Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditU.S. doctors are wondering if this might be the first year since 2002 that Congress won't intervene to keep Medicare fully funded, since lawmakers failed to pass legislation before leaving for their July Fourth recess. The Bush administration said Monday that it will delay Medicare payments to doctors for ten business days to give Congress time to reach a deal to block the cut.
Meanwhile, just coincidentally (or maybe not) some - like Minnesota Senator NOrm Coleman are all steamed up about a GAO report that alleges that thousands of Medicare providers owe more than $2 billion in back taxes. "Crack down on Medicare scofflaws," run the headlines. "It's shocking" says Coleman.
Some Medicare facilities may not be paying out what they should in tax, but if we want to talk about who's making out in our medical system let's keep some perspective.
Take two recent stories.
A new report on tropical diseases compares the rise of viral and parasitic infections among this country's poor to disease rates found in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In terms of health, poor people in the US might as well live in a developing country.
Meanwhile, in California, HMOs raked in more than $4 billion last year. Last time I looked, average pay for hospital CEOS was well in excess of 1 million a year. And hospitals are adding deluxe suites for patients who can pay top dollars.
We spend more money on healthcare than any nation in the world--by far. But our results are glaringly uneven. And here we go again. Blaming doctors. There may be some -- even a ward full of bad apples, but it's not doctors that are the problem with our healthcare system. It's the profits. Estimates for 2008 are that employer health care costs are up 10%. And next year is likely to be the same. Unless we do something.
The F Word is a daily commentary by Laura Flanders on GRITtv. Watch GRITtv on Free Speech TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415) or at GRITtv.org. And become a subscriber.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrick Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Wonkette
The entire health care system is a mess. Medicare is an anemic system without a mandate. Private "insurance" is simply not a model for national health care.
None of this going to change soon because too many big corporations and wealthy people make money on the current wreck, and don't want it to change. This year, none of the presidential candidates has a serious plan to address the real issues in American health care and I don't personally expect that if you are reading this post that the odds are good that you will see a solid health care system in the US in your lifetime.
Posted by Zero at 07/01/2008 @ 8:03pm
Posted by Zero at 07/01/2008 @ 8:03pm
I can see your point...but the only thing that could be worse than the current system is to turn it over to the dolts and beaurocratic clods in....govt.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/01/2008 @ 9:14pm
FLANDERS: "....average pay for hospital CEOS was well in excess of 1 million a year..."
Is that all? For running 24/7 mini-cities that ONLY deal with life and death and emergencies non-stop?
Ms. Flanders, do you know that the average NBA salary hit $1 million back in the 1990-1991 season and now exceeds $5 million? or, do you know that before Hillary became an official candidate, Bill was speaking, yep, just speaking, at up to $200k a pop? Another good one, for writing a couple books, Magic pocketed almost $5 million? I know we can count on your supporting Windfall Profits Tax on book "profits", right?
Almost forgot, most hospital CEOs are/were medical doctors themselves!!!!! Know what it takes to become a doctor?
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/01/2008 @ 10:46pm
"And hospitals are adding deluxe suites for patients who can pay top dollars."
Mskbeta
it's already happening...and it sounds like libs like Ms. Flanders are already complaining about it...all easily predictable.
Posted by usc1 at 07/01/2008 @ 10:48pm
it's already happening...and it sounds like libs like Ms. Flanders are already complaining about it...all easily predictable.
Posted by usc1 at 07/01/2008 @ 10:48pm
Ms. Flanders needs a refresher course on Newspeak!
The fat profits from luxury Sick Boxes are TAXES so the hospitals can keep their emergency rooms open for lots of non-emergencies.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/01/2008 @ 11:53pm
FLANDERS: ".....but it's not doctors that are the problem with our healthcare system. It's the profits. "
At the root of every issue Ms. Flanders rants about, lies the same exact booger....she is a fearmonger about "profits". Actually, shouldn't salaries/income in excess of covering ones' basic necessities, be considered "profits" instead of Discretionary Income?
Next time you get a cell phone at any cost other than the lowest priced one offered for signing a service agreement, you are guilty of having earned excess "profits"....should donate it to TN!
Oh, those cruises you folks love, nothing but "profits" ......of the heavy carbon footprint kind :~)
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/02/2008 @ 12:10am
"Meanwhile, in California, HMOs raked in more than $4 billion last year."
Conveniently ignoring the facts, Ms Flanders neglects to mention that Kaiser, the largest HMO in CA is a nonprofit organization.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/02/2008 @ 12:50am
Almost forgot, most hospital CEOs are/were medical doctors themselves!!!!! Know what it takes to become a doctor?
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/01/2008 @ 10:46pm
A physician myself, I doubt the veracity of this statement.
What I know is anecdotal, but in every hospital in which I have worked since graduating from medical school (about a half dozen now), the CEO has been purely an administrator with no clinical training whatsoever.
That being said, I interviewed at a hospital at which the CEO was an RN with a Master's in health care administration.
Do you have any stats to back up your assertion?
Posted by skeletonman at 07/02/2008 @ 06:54am
Kaiser, the largest HMO in CA is a nonprofit organization.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/02/2008 @ 12:50am |
Canard.
Not for profit doesn't mean that the people who work there do so out of the goodness of their hearts, chumly.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/02/2008 @ 06:57am
The fat profits from luxury Sick Boxes are TAXES so the hospitals can keep their emergency rooms open for lots of non-emergencies.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/01/2008 @ 11:53pm
Well, as your boy Shrub said,
'The poor have access to health care. All they have to do is go to the emergency room'
Posted by skeletonman at 07/02/2008 @ 06:59am
I can see your point...but the only thing that could be worse than the current system is to turn it over to the dolts and beaurocratic clods in....govt.
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/01/2008 @ 9:14pm | i
Why do you hate America so much?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2008 @ 07:14am
As I posted to Luvvy last week, Bc/BS of MI has 2.7 BILLION dollars in it's reserve, they own huge amounts of real estate as investments, the CEO "made" 1.6 million last year, the average pay for the top went up almost 42% on the last couple of years.
But...they want premium increases. That does not sound too "non-profit" to me.
Meanwhile Dr's that actually save lives make less than 200k, which is still a darn good living.
whats really funny is that under a govt single payer plan, the same people could run the program, make decent money, say 350k year, and the cons would still think they were aliens from outer space cuz it's gub-ment. But, we would all save upwards of 25% on our healthcare costs, just on administrative reductions. I would think the smart bidness types would be all for saving money by spending less on beeryo-crats and their salaries, but no, if it's "private", it's all good.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2008 @ 07:27am
Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2008 @ 07:27am
Valid points, though I would finesse them a bit.
First and foremost, I'm an ER doc and I make a decent living.
I went to a private medical school (I am a DO - Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine - and consciously chose that pathway; most DO schools are private and the few state supported schools would have been out of state for me, nullifying any tuition advantage) and the cost of a private medical education is approaching astronomical.
When I started school in 1999, tuition was around $24k/yr, with cost to attend nearly double that.
Now tuition at my school is around $32k/yr, cost to attend in excess of $60k.
I made the choice I made freely, but that's not the issue I am raising. The point is that graduation from medical school in the US by and large means that one starts professional life with a mortgage against the future. Most of us will spend the majority of our working lives paying that mortgage back.
Second, while bringing administrator pay back to a more reasonable proportion of the cost of health care would be a necessary aspect of system reform, it is only one reform that is necessary.
The people I see seem to have little tolerance for anything other than instant service and seem to have even less understanding of how that impacts the cost of health care; the worst offenders are the ones with the least wrong with them.
People land on my doorstep expecting that they will get whatever they want - MRI's, antibiotics, admission, narcotics - no matter what the complaint.
The "prudent layman bystander" standard, the idea that you go to an ER when/only when an average observer would consider your complaint to be an emergency, means nothing anymore. The ER has become the new primary care and primary care has morphed into a Mobius Strip of chronic illness populated by those unwilling/able to care for themselves.
In the trenches, we are powerless to police this, because of the EMTALA law; in a nutshell, anyone presenting to an ER will get seen no matter what the complaint, because everything is considered an emergency until proven otherwise.
Because primary care reimbursement is for shit, primary care types tend to rely on those patients whose insurances have a track record of paying, and schedule those patients months in advance. There are no 'acute' appointments anymore, mainly because PCP's are worried about unfilled time in the schedule as the margin is so thin that too much lost billable time could mean failure of the business of their practice.
Thus, nobody wants to go into primary care because it pays crap, the debt burden is so high and you are treated like you know nothing by patients and colleagues alike.
The result is that people with non-emergent acute problems land in the ER waiting rooms, distracting from the real intent of the ER, and thus we have events like those in Brooklyn (and in California last year).
Unless there are some pretty hefty reforms included in a single payer model, such a plan won't work here in the US.
First, primary care needs to be the focus - PCP's need to be free to do what they are trained to do, which is a continuum from acute through chronic illness.
To make that happen, PCP's need to be free of fear of losing their livelihoods due to declining reimbursement.
By fully funding primary care and making the payout reasonable, PCP's become free to have acute visits once again.
Medical education (i.e. residency training) funding needs to be reformed, such that primary care training is emphasized (there are a number of ways to do this from capping specialty slots to loan forgiveness); reimbursement for specialty care/co pay structures need to be developed to deemphasize the model which dominates today.
The EMTALA law needs some massaging as ER's are now compelled to see anyone who asks for care, regardless of need. We need to educate the public on the prudent layman bystander standard and then to go about enforcing it; until there is a place to send those who fail that standard, there is no point in attempting this. Hence my comments on primary care.
Adding those to the pool who currently pay out of pocket is only going to exacerbate the issue; talk to medical people in Mass and you will find that Romney's universal plan has resulted in increased ER visits and utilization across the board.
Lest you think that I am dissing those with medicaid as a payer, I am not. There is an attitude of entitlement which is pervasive in our society; the difference between socioeconomic groups is characterized by the sophistication with which that sense of entitlement plays out.
In the end, it will take a generation at least to repair our system; if we start now with kids the ages of my son and daughter (2 and 8 respectively) and make the goal of their care keeping them well, rather than intervening when sick, then we might have a chance.
Despite all of the above, I love being a doctor and there isn't anything else I want to do in life, at least not right now. I am privileged to be present at the most profound moments of a person's life, and every once in a while, I contribute to something that is truly amazing.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/02/2008 @ 08:43am
Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2008 @ 07:27am
And then we can watch all the best administrators/CEOs head off to greener pastures in private industry because being the smart ones in the group they understand they should get paid appropriately for their talents/abilities/education...
BTW, while you're at it...could you please set the salaries for teachers, managers, professional athletes, garbage men, nurses, fast food workers, etc, etc? We're all breathlessly waiting for you to bestow your wisdom upon us for what everyone in the country should make...like you so arbitrarily did for CEOs.
And lastly, we in the government have decided that whatever it is you do really isn't that important so we're going to cut your salary by 40% over the next 6 years...are you going to keep your job or find another one? Happy Toiling!!!
Posted by usc1 at 07/02/2008 @ 08:50am
And then we can watch all the best administrators/CEOs head off to greener pastures in private industry because being the smart ones in the group they understand they should get paid appropriately for their talents/abilities/education...
Posted by usc1 at 07/02/2008 @ 08:50am
This is bullcrap. I dispute that CEO's are the 'smart ones;' success as an administrator in my experience has more to do with the ability to play political horseshit games than actual leadership ability or intellect.
Look at the golden parachutes that failed CEO's get and tell me that the private sector is a meritocracy.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/02/2008 @ 09:00am
"Meanwhile, in California, HMOs raked in more than $4 billion last year."
Conveniently ignoring the facts, Ms Flanders neglects to mention that Kaiser, the largest HMO in CA is a nonprofit organization.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/02/2008 @ 12:50am | warn this person
What baloney. Kind of like non-profit tax exempt status for political evangelists and other tax dodgers. I am not surprised that you would try to posit this crap as argument. You take first prize in conveniently ignoring facts Preacher. Hands down.
Posted by OneVote at 07/02/2008 @ 09:29am
‘I'm the only candidate left in this race, Democrat or Republican, with a health-care plan to cover every single man woman and child.' -- Hillary Clinton -- (MSNBC 10 February, 2008)
‘In real life, Obama has made the same sort of compromises she herself has made. As she pointed out, he said he'd vote against the Patriot Act, and then he voted for it. He casts himself as the candidate who'd repair our bellicose relations with the world, and then talks about bombing Pakistan. He talks about putting Republicans in his cabinet, as Bill Clinton did. His health-care plan, as Paul Krugman points out every day on the New York Times op-ed page, is weaker than Clinton's or Edwards'. I'm sure Hillary Clinton must be wondering what the difference is between "triangulation" and Obama's calls for unity.' -- Katha Pollitt -- The Nation -- 6 January, 2008
Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/02/2008 @ 09:44am
Posted by skeletonman at 07/02/2008 @ 08:43am
Skeletonman, they diss nurses too. Those of us who work in ICUs catch just as much flak as the ER. There are days I get so tired and frustrated at hearing all of the negative criticisms from the hospital administration, the MSM and rag magazines like the Nation, all the way down to the patients and their families accusing us of not giving the best standard of care.
I love nursing, but not some of the crap and people that comes with it.
There are countless days I want to tell patients, their families and the hospital administration, "if you think you can do a much better job then me, then you can have it!"
Posted by ACook at 07/02/2008 @ 10:48am
Do you have any stats to back up your assertion?
Posted by skeletonman at 07/02/2008 @ 06:54am
My "assertion" is just an impression from having been in Houston for a long time and medical/hospitals is a major deal......I did go look up two local hospital systems:
Methodist Hospital - CEO is a non-doctor administrator
Baylor Health Science Center - CEO is a doctor
Limited sample for world-class hospitals......maybe in Houston, skewed towards CEOs being doctors. I can retract "most" and CHANGE to "many" as my updated "assertion"....heheheh
BTW, my older son took the MCAT in May, scored in the top 10% but kinda marginal for admissions....so he says. Unlike my wife, I am being neutral in his considering med school.....Takes too much time & money, especially given the strong possibility, IMO, demographics (Boomers' needs) will both force some kind of cram down on medical wages and take away doctors' decision-making in the decades to come.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/02/2008 @ 11:24am
Here's a quick synopsis of my look into the training of CEO's:
Mass General (Harvard affiliate) - physician Brigham/Women's (Harvard affiliate) - physician Johns Hopkins - physician Duke University MC - physician Emory University - non clinician Stanford University - non clinician Yale University- non clinician
The above are fundamentally academic institutions and as such, reflect a different character and philosophy than the "real" world.
Fletcher Allen Healthcare (UVM) - physician Maine Medical Center (UVM) - immediate past CEO non-clinician
Albany Medical Center (Albany Medical College) - non clinician
Baystate Medical Center (Tufts) - non clinician
Univ of Pittsburgh MC - non-clinician (collected $3.95 million in 2007
New England Medical Center (Tufts) - non clinician
Each of the above is also a teaching hospital, though would be 'second tier' in terms of academic prestige (don't tell them that, though)
Sebasticook Valley Hospital - non clinician
Penobscot Valley Hospital - non clinician
North Adams Regional Hospital - RN
Eastern Maine Medical Center - RN
Cape Cod Hospital - non clinician
These last institutions are community hospitals of varying size (from 25 bed "critical access" hospitals to 430 bed institutions with a stand alone residency)
No doubt the complete stats are online somewhere, but you get the idea. The nature of the leadership depends more on the character of the institution than any other factor, IMHO.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/02/2008 @ 12:29pm
take away doctors' decision-making in the decades to come.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/02/2008 @ 11:24am
The vaunted "market forces" have already done this, that and the need to practice defensively.
Patients come in with certain expectations and get their knickers in a bunch when we tell try to dispel those expectations.
It's an attitude of entitlement that ultimately is driving health care costs up; as I said up thread, the only difference across the payer spectrum is the level of sophistication with which the attitude presents itself.
And the number one demographic that is increasing its utilization of the nation's ER's?
As reported in Annals of Emergency Medicine in April of this year, it is privately (i.e. non medicare/medicaid) insured individuals with a primary care physician.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/02/2008 @ 12:35pm
take away doctors' decision-making in the decades to come.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/02/2008 @ 11:24am
The vaunted "market forces" have already done this, that and the need to practice defensively.
Patients come in with certain expectations and get their knickers in a bunch when we tell try to dispel those expectations.
It's an attitude of entitlement that ultimately is driving health care costs up; as I said up thread, the only difference across the payer spectrum is the level of sophistication with which the attitude presents itself.
And the number one demographic that is increasing its utilization of the nation's ER's?
As reported in Annals of Emergency Medicine in April of this year, it is privately (i.e. non medicare/medicaid) insured individuals with a primary care physician.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/02/2008 @ 12:36pm
Skeleton I have to agree with many of your points and say that your post was very informative. I was taught as a kid that you only go to the ER if something is broken or you are bleeding profusely basically. I think, to put it crudely, that we are becoming a nation of pansies. We run to the doctor for every minor thing. We obsess so much about our health that I think we create problems so we have something to worry about. This extends to every aspect of how we run things in our nation, kids sports teams and the no losers mentality for one example, but I will stay focused. All of what you said about primary care rings so true with me BECAUSE of the way I was raised.
I believe that right now the medical system is based only upon treating illness not maintaining health. Insurance companies are rewarded when their patients DO NOT visit hospitals. They then have to find ways to pay out the least amount of money which tends to be treating an illness rather than eradicating it. Then on top of that, since insurance companies don't want to pay out hospitals want to give patients the least amount of treatment possible for fear that the insurance company will choose to not pay them and they will end up with a loss for helping someone. Pharmaceutical companies are rewarded when people are buying their medicines to treat their illnesses. The longer a person is buying medicine the more money the companies make.
A lot of this falls to people, and a changing of mentalities but I think the most casual observer, whether you are right or left can acknowledge that the system is broken. Private insurance doesn't work. As much as Happy and Jom like to believe in the free market, there IS a free market insurance right now for most everyone and it doesn't work. Will government intervention work? I don't know. However we need to find a solution because right now the system is severely broken and it's only getting worse as insurance companies start to figure out more and more of what they can get away with.
The idea of an insurance company is fundamentally flawed to begin with. You are telling these companies that it is MOST profitable to them when their patients are not treated for anything, not that their patients are healthy but that they are not treated. You tell them to put a price on life and health, of course they are going to put the lowest price possible on it because they need to make a profit.
I'm not sure what the solution is. Price caps come to mind but then the insurance companies will just pay out less in turn screwing hospitals. Could force insurance agencies to be non-profit and then put profit caps on their CEO's to stop them from lining their pockets. I know that may sound socialist to some of you hard right out there but the mentality of making money does not work in an industry that is required to survive, ie. medical, oil, food. The profit mentality only leads to finding the best ways to shaft your customers. Happy and Jom believe that profit mentality means that everyone who wants to make a profit HAS to provide good service because if they don't their customers will leave. However this doesn't play out in the market because the ones who provide the worst service end up making the most money because they have the least amount in costs, look at McDonald's if you don't believe me, terrible food, terrible service, terrible quality yet they make oodles of money because there aren't many other options when you want cheap quick food. Insurance companies are model for where the completely free market system leads you when you are in a service that people have no choice but to use, exorbitant prices and bad service because they don't have to excel. Why don't they have to excel? Because people HAVE to use them and they are all the same unless you can afford to pay huge amounts of money for spa insurance which most of us can not.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 1:09pm
SKel, excellent post above about healthcare services in this country.
---------
what I still find nauseating is the types of comments like USC1. these same people piss and moan about the lower classes demanding a minimun wage, getting 1 penny more a pound for tomatoes, they will attack government bureaucrats as being worse than useless, but will defend till death the "right" of a health care provider bureaucrat to earn millions a year while the minimum wage earner cannot afford either monthly premiums or pay-per-service at the counter. These same people often lecture us on "values" and morals.
WTF? Where is the schism in the brain pan?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2008 @ 1:18pm
LVL you need to learn the difference between non-profit and non-profit volunteer. A non-profit just means that at the end of the day they break even in a social service of some kind. Does that mean that the employees are not raking in money? No. CEO's of non-profits can make a lot of money and the company is still non-profit. Someone point to evangelists who's preachers make ridiculous amounts of money but are still considered tax exempt non-profits.
What you THINK Kaiser is, is a non-profit, volunteer service. It is not. All the employees and CEO's of Kaiser get paid for their work.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 1:24pm
Also to those of you like Jom and Happy who like to bring up the specter of having to wait for service if you have universal healthcare. I am guessing neither of you are under nor possibly have never been under an HMO. I went into the ER with a dislocate thumb to the point that it started to tear muscles and tendons. I waited 6 hours in an Emergency Room. I went into the hospital at 3 in the morning with a broken leg I waited 3 hours to be seen. I've been to the hospital with a broken arm, waited 4 hours to be seen. I know plenty of people who have waited months for critical surgeries to be done. My best-friends grandmother waited 6 months to have a tumor removed from near her spine and she has good health insurance.
Waiting is nothing new. Maybe for those of you who live in less populated regions and who have good health insurance then waiting is not a problem in your hospitals. However for those of us who live in heavily populated cities waiting for medical service is a fact of life. No matter how good the hospital is in cities they are swamped with patients that they have no choice but to admit. So this whole specter you like to hold up of "Oh God, you will have to actually WAIT for service." It doesn't work on those of us who live in heavily populated areas that don't have spa insurance because we have to wait now. I doubt universal healthcare is going to make me wait much longer than 6 hours in an ER.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 1:32pm
It's funny to be having this discussion right now. At the office I work in one of our PA's just walked into my office and told me that her health insurance premiums just got raised for no discernible reason to the point that she can't afford to pay them but she can't switch plans because then her benefits will be destoryed. On top of that her mother can't be insured because she is severely diabetic so she is a "profit risk" to insurance companies which means her dad can not retire from his job because it is the only way they can afford keep her healthy without paying a ridiculous amount in insurance premiums.
This is a common person with common problems that are common around our country with the current private insurance system. She has no clue what she is going to do to make ends meet and has no possibility of affording to pay for her medical insurance and nor can her mother. Anyone who says the system works needs to go out and ask common people about their dealings with medical insurance. I bet you will become disillusioned very quickly.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 2:09pm
Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2008 @ 1:18pm
This post tells how little you know about the economics in this world...There's a reason CEOs make what they make and tomato pickers make what they make. I have no problem with tomato pickers making as much as they can...I do have a problem with you TELLING others what they have to pay them.
On the other issue, would you or would you not be willing to work in the same job you have (assuming you are currently working) except with a 40% pay cut?
Posted by usc1 at 07/02/2008 @ 2:12pm
On the other issue, would you or would you not be willing to work in the same job you have (assuming you are currently working) except with a 40% pay cut?
Posted by usc1 at 07/02/2008 @ 2:12pm
If I were making 4 million dollars a year... Sure. A comparison of a 40% pay cut for a multi-million dollar CEO and a 40% pay cut for the average person is completely ridiculous. A penny pay cut for a tomato picker is not like a penny pay cut for CEO. A 50% pay cut is for a tomato picker puts them on the street. A 50% paycut for a CEO making a million dollars a year means they only have one house instead of 2. To compare the differences in pay of your average person and of a CEO is ludicrous. Also to compare the work of CEOs, who sit in big air conditioned offices, go to meetings, drive in nice cars and travel around the world, to a tomato picker, who goes out and waits in the middle of summer when its 90 degrees outside with 80% humidity, to do back breaking labor, for LITERALLY pennies a pound, is also ludicrous.
I don't like the mentality that Americans have that money must mean you work harder or are somehow better than the person who makes very little money. Most CEO's don't do anything other than guess. They guess what will make them more money. They barely work and most of them have probably barely EVER worked. Most CEO's did not start the company they work for so they did not put their blood sweat and tears into it. They don't work as hard as the person being paid nothing so why do they deserve it?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 2:37pm
Anyone who says the system works needs to go out and ask common people about their dealings with medical insurance. I bet you will become disillusioned very quickly.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 2:09pm
Or, they could be like our neocon bloggers here who would say what Ebenezer Scrooge had to say for those in poverty. If they are going to die, they'd better do it and decrease the surplus population.
They pose behind the bible and pretened to be Christians, but in fact are anything but Christians and have not one ounce of sympathy for others in distress.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/02/2008 @ 3:23pm
Almost forgot, most hospital CEOs are/were medical doctors themselves!!!!! Know what it takes to become a doctor?
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/01/2008 @ 10:46pm
You sure about that Happy? Most of the hospital CEO's I know of are business weiner heads and wouldn't know the difference between a cathedar and a defibrillator.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/02/2008 @ 3:32pm
This is bullcrap. I dispute that CEO's are the 'smart ones;' success as an administrator in my experience has more to do with the ability to play political horseshit games than actual leadership ability or intellect.
Look at the golden parachutes that failed CEO's get and tell me that the private sector is a meritocracy.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/02/2008 @ 09:00am
There you have it Happy, straight from a Doctor himself. Making business decisions doesn't require great intellect but rather schmoozing, sucking up to the right people and screwing people over who get in your way. Going to Harvard Business school isn't about the school, it's about the contact you make at Harvard Business School.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/02/2008 @ 3:40pm
What you THINK Kaiser is, is a non-profit, volunteer service. It is not. All the employees and CEO's of Kaiser get paid for their work.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 1:24pm
There was nothing in my post suggesting or stating that I thought they were volunteers.
Any examination of HMO's that has been conducted has shown overwhelmingly that nonprofit HMO's are more invested in preventative care than "for profit" HMO's. That is a point that is significant.
My biggest gripe with Ms Flanders comment was severalfold.
1. Her remarks were written to make the allusion that HMO's were all about profit and greed.
2. Her comments included lumping in a statement about some hospitals putting in luxury suites as if that was happening at HMO's. Maybe she can name just one for us?
3. If you are the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation, there is nothing wrong with earning a 7 figure income. It does not do anything to take away quality of care nor does it have any significant impact on health care costs.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/02/2008 @ 4:17pm
Thanks especially to skeletonman for the knowledgable and thought-provoking comments. Did you - or anyone else here - see the recent Frontline World documentary on PBS examining the health care systems in several different industrialized countries around the globe, from Taiwan and Japan (especially interesting given your comments on primary care physicians vs. emerergency rooms for acute care visits) to the UK and Germany? We really could learn a lot from looking abroad, where single-payer models and private insurance systems closer to ours both deliver better overall results for less than the U.S. pays on health care.
Not that any system is perfect, or cheap, but ours just seems to combine all of the problems of other industrialized nations' models with a third world system for the poor and uninsured, a gold-plated first world system for the rich, and a strained and struggling system for the insured working and middle classes.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/02/2008 @ 4:45pm
On the other issue, would you or would you not be willing to work in the same job you have (assuming you are currently working) except with a 40% pay cut?
Posted by usc1 at 07/02/2008 @ 2:12pm
As pointed out above (or below, depending on where the blog places this particular post), there is a major difference between a 40% cut in my wage, which is average for my community, and that of a 1.6 mill/yr CEO. CEO's get changed often. In some case over a 5 year period a large company may hire and fire 3 CEO's in an attempt to "turn around"(Borders comes to mind as a recent example) . Each one usually gets a guaranteed income regardless of results, and often a golden parachute to go quietly away. I would take that deal from my employer, if offered.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2008 @ 5:05pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 2:37pm
1)The question was would you do YOUR job for a 40% reduction in pay?
2)If you could make 2-3 times as much doing your same job with a different company, would you change jobs?
3)As far as this statement goes...
"I don't like the mentality that Americans have that money must mean you work harder or are somehow better than the person who makes very little money. Most CEO's don't do anything other than guess. They guess what will make them more money. They barely work and most of them have probably barely EVER worked. Most CEO's did not start the company they work for so they did not put their blood sweat and tears into it. They don't work as hard as the person being paid nothing so why do they deserve it?"
I'm guessing your eyes are brown because you are so full of shit...anybody who believes this, let alone thinks it, isn't worth the time it takes to type this reply. CEOs don't work? You obviously don't have a clue.
Posted by usc1 at 07/02/2008 @ 5:08pm
This just in:
Note, Mike cox is a republican.
[Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Cox suing Blue Cross Blue Shield for purchase of subsidiary
Gary Heinlein and Christina Rogers / The Detroit News
Attorney General Mike Cox announced Wednesday that his office is suing Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan to overturn a deal in which the nonprofit health coverage provider gave $125 million to its for-profit Accident Fund subsidiary to buy another insurance company.
The lawsuit was to be filed today in Ingham County Circuit Court, Cox said. It claims the Accident Fund illegally used the $125 million toward the $127 million purchase last year of CompWest Insurance Co., a California workers compensation insurer.
Cox is asking the court to void the purchase of CompWest and two other subsidiaries bought earlier by the Accident Fund -- United Wisconsin Insurance Co. in 2005 for $95.8 million and Third Coast Insurance Co. of Illinois in 2007 for $11.9 million.
Cox said under state law, Blue Cross could loan money to the Accident Fund but can't simply give a for-profit subsidiary $125 million it collected from customers as a nonprofit insurer.
"That's money that should have been used to lower premiums for health insurance," Cox said. He said "consumers, the sick and the elderly have paid higher premiums" because the money went to the Accident Fund.
Blue Cross-Blue Shield rates for individual customers -- those who pay out-of-pocket for coverage because they lack traditional employer-funded health insurance, went up 79 percent between 2003 and 2007. Group conversion rates went up 92 percent between 2003 and 2007, he said.]
Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2008 @ 5:15pm
BTW, USC, I took a 50% pay cut to learn a new craft, then another cut for the first year I opened my business.
If I could take a 40% pay cut that could translate into healthcare for over 100 kids (500/month*12, each child, say) I would do it in a second!!! Assuming a lower cost per child it could be 200 kids.
Imagine.
then imagine if the top 10 at BCBS took a 40% cut. In 2003 that would have freed up $2,400,000.
What is more important in your view of morality, assuring that the person at the top makes his million dollar/yr goal, or assuring that kids get basic healthcare?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2008 @ 6:22pm
Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2008 @ 6:22pm
"BTW, USC, I took a 50% pay cut to learn a new craft, then another cut for the first year I opened my business.
If I could take a 40% pay cut that could translate into healthcare for over 100 kids (500/month*12, each child, say) I would do it in a second!!! Assuming a lower cost per child it could be 200 kids."
You guys really can't answer a straight question...same job and your salary would drop by 40% over the next 6 years. Do you look for another job? (Or maybe you've been through this and that's why you learned to do something else...in which case you answered my question).
The point is this...according to everthing I've read, the 10% pay cut to doctors is just the tip of the iceberg and medicare will be cutting doctor pay by total 40% over the next 6 years...what do you think that's going to do to the doctors...think they'll keep doing what they're doing? Don't you just love gubmint medicine?
"What is more important in your view of morality, assuring that the person at the top makes his million dollar/yr goal, or assuring that kids get basic healthcare?"
To even ask this question shows a very limited, shallow understanding of the issue...sorry, family issues call. As homework, see if you can figure out how your question has little to do with morality.
Posted by usc1 at 07/02/2008 @ 8:38pm
As i re-read some of these posts, I realize just how ridiculous those on the left are...they bitch and moan about CEOs and how they "don't actually work" and play "political horseshit games"...but the libs want to turn around and put BUREAUCRATS in charge??? Laughable.
Posted by usc1 at 07/02/2008 @ 10:36pm
i'll take my bureaucrats anyday........
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 10:40pm
i'll take my bureaucrats anyday........
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 10:40pm
oink, oink, oink..............just like all the little piggies that pay little or no taxes, no? In your case, you don't even spend enough to cover your fair share of sales or fuel tax revenue, heh? Even 47 mpg Hondas need roads & bridges, no?
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/02/2008 @ 11:12pm
The nature of the leadership depends more on the character of the institution than any other factor, IMHO.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/02/2008 @ 12:29pm
You actually work in the hospital system.....and your HO, is probably more on target than mine. I retreat another step from "many" to "some".....but, NO MORE :~)
BTW, you're still young going up on that career curve. I'll just take a shot here and say that by the time you're 45, it will, IMHO, be quite different!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/02/2008 @ 11:15pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/02/2008 @ 11:12pm
i use no medical services.
i do pay taxes, however.
i'm happy to share.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 11:36pm
And another thing...Lets stop blaming HMOs for all the spiralling health costs and start looking at the real problem...why don't libs point their high-powered criticism on the literal 500lb gorilla...the average American. We are the fattest country in the world, no doubt requiring oodles of cash to treat problems that could be solved by living healthy...and since libs are in the business of controlling others...lets start making other restrictions. From now on, you must stop smoking, stop doing drugs, start exercising, eat nothing but fruit, veggies, fish, nuts, and olive oil, drink nothing but water, orange juice, black coffee, and red wine, stop eating desserts, stop eating salt...that's a good starting point. Wow. Problem solved...it's so easy being a liberal...I feel so warm and fuzzy having helped so many people be able to afford health care.
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:22am
From now on, you must stop smoking, stop doing drugs, start exercising, eat nothing but fruit, veggies, fish, nuts, and olive oil, drink nothing but water, orange juice, black coffee, and red wine, stop eating desserts, stop eating salt....
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:22am
How did you get an advance copy of Contract with the Uninsured!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/03/2008 @ 12:29am
Posted by usc1
i've got a better plan.
let 'em keep eating all that gmocorn'n'soyafedbeef. let 'em get good and fat.
then, liposuction.
et voilà!
BLUBBAHOL!
power the suvs with thighs!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 12:40am
BTW, you're still young going up on that career curve. I'll just take a shot here and say that by the time you're 45, it will, IMHO, be quite different!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/02/2008 @ 11:15pm |
Actually, I turn 46 this month.
This is my third career since college:
Naval Officer
Physical Therapist
Physician
Posted by skeletonman at 07/03/2008 @ 10:52am
From now on, you must stop smoking, stop doing drugs, start exercising, eat nothing but fruit, veggies, fish, nuts, and olive oil, drink nothing but water, orange juice, black coffee, and red wine, stop eating desserts, stop eating salt...that's a good starting point. Wow. Problem solved...it's so easy being a liberal...I feel so warm and fuzzy having helped so many people be able to afford health care.
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:22am
You know what, I see a hell of a lot of overweight, hypertensive Type II diabetics who don't check their feet but think having a cigarette right in the ER is their god-given right as an American.
You trash the concept of personal responsibility, but the onus for your own health is on you. There isn't enough money to take care of every filthy slob who won't do his or her part.
It ain't my effing problem if you don't take care of yourself, but don't come to my ER and act like you're entitled to every frickin' test known to medicine and then get pissed off at me when I tell you to quit smoking.
Good golly mother pus bucket you wing nuts need to get your story straight.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/03/2008 @ 11:09am
They don't work as hard as the person being paid nothing so why do they deserve it?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/02/2008 @ 2:37pm
Where in the world do you get nonsense like this?
When I ran some manufacturing companies, there were no hourly employees there when I arrived at 5 am. Nor were any still there when I locked up and went home at 7 or 8pm. Most CEO's and other executives I have known usually work 70 hours a week or more. Are there some who don't work hard, of course. but you have painted falsely with your very broad leftist brush.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 11:23am
Where is the schism in the brain pan?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2008 @ 1:18pm
Somehow, I don't think that you are referring to the falx cerebri.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/03/2008 @ 11:39am
Skeleton
Having a bad day? Let's see...entered med school in 1999...plus four years...then another ~3-4 years of training...so you've been out on your own for 1 year? and you're already this jaded?
BTW, I don't trash the concept of personal responsibility...I'm 100% in favor of it...which is why I'm against socialized medicine. If you want to smoke yourself to an early grave, go for it...just don't expect me to pick up the tab when you have a change of heart (or lungs) when your 50...maybe they can go to Crabwalk since he would take a 40% pay cut to help pay for other people's health care...
Actually, you need to be careful talking about personal responsibility...nothing gets their panties in a wad faster than that phrase. And then they'll start calling you heartless, uncaring, etc.
Anyway, the point of my previous post was about control...since the libs want to control things they need to start at the source...the unhealthy people themselves...but I imagine it's easier to point the finger of blame at the wealthy than their own voters...make someone a "victim" and you'll get their vote...and there are a lot more "victims" out there than fatcats.
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 11:47am
Most CEO's and other executives I have known usually work 70 hours a week or more.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 11:23am
Try being a resident, slick.
Resident hours are now capped at 80 per week; for that, one gets paid now about $45-50K/year.
In return, you get to pull all nighters at rate such that you quickly lose count, make decisions that could either save a life or kill somebody with minimal guidance and get treated like shit by everyone from the janitor (wearing the long white coat that you've mortgaged your future to earn by going to medical school) on up, never see your spouse or children. And look forward to that for 3-5 years.
Tell me again what CEO's do to earn their money?
Posted by skeletonman at 07/03/2008 @ 11:48am
Reposted...lost the last one to cyberzone
Skeleton
Having a bad day? Let's see...entered med school in 1999...plus four years...then another ~3-4 years of training...so you've been out on your own for 1 year? and you're already this jaded?
BTW, I don't trash the concept of personal responsibility...I'm 100% in favor of it...which is why I'm against socialized medicine. If you want to smoke yourself to an early grave, go for it...just don't expect me to pick up the tab when you have a change of heart (or lungs) when your 50...maybe they can go to Crabwalk since he would take a 40% pay cut to help pay for other people's health care...
Actually, you need to be careful talking about personal responsibility...nothing gets their panties in a wad faster than that phrase. And then they'll start calling you heartless, uncaring, etc.
Anyway, the point of my previous post was about control...since the libs want to control things they need to start at the source...the unhealthy people themselves...but I imagine it's easier to point the finger of blame at the wealthy than their own voters...make someone a "victim" and you'll get their vote...and there are a lot more "victims" out there than fatcats.
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 11:51am
Posted by ACook at 07/02/2008 @ 10:48am
I know that nurses get dissed; the ICU is another place where unrealistic expectations carry the day.
It's gotten to the point that the difference between doing something for a patient and something to a patient is no longer clear.
None of us know how to say 'no' anymore and instead throw tests and drugs and surgery at what confronts us because that's what we are trained to do.
No one ever is trained on when not to intervene; it's the hardest thing in medicine to learn.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/03/2008 @ 11:55am
Having a bad day? Let's see...entered med school in 1999...plus four years...then another ~3-4 years of training...so you've been out on your own for 1 year? and you're already this jaded?
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 11:51am
Nope, not having a bad day, not jaded so much as realistic about what is out there. Residency does that to a fella.
I'm entering my 3rd year as an attending; if you read my comments elsewhere on this thread (the sequencing of which is totally whacked), you will see my true feelings about being a doctor.
What I am jaded about is the horse puckey you are shoveling.
You don't want to be told how to take care of yourself, but when the shit hits the fan and you roll through the ER door, you don't want to share the space with someone who shares your same attitude.
Guess what - your attitude and that of those like you gobble up the most precious commodity I can offer - time.
One of the great differences between the US and Canada that plays out in health care is that Canada is a Commonwealth, whereas the US is a nation of individuals first and foremost.
The idea that the health of the citizenry is part of its "commonwealth" is utterly mystifying to most Americans.
Sadly, we in the US are too entitled in our outlook and too afraid of personal responsibility to ever make a single payer, primary care model work.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/03/2008 @ 12:11pm
Most CEO's and other executives I have known usually work 70 hours a week or more. Are there some who don't work hard, of course. but you have painted falsely with your very broad leftist brush.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 11:23am
70 hours doing what? Risking possible injury? Breaking their backs to feed their families? What oh so difficult labor do corporates do that makes them better than the man down stairs tearing his back muscles lifting the CEO's boxes? The right loves to paint the CEO's work more hours picture. It's BS. The people who do the hard work, which tends to be the grunt work, are the ones breaking their backs and getting paid nothing for it. I would rather sit in an air conditioned office on the phone and doing paperwork all day and getting paid millions for it, than I would would want to sit on an assembly line and risk possible injury and almost guaranteed stress injuries to get paid beans. Working longer hours does not equate to working harder. Only your partisan mind could make that correlation up.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:31pm
I would rather sit in an air conditioned office on the phone and doing paperwork all day and getting paid millions for it, than I would would want to sit on an assembly line and risk possible injury and almost guaranteed stress injuries to get paid beans.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:31pm
4 weeks ago I was kicked in the head - twice - by a patient in an attempt to inflict bodily harm.
With some success, I might add.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/03/2008 @ 12:58pm
Skeleton,
"You don't want to be told how to take care of yourself, but when the shit hits the fan and you roll through the ER door, you don't want to share the space with someone who shares your same attitude."
Nonononononono, not correct at all. It's fine if a doctor tells me to eat healthier, exercise more, etc. It's entirely different to have it mandated by government which was my point with my previous posts...if libs want to control health costs, then they gotta start with regulating all the "unhealthy" stuff...which they are already doing in some areas and want to do even more...
"Guess what - your attitude and that of those like you gobble up the most precious commodity I can offer - time...Sadly, we in the US are too entitled in our outlook and too afraid of personal responsibility to ever make a single payer, primary care model work."
Guess what...I'm 6 foot, 180lbs, work out 4 days a week and recently started a slow transition to a more South Beachish diet...not because gov't told me to but because I'm not an idiot...rest assured if I ever walk into your ER, it will be because I need it (my only ER visit to date was 8 years ago when a wire pierced through my finger)...You better believe we need more people that think like me...more intelligent, self-reliant folks and we probably wouldn't even be talking about health care.
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 1:04pm
For thosae that think that they don't pay the medical bills for the fat slob that smokes 2 packs a day and has no insurance...
think. then think again, it will come to you.
you pay for it now,
with 25% administrative overhead.
that cost includes the bureaucracy inherent in any large organization. If one is going to sit there and tell me that there are no beeyro-crats in the private insurance industry, I want what you are smokin'!
Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2008 @ 1:15pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:31pm
What cracks me up about statements like these is that I thought the same way when I was about 16 years old...but then I grew up (with a little help from my dad).
In a nutshell...how many people in the country have the skills/education/intelligence to pick tomatoes? Just about all of them. How many have the skills/education to be a CEO? Not very many...hence CEOs get paid more.
(Now that I think about it...we should confiscate KVH's millions because it's not like SHE had to work for it...)
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 1:21pm
"there are not enough taxes to pay for healthcare"
Really?
The War in Iraq Costs
$533,579,155,146
or
231,791,436 Children with Health Care for One Year
or
154,997,406 People with Health Care for One Year
*Taxpayers in the United States will pay $135.4 billion for the President's request for additional Iraq war spending in FY2008 and FY2009. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
39,912,404 People with Health Care for One Year
*Taxpayers in the United States will pay $116.6 billion for tax cuts for the richest 10% in FY 2009. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
51,391,674 Children with Health Care for One Year
*Taxpayers in the United States will pay $12.2 billion for proposed ballistic missile defense in FY2009. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
5,377,173 Children with Health Care for One Year
Posted by crabwalk at 07/03/2008 @ 1:23pm
then they gotta start with regulating all the "unhealthy" stuff...which they are already doing in some areas and want to do even more...
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 1:04pm
DAMN LIBERALS!
LEGALIZE PLUTONIUM!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 2:00pm
more intelligent, self-reliant folks and we probably wouldn't even be talking about health care.
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 1:04pm
well,
regulating industrial emissions sure helps.
"care for some arsenic with your meal, sir?"
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 1:21pm
I say this because I have done both physical labor and trained labor. I get paid more than I did doing physical but I feel less deserving because I feel like I am not really working compard to say, a construction worker. I would honestly like to see how many CEO's can build a house or repair a car. I would like to see how many people in this country could actually repair a car.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 3:15pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 3:15pm
Well, I've done manual labor myself...long enough to know that I didn't want to do it for the rest of my life. So I got an education and made sure I didn't have to...and got paid better as a result.
As far as your self-worth...I can't help you there...if you don't feel you deserve your salary, that's your problem...but it's easily solved. Just tell your boss your not worth what you're being paid and ask for a pay cut. Somehow, I don't think you will.
BTW, a plumber had to fix my outdoor spicket a while back...and charged me $200/hr. At that rate, he's paid $548,800/yr if assumed 3 weeks vacation...do you think he deserves it?
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 3:54pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 3:15pm
Actually your post crystallizes what I've always suspected was the underlying emotion with libs...GUILT...you have so much so how can someone else have so little? You start self-flagellating and come to the conclusion that YOU must be doing something wrong or unfair or immoral...then you have to try to correct the so-called injustice by not only punishing yourself (through higher taxes or whatnot) but also other successful, hard-working individuals in a futile attempt to make yourself feel better.
You can keep it...
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:04pm
BTW, a plumber had to fix my outdoor spicket a while back...and charged me $200/hr. At that rate, he's paid $548,800/yr if assumed 3 weeks vacation...do you think he deserves it?
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 3:54pm
That's assuming he works the amount of hours you think he works a year. You basically made that number based on a 12 hour day. I doubt he is getting paid for a 12 hour day. You assume drive time between jobs. And downtime when is just sitting waiting for a job to come in. So I am very very doubtful he gets paid that much.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:15pm
You can keep it...
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:04pm
Actually I don't apply anything I apply to myself to anyone else. I apply it to how I look at people but I don't believe in forcing people to do anything or punishing people for anything.
Man you would figure you people would have learned to stop making judgment calls on people you know nothing about. Your assumption are 90% of the time wrong.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:17pm
Actually I don't apply anything I apply to myself to anyone else. I apply it to how I look at people but I don't believe in forcing people to do anything...
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:17pm
I'm completely in agreement with this...but I don't think you really mean it (and I know many libs don't). Test: do you believe in public funding of abortion? Do you believe in wealth redistribution through taxes? I would bet that you're in favor of many of these types of programs.
Most liberals i talk to are all for so many "welfare" type programs but when I suggest that they should fund them with their own money, well, that isn't enough...EVERYONE ELSE has to contribute to THEIR pet projects...and they force it through taxes...
Have a Happy 4th
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:52pm
Have a Happy 4th
Posted by usc1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:52pm
I don't believe in public funding of abortion but I do not believe in banning it. I believe it should be left alone and it should stay as a private practice. I don't believe in wealth redistribution. I DO believe that some things are intrical to survival and it is the job of state and federal governments to provide those things and the only way it can provide certain services is through taxation but I know that there will be poor and rich no matter where you are. That is a fact. The rich don't deserve to be punished for being rich just like the poor don't deserve to be punished for being poor.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 5:32pm