This statement shows just how duped you are. If you think there is such a thing as FREE healthcare, you are sorely mistaken. Government mandate is going to mean more confiscation of wealth from the private sector.
So a homeless guy stopping by the pharmacy for his regular free meds is not free healthcare?
No, actually nothing in life is free. Someone pays for it somewhere. The costs of the medication is added on to the costs to paying consumers. For every complimentary medication that is given out, it raises the price of medication for everyone else. That is just how it works.
For the government to receive a reduced cost in medication or services, the companies just raise the price to compensate for the loss in revenue on the private sector; Thus increasing costs to consumers and insurance companies. This results in everyone paying more for the services they already receive.
When the US goes to universal healthcare, the companies will be forced to raise the prices on an medications and services offered to all countries. Many of these countries will not be able to afford the increased costs and will be facing either 1. Bankruptcy or 2. raised taxes in order to keep up. Either that or they will be forced to drop their universal coverage because it will then be made too expensive to cover everyone.
What most people fail to understand is that the US citizens agreed to pay more for their healthcare than other nations so that those countries could receieve affordable healthcare. When we go to universal coverage, it will result in a decline in healthcare around the globe. Countires will be forced to receieve medications from unreliable sources to recieve medication at their current rate.
Everything does have a price, everything has an opposite but equal reaction. You have to weigh the good with the bad when considering this matter. It is all a matter of what people globally are willing to sacrifice to make this happen.
So in short. Yes it is free to the homeless guy.
Which is what you don't get. Even if my taxes go up some, I'm willing to pay more to help out those who have nothing. Get them the medical help they need, which gives them a shot at a better life, getting a job, and start paying taxes on the money they earn. So everyone paying a little could potentially increase the revenue generated by the government through taxes and eventually cause our taxes to go back to the regular rates or even lower due to the increased number of people filing.
Or you can just assume all people who need help are low lifes and aren't worthy of your help because you are above them.
I look at the big picture, helping out our society as a whole. People like you look after themselves.
Which is what you don't get. Even if my taxes go up some, I'm willing to pay more to help out those who have nothing. Get them the medical help they need, which gives them a shot at a better life, getting a job, and start paying taxes on the money they earn. So everyone paying a little could potentially increase the revenue generated by the government through taxes and eventually cause our taxes to go back to the regular rates or even lower due to the increased number of people filing.
Or you can just assume all people who need help are low lifes and aren't worthy of your help because you are above them.
I look at the big picture, helping out our society as a whole. People like you look after themselves.
We could just euthanize the homeless. That would save money all-around. They get sick a lot, living outside and whatnot.
This statement shows just how duped you are. If you think there is such a thing as FREE healthcare, you are sorely mistaken. Government mandate is going to mean more confiscation of wealth from the private sector.
So a homeless guy stopping by the pharmacy for his regular free meds is not free healthcare?
No, actually nothing in life is free. Someone pays for it somewhere. The costs of the medication is added on to the costs to paying consumers. For every complimentary medication that is given out, it raises the price of medication for everyone else. That is just how it works.
For the government to receive a reduced cost in medication or services, the companies just raise the price to compensate for the loss in revenue on the private sector; Thus increasing costs to consumers and insurance companies. This results in everyone paying more for the services they already receive.
When the US goes to universal healthcare, the companies will be forced to raise the prices on an medications and services offered to all countries. Many of these countries will not be able to afford the increased costs and will be facing either 1. Bankruptcy or 2. raised taxes in order to keep up. Either that or they will be forced to drop their universal coverage because it will then be made too expensive to cover everyone.
What most people fail to understand is that the US citizens agreed to pay more for their healthcare than other nations so that those countries could receieve affordable healthcare. When we go to universal coverage, it will result in a decline in healthcare around the globe. Countires will be forced to receieve medications from unreliable sources to recieve medication at their current rate.
Everything does have a price, everything has an opposite but equal reaction. You have to weigh the good with the bad when considering this matter. It is all a matter of what people globally are willing to sacrifice to make this happen.
So in short. Yes it is free to the homeless guy.
Which is what you don't get. Even if my taxes go up some, I'm willing to pay more to help out those who have nothing. Get them the medical help they need, which gives them a shot at a better life, getting a job, and start paying taxes on the money they earn. So everyone paying a little could potentially increase the revenue generated by the government through taxes and eventually cause our taxes to go back to the regular rates or even lower due to the increased number of people filing.
Or you can just assume all people who need help are low lifes and aren't worthy of your help because you are above them.
I look at the big picture, helping out our society as a whole. People like you look after themselves.
Considering I have worked in this field for some time, I for one do not think that those who are in need of help are " low lives" any person can become ill, no longer be able to work, spend their life savings and sell everything they own to cover medical treatment, I have worked on the front lines here, I know how serious this matter really is. The question is not whether or not help is needed, it is how we go about accomplishing this.
I disagree that the government or insurance companies rather than doctors should be determining a patients care. I am a strong supporter for doctors determining the best course of action, not anyone else deciding what is best for their patients. That is where we run into problems with this plan.
Doctors organizations have offered solutions, but those solutions are not being considered by our government at this time. I think they should consider those options first before reducing the treatment and care of everyone.
And yea, I spend most of my time volunteering in my community, put in countless hours at the free clinic, hauled truckloads and unloaded them myself of medication for the free clinic.. but I only look after myself.
Originally posted by Zindaihas Originally posted by popinjay
If Obama is for free health care, I'm for it.
This statement shows just how duped you are. If you think there is such a thing as FREE healthcare, you are sorely mistaken. Government mandate is going to mean more confiscation of wealth from the private sector.
If you would like to argue a semantical argument, then you are welcome to make that thread.
When I refer to "free" healthcare, I think you know what is meant.
No, actually nothing in life is free. Someone pays for it somewhere.
Bad semantical argument is bad semantical argument.
When a legal immigrant, someone who has never worked from birth to death as a U.S. born citizen or even an illegal immigrant gets injured or sick, the United States is obligated to see that they are treated. The people are not required to reimburse the government if/when they get well.
If those same folks bought a $1 lottery ticket the day after they walked out of the hospital after being treated and won $100,000,000, they would owe the government taxes on it, but they wouldn't be liable for the free care they received. It was free to them, and that is what we are discussing, although you do seem unaware of that. The fact that they now pay proably 60% tax on that windfall more than makes up for the tiny amount they received, and that's the idea behind the system. Those same people can't turn around and say I'll just pay for the healthcare I got, and that's it. That's a stupid suggestion.
The fact that someone else pays taxes their entire life and never once needs Medicare or Federal Assistance of any kind is irrelevant. The law isn't made to suit that individual's personal happiness. It is to suit the society and nation's COLLECTIVE happiness. These are the things civilized nations do for its citizens, especially one that espoused virtues worldwide and imposes them on other countries.
There is such a thing as free healthcare to the individual who has never paid into the system.
Originally posted by sniperg Dek that's an illogical argumemt because first of all everyone pays taxes direct or indirect. So even a person that his wage/salary/whatever doesn't have him oweing taxes still pays indirect ones for absolutely everything. Furthermore the difference is in the legality of between these 2 categories.
It seems you are speaking of sales taxes. Income tax and sales tax are quite different in regards to what programs they pay for. First, and foremost, as a consumer, we do not pay federal taxes on products directly - those costs trickle down within the price of the good sold. What we pay is a state, city, or both sales tax on goods. These funds, however, do not pay for such programs as stated above - income payroll tax does. You're playing a guessing game on our tax codes, and you are wrong.
Which is what you don't get. Even if my taxes go up some, I'm willing to pay more to help out those who have nothing. Get them the medical help they need, which gives them a shot at a better life, getting a job, and start paying taxes on the money they earn. So everyone paying a little could potentially increase the revenue generated by the government through taxes and eventually cause our taxes to go back to the regular rates or even lower due to the increased number of people filing.
Or you can just assume all people who need help are low lifes and aren't worthy of your help because you are above them.
I look at the big picture, helping out our society as a whole. People like you look after themselves.
Where do you personally draw the line though? Seriously, when the Obama administration says you need to pay more taxes for the "common good." Where do you say, "No more!"? Is it when your taxes are at 35%? 50%? 75%? 90%? When do you draw the line, when they start taking your property and savings or is that too late? When you work hard and earn over 250,000 in one year, do you draw the line when they say you make too much (for those that are interested, that is what the administration is beginning to say is "too much")? And honestly, what right, under our Constitution does the Federal Government have to limit an individual's accumulation of property? Considering it is expressly prohibited, none.
Government entitlements are nothing more than government waste. If the government did not mettle in the affairs of the market, someone would find benefit in providing what the government provides now. It would be run efficiently and it would waste less. The only catch is that someone would have to make money. But guess what, rather than the government making billions off restricting the market through manipulation, you could instead have a private citizen or corporation make a few hundred million. A few hundred million might sound like too much to you social liberals out there, but it pales in comparison to the billions that the government makes through market manipulation.
You do realize that the government is the biggest purchaser, employer, debtor, etc in the US? Their hands are in every part of your everyday life, from the road you take to work, the salary and taxes your employer is required to comply, possibly even the job you do exists due to government regulation, the gas you put in your car, the car you drive and the requirements for emissions and safety, every - fricking - thing - you - touch has been touched by the Fed in some way fashion or form. Think about all the money the Fed needs to spend on the beaurocracy needed for these tasks. Think about the immense burden this places on the economy. Actually, think about what our economy would be like if the federal government let the free market play out for a change, what would the economy look like if trillions of dollars were spent on the economy instead of the Fed? Talk about a stimulus. The Fed does not have enough income through taxes to cover spending, and it cannot sustain itself with it's current beaurocracy and entitlements. The Fed will have no choice in the future but to raise taxes somewhere or completely change tax law. Do you suggest that the top 5% of American earners continue to carry the disproportionate burden (57% of Federal taxes)?
No, actually nothing in life is free. Someone pays for it somewhere.
Bad semantical argument is bad semantical argument.
When a legal immigrant, someone who has never worked from birth to death as a U.S. born citizen or even an illegal immigrant gets injured or sick, the United States is obligated to see that they are treated. The people are not required to reimburse the government if/when they get well.
If those same folks bought a $1 lottery ticket the day after they walked out of the hospital after being treated and won $100,000,000, they would owe the government taxes on it, but they wouldn't be liable for the free care they received. It was free to them, and that is what we are discussing, although you do seem unaware of that. The fact that they now pay proably 60% tax on that windfall more than makes up for the tiny amount they received, and that's the idea behind the system. Those same people can't turn around and say I'll just pay for the healthcare I got, and that's it. That's a stupid suggestion.
The fact that someone else pays taxes their entire life and never once needs Medicare or Federal Assistance of any kind is irrelevant. The law isn't made to suit that individual's personal happiness. It is to suit the society and nation's COLLECTIVE happiness. These are the things civilized nations do for its citizens, especially one that espoused virtues worldwide and imposes them on other countries.
There is such a thing as free healthcare to the individual who has never paid into the system.
I am a member of IADMD. Maybe you have heard of us? If not:
The government is not the best solution here. Doctors are. Doctors are on the front lines every day, Doctors are the ones willing to give it all. We have offered propsals, but are not being heard. The governments solution is not what is best for patients. Patients care needs to be determined by doctors, not people trying to cut corners to reduce costs.
It is not free if someone pays for it somewhere, no it was bought for you, not free. Nothing is free except the air you breathe, enjoy that while it lasts.
Making the WRONG decision just to do "anything " about it when there are better, more effective options availiable, does not make that a good decision. Doing "anything" which is how I view Obamas not very well thought out plan , it is not the BEST solution to our problem. He should listen to what our doctors have to say before pushing any of this forward.
Which is what you don't get. Even if my taxes go up some, I'm willing to pay more to help out those who have nothing. Get them the medical help they need, which gives them a shot at a better life, getting a job, and start paying taxes on the money they earn. So everyone paying a little could potentially increase the revenue generated by the government through taxes and eventually cause our taxes to go back to the regular rates or even lower due to the increased number of people filing.
Or you can just assume all people who need help are low lifes and aren't worthy of your help because you are above them.
I look at the big picture, helping out our society as a whole. People like you look after themselves.
Where do you personally draw the line though? Seriously, when the Obama administration says you need to pay more taxes for the "common good." Where do you say, "No more!"? Is it when your taxes are at 35%? 50%? 75%? 90%? When do you draw the line, when they start taking your property and savings or is that too late? When you work hard and earn over 250,000 in one year, do you draw the line when they say you make too much (for those that are interested, that is what the administration is beginning to say is "too much")? And honestly, what right, under our Constitution does the Federal Government have to limit an individual's accumulation of property? Considering it is expressly prohibited, none.
Government entitlements are nothing more than government waste. If the government did not mettle in the affairs of the market, someone would find benefit in providing what the government provides now. It would be run efficiently and it would waste less. The only catch is that someone would have to make money. But guess what, rather than the government making billions off restricting the market through manipulation, you could instead have a private citizen or corporation make a few hundred million. A few hundred million might sound like too much to you social liberals out there, but it pales in comparison to the billions that the government makes through market manipulation.
You do realize that the government is the biggest purchaser, employer, debtor, etc in the US? Their hands are in every part of your everyday life, from the road you take to work, the salary and taxes your employer is required to comply, possibly even the job you do exists due to government regulation, the gas you put in your car, the car you drive and the requirements for emissions and safety, every - fricking - thing - you - touch has been touched by the Fed in some way fashion or form. Think about all the money the Fed needs to spend on the beaurocracy needed for these tasks. Think about the immense burden this places on the economy. Actually, think about what our economy would be like if the federal government let the free market play out for a change, what would the economy look like if trillions of dollars were spent on the economy instead of the Fed? Talk about a stimulus. The Fed does not have enough income through taxes to cover spending, and it cannot sustain itself with it's current beaurocracy and entitlements. The Fed will have no choice in the future but to raise taxes somewhere or completely change tax law. Do you suggest that the top 5% of American earners continue to carry the disproportionate burden (57% of Federal taxes)?
Do you know if your taxes are going up? Are there any official increases coming your way? Is it substantial?
No you don't. So until there is a final plan waiting to be voted on, you should hold judgement. Only an idiot vetoes a bill without reading it first. I believe that no one who is doing well enough for themselves is going to see a change in lifestyle if something like this get's enacted. You don't.
Originally posted by popinjay When a legal immigrant, someone who has never worked from birth to death as a U.S. born citizen or even an illegal immigrant gets injured or sick, the United States is obligated to see that they are treated.
I simply ask, why? Why is it our obligation. And remember, it is the taxpayer being held responsible hostage to cover this burden. Please, explain why it is my, yours, or our neighbor's responsibility, especially when one breaks the law by illegally entering our country. Please, explain it.
And, if you provide a philosophical reason, please state the exact theory you are following, for example, utilitarianism, etc.
And, once again, are you a taxpayer? Do you pay taxes, or do you show a big zero on taxes paid when, and if, you file a tax return?
Do you get food stamps, medicare/medicaid, TANF, etc?
What government benefits do you, or your family, personally receive?
It is not free if someone pays for it somewhere, no it was bought for you, not free. Nothing is free except the air you breathe, enjoy that while it lasts.
Still a semantical and false argument. Of course it's free to the person who recieves it and didn't pay a dime.
Semantics? Even by your own definition, just air is free is false. If you live by a stream, that's free. What about food? You can fish at a lake, stream or river.. that's free food. What about housing? You can build your own cabin. So right there, I've showed you that you can live completely and totally free, so things in life ARE free. Semantics is fun! Wheeeeeee! Let's stop semantic talk and get real, ok?
Doctors just want to practice medicine, they don't want to make policy. The good doctors treat any patient regardless of ability to pay. The good ones still adhere to the standard idea of the Hippocratic oath. But increasingly, you see these capitalistic doctors that do nothing but try and maximize a bottom line and I do not want these doctors determining my course of health.
It is not free if someone pays for it somewhere, no it was bought for you, not free. Nothing is free except the air you breathe, enjoy that while it lasts.
Still a semantical and false argument. Of course it's free to the person who recieves it and didn't pay a dime.
Semantics? Even by your own definition, just air is free is false. If you live by a stream, that's free. What about food? You can fish at a lake, stream or river.. that's free food. What about housing? You can build your own cabin. So right there, I've showed you that you can live completely and totally free, so things in life ARE free. Semantics is fun! Wheeeeeee! Let's stop semantic talk and get real, ok?
Doctors just want to practice medicine, they don't want to make policy. The good doctors treat any patient regardless of ability to pay. The good ones still adhere to the standard idea of the Hippocratic oath. But increasingly, you see these capitalistic doctors that do nothing but try and maximize a bottom line and I do not want these doctors determining my course of health.
I don't happen to know any of "those" doctors, because the ones I associate with are all in it to help people, regardless of their ability to pay. Your statement about doctors not wanting to make policy is incorrect at this time. You see, it is the policy that is preventing doctors from providing the very best treatment to all of their patients, so now yes, we have doctors that have stepped up to the plate to make the policy so that this will no longer be a problem. The problem being is that we have a wall of politicians standing in our way to stop us, we get through that and you will see these plans implemented, and better health care for all. Did you bother reading my links?
Something is only free if Noone pays for it, otherwise it is "complimentary".
Originally posted by popinjay But increasingly, you see these capitalistic doctors that do nothing but try and maximize a bottom line and I do not want these doctors determining my course of health.
Because they went to school for 10+ years and are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. How should they recoup that investment?
I simply ask, why? Why is it our obligation. And remember, it is the taxpayer being held responsible hostage to cover this burden. Please, explain why it is my, yours, or our neighbor's responsibility, especially when one breaks the law by illegally entering our country. Please, explain it. And, if you provide a philosophical reason, please state the exact theory you are following, for example, utilitarianism, etc. And, once again, are you a taxpayer? Do you pay taxes, or do you show a big zero on taxes paid when, and if, you file a tax return? Do you get food stamps, medicare/medicaid, TANF, etc? What government benefits do you, or your family, personally receive?
The reason you have to pay into it, is because as a member of the United States, you are subject to its laws and restrictions. If the law says you have to pay taxes, you have to pay. You cannot pick and choose what goods and services YOU want to pay for. That is not your decision, it is the decision of the elected members of government. You have the right to pick those people, but you do not get the right to tell them HOW they vote or spend your money. If you don't like how they do it, vote them out. It's what the rest of us did with the 21% nation. They are just about gone. Hopefully to soon to end up the Whig or the American Nazi political parties did.
Now for all your complaining, tell me of any country other than the United States where someone like you who doesn't like our setup is going to get a BETTER deal than you have now? Where would someone like YOU go if this is so unfair? Fantasyland is the only place I know of. Canada, UK, France, Germany, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,... all use a model even MORE socialist in nature than you have now. So I have no idea what all the crying you people keep doing is about.
The form of government you have is as good as it gets. Enough of us in the U.S. are happy with the idea of joining the rest of the nations somewhat more in social policies, but keeping our constitutional LAWS the way they are. If you have a problem with our policies, good luck on your most excellent adventure looking for Conservative Utopia. But the U.S. ain't and won't be it.
I don't happen to know any of "those" doctors, because the ones I associate with are all in it to help people, regardless of their ability to pay. Your statement about doctors not wanting to make policy is incorrect at this time. You see, it is the policy that is preventing doctors from providing the very best treatment to all of their patients, so now yes, we have doctors that have stepped up to the plate to make the policy so that this will no longer be a problem. The problem being is that we have a wall of politicians standing in our way to stop us, we get through that and you will see these plans implemented, and better health care for all. Did you bother reading my links? Something is only free if Noone pays for it, otherwise it is "complimentary".
I seem to remember you saying something about living in some isolated, sparse suburbia; half-wild and half-civilized place where cops train on your family's ranch. Was that you or another female poster? If so, It wouldn't surprise me that you know none of "those" doctors, because it sounds as if you don't have a large pool near you to compare.
Thanks for acknowledging by your own definition, that food, housing and water can be gotten free of charge... much more than just "air". I think I'll add clothing on that list too.(Indians and many other peoples had "free" clothes for years) Free of charge as well. Transportation too (horses, carts, wagons)
Heck, the Amish near me live almost exclusively on "free" things. Your argument that there is no "free" things in life fails very badly, just by your own definition of it.
Originally posted by Dekron Originally posted by popinjay But increasingly, you see these capitalistic doctors that do nothing but try and maximize a bottom line and I do not want these doctors determining my course of health.
Because they went to school for 10+ years and are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. How should they recoup that investment? Peace Corp. U.S. Military.
Two viable options right there among others for future doctors wanting to help citizens. Or are those doctors you mention "too good" to go earn it by serving their country? I guess only private medical schools for them. Pass the latte.
Originally posted by popinjay The reason you have to pay into it, is because as a member of the United States, you are subject to its laws and restrictions.
Now for all your complaining, tell me of any country other than the United States where someone like you who doesn't like our setup is going to get a BETTER deal than you have now?
Enough of us in the U.S. are happy with the idea of joining the rest of the nations somewhat more in social policies, but keeping our constitutional LAWS the way they are.
Nice dodge of the question. Obviously law is the reason, but I asked why we must pay from a philosophical stand point? You've stated before the Fair Tax is unfair. But, if it were law, then it would be fair since it would be the law?
I never complained of MY situation, only of taxes. And, if you can recall, the very ideal of oppressive taxes was a major, major, major consideration in the American Revolution.
And, enough of the US? Look at the demographics of the majority of Obama voters. They are ones that will not be affected by tax increases - they are ones that will benefit off the backs of others. Of course they do not have issues with it - they get to depend on the government instead of taking personal responsibility for their lives.
I don't happen to know any of "those" doctors, because the ones I associate with are all in it to help people, regardless of their ability to pay. Your statement about doctors not wanting to make policy is incorrect at this time. You see, it is the policy that is preventing doctors from providing the very best treatment to all of their patients, so now yes, we have doctors that have stepped up to the plate to make the policy so that this will no longer be a problem. The problem being is that we have a wall of politicians standing in our way to stop us, we get through that and you will see these plans implemented, and better health care for all. Did you bother reading my links?
Something is only free if Noone pays for it, otherwise it is "complimentary".
I seem to remember you saying something about living in some isolated, sparse suburbia; half-wild and half-civilized place where cops train on your family's ranch. Was that you or another female poster? If so, It wouldn't surprise me that you know none of "those" doctors, because it sounds as if you don't have a large pool near you to compare.
Thanks for acknowledging by your own definition, that food, housing and water can be gotten free of charge... much more than just "air". I think I'll add clothing on that list too.(Indians and many other peoples had "free" clothes for years) Free of charge as well. Transportation too (horses, carts, wagons)
Heck, the Amish near me live almost exclusively on "free" things. Your argument that there is no "free" things in life fails very badly, just by your own definition of it.
I live 15 minutes from Dallas, I did my internship at Parkland Hospital , Dallas. The free clinic is in Garland ,Texas( Dallas county) .Obviously you know so little about texas that our "outskirts and cities and suburbs are all " merged". I live in Rockwall, Texas just outside of Dallas. ( get your map out) Though we are the wealthiest per sq ft county in the state, we have quite a variety of doctors, billionares, celebrities, and needy in our city. Most of the needy in my area are families, single moms, andn those who recently were laid off from work.
Rather than argue nonessential nonsense about what free is , can we discuss the real problem here? providing proper health to those who need it. The bottom line is this, socialized government controlled healthcare is not the solution, rather allowing the doctors to solve the problem by allowing them control of patient care.
The IADMD® Health Care Proposal:
1. Connect Doctors of All Disciplines:
For years, Dentists have been the primary care providers of the teeth and oral cavity; and
Physicians have been the primary care providers for the rest of the body.
But imagine the possibilities if we became something entirely new: Partners.
Formed in 2004, Chartered in 2005:
The International Association of
Dental and Medical
Disciplines®
IADMD®
2. Remove Three Inefficiencies that Raise Insurance Premiums and Impede Healing:
I. Interdisciplinary Certifications for Streamlined Overall Health:
Doctors are interdisciplinary trained or authenticated within secure portals becoming
“IADMD® Certified” at no charge with Emblem Seal and Certification authenticating:
Dentists better understand how systemic conditions
affect treatment;
Physicians better understand diseases of the oral cavity;
ALL Doctors receive dental-medical best practices and integrated standards for pre-medications and treatment windows.
II. Unbiased Doctors Sitting at the Table for Insurance Rate and Provision Proposals for Health Care:
The IADMD plan calls for each state appointing a minimum of two dentists and two physicians in each state
to ensure the proper medical triage of protocols as it relates to insurance legislation and premium hikes.
Each dentist and physician appointee would be authenticated by IADMD as being unbiased and unattached
from insurance company or government stakeholders before they could be assigned to represent doctors
in each state working with each state's insurance commissioners.
III. Unbiased Doctors Sitting at the Table for Government Mandates and Judicial Proposals for Doctors:
A. Frivolous Law Suits and Claims:
When a doctor faces a frivolous lawsuit against a non-medical issue that suddenly turns “medical"—and
the judicial system favors such awards, insurance costs rise and doctors are torn down and ruined; their
capacities become limited and their patients suffer.
B. Legislative Mandates for Stakeholder-Biased Consumer Fears or Protections:
When a doctor faces mandates and scrutiny against exaggerated or non-doctor deemed patient issues,
entered into legislation or initiating public fear, e.g., HIPAA, NPI, EHR, Amalgam fillings, everyone that
matters suffer. Honoring the Hippocratic Oath and abound with good, doctors begin looked
upon as potential criminals or wrong-doers, facing sanctions and criminal investigations. All because a
stakeholder wanted to capitalize on some potentially viable matters for review that had gone awry and
way too far. Cyclical ongoing negatives breeding more negatives, this harm ensues fuel. Claims pile in
from jealous individuals, competitors, disgruntled ex-employees, and the like, protected by the
whistle-blower act. These protected wrong-doers, on a mission for vengeance, harm, money or power,
don't mind spending tax-payer money is what fuels federal agents, armed with millions of dollars in
taxpayer-supplied investigatory funds. Costs to the practitioner, even when found not to be guilty, face
catastrophic damages, insurance costs rise and doctors are torn down and ruined; their capacities
become limited and their patients suffer.
The IADMD plan calls for each state appointing a minimum of two dentists and two physicians in each state
to ensure the proper handling of legislation and judicial allowances as it relates to dentists and physicians in
every state. Each dentist and physician appointee would be authenticated by IADMD as being unbiased and
unattached from lobbyist groups, big business or government stakeholders before they could be assigned to
represent doctors in each state working with each state's law makers.
3.
Fair Share Credit for Donated and Affordable Health Services:
Through an intricate, secure network of hosted web sites within each doctor’s office, IADMD will provide a portal for doctors offices that keeps doctors' abreast of updates in overall health that helps patients as well as the doctors. The point is to make it easy and worthwhile for doctors to help the system as they are the only ones that can fix the problem:
Putting the reins back into the hands of doctors and their preferred treatments of choice;
Streamlining overall health and interdisciplinary considerations that cuts wasteful spending and saves lives;
Forbidding unethical practices and frivolous lawsuits where abuse runs rampant and increase costs;
Placing unbiased certified doctors at the insurance commissioner table working with rate increase proposals as they arrive from insurance carriers with red-flagging wasteful spending and working with rate development from the actuarial level and forecasting trends that hit the insurance commissioners for approval frequently.
While the proposal takes on more donated services, and lowers private insurance rates, these IADMD® Certified doctors receive tax credits in exchange for their efforts.
With IADMD® Certifications and Fair Share Credit technology, dentists and physicians around the country will alleviate the burden of uninsured and underinsured, while making the private sector of insurance affordable for all.
This is a non-socialized plan with some simple but profound concepts that make health care coverage affordable. At the same time, it secures every person’s right to the highest quality care without adding taxes or burdens on employers or taxpayers. This platform is set to launch an aggressive effort in Washington, D.C.
Facts:
√ Many uninsured individuals forgo care when they do not fall within government or charitable assistance groups.
√ The U.S. government bestows excellent tax breaks on the average U.S. citizen—but not to doctors for donating care.
√ The government is seeking health care solutions while there’s a whole nation of doctors who are willing to open their doors to the disadvantaged and oppressed.
√ The government is luring viable able-bodied individuals to seek government assisted health care solutions for
affordability options all while that individual's cost to the government would be more than the cost of private insurance under the IADMD proposal.
√ The deficiencies that would continue without IADMD's eyes and ears from the doctors' perspectives on best of
care for overall health creates millions of travesties to human life and trillions of dollars in wasteful spending.
How long has IADMD been around?
IADMD has been in development for nearly five years. With the infrastructure and technology in place, the health care association is actively seeking legislators worldwide to help them in their efforts to revolutionize health care.
What is the doctor-driven health care plan in a nutshell?
The hallmark of IADMD’s health care initiative is a “marriage” between dentists, physicians and alternative doctors to confer for their patients’ overall health, removing barriers that often lead to illness or chronic disease, and streamlining best of care to cut waste.
Why is the IADMD doing this?
For the United States to stay the leader in the world of health care—not succumb to following other nations.
To permit doctors of all disciplines to unite to resolve health care with a doctor-led model—putting dentists and physicians in charge of medicine and patient care decisions; creating an environment that allows all individuals, communities, politicians, lawmakers and insurers throughout the world to achieve all that is possible when it comes to health care, technology and innovation in the interest of human life, where it rightfully belongs—not the bottom line of powerful interests.
What are other elements of the IADMD-Proposal:
Honoring the spirit of those researching cures, donating services, and revolutionizing health care with tax credits;
Laying the groundwork for a healthier tomorrow with a doctor-led health care movement that keeps primary focus on human life is where it unquestioningly needs to be;
Imparting awareness and solutions for change on key objectives:
Health care costs, service and claim processing will significantly improve to a compulsory maximum of $100 per individual per month without discrimination, providing coverage for overall health care for dentistry, medicine, and alternative wellness: regardless of financial standing, income, age, health, gender or marital status;
Health care access will be within reach, and remain portable without 'preferred' practitioners;
All insurers will honor the IADMD®-Certified doctor’s preferred treatment of choice for referall and drugs to prevent and attenuate the disease process disease and streamline avoidable long-standing costs–by nipping problems in the bud–at the start of treatment;
Usual Customary Rates (UCR) will be determined by unbiased IADMD®-Certified Intermediator Doctors;
All patients will gain assurance in knowing that all their practitioners are connected and certified by the IADMD® in core interdisciplinary dental and medical doctrines which foster the managing of each individual as a whole person;
IADMD®-Certified Providers will receive 100-cents on every reimbursable dollar;
No taxpayer or employer will have to fund any one else’s coverage;
Paperwork will be reduced, clarified and universal amongst carriers and providers;
Insurers will be sanctioned for claim payments not made in a timely fashion or involving red-tape stalling tacticts to avoid payment;
Exaggerated or non-doctor deemed patient issues, previously entered into legislation or initiating public fear, e.g., HIPAA, NPI, EHR, Amalgam fillings that need to be revisited with unbiased IADMD®-Certified Intermediator Dentists and Physicians at the state and federal levels.
To empower doctors to provide the highest-quality overall health care by using Secure-IT Tecnology for Internet communications between doctors and their colleagues and patients;
Honor doctors' past, present and future donated services using Fair Share Credit® and Secure-IT Technology® and data capture for reimbursement of tax credits.
The plan is universal, developed by doctors, and gives to the community as opposed to taking from it. IADMD believes that every individual should have the right to the highest-quality affordable, whole body, private health care.
IADMD’s core principles, standards, best practices, and risk management for interdisciplinary dental and medical doctrines, ensure that redundancies and inefficiencies end and frivolous lawsuits that increase insurance premiums are greatly reduced.
IADMD®-appointed State Board Doctors of all disciplines with more than 25 years as heads of private practices—NOT Big Business, will work out the details to incorporate this IADMD®-Certified Overall Health Care Model that will reduce the price of private insurance to make it affordable for all. The proposal involves the means to enforce a government mandated CAP onto all private insurers that their pricing involves a Health care costs, service and claim processing will significantly improve to a compulsory maximum of $100 per individual per month without discrimination, providing coverage for overall health care for dentistry, medicine, and alternative wellness: regardless of financial standing, income, age, health, gender or marital status, to ensure that private insurance is affordable for all, and to insure to all taxpayers that no one owes any one else a living, least especially the Big Business Insurers and CEOs. This proposal puts and END to the attractiveness of government-subsidized care that will not create a mandate burden of expense onto employers or taxpayers, while its mandates are placed on Big Business Insurers to reimburse providers at 100-cents on every reimbursement dollar, without 'preferred' providers, without provisions and denials for any IADMD®-Certified Practitioners, rules of which are overseen by IADMD®-appointed State Board Doctor Intermediaries together with each states' Insurance Commissioner and Health and Human Services of the Federal Government.
With health care so murky and out of control, unmanageable, and even off-purpose—
why not look to the ONLY professionals who CAN help...
...The IADMD® Certified Doctors:
—The Dentist and Physician State Intermediaries and Health Care Providers
Originally posted by popinjay Two viable options right there among others for future doctors wanting to help citizens. Or are those doctors you mention "too good" to go earn it by serving their country?
Not everyone is cut out for the military nor do they wish to travel to third world countries.
Originally posted by sniperg Dek that's an illogical argumemt because first of all everyone pays taxes direct or indirect. So even a person that his wage/salary/whatever doesn't have him oweing taxes still pays indirect ones for absolutely everything. Furthermore the difference is in the legality of between these 2 categories.
It seems you are speaking of sales taxes. Income tax and sales tax are quite different in regards to what programs they pay for. First, and foremost, as a consumer, we do not pay federal taxes on products directly - those costs trickle down within the price of the good sold. What we pay is a state, city, or both sales tax on goods. These funds, however, do not pay for such programs as stated above - income payroll tax does. You're playing a guessing game on our tax codes, and you are wrong.
Hmm I see.
So only income taxes go for the aforementioned social services? For what purpose the taxes on sales, services etc are used for then?
Well it is a guessing game for me since every time I am in the US I have to guess what is the actual price of anything, since no shop includes taxes on its price.:)
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Obama was the worst choice in a country going through severe recession. People elected a man who needs a telepromter to tell him what to say for everything... absolutely everything, speeches other people write for him, words that are not even his. He has been caught saying there are 57 states in the US for crying out loud, he actually read the prime minister of Irelands speech instead of his own, half way through realizing its probably not his... Woops! I get worried when a president of the united states isnt even willing to put his hand over his heart like everyone else when hearing the national anthem, or pledge of allegience, or anything else that most people and all politicians show as patriotic.
Bush put a hole in the wall... Obama took a sledge hammer and made it bigger, all the while saying "its Bush's fault". OF course, the idiots of america, those that still support Obama, believe everything he says without question. Obama said it himself, "I wont let a good crisis go to waste". Thats his mentality, and his quote. Hes milking the crisis for as much as its worth, keeping it alive, so he can push his progessive agendas. He really is no different than bush, only hes doing it faster and worse than Bush.
Obama promised that if he was made president, he would Keep Lobbyist out of key positions. Thats a pretty big and important promise. Most of the people he put in key positions are LOBBYIST! How many of you supporters can accept that he just pulled a damn hat trick on you? He tells people what they want to hear, but does the exact opposite. Lies upon lies to push an agenda, and some of you eat it all up, and are oblivious his deceptions. Wake up already for f sake. Good watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyVDakMiEPM
Both him and Pelosi swore, directly to the camera, there would be no earmarks or pork in the stimulous bill. Woops they just lied. You know we are in a messed up country when politicans can swear on something in front of a camera, with a confident smirk on their face, and do the exact opposite.
Obama said he would stop spending 9 billion dollars in Iraq for war, in fact he would be cutting the war effort entirely. Guess what? He is spending 9% more than Bush on the war effort, and is merely moving SOME of the troops over to another country. Wow, he sure fooled you. Hate Bush for spending way too much money for war? Well you damn well better hate Obama for spending MORE for MORE WAR. Good grief. He actually said he, and i quote, "is the only candidate that fully oposes war". Uh... he must not have heard of Ron Paul. Furthermore, he didnt even follow through with his claim. Hah!
Strange the first thing when elected president was allow federal spending for abortion clinics over seas. Ok, yeah thats smart. We are having a financial crisis, and he wants to give our money away for over sea abortions? Brilliant... NOT! He also played the tune to Planned Parent hoods desires for blotched abortion, after birth killing. Meaning if an abortion fails, and the baby is born, then the doctor can strangle the infant until its dead. BRILLIANT! You know hes paying back PP for their help in getting him elected. If this doesnt put a tear in your eye, i dont know what else will. (I dare you to watch this, if some religous references bother you, just ignore them and listen to the main topic) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKrW7vP8W00
Obama thought it would be a good idea to fly airforce one over new york, dangerously low, followed by a fighter jet, just for a photoshoot, you know ...promotional material. Look at the reaction! Yeah, after 9/11 in New York, you would think that wouldnt be a smart idea.
Furthermore he stands firmly being Timothy Geitner, consistently. This is his man! This man, also didnt pay over $30,000 in taxes. Kind of funny since hes kind of in charge of that field... and he admits to wanting to destroy the value of the dollar so the banks can replace it. He is a crook, everyone knows it. Obama knows it, and pats him on the back, supports him.
This is just going too far, wake the hell up!
If you havent learned about Ron Paul yet, now is the time.
Originally posted by sniperg Dek that's an illogical argumemt because first of all everyone pays taxes direct or indirect. So even a person that his wage/salary/whatever doesn't have him oweing taxes still pays indirect ones for absolutely everything. Furthermore the difference is in the legality of between these 2 categories.
It seems you are speaking of sales taxes. Income tax and sales tax are quite different in regards to what programs they pay for. First, and foremost, as a consumer, we do not pay federal taxes on products directly - those costs trickle down within the price of the good sold. What we pay is a state, city, or both sales tax on goods. These funds, however, do not pay for such programs as stated above - income payroll tax does. You're playing a guessing game on our tax codes, and you are wrong.
Hmm I see.
So only income taxes go for the aforementioned social services? For what purpose the taxes on sales, services etc are used for then?
Well it is a guessing game for me since every time I am in the US I have to guess what is the actual price of anything, since no shop includes taxes on its price.:)
Public services such as fire, police, schools, et cetera, for example. Some sales taxes, such as those on cigarettes, go to subsidized health care.
And, I agree. I am all for what is called the Fair Tax. In short, it removes payroll taxes and puts a federal inclusive consumption tax on goods and services.
I loved that when I lived in Europe (Hungary). Something would be priced at 300 forints and I simply paid 300 forints. The inclusive tax, I believe, was near 25%. The Fair Tax caps at 23%.
Do you know if your taxes are going up? Are there any official increases coming your way? Is it substantial?
No you don't. So until there is a final plan waiting to be voted on, you should hold judgement. Only an idiot vetoes a bill without reading it first. I believe that no one who is doing well enough for themselves is going to see a change in lifestyle if something like this get's enacted. You don't.
The end.
Yes I do. The fed won't have a choice. But my point was that people in my tax bracket already carry 57% of the burden for the Fed and we are a gross minority. The concept is wrong, it isn't what was intended by the founders of our government, and continuing just because it has been done in the past is not reason it is misfortune. And, yes I can see a change. Just the fact that I pay more in taxes than the median household income of nearly two average American families is enough for me to know there is something wrong and that was with Bush's so-called breaks to the "richest Americans". It was wrong in 1913, and it is wrong now. I am not making a pre-emptive veto of only Obama's policy, it is a declaration of wrongful taxation that goes literally back to the Revolution.
It just seems to me that people don;t want REAL solutions, they just want political control. They do not want to hear about nonsocialized better solutions, for the only reason that their political party is endorsing only socialized options. The true goal is helping people, I wish they could get past their political agendas to find the best answers, no matter where they come from.
I am tired of both parties manipulation and control. It is like Obamas anti lobbyist campaign, he caters to the financial lobbyist and locks out the doctors that are already practicing free healthcare because they don;t give him more money. No, those doctors instead of trying to bribe politicians spend their time and money on treating people, and they are not being heard. He "picks and chooses" where to apply this, and only uses it for his partys interests rather than the people. Bush ignored us, Obama ignores us , they are one in the same to me.
Bottom line is we should look out for the best interests of the people not political agendas. Until that changes things will only get worse not better. Their actions speak louder than words, remember, just because they tell you it is a good thing, that doesn;t make it so.
Yes I do. The fed won't have a choice. But my point was that people in my tax bracket already carry 57% of the burden for the Fed and we are a gross minority. The concept is wrong, it isn't what was intended by the founders of our government, and continuing just because it has been done in the past is not reason it is misfortune. And, yes I can see a change. Just the fact that I pay more in taxes than the median household income of nearly two average American families is enough for me to know there is something wrong and that was with Bush's so-called breaks to the "richest Americans". It was wrong in 1913, and it is wrong now. I am not making a pre-emptive veto of only Obama's policy, it is a declaration of wrongful taxation that goes literally back to the Revolution.
I think you're exaggerating heavily about that tax rate.
But even if you weren't, I don't know what you're complaint is about. You are I cannot say what the founders had in mind, we can only go what's written. And what's written is nothing about the tax code. The tax code is something completely different than what people erroneously lump together with the Constitution. Your argument has to do with tax code, not that.
So, lobby for tax code change. Vote for people who say they will change it to your favor. If enough people think like you do, then there will be enough politicians to change the TAX CODE to your liking.
But if the majority of people feel the tax code is okay as it is for the most part, and they don't want politicians to let rich businesses off the hook, allow rich people to hide in offshore and international tax shelters, and stick them with the excess, then we have what we have now.
If you don't like this system, I'm sure Mexico or Nigeria would be more than happy to have your business and citizenship.
Comments
This statement shows just how duped you are. If you think there is such a thing as FREE healthcare, you are sorely mistaken. Government mandate is going to mean more confiscation of wealth from the private sector.
So a homeless guy stopping by the pharmacy for his regular free meds is not free healthcare?
No, actually nothing in life is free. Someone pays for it somewhere. The costs of the medication is added on to the costs to paying consumers. For every complimentary medication that is given out, it raises the price of medication for everyone else. That is just how it works.
For the government to receive a reduced cost in medication or services, the companies just raise the price to compensate for the loss in revenue on the private sector; Thus increasing costs to consumers and insurance companies. This results in everyone paying more for the services they already receive.
When the US goes to universal healthcare, the companies will be forced to raise the prices on an medications and services offered to all countries. Many of these countries will not be able to afford the increased costs and will be facing either 1. Bankruptcy or 2. raised taxes in order to keep up. Either that or they will be forced to drop their universal coverage because it will then be made too expensive to cover everyone.
What most people fail to understand is that the US citizens agreed to pay more for their healthcare than other nations so that those countries could receieve affordable healthcare. When we go to universal coverage, it will result in a decline in healthcare around the globe. Countires will be forced to receieve medications from unreliable sources to recieve medication at their current rate.
Everything does have a price, everything has an opposite but equal reaction. You have to weigh the good with the bad when considering this matter. It is all a matter of what people globally are willing to sacrifice to make this happen.
So in short. Yes it is free to the homeless guy.
Which is what you don't get. Even if my taxes go up some, I'm willing to pay more to help out those who have nothing. Get them the medical help they need, which gives them a shot at a better life, getting a job, and start paying taxes on the money they earn. So everyone paying a little could potentially increase the revenue generated by the government through taxes and eventually cause our taxes to go back to the regular rates or even lower due to the increased number of people filing.
Or you can just assume all people who need help are low lifes and aren't worthy of your help because you are above them.
I look at the big picture, helping out our society as a whole. People like you look after themselves.
The Official God FAQ
We could just euthanize the homeless. That would save money all-around. They get sick a lot, living outside and whatnot.
------------------
Originally posted by javac
well i'm 35 and have a PhD in science, and then 10 years experience in bioinformatics... you?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/218865/page/8
This statement shows just how duped you are. If you think there is such a thing as FREE healthcare, you are sorely mistaken. Government mandate is going to mean more confiscation of wealth from the private sector.
So a homeless guy stopping by the pharmacy for his regular free meds is not free healthcare?
No, actually nothing in life is free. Someone pays for it somewhere. The costs of the medication is added on to the costs to paying consumers. For every complimentary medication that is given out, it raises the price of medication for everyone else. That is just how it works.
For the government to receive a reduced cost in medication or services, the companies just raise the price to compensate for the loss in revenue on the private sector; Thus increasing costs to consumers and insurance companies. This results in everyone paying more for the services they already receive.
When the US goes to universal healthcare, the companies will be forced to raise the prices on an medications and services offered to all countries. Many of these countries will not be able to afford the increased costs and will be facing either 1. Bankruptcy or 2. raised taxes in order to keep up. Either that or they will be forced to drop their universal coverage because it will then be made too expensive to cover everyone.
What most people fail to understand is that the US citizens agreed to pay more for their healthcare than other nations so that those countries could receieve affordable healthcare. When we go to universal coverage, it will result in a decline in healthcare around the globe. Countires will be forced to receieve medications from unreliable sources to recieve medication at their current rate.
Everything does have a price, everything has an opposite but equal reaction. You have to weigh the good with the bad when considering this matter. It is all a matter of what people globally are willing to sacrifice to make this happen.
So in short. Yes it is free to the homeless guy.
Which is what you don't get. Even if my taxes go up some, I'm willing to pay more to help out those who have nothing. Get them the medical help they need, which gives them a shot at a better life, getting a job, and start paying taxes on the money they earn. So everyone paying a little could potentially increase the revenue generated by the government through taxes and eventually cause our taxes to go back to the regular rates or even lower due to the increased number of people filing.
Or you can just assume all people who need help are low lifes and aren't worthy of your help because you are above them.
I look at the big picture, helping out our society as a whole. People like you look after themselves.
Considering I have worked in this field for some time, I for one do not think that those who are in need of help are " low lives" any person can become ill, no longer be able to work, spend their life savings and sell everything they own to cover medical treatment, I have worked on the front lines here, I know how serious this matter really is. The question is not whether or not help is needed, it is how we go about accomplishing this.
I disagree that the government or insurance companies rather than doctors should be determining a patients care. I am a strong supporter for doctors determining the best course of action, not anyone else deciding what is best for their patients. That is where we run into problems with this plan.
Doctors organizations have offered solutions, but those solutions are not being considered by our government at this time. I think they should consider those options first before reducing the treatment and care of everyone.
And yea, I spend most of my time volunteering in my community, put in countless hours at the free clinic, hauled truckloads and unloaded them myself of medication for the free clinic.. but I only look after myself.
This statement shows just how duped you are. If you think there is such a thing as FREE healthcare, you are sorely mistaken. Government mandate is going to mean more confiscation of wealth from the private sector.
If you would like to argue a semantical argument, then you are welcome to make that thread.
When I refer to "free" healthcare, I think you know what is meant.
"TO MICHAEL!"
When a legal immigrant, someone who has never worked from birth to death as a U.S. born citizen or even an illegal immigrant gets injured or sick, the United States is obligated to see that they are treated. The people are not required to reimburse the government if/when they get well.
If those same folks bought a $1 lottery ticket the day after they walked out of the hospital after being treated and won $100,000,000, they would owe the government taxes on it, but they wouldn't be liable for the free care they received. It was free to them, and that is what we are discussing, although you do seem unaware of that. The fact that they now pay proably 60% tax on that windfall more than makes up for the tiny amount they received, and that's the idea behind the system. Those same people can't turn around and say I'll just pay for the healthcare I got, and that's it. That's a stupid suggestion.
The fact that someone else pays taxes their entire life and never once needs Medicare or Federal Assistance of any kind is irrelevant. The law isn't made to suit that individual's personal happiness. It is to suit the society and nation's COLLECTIVE happiness. These are the things civilized nations do for its citizens, especially one that espoused virtues worldwide and imposes them on other countries.
There is such a thing as free healthcare to the individual who has never paid into the system.
"TO MICHAEL!"
It seems you are speaking of sales taxes. Income tax and sales tax are quite different in regards to what programs they pay for. First, and foremost, as a consumer, we do not pay federal taxes on products directly - those costs trickle down within the price of the good sold. What we pay is a state, city, or both sales tax on goods. These funds, however, do not pay for such programs as stated above - income payroll tax does. You're playing a guessing game on our tax codes, and you are wrong.
Where do you personally draw the line though? Seriously, when the Obama administration says you need to pay more taxes for the "common good." Where do you say, "No more!"? Is it when your taxes are at 35%? 50%? 75%? 90%? When do you draw the line, when they start taking your property and savings or is that too late? When you work hard and earn over 250,000 in one year, do you draw the line when they say you make too much (for those that are interested, that is what the administration is beginning to say is "too much")? And honestly, what right, under our Constitution does the Federal Government have to limit an individual's accumulation of property? Considering it is expressly prohibited, none.
Government entitlements are nothing more than government waste. If the government did not mettle in the affairs of the market, someone would find benefit in providing what the government provides now. It would be run efficiently and it would waste less. The only catch is that someone would have to make money. But guess what, rather than the government making billions off restricting the market through manipulation, you could instead have a private citizen or corporation make a few hundred million. A few hundred million might sound like too much to you social liberals out there, but it pales in comparison to the billions that the government makes through market manipulation.
You do realize that the government is the biggest purchaser, employer, debtor, etc in the US? Their hands are in every part of your everyday life, from the road you take to work, the salary and taxes your employer is required to comply, possibly even the job you do exists due to government regulation, the gas you put in your car, the car you drive and the requirements for emissions and safety, every - fricking - thing - you - touch has been touched by the Fed in some way fashion or form. Think about all the money the Fed needs to spend on the beaurocracy needed for these tasks. Think about the immense burden this places on the economy. Actually, think about what our economy would be like if the federal government let the free market play out for a change, what would the economy look like if trillions of dollars were spent on the economy instead of the Fed? Talk about a stimulus. The Fed does not have enough income through taxes to cover spending, and it cannot sustain itself with it's current beaurocracy and entitlements. The Fed will have no choice in the future but to raise taxes somewhere or completely change tax law. Do you suggest that the top 5% of American earners continue to carry the disproportionate burden (57% of Federal taxes)?
When a legal immigrant, someone who has never worked from birth to death as a U.S. born citizen or even an illegal immigrant gets injured or sick, the United States is obligated to see that they are treated. The people are not required to reimburse the government if/when they get well.
If those same folks bought a $1 lottery ticket the day after they walked out of the hospital after being treated and won $100,000,000, they would owe the government taxes on it, but they wouldn't be liable for the free care they received. It was free to them, and that is what we are discussing, although you do seem unaware of that. The fact that they now pay proably 60% tax on that windfall more than makes up for the tiny amount they received, and that's the idea behind the system. Those same people can't turn around and say I'll just pay for the healthcare I got, and that's it. That's a stupid suggestion.
The fact that someone else pays taxes their entire life and never once needs Medicare or Federal Assistance of any kind is irrelevant. The law isn't made to suit that individual's personal happiness. It is to suit the society and nation's COLLECTIVE happiness. These are the things civilized nations do for its citizens, especially one that espoused virtues worldwide and imposes them on other countries.
There is such a thing as free healthcare to the individual who has never paid into the system.
I am a member of IADMD. Maybe you have heard of us? If not:
www.iadmd.org/
More about us:
www.fiercehealthcare.com/press-releases/doctor-non-socialized-no-tax-burden-doctored-universal-health-care-plan
The government is not the best solution here. Doctors are. Doctors are on the front lines every day, Doctors are the ones willing to give it all. We have offered propsals, but are not being heard. The governments solution is not what is best for patients. Patients care needs to be determined by doctors, not people trying to cut corners to reduce costs.
It is not free if someone pays for it somewhere, no it was bought for you, not free. Nothing is free except the air you breathe, enjoy that while it lasts.
Making the WRONG decision just to do "anything " about it when there are better, more effective options availiable, does not make that a good decision. Doing "anything" which is how I view Obamas not very well thought out plan , it is not the BEST solution to our problem. He should listen to what our doctors have to say before pushing any of this forward.
Where do you personally draw the line though? Seriously, when the Obama administration says you need to pay more taxes for the "common good." Where do you say, "No more!"? Is it when your taxes are at 35%? 50%? 75%? 90%? When do you draw the line, when they start taking your property and savings or is that too late? When you work hard and earn over 250,000 in one year, do you draw the line when they say you make too much (for those that are interested, that is what the administration is beginning to say is "too much")? And honestly, what right, under our Constitution does the Federal Government have to limit an individual's accumulation of property? Considering it is expressly prohibited, none.
Government entitlements are nothing more than government waste. If the government did not mettle in the affairs of the market, someone would find benefit in providing what the government provides now. It would be run efficiently and it would waste less. The only catch is that someone would have to make money. But guess what, rather than the government making billions off restricting the market through manipulation, you could instead have a private citizen or corporation make a few hundred million. A few hundred million might sound like too much to you social liberals out there, but it pales in comparison to the billions that the government makes through market manipulation.
You do realize that the government is the biggest purchaser, employer, debtor, etc in the US? Their hands are in every part of your everyday life, from the road you take to work, the salary and taxes your employer is required to comply, possibly even the job you do exists due to government regulation, the gas you put in your car, the car you drive and the requirements for emissions and safety, every - fricking - thing - you - touch has been touched by the Fed in some way fashion or form. Think about all the money the Fed needs to spend on the beaurocracy needed for these tasks. Think about the immense burden this places on the economy. Actually, think about what our economy would be like if the federal government let the free market play out for a change, what would the economy look like if trillions of dollars were spent on the economy instead of the Fed? Talk about a stimulus. The Fed does not have enough income through taxes to cover spending, and it cannot sustain itself with it's current beaurocracy and entitlements. The Fed will have no choice in the future but to raise taxes somewhere or completely change tax law. Do you suggest that the top 5% of American earners continue to carry the disproportionate burden (57% of Federal taxes)?
Do you know if your taxes are going up? Are there any official increases coming your way? Is it substantial?
No you don't. So until there is a final plan waiting to be voted on, you should hold judgement. Only an idiot vetoes a bill without reading it first. I believe that no one who is doing well enough for themselves is going to see a change in lifestyle if something like this get's enacted. You don't.
The end.
The Official God FAQ
I simply ask, why? Why is it our obligation. And remember, it is the taxpayer being held responsible hostage to cover this burden. Please, explain why it is my, yours, or our neighbor's responsibility, especially when one breaks the law by illegally entering our country. Please, explain it.
And, if you provide a philosophical reason, please state the exact theory you are following, for example, utilitarianism, etc.
And, once again, are you a taxpayer? Do you pay taxes, or do you show a big zero on taxes paid when, and if, you file a tax return?
Do you get food stamps, medicare/medicaid, TANF, etc?
What government benefits do you, or your family, personally receive?
Still a semantical and false argument. Of course it's free to the person who recieves it and didn't pay a dime.
Semantics? Even by your own definition, just air is free is false. If you live by a stream, that's free. What about food? You can fish at a lake, stream or river.. that's free food. What about housing? You can build your own cabin. So right there, I've showed you that you can live completely and totally free, so things in life ARE free. Semantics is fun! Wheeeeeee! Let's stop semantic talk and get real, ok?
Doctors just want to practice medicine, they don't want to make policy. The good doctors treat any patient regardless of ability to pay. The good ones still adhere to the standard idea of the Hippocratic oath. But increasingly, you see these capitalistic doctors that do nothing but try and maximize a bottom line and I do not want these doctors determining my course of health.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Still a semantical and false argument. Of course it's free to the person who recieves it and didn't pay a dime.
Semantics? Even by your own definition, just air is free is false. If you live by a stream, that's free. What about food? You can fish at a lake, stream or river.. that's free food. What about housing? You can build your own cabin. So right there, I've showed you that you can live completely and totally free, so things in life ARE free. Semantics is fun! Wheeeeeee! Let's stop semantic talk and get real, ok?
Doctors just want to practice medicine, they don't want to make policy. The good doctors treat any patient regardless of ability to pay. The good ones still adhere to the standard idea of the Hippocratic oath. But increasingly, you see these capitalistic doctors that do nothing but try and maximize a bottom line and I do not want these doctors determining my course of health.
I don't happen to know any of "those" doctors, because the ones I associate with are all in it to help people, regardless of their ability to pay. Your statement about doctors not wanting to make policy is incorrect at this time. You see, it is the policy that is preventing doctors from providing the very best treatment to all of their patients, so now yes, we have doctors that have stepped up to the plate to make the policy so that this will no longer be a problem. The problem being is that we have a wall of politicians standing in our way to stop us, we get through that and you will see these plans implemented, and better health care for all. Did you bother reading my links?
Something is only free if Noone pays for it, otherwise it is "complimentary".
Because they went to school for 10+ years and are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. How should they recoup that investment?
The reason you have to pay into it, is because as a member of the United States, you are subject to its laws and restrictions. If the law says you have to pay taxes, you have to pay. You cannot pick and choose what goods and services YOU want to pay for. That is not your decision, it is the decision of the elected members of government. You have the right to pick those people, but you do not get the right to tell them HOW they vote or spend your money. If you don't like how they do it, vote them out. It's what the rest of us did with the 21% nation. They are just about gone. Hopefully to soon to end up the Whig or the American Nazi political parties did.
Now for all your complaining, tell me of any country other than the United States where someone like you who doesn't like our setup is going to get a BETTER deal than you have now? Where would someone like YOU go if this is so unfair? Fantasyland is the only place I know of. Canada, UK, France, Germany, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,... all use a model even MORE socialist in nature than you have now. So I have no idea what all the crying you people keep doing is about.
The form of government you have is as good as it gets. Enough of us in the U.S. are happy with the idea of joining the rest of the nations somewhat more in social policies, but keeping our constitutional LAWS the way they are. If you have a problem with our policies, good luck on your most excellent adventure looking for Conservative Utopia. But the U.S. ain't and won't be it.
Sorry.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I seem to remember you saying something about living in some isolated, sparse suburbia; half-wild and half-civilized place where cops train on your family's ranch. Was that you or another female poster? If so, It wouldn't surprise me that you know none of "those" doctors, because it sounds as if you don't have a large pool near you to compare.
Thanks for acknowledging by your own definition, that food, housing and water can be gotten free of charge... much more than just "air". I think I'll add clothing on that list too.(Indians and many other peoples had "free" clothes for years) Free of charge as well. Transportation too (horses, carts, wagons)
Heck, the Amish near me live almost exclusively on "free" things. Your argument that there is no "free" things in life fails very badly, just by your own definition of it.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Peace Corp. U.S. Military.
Two viable options right there among others for future doctors wanting to help citizens. Or are those doctors you mention "too good" to go earn it by serving their country? I guess only private medical schools for them. Pass the latte.
Anything else? Please continue to cry me a river.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Nice dodge of the question. Obviously law is the reason, but I asked why we must pay from a philosophical stand point? You've stated before the Fair Tax is unfair. But, if it were law, then it would be fair since it would be the law?
I never complained of MY situation, only of taxes. And, if you can recall, the very ideal of oppressive taxes was a major, major, major consideration in the American Revolution.
And, enough of the US? Look at the demographics of the majority of Obama voters. They are ones that will not be affected by tax increases - they are ones that will benefit off the backs of others. Of course they do not have issues with it - they get to depend on the government instead of taking personal responsibility for their lives.
I seem to remember you saying something about living in some isolated, sparse suburbia; half-wild and half-civilized place where cops train on your family's ranch. Was that you or another female poster? If so, It wouldn't surprise me that you know none of "those" doctors, because it sounds as if you don't have a large pool near you to compare.
Thanks for acknowledging by your own definition, that food, housing and water can be gotten free of charge... much more than just "air". I think I'll add clothing on that list too.(Indians and many other peoples had "free" clothes for years) Free of charge as well. Transportation too (horses, carts, wagons)
Heck, the Amish near me live almost exclusively on "free" things. Your argument that there is no "free" things in life fails very badly, just by your own definition of it.
I live 15 minutes from Dallas, I did my internship at Parkland Hospital , Dallas. The free clinic is in Garland ,Texas( Dallas county) .Obviously you know so little about texas that our "outskirts and cities and suburbs are all " merged". I live in Rockwall, Texas just outside of Dallas. ( get your map out) Though we are the wealthiest per sq ft county in the state, we have quite a variety of doctors, billionares, celebrities, and needy in our city. Most of the needy in my area are families, single moms, andn those who recently were laid off from work.
Rather than argue nonessential nonsense about what free is , can we discuss the real problem here? providing proper health to those who need it. The bottom line is this, socialized government controlled healthcare is not the solution, rather allowing the doctors to solve the problem by allowing them control of patient care.
The IADMD® Health Care Proposal:
1. Connect Doctors of All Disciplines:
For years, Dentists have been the primary care providers of the teeth and oral cavity; and
Physicians have been the primary care providers for the rest of the body.
But imagine the possibilities if we became something entirely new: Partners.
Formed in 2004, Chartered in 2005:
The International Association of
Dental and Medical
Disciplines®
IADMD®
2. Remove Three Inefficiencies that Raise Insurance Premiums and Impede Healing:
I. Interdisciplinary Certifications for Streamlined Overall Health:
Doctors are interdisciplinary trained or authenticated within secure portals becoming
“IADMD® Certified” at no charge with Emblem Seal and Certification authenticating:
Dentists better understand how systemic conditions
affect treatment;
Physicians better understand diseases of the oral cavity;
ALL Doctors receive dental-medical best practices and integrated standards for pre-medications and treatment windows.
II. Unbiased Doctors Sitting at the Table for Insurance Rate and Provision Proposals for Health Care:
The IADMD plan calls for each state appointing a minimum of two dentists and two physicians in each state
to ensure the proper medical triage of protocols as it relates to insurance legislation and premium hikes.
Each dentist and physician appointee would be authenticated by IADMD as being unbiased and unattached
from insurance company or government stakeholders before they could be assigned to represent doctors
in each state working with each state's insurance commissioners.
III. Unbiased Doctors Sitting at the Table for Government Mandates and Judicial Proposals for Doctors:
A. Frivolous Law Suits and Claims:
When a doctor faces a frivolous lawsuit against a non-medical issue that suddenly turns “medical"—and
the judicial system favors such awards, insurance costs rise and doctors are torn down and ruined; their
capacities become limited and their patients suffer.
B. Legislative Mandates for Stakeholder-Biased Consumer Fears or Protections:
When a doctor faces mandates and scrutiny against exaggerated or non-doctor deemed patient issues,
entered into legislation or initiating public fear, e.g., HIPAA, NPI, EHR, Amalgam fillings, everyone that
matters suffer. Honoring the Hippocratic Oath and abound with good, doctors begin looked
upon as potential criminals or wrong-doers, facing sanctions and criminal investigations. All because a
stakeholder wanted to capitalize on some potentially viable matters for review that had gone awry and
way too far. Cyclical ongoing negatives breeding more negatives, this harm ensues fuel. Claims pile in
from jealous individuals, competitors, disgruntled ex-employees, and the like, protected by the
whistle-blower act. These protected wrong-doers, on a mission for vengeance, harm, money or power,
don't mind spending tax-payer money is what fuels federal agents, armed with millions of dollars in
taxpayer-supplied investigatory funds. Costs to the practitioner, even when found not to be guilty, face
catastrophic damages, insurance costs rise and doctors are torn down and ruined; their capacities
become limited and their patients suffer.
The IADMD plan calls for each state appointing a minimum of two dentists and two physicians in each state
to ensure the proper handling of legislation and judicial allowances as it relates to dentists and physicians in
every state. Each dentist and physician appointee would be authenticated by IADMD as being unbiased and
unattached from lobbyist groups, big business or government stakeholders before they could be assigned to
represent doctors in each state working with each state's law makers.
3.
Fair Share Credit for Donated and Affordable Health Services:
Through an intricate, secure network of hosted web sites within each doctor’s office, IADMD will provide a portal for doctors offices that keeps doctors' abreast of updates in overall health that helps patients as well as the doctors. The point is to make it easy and worthwhile for doctors to help the system as they are the only ones that can fix the problem:
Putting the reins back into the hands of doctors and their preferred treatments of choice;
Streamlining overall health and interdisciplinary considerations that cuts wasteful spending and saves lives;
Forbidding unethical practices and frivolous lawsuits where abuse runs rampant and increase costs;
Placing unbiased certified doctors at the insurance commissioner table working with rate increase proposals as they arrive from insurance carriers with red-flagging wasteful spending and working with rate development from the actuarial level and forecasting trends that hit the insurance commissioners for approval frequently.
While the proposal takes on more donated services, and lowers private insurance rates, these IADMD® Certified doctors receive tax credits in exchange for their efforts.
With IADMD® Certifications and Fair Share Credit technology, dentists and physicians around the country will alleviate the burden of uninsured and underinsured, while making the private sector of insurance affordable for all.
This is a non-socialized plan with some simple but profound concepts that make health care coverage affordable. At the same time, it secures every person’s right to the highest quality care without adding taxes or burdens on employers or taxpayers. This platform is set to launch an aggressive effort in Washington, D.C.
Facts:
√ Many uninsured individuals forgo care when they do not fall within government or charitable assistance groups.
√ The U.S. government bestows excellent tax breaks on the average U.S. citizen—but not to doctors for donating care.
√ The government is seeking health care solutions while there’s a whole nation of doctors who are willing to open their doors to the disadvantaged and oppressed.
√ The government is luring viable able-bodied individuals to seek government assisted health care solutions for
affordability options all while that individual's cost to the government would be more than the cost of private insurance under the IADMD proposal.
√ The deficiencies that would continue without IADMD's eyes and ears from the doctors' perspectives on best of
care for overall health creates millions of travesties to human life and trillions of dollars in wasteful spending.
How long has IADMD been around?
IADMD has been in development for nearly five years. With the infrastructure and technology in place, the health care association is actively seeking legislators worldwide to help them in their efforts to revolutionize health care.
What is the doctor-driven health care plan in a nutshell?
The hallmark of IADMD’s health care initiative is a “marriage” between dentists, physicians and alternative doctors to confer for their patients’ overall health, removing barriers that often lead to illness or chronic disease, and streamlining best of care to cut waste.
Why is the IADMD doing this?
For the United States to stay the leader in the world of health care—not succumb to following other nations.
To permit doctors of all disciplines to unite to resolve health care with a doctor-led model—putting dentists and physicians in charge of medicine and patient care decisions; creating an environment that allows all individuals, communities, politicians, lawmakers and insurers throughout the world to achieve all that is possible when it comes to health care, technology and innovation in the interest of human life, where it rightfully belongs—not the bottom line of powerful interests.
What are other elements of the IADMD-Proposal:
Honoring the spirit of those researching cures, donating services, and revolutionizing health care with tax credits;
Laying the groundwork for a healthier tomorrow with a doctor-led health care movement that keeps primary focus on human life is where it unquestioningly needs to be;
Imparting awareness and solutions for change on key objectives:
Health care costs, service and claim processing will significantly improve to a compulsory maximum of $100 per individual per month without discrimination, providing coverage for overall health care for dentistry, medicine, and alternative wellness: regardless of financial standing, income, age, health, gender or marital status;
Health care access will be within reach, and remain portable without 'preferred' practitioners;
All insurers will honor the IADMD®-Certified doctor’s preferred treatment of choice for referall and drugs to prevent and attenuate the disease process disease and streamline avoidable long-standing costs–by nipping problems in the bud–at the start of treatment;
Usual Customary Rates (UCR) will be determined by unbiased IADMD®-Certified Intermediator Doctors;
All patients will gain assurance in knowing that all their practitioners are connected and certified by the IADMD® in core interdisciplinary dental and medical doctrines which foster the managing of each individual as a whole person;
IADMD®-Certified Providers will receive 100-cents on every reimbursable dollar;
No taxpayer or employer will have to fund any one else’s coverage;
Paperwork will be reduced, clarified and universal amongst carriers and providers;
Insurers will be sanctioned for claim payments not made in a timely fashion or involving red-tape stalling tacticts to avoid payment;
Exaggerated or non-doctor deemed patient issues, previously entered into legislation or initiating public fear, e.g., HIPAA, NPI, EHR, Amalgam fillings that need to be revisited with unbiased IADMD®-Certified Intermediator Dentists and Physicians at the state and federal levels.
To empower doctors to provide the highest-quality overall health care by using Secure-IT Tecnology for Internet communications between doctors and their colleagues and patients;
Honor doctors' past, present and future donated services using Fair Share Credit® and Secure-IT Technology® and data capture for reimbursement of tax credits.
The plan is universal, developed by doctors, and gives to the community as opposed to taking from it. IADMD believes that every individual should have the right to the highest-quality affordable, whole body, private health care.
IADMD’s core principles, standards, best practices, and risk management for interdisciplinary dental and medical doctrines, ensure that redundancies and inefficiencies end and frivolous lawsuits that increase insurance premiums are greatly reduced.
IADMD®-appointed State Board Doctors of all disciplines with more than 25 years as heads of private practices—NOT Big Business, will work out the details to incorporate this IADMD®-Certified Overall Health Care Model that will reduce the price of private insurance to make it affordable for all. The proposal involves the means to enforce a government mandated CAP onto all private insurers that their pricing involves a Health care costs, service and claim processing will significantly improve to a compulsory maximum of $100 per individual per month without discrimination, providing coverage for overall health care for dentistry, medicine, and alternative wellness: regardless of financial standing, income, age, health, gender or marital status, to ensure that private insurance is affordable for all, and to insure to all taxpayers that no one owes any one else a living, least especially the Big Business Insurers and CEOs. This proposal puts and END to the attractiveness of government-subsidized care that will not create a mandate burden of expense onto employers or taxpayers, while its mandates are placed on Big Business Insurers to reimburse providers at 100-cents on every reimbursement dollar, without 'preferred' providers, without provisions and denials for any IADMD®-Certified Practitioners, rules of which are overseen by IADMD®-appointed State Board Doctor Intermediaries together with each states' Insurance Commissioner and Health and Human Services of the Federal Government.
With health care so murky and out of control, unmanageable, and even off-purpose—
why not look to the ONLY professionals who CAN help...
...The IADMD® Certified Doctors:
—The Dentist and Physician State Intermediaries and Health Care Providers
across The United States of America
IADMD®
www.iadmd.org/DoctorsPlan/PlanBasics/tabid/59/Default.aspx
Not everyone is cut out for the military nor do they wish to travel to third world countries.
It seems you are speaking of sales taxes. Income tax and sales tax are quite different in regards to what programs they pay for. First, and foremost, as a consumer, we do not pay federal taxes on products directly - those costs trickle down within the price of the good sold. What we pay is a state, city, or both sales tax on goods. These funds, however, do not pay for such programs as stated above - income payroll tax does. You're playing a guessing game on our tax codes, and you are wrong.
Hmm I see.
So only income taxes go for the aforementioned social services? For what purpose the taxes on sales, services etc are used for then?
Well it is a guessing game for me since every time I am in the US I have to guess what is the actual price of anything, since no shop includes taxes on its price.:)
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Obama was the worst choice in a country going through severe recession. People elected a man who needs a telepromter to tell him what to say for everything... absolutely everything, speeches other people write for him, words that are not even his. He has been caught saying there are 57 states in the US for crying out loud, he actually read the prime minister of Irelands speech instead of his own, half way through realizing its probably not his... Woops! I get worried when a president of the united states isnt even willing to put his hand over his heart like everyone else when hearing the national anthem, or pledge of allegience, or anything else that most people and all politicians show as patriotic.
Bush put a hole in the wall... Obama took a sledge hammer and made it bigger, all the while saying "its Bush's fault". OF course, the idiots of america, those that still support Obama, believe everything he says without question. Obama said it himself, "I wont let a good crisis go to waste". Thats his mentality, and his quote. Hes milking the crisis for as much as its worth, keeping it alive, so he can push his progessive agendas. He really is no different than bush, only hes doing it faster and worse than Bush.
Obama promised that if he was made president, he would Keep Lobbyist out of key positions. Thats a pretty big and important promise. Most of the people he put in key positions are LOBBYIST! How many of you supporters can accept that he just pulled a damn hat trick on you? He tells people what they want to hear, but does the exact opposite. Lies upon lies to push an agenda, and some of you eat it all up, and are oblivious his deceptions. Wake up already for f sake. Good watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyVDakMiEPM
Both him and Pelosi swore, directly to the camera, there would be no earmarks or pork in the stimulous bill. Woops they just lied. You know we are in a messed up country when politicans can swear on something in front of a camera, with a confident smirk on their face, and do the exact opposite.
Obama said he would stop spending 9 billion dollars in Iraq for war, in fact he would be cutting the war effort entirely. Guess what? He is spending 9% more than Bush on the war effort, and is merely moving SOME of the troops over to another country. Wow, he sure fooled you. Hate Bush for spending way too much money for war? Well you damn well better hate Obama for spending MORE for MORE WAR. Good grief. He actually said he, and i quote, "is the only candidate that fully oposes war". Uh... he must not have heard of Ron Paul. Furthermore, he didnt even follow through with his claim. Hah!
Hope-n-Change Hypocrisy: Taxes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD1P6K96p8A
Busted!
Strange the first thing when elected president was allow federal spending for abortion clinics over seas. Ok, yeah thats smart. We are having a financial crisis, and he wants to give our money away for over sea abortions? Brilliant... NOT! He also played the tune to Planned Parent hoods desires for blotched abortion, after birth killing. Meaning if an abortion fails, and the baby is born, then the doctor can strangle the infant until its dead. BRILLIANT! You know hes paying back PP for their help in getting him elected. If this doesnt put a tear in your eye, i dont know what else will. (I dare you to watch this, if some religous references bother you, just ignore them and listen to the main topic) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKrW7vP8W00
Heres a good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SucU5hskz0
Obama thought it would be a good idea to fly airforce one over new york, dangerously low, followed by a fighter jet, just for a photoshoot, you know ...promotional material. Look at the reaction! Yeah, after 9/11 in New York, you would think that wouldnt be a smart idea.
Furthermore he stands firmly being Timothy Geitner, consistently. This is his man! This man, also didnt pay over $30,000 in taxes. Kind of funny since hes kind of in charge of that field... and he admits to wanting to destroy the value of the dollar so the banks can replace it. He is a crook, everyone knows it. Obama knows it, and pats him on the back, supports him.
This is just going too far, wake the hell up!
If you havent learned about Ron Paul yet, now is the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wfpnh6w3Dc
It seems you are speaking of sales taxes. Income tax and sales tax are quite different in regards to what programs they pay for. First, and foremost, as a consumer, we do not pay federal taxes on products directly - those costs trickle down within the price of the good sold. What we pay is a state, city, or both sales tax on goods. These funds, however, do not pay for such programs as stated above - income payroll tax does. You're playing a guessing game on our tax codes, and you are wrong.
Hmm I see.
So only income taxes go for the aforementioned social services? For what purpose the taxes on sales, services etc are used for then?
Well it is a guessing game for me since every time I am in the US I have to guess what is the actual price of anything, since no shop includes taxes on its price.:)
Public services such as fire, police, schools, et cetera, for example. Some sales taxes, such as those on cigarettes, go to subsidized health care.
And, I agree. I am all for what is called the Fair Tax. In short, it removes payroll taxes and puts a federal inclusive consumption tax on goods and services.
I loved that when I lived in Europe (Hungary). Something would be priced at 300 forints and I simply paid 300 forints. The inclusive tax, I believe, was near 25%. The Fair Tax caps at 23%.
Do you know if your taxes are going up? Are there any official increases coming your way? Is it substantial?
No you don't. So until there is a final plan waiting to be voted on, you should hold judgement. Only an idiot vetoes a bill without reading it first. I believe that no one who is doing well enough for themselves is going to see a change in lifestyle if something like this get's enacted. You don't.
The end.
Yes I do. The fed won't have a choice. But my point was that people in my tax bracket already carry 57% of the burden for the Fed and we are a gross minority. The concept is wrong, it isn't what was intended by the founders of our government, and continuing just because it has been done in the past is not reason it is misfortune. And, yes I can see a change. Just the fact that I pay more in taxes than the median household income of nearly two average American families is enough for me to know there is something wrong and that was with Bush's so-called breaks to the "richest Americans". It was wrong in 1913, and it is wrong now. I am not making a pre-emptive veto of only Obama's policy, it is a declaration of wrongful taxation that goes literally back to the Revolution.
It just seems to me that people don;t want REAL solutions, they just want political control. They do not want to hear about nonsocialized better solutions, for the only reason that their political party is endorsing only socialized options. The true goal is helping people, I wish they could get past their political agendas to find the best answers, no matter where they come from.
I am tired of both parties manipulation and control. It is like Obamas anti lobbyist campaign, he caters to the financial lobbyist and locks out the doctors that are already practicing free healthcare because they don;t give him more money. No, those doctors instead of trying to bribe politicians spend their time and money on treating people, and they are not being heard. He "picks and chooses" where to apply this, and only uses it for his partys interests rather than the people. Bush ignored us, Obama ignores us , they are one in the same to me.
Bottom line is we should look out for the best interests of the people not political agendas. Until that changes things will only get worse not better. Their actions speak louder than words, remember, just because they tell you it is a good thing, that doesn;t make it so.
I think you're exaggerating heavily about that tax rate.
But even if you weren't, I don't know what you're complaint is about. You are I cannot say what the founders had in mind, we can only go what's written. And what's written is nothing about the tax code. The tax code is something completely different than what people erroneously lump together with the Constitution. Your argument has to do with tax code, not that.
So, lobby for tax code change. Vote for people who say they will change it to your favor. If enough people think like you do, then there will be enough politicians to change the TAX CODE to your liking.
But if the majority of people feel the tax code is okay as it is for the most part, and they don't want politicians to let rich businesses off the hook, allow rich people to hide in offshore and international tax shelters, and stick them with the excess, then we have what we have now.
If you don't like this system, I'm sure Mexico or Nigeria would be more than happy to have your business and citizenship.
"TO MICHAEL!"