might choose to spend more money on consumer goods, thereby stimulating the economy, or to save money so they can send their kids to better schools and universities, thus making our workforce more competitive.

The American taxpayer and the uninsured will not be the only beneficiaries of universal health care. Corporations like General Motors, Boeing, Ford and Exxon that employ millions of Americans might save billions of dollars. By reducing health care costs to our businesses, we are creating excess capital, which in turn aids corporate growth and global competitiveness. In other words, globalization renders it impossible for American corporations to compete as long as they must pay for employee health care.

Again, to educate the minds of Reps' skeptics, universal health care does not mean that the American taxpayer is going to foot the bill for 100 percent of all health care costs for all Americans. That is socialized health care, which is vastly different from universal health care. Universal health care only means that everyone is covered.

This nation so blessed with wealth and power unmatched in history must provide health care for all its citizens. It must not fail its corporations by forcing them to compete against foreign rivals whose governments help them remain competitive.

This is even funnier than your misguided views on Iraq. May I please have your permission to share this with some friends? Somehow you want to force people to have health insurance and promise to pay for those that you deem cannot afford it and at the same time a miracle will happen and it will cost less.

 

[av8torntn]

Yet another link for you but this one take the opposite view of your socialist health "plan".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118610945461187080.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

 

[wkmac]

This thread has in some ways proven interesting to read. Opinions as to cause/effect and solution are all over the map. Everyone presented good points to consider and there was much merit in them. I did enjoy Traveler's post describing his own personal situation with himself and wife. He is correct that medical cost can be as low as 40% under so-called published rate as to what the insurance companies pay and herein lies some of the problem. However, getting into those specifics I'll save for another time other than to add 3 of my 4 kids for their pre-natal, birth and post-natal work only cost $1000 each but by law what my wife and I did was illegal but not morally wrong in any way and also as result even though I saved Central States right at $15k for the 3 kids, they would not reimburse me 1 red cent on the $3k I paid! I'll give you more of that story in a later post if you like but let's just say childbirth can be extremely safe and very low cost at the same time not to mention that fact a very special moment especially for the father.

One way to find info is to do a Goggle/Yahoo seach of candidates name>healthcare as in most cases a lot of links will come up.

Good luck if you decide to see what's out as it's worth the time and effort IMO. Or you can be lazy and let the plantation cowboys herd you like the cattle they think..... they know you are!

MMMOOOOOOOOO!

 

[beatupbrown]

wkmac, good post I iam going to take a long look at the differnt links.I am going to keep A open mind on this .I wish ohters would, but I think they have made there mind up before seeing all the facts.
.

 

[brett636]

If you don't understand the Republican version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), maybe this will help explain it:
50,000 people went to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.
The people in the $75 seats get back $175.
Because the funds collected are not sufficient to pay the extra $100-per-ticket for the $75 seatholders and the $12-per-ticket refund processing fees, the team borrows the money to cover the shortfall.
They then announce that the only way they can make a profit and pay back the debt is to attract more $75 ticket buyers back to the ballpark, and thus begin offering them incentives such as free baseball jerseys and massages. They subcontract out the purchasing and distribution of the jerseys and the operation of the massage center to friends of the team owner, paying 40% more than if they ran the services themselves, claiming that the real cost savings are in not increasing an already bloated team bureaucracy.
When the $75 tickets do not sell like hotcakes, they borrow $500,000 to commission a study on what will attract more $75 ticket buyers. The study is performed by a marketing firm the team's general manager used to work for, takes 3 years, and runs $300,000 over budget. The final answer is that the $75 ticket buyers want a private entrance to the park so they don't have to mingle with the $10, $25, and $50 ticket buyers.
The team borrows $3.5 million to construct the private entrance. They give a no-bid contract to a contractor who is a good friend of the team's owner. The contractor proceeds to use shoddy materials and undocumented, undertrained workers who are paid minimum wage. Not surprisingly, the completed entrance fails its safety inspection by the city.
The team sues, claiming the city's safety regulations are too restrictive and unfriendly to business. They lose the suit when the jury takes a trip to see the new entrance and two jury members are struck by falling bricks, knocked loose by the vibrations from a passing truck.
The team starts a bidding process and gets a new contractor to tear down the unsafe entrance and rebuild it to code with properly trained workers, griping about the costs all the way. They borrow money to pay the lawyers who lost their suit against the city, and borrow money to pay the new contractor, but because the first contractor was a good friend of the team owner, he is never sued over his shoddy work or all the money it cost the team.
Finally, a year and a half behind schedule and $4.5 million over budget, the new private entrance is completed and passes inspection. The $75 seat holders start returning in a trickle, but it becomes a flood when the team offers free beer and hotdogs in the luxury area.
With all the $75 seats filled, the team is still losing money because their profit margin on those seats is slim after all the free beer, free hotdogs, team jerseys, and massages. The team determines that the only way to become profitable is to convert the $50 area to $75 seats. Though the profit margins are slim, they state they'll make it up in volume.
They borrow another $14 million to renovate the $50 seat area to bring it up to par with the $75 seats.
Still failing to make a profit, they raise the $10 seats to $35 and the $25 seats to $55, plus increase concession stand prices in the former $10 and $25 areas by 20%.
After all this, the team still isn't making a profit. They now owe their creditors an amount greater than four times their annual revenues, and continue to borrow money to subsidize the giveaways to the buyers of the most expensive tickets, hoping against hope that this will turn things around.
Now do you understand? If not, please contact President Bush so he can tell you that questioning his actions presents a divided front to America's enemies and as such only emboldens them. So sit down and shut up before your questions force Homeland Security to change the threat level to a sort of teal with purple flecks in it. Are you trying to cause another 9/11?

I, cannot for the life of me, understand why you think this dribble regarding the tax cuts has any relationship to anything occurring in the real world.

To give you a better idea of why I say this, let me lay out my qualifications for doing so. In the last three years I have completed more tax returns than you will in three lifetimes. I understand the income tax system better than most, and I have completed income tax returns for people ranging from single moms who make <$10k/yr. to people whose income would make a top pay feeder driver blush. I've done returns for sole proprietors, rental real estate owners, stock traders, etc.

In the real world the only people getting back more than they paid in for income taxes are low income parents. How can a single mom who makes around $6k get a $2,000+ tax refund? The earned income tax credit. Your analogy seems to lend to a false notion that people in higher income tax brackets get back more than they paid in under the republican tax cuts. This is hardly the case. In fact more and more people are finding themselves qualifying for the alternative minimum tax which is tax system that was originally setup to keep wealthy tax payers from not owing taxes, but since it hasn't been adjusted for inflation it now is trapping middle class taxpayers in what I call a "stealth tax".

I will say this one more time, since the tax cuts have been initiated government income tax revenues are higher than they have ever been. Why raise them anymore to pay for another bloated government social program that is almost guaranteed to go bust sometime in the future?

 

[diesel96]

I, cannot for the life of me, understand why you think this dribble regarding the tax cuts has any relationship to anything occurring in the real world.

To give you a better idea of why I say this, let me lay out my qualifications for doing so. In the last three years I have completed more tax returns than you will in three lifetimes. I understand the income tax system better than most, and I have completed income tax returns for people ranging from single moms who make <$10k/yr. to people whose income would make a top pay feeder driver blush. I've done returns for sole proprietors, rental real estate owners, stock traders, etc.

In the real world the only people getting back more than they paid in for income taxes are low income parents. How can a single mom who makes around $6k get a $2,000+ tax refund? The earned income tax credit. Your analogy seems to lend to a false notion that people in higher income tax brackets get back more than they paid in under the republican tax cuts. This is hardly the case. In fact more and more people are finding themselves qualifying for the alternative minimum tax which is tax system that was originally setup to keep wealthy tax payers from not owing taxes, but since it hasn't been adjusted for inflation it now is trapping middle class taxpayers in what I call a "stealth tax".

I will say this one more time, since the tax cuts have been initiated government income tax revenues are higher than they have ever been. Why raise them anymore to pay for another bloated government social program that is almost guaranteed to go bust sometime in the future?

I'm sorry folks, (I know this ain't Healthcare,but it has alot to do with how we partially pay for the Healthcare Choice plan) but I have to respond. Yes, the baseball analogy was somewhat sarcastic(especially to a part time income tax accountant) but also had some valid points in the overall scheme of the present Administration.

It's funny - and sad -- how many Republican politicians will argue that they do not labor mainly for the rich. Those who do not stoop to such arguments try to fool you by justifying their kiss-the-super-rich-a$$es philosophy by saying the super wealthy deserve a proportionately larger tax cut - along with their fourth vacation homes in the Caribbean and yachts -- because they pay a larger share of our taxes. If you beg to differ, you will be called a socialist radical who wants to bring on class warfare.


First of all, the wealthiest 1-2 percent of taxpayers in the United States, own about 35/40 percent of the wealth - more than the bottom 90 percent! - according to the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, which is supposedly nonpartisan. No other industrial country comes close to matching this imbalance between the very rich and the rest of us. Even in class-conscious England, with its imperial Queen and all, the wealthiest 1 percent own closer to 20 percent.
Furthermore, these very wealthy American families only pay about 20 percent of the taxes, not 35 to 40 percent. Their actual rate is 39 percent, but they get that drastically reduced through tax credits and creative, Enron-like, accounting schemes. You claim to do income tax, I bet you know a few tricks of the trade. The more you save your client, maybe the more generous they might be..Wink-Wink

Second of all, those who have wealth have all the advantages of keeping it and making their money grow. They have tax advantages, such as getting abatements and rebates for their businesses and investments. They can contribute more money to politicians, who, in turn, give their firms government contracts -- this is how Ross Perot became a billionaire. They can hide money in Swiss bank accounts and accounts in the Caymans, where they don't pay taxes to the U.S. They can hire accountants like the crooks at Andersen who can find more legal and illegal ways for them not to pay taxes.

Third of all, it makes little sense if you want to help the economy to give more money to these wealthy people who already know how to make their riches grow. They will be fine without tax cuts -- when was the last time you saw a homeless wealthy person? If you give them more money, they will most likely hoard it and won't circulate it back into the economy like those at the lower end will. Tax cuts for the lower and middle classes make more sense to spur the economy.

Fourth of all, there is the moral reason. I am a Christian, but I admit I don't do enough, but I try to help the poor when I can, such as with my donations, including direct ones to the homeless I meet, and in this post where I'm advocating for their lives as they just try to survive. You can't shun them all and say your lazy and irresponsible and every man for himself. Bush and many of his supporters claim to be Christians, but I do not see how Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy -- where 45 percent of the cuts go towards 1 percent of the people -- are helping the poor or embelishing their Christian values .
Fifth, tax cuts for the rich, A lot of good that does our economy when they are investing it in high gain foreign capital markets. Espeicially when the foreign market's dollar equivlent is surpassing the US dollar, therefore making a solid return..Cha Ching !

 

[av8torntn]

First of all, the wealthiest 1-2 percent of taxpayers in the United States, own about 35/40 percent of the wealth - more than the bottom 90 percent! - according to the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, which is supposedly nonpartisan. No other industrial country comes close to matching this imbalance between the very rich and the rest of us. Even in class-conscious England, with its imperial Queen and all, the wealthiest 1 percent own closer to 20 percent.
Furthermore, these very wealthy American families only pay about 20 percent of the taxes, not 35 to 40 percent. Their actual rate is 39 percent, but they get that drastically reduced through tax credits and creative, Enron-like, accounting schemes. You claim to do income tax, I bet you know a few tricks of the trade. The more you save your client, maybe the more generous they might be..Wink-Wink

The top 1% of tax returns earned 21.2% of adjusted gross income yet they paid 39.4% of the nations individual income taxes. Even worse the top 1% paid nearly the same amount as the bottom 95% of returns. This does not include the earned income credit which would make it even worse. Diesel when you just make up something it does your cause no good.

For the link guy.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

 

[wkmac]

wkmac, good post I iam going to take a long look at the differnt links.I am going to keep A open mind on this .I wish ohters would, but I think they have made there mind up before seeing all the facts.
.

beatupbrown

I just posted links to the individual candidates websites on the issue but there is much more out on the web. Even check out various think tanks on the left and right. And here's a good one to save in favorites. http://www.factcheck.org/ I've found this website to take the political parties to task on the issues and in equal amounts too.

As I said, checkout the think tanks as you may not like the source depending on your political POV but read them anyway. At the very least, with all the BS being thrown around by all sides in their 30 second soundbites, you'll at least have the info to know when they are just shukking and jivin'! And IMO there is a lot of that.


I think I've made my mind up for who I will vote for President. At the least he doesn't mince words and BS around. You get what you got and besides, Achmed the Dead Terrorist is scared to death of him!

 

[moreluck]

wkmac.....you said "HE" when talking about the candidate you'd vote for. This is good.....a non-Hillary vote !!

 

[brett636]

The top 1% of tax returns earned 21.2% of adjusted gross income yet they paid 39.4% of the nations individual income taxes. Even worse the top 1% paid nearly the same amount as the bottom 95% of returns. This does not include the earned income credit which would make it even worse. Diesel when you just make up something it does your cause no good.

For the link guy.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Now why did you go off and do this? Don't you know facts and logic are not part of his arguments?

Diesel- First you say a tax raise is not wealth redistribution, and then you go off on a tangent about how evil wealthy people are. If you had any real world economic sense you would know that it is wealthy people that invest in businesses are the same people creating jobs. Its their willingness to take risks that allows our economy to thrive. If Jim Casey had not taken the risk of investing $100 into his little messenger service you would not have the good job you have now. Thats the entire idea behind tax credits for businesses which is to reduce risk for people interested in creating jobs. Now I've never said we should bow at the feet of the wealthy, but I would never support taxing them into submission. Perhaps you should spend more time figuring out how to get yourself into that wealthy 1% and less time preaching about how evil they are.

Going back to the original topic it appears that a good chunk of the 46million uninsured that you all like to point towards are uninsured voluntarily. Just like the homeless guy on the street begging for your pocket change. They are where they want to be.

 

[diesel96]

It's not raising their taxes or wealth redistribution.....it's setting the standard back to where they have been paying their taxes in the past.
The wealthy have been enjoying a priviledge of tax cuts and credits that GW and the GOP handed to them on a silver platter since the tax cuts went into effect. All we need to do is take it back, like a binki from a baby, eventually they will stop crying. Whats wrong with leveling the playing field ? If anybody deserves more tax breaks it's middle income Americans.
It is middle and upper-middle-income Americans that have kept our economy afloat by buying houses, automobiles, goods and services. I believe that they deserve the majority of the break, not the higher-income level of Americans.
We need a plan that focuses more on the needs of people on Main Street rather than the needs of Wall Street.

 

[beatupbrown]

Wkmac I am on the web every day and use it as a huge library .I was just saying good link ,there is so much more out there .I have been studying on health care for a solid month and have learned a lot on the subject.
The key for me to learning is keeping a open mind on the subject .I feel some people are closed minded and they miss the whole boat.
Health care spending is expected to double within the next decade.15 Though Americans
spend almost twice as much per person as citizens of other industrialized countries,16
their health status is no better and by many measures actually worse. Americans die
younger, and their newborns die more frequently than in other developed nations.17
Inefficient and poor quality care costs the nation at least $50 to $100 billion every year.18
Billions more are wasted on administration and overhead because of inefficiencies in the
health care system.19 America has the best health care technology in the world, but it is
often not used well, and due to varying practices, it is often wasted.

Tens of millions more Americans are at risk of losing coverage. One in three non-elderly Americans
goes without insurance at some point over a two-year period. Some families see their claims denied or
insurance cancelled after they incur large bills. Half of US bankruptcies are caused by medical
expenses, even though two-thirds of bankruptcy filers had health insurance. Insured Americans also
pay higher premiums – $922 on an average family policy and $341 on an average individual policy –
to pay for the cost of treating the uninsured.

 

[diesel96]

Going back to the original topic it appears that a good chunk of the 46million uninsured that you all like to point towards are uninsured voluntarily. Just like the homeless guy on the street begging for your pocket change. They are where they want to be.


Thats the most absurd statement on this thread so far. Most of the homeless people on the streets have serious mental illnesses which leads into other bad habits such as alcholism. It's disgusting the way the Vietnam homeless Vets were treated after the war.You really think they want to be there. It's this kind of attitude thats driving America's resale value down, sort of speak, to the eyes of the rest of the world.

One other reason ALL Americans need healthcare Ins...Medical cost and dues are in the top 5 reasons people file for bankruptcy and I don't feel my tax dollars should help you wipe your slate clean if you or those who share your views get a series illness or accident due to your free will not to purchase Health Ins.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Top-Ten-Reasons-People-File-for-Bankruptcy&id=15274

 

[av8torntn]

If US health care is so bad how does one explain this? This should be interesting. It is not from a US source so you can keep the neocon, you are selfish remarks to yourself please.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ncancer121.xml

 

[wkmac]

If US health care is so bad how does one explain this? This should be interesting. It is not from a US source so you can keep the neocon, you are selfish remarks to yourself please.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ncancer121.xml

Couple of interesting statements from the article. First is that America is #1 in survivable percentage and that early testing appears to be of some measure of success. Obviously the several comments about long waiting lines will get lots of mileage here!


Since you've accepted the UK Telegraph as a good source:

It is not from a US source so you can keep the neocon, you are selfish remarks to yourself please.

I'll assume the same will be true when we post articles from said source that are critical of the Bush adminstration and question it's foreign policy especially in the Middle East?



Just a side note but part of the reason drug prices in America are so high is that we are caused to pay the burden of the R&D research to bring these drugs to market and the other countries aren't burdened with that cost. One of the principle reasons drugs are so cheap outside the US but itcould also be a reason why a good majority of the drugs and drug research come from American companies. Not saying this is good or bad, just making the observation.

Also other countries have more liberal drug laws like in Mexico where not long ago on a TV program looking at this very issue, Viagra to my surprise was sold over the counter and that wasn't the only drug that in the US is doctor prescribed. I don't know enough about Viagra (it's chemical makeup) to say being OTC is OK or not but according to the program i saw, in Mexico it's OTC status makes it very cheap. One has to ask about it's status in America, is this done for public safety or to boost profits for the drug maker?

 

[av8torntn]

Wkmac I picked this article for several reasons out of 1.1 million returned from the search on google this one was number 2. I thought even though the same numbers were printed on the most viewed article some would dismiss for reasons that are not related to this discussion. I picked the topic of cancer survivability not because the US ranks number one (the US ranks number 1 in most categories directly related to health care) but for these reasons. I wanted to avoid an article and just use the numbers but I was on lunch and time was short. I read five from different sources and the numbers pretty much agreed. I tried my best to avoid excessive drama about the source but it did not work since that was the first thing you mentioned. Oh well. Also Wkmac I have never called you a neo con or selfish or said you were violating my free speech rights
Some facts
1)cancer treatment is more expensive than in other countries
2) survivability is directly related to early detection and availability of medicine and treatment options
3)US companies put more money into cancer research than any other country
4) survivability rates from sickness or disease has more to do with quality health care than life span


When it comes to drug prices you have to ask yourself what you are really willing to trade off for cheap prices. As far as myself on the surface I would be willing to trade off some of the safety of MD oversight on some medications. Claritin D was a good example but now they are probably going to pull it off the shelfs because of the Meth problem. It seems there are always unseen problems that pop up.

As far as the remark on our middle east foreign policy goes I do not have to accept anything that I know is not true.You do not have to accept the numbers in this article but I was really just asking why. If it is true I may not accept for other reasons that I know but cannot prove with a link so I try and keep it to myself but not always successfully . The very funny thing is that the things that we have done wrong over there are never brought up by people against the war they usually just make up things or link to stories that are not true.

 

[brett636]

It's not raising their taxes or wealth redistribution.....it's setting the standard back to where they have been paying their taxes in the past.
The wealthy have been enjoying a priviledge of tax cuts and credits that GW and the GOP handed to them on a silver platter since the tax cuts went into effect. All we need to do is take it back, like a binki from a baby, eventually they will stop crying. Whats wrong with leveling the playing field ? If anybody deserves more tax breaks it's middle income Americans.
It is middle and upper-middle-income Americans that have kept our economy afloat by buying houses, automobiles, goods and services. I believe that they deserve the majority of the break, not the higher-income level of Americans.
We need a plan that focuses more on the needs of people on Main Street rather than the needs of Wall Street.

While I agree that a strong middle class does result strong country overall, I want you to tell me where the middle class is supposed to get the money to buy their houses, cars, vacations, etc.

Also, you seem to be misunderstanding the fact that if you remove the tax cuts for the wealthy you are raising the taxes on them. It has nothing to do with what you think they should be paying that they aren't. Its simply a matter of you wanting to raise the taxes to a point higher than they presently pay. In my previous post about taxes I highlighted a good example of where a tax increase for the wealthy ended up affecting middle class americans in the long run. The program you want these higher taxes to pay for will ultimatly cost more and more in the future requiring more tax hikes on all Americans. The articles posted in this thread alone should have proved that to you.

The basic fact here is the more money you earn the more taxes you pay. So of course a taxcut will benefit those that are in higher income brackets the most. Its not rocket science, just plain logic.

 

[av8torntn]

Diesel why stop there? I say let us go back to 1916 when the top rate was 15% on incomes over two million a year. Of course we should adjust the income for inflation. So by your reasoning you are wanting to increase the tax rate. Like you said lets set the standard back to where it was. This will be a good place to start.

When you say we need a plan that focuses on the needs of main street not the needs of wall street what do you mean? Do you not know that 70% of Americans own stock directly or indirectly?

And of course back to topic yes they majority of the uninsured in this country are in fact uninsured by choice. When you say one in three Americans goes without insurance at some point in two years. Let us say this is true. Why do you think this is? I say it is by choice. When one changes jobs he has the chance to continue coverage with COBRA and if you choose not to why is this bad?