I really don't know the statistics of homelessness in the U.S. I also don't know what department within the state or what private charities provide for them, so it's not something I will debate. I will say that I feel sorry for people at the mercy of state care in institutions where they can be neglected or abused, but that's what you get with the state sometimes.

Patton, I take it that you don't see any problems with the current system. I personally know two seniors who spend most of their income after food, shelter and taxes on medications and doctor visits, that is the extent of my knowledge of how the system is ****ing over people I know personally. I don't think the amount they pay for drugs they need to stay alive is fair to them being on a fixed income, but it is what it is. There is no competition, there is no where else they can buy these drugs. I don't think that's a free and fair market as far as these drugs are concerned, but it is what it is. They are on medicare and private insurance, both of which fight over which one of them has to pay for what service.

If you think people should die because they can't afford to take care of their health after they have been denied by an insurance company, then it's your right to think that. Maybe people should die when they can't afford to live.

This is a digression from the previous discussion in that we know from the previous 9 pages...we know people think healthcare is expensive....but so are other things that are FAR more important to DAILY existence......Then people say "healthcare should be a right"..... a "right' that is not dilineated ANYWHERE.....and also a right that SUPERCEDES food, water and shelter...no one here DEMANDS people be given the RIGHT to eat, drink, be clothed and protected from the elements.

In your example above:

I personally know two seniors who spend most of their income after food, shelter and taxes on medications and doctor visits.....

Why not DEMAND the government provide food and shelter?

How much would they have available to spend on healthcare if the government provided those?

Food and shelter are more important to DAILY existence, is it not?


A little melodramatic....who "dies" when they walk into an ER or call an ambulance?

How much should someone pay monthly for medication that helps sustain life (we won't go into whether the illness is related to poor choices like smoking, alcohol, drug use, no exercise, obesity, elevated cholesterol and triglycerides because they think a cheeseburger is healthy)...the equivilant to a donut?...a DVD?...a cell phone and cable bill?....a pair of pants and a shirt from Abercronbie and Fitch?...tickets to see Hannah Montana?...a car payment?


Can you direct me to this federal court decision?


FEMA deals with destruction of infrastructure...no fire department...no police department...no electricity...no running potable water...proper disposal of human waste...recovery of rotting corpses...WIDE SCALE disaster relief...prevention of food/water borne disease...I don't think this is a good example for your position...."healthcare, unemployment insurance and other social programs" consists of a great number of people who have made very bad life choices...not all...but many.....I don't see how being a victim of Katrina or the May 1999 tornado in OKC compares.....

The inability to afford services is often not due to personal irresponsibility, but rather unstable employment caused by an increasingly competitive economy. Millions of working-poor families struggle to survive on small incomes, and in addition to health care they must consider saving money for retirement and their children's education as well.

So...you think the problem is "an increasingly competitive economy?"........muck with healthcare and see just how much more "competititive" it gets.....Docs competing to join private hospitals....competing to incorporate....competing to build private facilities that do not accept pathetic government payments......you think that's the silver bullet?

Instead of dealing with the "symptom" of the "disease" you call "an increasingly competitive economy".......why not just treat the "disease" itself?   That is what is called a "cure".......treating the "symptom" "cures" nothing.........

Good Luck with that.

So you think doing nothing is better? Invest now, save later. It is not complicated.


Wait and it will be worse. I already answered this.


I've already answered this. The sooner we start, the cheaper in the long run. You need to concentrate and follow the argument. I already told you, 15% of GDP is what it would cost with current private insurers and no economies of scale.


I already answered this: YES.


LOL! No, it proves that Bush sucks, makes bad, arrogant decisions. You are making a totally irrational and illogical argument. I mean it's bizarre. If Bush shrank the government, he would still suck. 


With arguments like that, you'd have to be.



Well, so you know about one president, and you are telling me all are the same as that one. Mkay... Think about it, could there be another reason things got bad? Hmmm?


It's called abuse of power. Bush has pioneered it in a way no president has. But of course every president and all governments have to be blamed for that. Yeah, sure, okay...that makes sense...not.


Or, use it to send money to Texas and for profit like the other guys who get elected on the "all government sucks" platform. Oh, and I'm not sending someone to washington to destroy it. I want a guy who is positive, constructive and wants to FIX it.


Share it with whom? The president CAN MAKE NO LAW, only sign what the Congress gives him...or not. The presidents power is the power to make war. Lessee? Did Clinton invade Iraq? No. Bush did. See. Different presidents do different things.


The democrats didn't GUARANTEE that when they took over Congress they would get us out of Iraq. Show me one quote, "I guarantee..." And they didn't lie. The fact is there is only so much they can do. Really, all they can do is cut off funding. And guess who gets screwed there? The troops. So they will have to wait until the prick leaves. And now I'm supposed to buy into your reflexive, destructive negativity and be a conservative like you? And what the hell evidence do you have that they are lying on UHC? Which Dem said it was free? Get your head out of rightwing radio's ass and pay attention.


The Republicans wrote it, and forced it through. No complaints buy any conservative talkers. On the other hand, liberal radio talkers were enraged. If fits with the conservative MO, selling us out to corporations.


It shouldn't have been written at all. Remember what you just said, "It's Just bad."


This just shows your ignorance.

Medicare Part D was attached to Bush's prescription drug plan. Said plan is a mess. Apparently you think Congress rules this country all by itself. But, actually, the Congress has to have every law signed by the president. The president has made clear, he will sign nothing the Congress sends him. Therefore no progress can happen until Bush gets out. What have the Dems been taking about on the campaign? A health care plan. Said plan would moot the Prescription drug plan. So there is no point in talking about rescinding or fixing the plan.

Hey, is McCain, or Ron Paul or any Republican talking about Health care? Hmmm? Ah, no...Only the Democrats. I'm sorry you only have sarcasm and misinformation to make your arguments. But that would make you a good conservative.


That's nice. They didn't make a "mistake,"  that is their policy. All banks do it. WHY CAN"T I HAVE AN OPT OUT? WHY CAN"T I HAVE AN OPT OUT? WHY CAN"T I HAVE AN OPT OUT? WHY CAN"T I HAVE AN OPT OUT? WHY CAN"T I HAVE AN OPT OUT? WHY CAN"T I HAVE AN OPT OUT? WHY CAN"T I HAVE AN OPT OUT? WHY CAN"T I HAVE AN OPT OUT? WHY CAN"T I HAVE AN OPT OUT? WHY CAN"T I HAVE AN OPT OUT?

The question you NEVER answer because you are totally full of crap on this.


LOL! Yeah, it tells me I'm a fucking genius. I made a point you even had to concede, before you lapsed back into your reflexively angry, negative conservatism.

Medicare Part D:

-Hundreds of Medicare prescription drug plans are available, allowing participants to choose a plan that best meets their individual needs

-standard benefit requires payment of a $265 deductible.

-beneficiary then pays 25% of the cost of a covered Part D prescription drug up to an initial coverage limit of $2400/yr.

-Only 10 percent of plans for 2008 offer the defined standard benefit. Most eliminate the deductible and use tiered drug co-payments rather than coinsurance.[7]

-When total out-of-pocket expenses on formulary drugs for the year, including the deductible and initial coinsurance, reach $3850, the beneficiary then reaches catastrophic coverage, in which he or she pays $2.15 for a generic or preferred drug and $5.35 for other drugs

-The average monthly premium for stand-alone Part D plans (PDPs) with basic benefits that do not offer gap coverage are $30.14; the average monthly premium for plans that do offer some gap coverage are average $63.29. Relatively few beneficiaries choose Part D plans with gap coverage.

-One option for those struggling with drug costs is to have a Low Income Subsidy applied to their existing prescription account.

-Depending on a variety of factors (not the least of which is actual income) a member of an existing plan may have their premium paid for, all or in part, and may have a reduced copay for their medication.

-Part D coverage excludes drugs or classes of drugs which may be excluded from Medicaid coverage. These may include:

    * Drugs used for anorexia, weight loss, or weight gain
    * Drugs used to promote fertility
    * Drugs used for erectile dysfunction
    * Drugs used for cosmetic purposes (hair growth, ect.)
    * Drugs used for the symptomatic relief of cough and colds
    * Barbiturates
    * Benzodiazepines
    * Prescription vitamins and mineral products, except prenatal vitamins and fluoride preparations
    * Drugs where the manufacturer requires as a condition of sale any associated tests or monitoring services to be purchased exclusively from that manufacturer or its designee

-As of January 2006, the expected per capita drug spending was $2,250 (paid by the government)

-Washington Post reports that upwards of 80% of enrollees are satisfied with their coverage, despite the fact that nearly half had chosen plans that do not cover the "donut hole"[27].

The costs of "the US government CAN'T negotiate with companies" falls primarily on the government and not individual beneficiaries.

One, all Americans are expected to pay for shelter and food, they can survive without shelter, but not without food. And apparently food has become a right because there are no starving people, there are homeless shelters and food stamps for those who cannot pay for food. Two, my argument is about the people who have access to and pay for shelter and food but are denied health insurance or whose claims are denied. The price of health insurance keeps going up, most likely faster than the housing market. If the prices of homes are 4 times the amount that they are worth now in just a year, everywhere all across the country, you would find less and less people being able to afford to buy a new home, and less people able to pay taxes on their property. And then you would argue that living in a home is not a right. Well, of course it's not a right, but it's also not fair to the entire population that the base price of a home has skyrocketed, and now two blue collar workers can't even afford a shack in the bad part of town.


The people who die are the ones who did not go to the doctor in the first place to find out that they have high blood pressure or diabetes or whatever it is that they have. A person can be very healthy and even exercise and still have hereditary diseases or conditions that they don't know about until it is too late. I cannot say what the price of sustaining life should be for a person on a fixed income. I don't understand paying hundreds of dollars a month to an insurance company only to pay hundreds or thousands more for the medicines to sustain life, not to mention thousands that aren't covered when you need emergency surgery. It costs a lot to stay alive, apparently.