2014 Health Insurance Premiums - Ouch!

[ericad]

Christina, tax money isn't being used to pay for the phones. See my post up-thread explaining it. The phones are paid for by a non-profit group and they fund the program via donations from telecom companies. These are not tax dollars being spent. That's a myth.

That isn't really true Erica...

http://blog.budgetmobile.com/2013/06/who-pays-for-free-cell-phones-aka.html

This confirms that tax money is not used. Telecom companies may receive a tax deduction for their donation, or they may pass along this donation to their customers. I'd argue that any corporation engaging in charitable contributions does the same.

 

[ericad]

[quote="ericad|1380913324|

Some people would be horrified by the above. It's socialism! It's entitlement! But our friends' happiness and quality of life is the benchmark against which I compare life in the US. It's a high bar, and I don't actually believe that this will ever be possible here unless we completely deconstruct the system and rebuild from scratch, but it's what I dream of nonetheless. I have lofty goals, lol.

Now go ask Greece, Italy and Spain why their economies collapsed? Two words, socialism and entitlements![/quote]

Are you pulling my leg right now, DF?

 

[Christina...]

Christina, tax money isn't being used to pay for the phones. See my post up-thread explaining it. The phones are paid for by a non-profit group and they fund the program via donations from telecom companies. These are not tax dollars being spent. That's a myth.

That isn't really true Erica...

http://blog.budgetmobile.com/2013/06/who-pays-for-free-cell-phones-aka.html

This confirms that tax money is not used. Telecom companies may receive a tax deduction for their donation, or they may pass along this donation to their customers. I'd argue that any corporation engaging in charitable contributions does the same.

My bill includes a Universal service fee (tax). This is a fee (tax) that cell and long distance companies charge me in order to make that charitable donation. I read that as ME paying for these phones, not the company providing the charitable donation.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

under how it works....again it clearly states that the fee is pasted on to the subscribers..

 

[Christina...]

Christina, tax money isn't being used to pay for the phones. See my post up-thread explaining it. The phones are paid for by a non-profit group and they fund the program via donations from telecom companies. These are not tax dollars being spent. That's a myth.

That isn't really true Erica...

http://blog.budgetmobile.com/2013/06/who-pays-for-free-cell-phones-aka.html

This confirms that tax money is not used. Telecom companies may receive a tax deduction for their donation, or they may pass along this donation to their customers. I'd argue that any corporation engaging in charitable contributions does the same.

My bill includes a Universal service fee (tax). This is a fee (tax) that cell and long distance companies charge me in order to make that charitable donation. I read that as ME paying for these phones, not the company providing the charitable donation.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

under how it works....again it clearly states that the fee is passed on to the subscribers..

edit: autocorrect.

 

[ericad]

It states that some carriers might impose a fee. And regardless, the point I was making is that taxes aren't being used to fund this - TRUE - and that this program predates this administration - TRUE.

On an ironically related note, the dude next to me on the bus is on the phone loudly discussing his wife's chronic diarrhea. Like in great detail. Sweet Jesus, I don't need to be hearing this! Hope they have insurance. Sigh.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I am slow. I just realized the person above me is Erica from Erica Grace. Gotta delete some posts.

But seriously, I have a question about turn around time to see a doctor in France or Australia. You read about all these situations where when you have socialized medicine you can wait forever to get in to see a doctor. Is that true?

Also another question and not trying to be a smart a**, but in other countries where all this and that is done for you, do you feel that maybe some people might lose their incentive to work hard, thinking what is the point?

You need to look no further than the state of Pa...

 

[msop04]

The entire article can be read here..
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/american-welfare-state-how-we-spend-nearly-$1-trillion-year-fighting-poverty-fail

It's hard to argue that welfare hasn't increased under Obama, regardless of whether or not it includes 'new' programs. Throwing more money at the problem hasn't, nor has it historically solved the problem.

Regarding the so called 'Obama phones'...perhaps it's unique to my cell phone provider but any cell phone I have ever had has had the ability to make a 911 call regardless of whether or not I had service on the phone. I recently upgraded phones and did a 'test' call from my old phone, and even though service had been removed I was still able to make an emergency call. I'm also able to plug a landline phone into my wall jack and make a 911 call without having residential service. Perhaps we should just be donating our old phones to people who can't afford service ensuring their ability to make an emergency call in the event it becomes necessary? Or was there some other reason taxpayers should providing this service to people who could not otherwise afford it? I don't mean to come across as angry or bitter, but my family has to make sacrifices and choices regarding what we can and can't afford, cell phone service is an elective expense, not at all comparative to electricity or running water. If financial circumstances required us to make a choice between running water and cell phone service, I thing we could collectively make that decision in 1 second flat. Some of us seem to be confusing necessity and convenience. There is no doubt that cell phones have made our lives more convenient, but it's hard to justify them as a necessity considering that most of us didn't even own them until the past 20 years.

Thank you for posting, Christina. As always, you are very eloquent and concise in your words -- I wish I posessed the same quality! I also appreciate you linking the entire article for us to read.

I will say that I have never met so many who speak of their undying care of others, but will cast the proverbial stone at another in a heartbeat for not sharing in the same beliefs as their own. After reading back through the thread, I can say that I could have personally used better verbiage and could have certainly done more research before posting. This is no one's fault but my own, and I'm glad to say that these are mistakes from which I will learn and grow. However, I noticed several comments that eluded to something very serious, but one in particular upset me the most. I felt it serious enough in nature to call attention to it.

Help for having A phone has been going on for a long time. Pretty uncontroversial in most circles. Until of course, it's a CELL phone, perceived as being distributed like candy by a brown president, then the railing begins.

I have not and will never refer to Barack Obama as our "brown president" as was crassly mentioned in a previous post. I'm guessing this was not to describe the actual color of his skin, but was a passive-aggressive attempt to try claim that somehow I am racist for disapproving or questioning our president's policies, actions, and/or beliefs. I find it irritating as hell when it is so often implied if we don't agree with someone's beliefs (especially those of a political or spiritual nature) and they happen to be a different ethnicity from our own, then it's obvious we must be right wing selfish racist bigots who have been raised with a silver spoon and only care about ourselves.

Anyway, I digress.

Thank you, Christina.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="crown1|1380919777|

You miss the point entirely! And I find it callous that you make fun of my grandfather, who I did not reference. My grandfather had neither phone, electricity nor running water and died in 1957. That is not the point. The point is for all to live within their means. That includes the federal and state government. There is no free lunch nor pie in the sky. We are in trouble now because some people seem to think that if they have children the government is automatically going to make them have everything they need to care for those children. It is simply not financially possible. We need to learn to manage to take care of ourselves again. I am sorry if that hurts you but we all need to try our best to work on becoming a family who can care for itself and not count on the government. If you think I am without fears for my own survival you would be wrong. That does not mean I think someone else is going to step up and do it for me. We are living in a time when some even complain that cash is to hard to deal with. I say they should be grateful to have it to pay with. Wants and needs they are two different things.[/quote]



Ex post!!...

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="ericad|1380906027|
Entitlement policies have been in place for decades. Why are you blaming this administration? What about what 8 years of Bush did to our country? Where was the cap on spending then?

Is that Obama's fault too? What are some examples of this administration "giving more and more to those who choose not to work"?

FYI...there are more Americans on welfare than ever.

Oddly, there are also more Americans than ever.....[/quote]
Oddly, the percentage have gone up too...

 

[Beacon]

An interesting feature of the ACA Obamacare is that members of Congress have to participate in it.

They, like many others, will have to buy insurance off the exchanges. Of course they are way too well paid to get a discounted premium. So what did they do? They granted themselves a tax exempt subsidy they could use to buy the insurance!

No worries for them about opening up an envelope with a huge rate increase.

And they still do a horrid job at their work and would be fired fast if they were private sector employees.

 

[Gypsy]

An interesting feature of the ACA Obamacare is that members of Congress have to participate in it.

They, like many others, will have to buy insurance off the exchanges. Of course they are way too well paid to get a discounted premium. So what did they do? They granted themselves a tax exempt subsidy they could use to buy the insurance!

No worries for them about opening up an envelope with a huge rate increase.

And they still do a horrid job at their work and would be fired fast if they were private sector employees.

I agree with this.

They should all be fired. I can only think of ONE congress-person that should be re-elected right now.

 

[ericad]

An interesting feature of the ACA Obamacare is that members of Congress have to participate in it.

They, like many others, will have to buy insurance off the exchanges. Of course they are way too well paid to get a discounted premium. So what did they do? They granted themselves a tax exempt subsidy they could use to buy the insurance!

No worries for them about opening up an envelope with a huge rate increase.

And they still do a horrid job at their work and would be fired fast if they were private sector employees.

Do you have a link to some evidence to support this?

 

[Beacon]

That they do a horrid job? No, that is merely my opinion.

That they get a tax exempt voucher to pay for it? Yes, there are many links. This is the way the law was written.

 

[ericad]

That they do a horrid job? No, that is merely my opinion.

That they get a tax exempt voucher to pay for it? Yes, there are many links. This is the way the law was written.

Can you please share one from a neutral source? I've not come across this and would love to read more about it.

They're federal employees who are covered under a federal plan, the same way many of us have insurance via employers. There would be no reason for them to shop the exchange, the same way I don't have to. That's different than a tax voucher.

 

[ericad]

Maybe this will clear up the confusion.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/congressional-exemption-obamacare-another-myth-153149342.html

 

[Beacon]

I wasn't confused.

 

[momhappy]

People don't understand that Obamacare will hurt many small business.

You know what else hurts many small businesses? Being a business owner who is not able to get insured because of preexisting conditions, among other things. You know what's also really, really bad for small businesses? Not offering health insurance for full-time employees and having them get gravely sick just because you didn't think that health insurance for them was a necessary expenditure.

This is a very interesting thread. The thing that amazes me is how many people are turning it into a "us" vs "them" problem, and not realizing that they are facing the very same threats. Do they really not realize that with the "old" system any of us could end up laid off tomorrow (or dropped from their current insurance plan), and unable to get coverage (or get quoted a ridiculous premium) because of preexisting conditions? It could happen to us, to our neighbors, to our adult children.

This! Or get sick or injured because even with coverage the financial impact can be devastating. Unless you are literally a multi-millionaire you can lose it ALL just like that.

Absolutely nothing in life is guaranteed (except death). At any moment in time, our entire small business could collapse and we could lose everything. Just last week, we lost a major account that will most definitely have an impact on our bottom line. We also risked losing the employee that was working the account. Rather than forcing him into a financial position that would have a negative impact on his family, we made the decision to increase his salary (out of our own pockets - with no additional incoming funds to offset the expense) until he could acquire new accounts. Maintaing a successful small business requires a healthy bank account so that when a crisis arises, you can react rather than collapse. Again, this is in part why I find paying higher health insurance premiums so disturbing - the money could be better spent supporting the operating costs of our business.
Also, I wanted to point out that often times the protection of ones wealth can be perceived as greed/selfishness. Why is it so horrible to want to protect your wealth? It doesn't necessarily make someone selfish simply because they want to protect their lifestyle, their family, their income, etc. It's human nature and a gut reaction to want to protect and flourish.

 

[packrat]

Just for the record, any *I* statements or any *you* statements, are ALL COLLECTIVE. Nothing is directed at any person in particular, I know how easily things get misconstrued.

For me, the issue comes from people trying to protect their wealth when it faaaaar exceeds what it takes to say, run entire countries, and then when someone who has waaaaay less, say, enough that they feel they're livin large if they get to go out to eat once a week at McDonalds off the Dollar Menu, and *that* person is trying to protect their wealth (hahahaha such as it is of course) and people act like THAT person is selfish.

If someone has enough to support generations of their family, and is squawking about shit, then yeah, I will raise my eyebrows and think wow, cry me a river. If someone has enough to support just themselves, spouse and kids and even THAT is a nail biter, eating 20 tums a day come bill paying time, then yeah, I'm going to feel bad for them.

This is why I could never ever ever in 100 million years be rich. My mind does not compute "only me and mine" and I could never squirrel every penny away b/c it's mine all mine and nobody can touch it b/c it's miiiiine. I'd have animal shelters and scholarships for schools and after school programs and the list goes on and on. If I could give 90% of my wealth back to the world trying to make it a better place, and it wouldn't affect me any more than I can't live in a 10 million dollar house, Christ on a goddammned cracker, why should *I* expect someone who lives in a 50k house to ALSO contribute the same amount?

And that's not what it means to have money in this country. It's not about helping anyone out or doing good for the sake of doing good. It's about stomping your feet and crossing your arms and being all huffy about the fact that YOU earned that money and YOU deserve that money, but yet the people who are *trying* to earn money and have obstacles need to just shut the feck up and pay the same amount that YOU do, even tho YOU are crying about it, and it doesn't affect YOU the way it does the "lesser" people, but if the lesser's cry about it, they're the selfish ones, b/c the ones who are being bratty about it have SOOOOO much, and yet begrudge the lesser's the very less stuff they have.

 

[justginger]

Just for the record, any *I* statements or any *you* statements, are ALL COLLECTIVE. Nothing is directed at any person in particular, I know how easily things get misconstrued.

For me, the issue comes from people trying to protect their wealth when it faaaaar exceeds what it takes to say, run entire countries, and then when someone who has waaaaay less, say, enough that they feel they're livin large if they get to go out to eat once a week at McDonalds off the Dollar Menu, and *that* person is trying to protect their wealth (hahahaha such as it is of course) and people act like THAT person is selfish.

If someone has enough to support generations of their family, and is squawking about shit, then yeah, I will raise my eyebrows and think wow, cry me a river. If someone has enough to support just themselves, spouse and kids and even THAT is a nail biter, eating 20 tums a day come bill paying time, then yeah, I'm going to feel bad for them.

This is why I could never ever ever in 100 million years be rich. My mind does not compute "only me and mine" and I could never squirrel every penny away b/c it's mine all mine and nobody can touch it b/c it's miiiiine. I'd have animal shelters and scholarships for schools and after school programs and the list goes on and on. If I could give 90% of my wealth back to the world trying to make it a better place, and it wouldn't affect me any more than I can't live in a 10 million dollar house, Christ on a goddammned cracker, why should *I* expect someone who lives in a 50k house to ALSO contribute the same amount?

And that's not what it means to have money in this country. It's not about helping anyone out or doing good for the sake of doing good. It's about stomping your feet and crossing your arms and being all huffy about the fact that YOU earned that money and YOU deserve that money, but yet the people who are *trying* to earn money and have obstacles need to just shut the feck up and pay the same amount that YOU do, even tho YOU are crying about it, and it doesn't affect YOU the way it does the "lesser" people, but if the lesser's cry about it, they're the selfish ones, b/c the ones who are being bratty about it have SOOOOO much, and yet begrudge the lesser's the very less stuff they have.

 

[Beacon]

Packrat, what you say has a lot of merit.

But the Obamacare situation doesn't have that much in common with hugely wealthy people and what they are doing with their money.

What I see on this board is very average people (in the scheme of middle class armerica) having to come up with sums of money that are definitely going to cause them to defer other purchases. Combining this with the massive debt America is taking on to find the program I am concerned the overall effect will be an erosion to the fragile economic recovery we have in place.

The net of this will be continued job losses which in turn have the effect of creating more need for heavily subsidized programs at further cost and debt to the economy. There comes a tipping point when this sort of thing is no longer sustainable.

Perhaps others have similar concerns but are framing them within their own set of moral/ethical standards.

 

[Beacon]

I noticed people talking about Greece on this thread. I didn't read those entirely but it seemed like people were trying to compare Greece and the US.

No matter which side of the politics one is on, comparing Greece and the US is not going to be decisive.

Greece gets a lot of headlines only because they are a Eurozone country. Greece cannot actually afford to be a Eurozone country, they should be off the Euro, but this is perceived to be disruptive, so Greece stays on the Euro and the EU is paying a lot of money to keep them on.

That reason, by itself, makes comparing Greece to the US impossible. Further consider that the population of Greece at about 11 million people is about the same as the County of Los Angeles. Of those 11 million Greek people 25% are out of the labor force due to age or incapacity and of those that remain 26% are unemployed. This leaves a labor pool of 6 million people, which is similar to the Houston TX metro population.

You can see that what ever happens in Greece has little to do with how we do things in America. They have very specific problems related to their culture which by definition is very local. These folks are then tethered to a currency dominated by nations far larger and far more productive. It's a recipe for disaster and it's happening. To Greece.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Packrat, what you say has a lot of merit.

But the Obamacare situation doesn't have that much in common with hugely wealthy people and what they are doing with their money.

What I see on this board is very average people (in the scheme of middle class armerica) having to come up with sums of money that are definitely going to cause them to defer other purchases. Combining this with the massive debt America is taking on to find the program I am concerned the overall effect will be an erosion to the fragile economic recovery we have in place.

The net of this will be continued job losses which in turn have the effect of creating more need for heavily subsidized programs at further cost and debt to the economy. There comes a tipping point when this sort of thing is no longer sustainable.

Perhaps others have similar concerns but are framing them within their own set of moral/ethical standards.

Beacon is a smart bird... one of the few person whom really understands how Obamacare will effect our economy...

 

[crown1]

I think it is not what you believe but how you behave that is the most important. I do not come into the category of the extremely wealthy that some are mentioning. However, I do not feel it is right to attack or come to a bad judgment of them for their situation. Many contribute to society in many ways both financially and personally. It is somewhat childish and jealous to make broad judgments about their actions when we do not know their circumstances. Being rich or poor does not define your character. I am sure we will find those of poor character and actions in all stations of society.

If a person chooses to be generous it should be their choice, the government should not mandate it. Once again I will repeat what someone else wrote, the government can not give you something it does not take from someone else. If you have posted your lovely jewels on this site you seem extremely rich to someone else. I would be willing to bet, that you will let them take them only from your cold, dead hands. That is a sarcastic comment, as I am sure there are those who would willingly give their jewelry to help out those in need. That said, we need to worry more about spending our own resources wisely, and worrying less about how others are spending theirs.

I favor a flat tax for all and much less government in our business. Let us care for our own family, friends and community members and not depend on the government to nanny us. Let us enforce the laws already on the books and stand for ethical behaviour for all.
Let us be tolerant of folks with different life styles and origins. In other words, live and let live. Act as you would wish to be treated and quit looking for reasons to find fault. That probably will not happen but it would sure seem nice to me. Crown's two cents.

 

[Beacon]

You are very kind DF

To be frank, neither I nor our government has the exact outcome of ACA down on paper.

ACA will create some jobs and that is plain to see. Jobs in benefits consulting, hospital administration, laboratory work - there are a quite a few areas.

But the job losses will likely outweigh these job gains. Smaller employers are very burdened with health care costs and the complex administration and find it hard (or just too unpleasant) to expand. Large employers can afford to cope with the problems but the uncertainty is causing them to defer investments that can result in jobs down the road.

Immediately the average consumer is having meaningful amounts taken from them to pay for health insurance and not for goods and services. That effect is very much right now.

If I had to guess, we will see slowdown from this and the overall long run effect to the economy will be a negative.

 

[packrat]

I wasn't posting about Obamacare, it just kind of went off on a tangent on its own in response to other comments. I fully agree w/what you say about it. There are too many people wanting to ride in the wagon and not enough people to pull it. And the ones that are pulling it, can only pull so much weight. I remember being sent a check from the gov't to "encourage spending"..anyone else remember that? "Free money". Hahahahaha. Had to pay taxes on it come the end of year, and that $300 went towards bills, it didn't get spent to "encourage economic growth" as it intended. The ones who spent it as free/fun money are the ones who were already collecting money from the gov't, the ones who didn't give a crap about their bills regardless, and the ones who already who had money in the bank. It's a big circle and it's not going to change in my lifetime, unless there is some sort of revolt of the peasants. Or..not the poor peasants (cuz hey why revolt when it's free anyway yes?) but the middle-peasants, like me. And we're too busy trying to keep ourselves afloat and find ways to make things work w/all the changes that come. The tipping point of unsustainability will come sooner rather than later, I'm thinking.

 

[Beacon]

I wasn't posting about Obamacare, it just kind of went off on a tangent on its own in response to other comments. I fully agree w/what you say about it. There are too many people wanting to ride in the wagon and not enough people to pull it. And the ones that are pulling it, can only pull so much weight. I remember being sent a check from the gov't to "encourage spending"..anyone else remember that? "Free money". Hahahahaha. Had to pay taxes on it come the end of year, and that $300 went towards bills, it didn't get spent to "encourage economic growth" as it intended. The ones who spent it as free/fun money are the ones who were already collecting money from the gov't, the ones who didn't give a crap about their bills regardless, and the ones who already who had money in the bank. It's a big circle and it's not going to change in my lifetime, unless there is some sort of revolt of the peasants. Or..not the poor peasants (cuz hey why revolt when it's free anyway yes?) but the middle-peasants, like me. And we're too busy trying to keep ourselves afloat and find ways to make things work w/all the changes that come. The tipping point of unsustainability will come sooner rather than later, I'm thinking.

Yes I do remember that!! What a joke. Our income was above the threshold so we did not get it. A dear friend of mine, retired with literally millions in the bank qualified for the check cause the interest he earns on his savings was low enough to keep him under the threshold. I joked with him, "hey you stole my money! Hope you have fun with it!" We went out to a nice dinner.

It's funny but it's not funny. Governments have the power to do very bad things and every now and again they do.

 

[Beacon]

It's super off topic - but one of the better things the government did during the financial crisis was to reduce the social security tax on people's pay checks.

That was really good because it put money into the hands of middle class people who work and it made a difference to them and they could buy more things right away which definitely helped the economy in every area.

Unfortunately that program ended at the start of this year and now those same people are facing big increases in their out of pocket health insurance. It doesn't make much common sense to see what that is going to do to consumer spending (which up to September has been positive, I will add).

 

[SB621]

Just for the record, any *I* statements or any *you* statements, are ALL COLLECTIVE. Nothing is directed at any person in particular, I know how easily things get misconstrued.

For me, the issue comes from people trying to protect their wealth when it faaaaar exceeds what it takes to say, run entire countries, and then when someone who has waaaaay less, say, enough that they feel they're livin large if they get to go out to eat once a week at McDonalds off the Dollar Menu, and *that* person is trying to protect their wealth (hahahaha such as it is of course) and people act like THAT person is selfish.

If someone has enough to support generations of their family, and is squawking about shit, then yeah, I will raise my eyebrows and think wow, cry me a river. If someone has enough to support just themselves, spouse and kids and even THAT is a nail biter, eating 20 tums a day come bill paying time, then yeah, I'm going to feel bad for them.

This is why I could never ever ever in 100 million years be rich. My mind does not compute "only me and mine" and I could never squirrel every penny away b/c it's mine all mine and nobody can touch it b/c it's miiiiine. I'd have animal shelters and scholarships for schools and after school programs and the list goes on and on. If I could give 90% of my wealth back to the world trying to make it a better place, and it wouldn't affect me any more than I can't live in a 10 million dollar house, Christ on a goddammned cracker, why should *I* expect someone who lives in a 50k house to ALSO contribute the same amount?

And that's not what it means to have money in this country. It's not about helping anyone out or doing good for the sake of doing good. It's about stomping your feet and crossing your arms and being all huffy about the fact that YOU earned that money and YOU deserve that money, but yet the people who are *trying* to earn money and have obstacles need to just shut the feck up and pay the same amount that YOU do, even tho YOU are crying about it, and it doesn't affect YOU the way it does the "lesser" people, but if the lesser's cry about it, they're the selfish ones, b/c the ones who are being bratty about it have SOOOOO much, and yet begrudge the lesser's the very less stuff they have.

May I love you forever Fabulous post!

 

[momhappy]

Just for the record, any *I* statements or any *you* statements, are ALL COLLECTIVE. Nothing is directed at any person in particular, I know how easily things get misconstrued.

For me, the issue comes from people trying to protect their wealth when it faaaaar exceeds what it takes to say, run entire countries, and then when someone who has waaaaay less, say, enough that they feel they're livin large if they get to go out to eat once a week at McDonalds off the Dollar Menu, and *that* person is trying to protect their wealth (hahahaha such as it is of course) and people act like THAT person is selfish.

If someone has enough to support generations of their family, and is squawking about shit, then yeah, I will raise my eyebrows and think wow, cry me a river. If someone has enough to support just themselves, spouse and kids and even THAT is a nail biter, eating 20 tums a day come bill paying time, then yeah, I'm going to feel bad for them.

This is why I could never ever ever in 100 million years be rich. My mind does not compute "only me and mine" and I could never squirrel every penny away b/c it's mine all mine and nobody can touch it b/c it's miiiiine. I'd have animal shelters and scholarships for schools and after school programs and the list goes on and on. If I could give 90% of my wealth back to the world trying to make it a better place, and it wouldn't affect me any more than I can't live in a 10 million dollar house, Christ on a goddammned cracker, why should *I* expect someone who lives in a 50k house to ALSO contribute the same amount?

And that's not what it means to have money in this country. It's not about helping anyone out or doing good for the sake of doing good. It's about stomping your feet and crossing your arms and being all huffy about the fact that YOU earned that money and YOU deserve that money, but yet the people who are *trying* to earn money and have obstacles need to just shut the feck up and pay the same amount that YOU do, even tho YOU are crying about it, and it doesn't affect YOU the way it does the "lesser" people, but if the lesser's cry about it, they're the selfish ones, b/c the ones who are being bratty about it have SOOOOO much, and yet begrudge the lesser's the very less stuff they have.

So what does it matter if one chooses to stomp their feet, cross their arms, and get all huffy? It's just a normal response/reaction. If I walked into the grocery store to buy a gallon of milk that I'm used to paying $3.30, then I'm probably gonna get all huffy if the price of the gallon of milk jumps to $4.30.
Like I said before, there is no choice in the matter (when it comes to paying higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, etc.). You either pay or they come after you. And I wouldn't expect those with less to pay the same amounts (and they don't). It's all relative. If I make more, I pay more and vice versa.

 

[Dreamer_D]

...

But seriously, I have a question about turn around time to see a doctor in France or Australia. You read about all these situations where when you have socialized medicine you can wait forever to get in to see a doctor. Is that true?

In Canada we have socialized medicine.

If I am sick, I can walk into the clinic a block from my house and see a doctor within one hour. Or I can make an appointment with my family doctor for the same day if I want. Some people do not have family doctors because of shortages in some cities, but there are clinics always available for anyone and they are free to use and fast.

If I have need of additional medical care beyond simply seeing a doctor, I will be referred to a specialist. There is a triage system, so urgent medical issues get seen first. This means if my doctor thinks I have a brain tumor, I will recieve treatment that same day and be airlifted to the best cancer hospital in my area. I have seen this happen with a few people -- immediate treatment that is the top level of care available. No waiting ever in cases where immediate care is required. No claims denied. No bills later on.

If the issue is not life or death, there can be waits. For example, when I needed a mole checked by a skin doctor -- not urgently, just as a "cover your ass" thing -- I waited 2 months for the referral. For a OB consult -- non-urgent -- when I was pregnant I waited three days for the appointment.

Many older people complain about the triage system because it does mean that people must wait for hip replacements or knee replacements, sometimes for a long time.

But if you need care urgently, you get it immediately. No questions asked.

The anti-socialized medical care propaganda makes me laugh. It is so ridiculous, frankly, I have no idea how anyone buys it.