Affordable Care Act Upheld By Supreme Court

[HollyS]

IMHO the elimination of the entire health insurance industry is the answer.

ZIIIIIIIIILLIONS of dollars are flushed down the toilet running them.

Just make medical care like police and fire department services, just another thing paid for directly by tax dollars.
Our taxes would go up by LESS than our current health insurance premiums.

Alternatively let's invent out of thin air insurance for police and fire dept coverage.
You call 911 and first they check if you paid your monthly premium.
No?
Well then, they can't help you; you're house is allowed to burn down and your children to be murdered.
That's as stupid as a for-profit industry standing between you and the medical care we all need.

The only reason the health insurance industry exists to day is, like with the legality of sales of cigarettes, it existed yesterday . . . and oh yeah . . . campaign contributions and their lobbyists in Washington.

What does it say, about me and kenny, when I don't necessarily . . . disagree with him?

The only thing that will ever do any good, whatsoever, is tort reform. But, as kenny pointed out, that is not possible. Not if you owe your last election and the next election to those that need reforming.

Thanks, kenny, for saving me from spouting off at the mouth like a Republican. Now, thing2 and I have nothing to argue about.

But I like to argue with you!

In the words of Sally Field: "You like me! You really like me!"

 

[miraclesrule]

I have never met a person who bemoans government run health care programs who, upon experiencing their own health tragedy (or a family member), was not quickly humbled by the experience.

It seems to me that there are a lot of individuals who can't imagine walking in another's shoe. Those people actually have to be in those shoes to "get it".

p.s. I did watch the premiere of Newsroom, and while I am not at all sure I will like the program....that speech was spot on in stats concerning the U.S.

p.s.s. I think it's very wise to have a back-up plan if America implodes. I wish I had dual citizenship that I could rely on for that. In the interim, I can only hope to purchase property abroad in case we need it.

 

[icekid]

The only thing that will ever do any good, whatsoever, is tort reform. But, as kenny pointed out, that is not possible. Not if you owe your last election and the next election to those that need reforming.

ding ding ding, we have a winner!! And universal healthcare/single payer is impossible without tort reform.

 

[kenny]

IMHO the elimination of the entire health insurance industry is the answer.

ZIIIIIIIIILLIONS of dollars are flushed down the toilet running them.

Just make medical care like police and fire department services, just another thing paid for directly by tax dollars.
Our taxes would go up by LESS than our current health insurance premiums.

Alternatively let's invent out of thin air insurance for police and fire dept coverage.
You call 911 and first they check if you paid your monthly premium.
No?
Well then, they can't help you; you're house is allowed to burn down and your children to be murdered.
That's as stupid as a for-profit industry standing between you and the medical care we all need.

The only reason the health insurance industry exists to day is, like with the legality of sales of cigarettes, it existed yesterday . . . and oh yeah . . . campaign contributions and their lobbyists in Washington.

What does it say, about me and kenny, when I don't necessarily . . . disagree with him?

The only thing that will ever do any good, whatsoever, is tort reform. But, as kenny pointed out, that is not possible. Not if you owe your last election and the next election to those that need reforming.

Thanks, kenny, for saving me from spouting off at the mouth like a Republican. Now, thing2 and I have nothing to argue about.

But I like to argue with you!

No you don't.

 

[HollyS]

Kenny: I'm liking (because I'm a shade more pessimistic than optimistic) your Oscar Wilde quote.

However, did you notice the irony of his last sentence and you choosing to use his quote? Or, perhaps that's the point.

 

[AGBF]

Once upon a time I was on an individual plan for my health insurance. Then I got pregnant. Which was when I discovered that my health insurance didn't cover pregnancy or any maternity benefits. They did not even offer a maternity rider as a supplement to my individual plan.

A "normal" vaginal birth in the USA costs around $7,000, and that's with no complications. My husband could put me on his insurance for $600 per month premiums. So I was forced to apply for pregnancy only Medicaid for the sole purpose of being turned down. Because I couldn't apply for any other programs until medicaid had rejected me. (snip)

Finally I was approved for one of the programs.

I was incredibly lucky to come out the way I did. My emergency C-section ended up costing $17,000+, which would have put us in the red.

I am THRILLED that other young women out there will not have to go through what I went through and maternity benefits will have to be covered by all insurances. I am THRILLED that women's premiums will not be higher than men's just because pregnancy is expensive.



But what I don't understand is why people keep voting against their interests.

Great story and great point, Freke. People don't even realize that they are the 99% and are voting the interests of the 1%.

Deb/AGBF

 

[0-0-0]

From Futurama's Decision 3012:

Richard Nixon's head: I promise to cut taxes for the rich and use the poor as a cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel!
[The audience applauds.]
Fry: That'll show those poor!
Leela: You're not rich.
Fry: But someday I might be rich, and people like me better watch their step!

 

[ericad]

I have never met a person who bemoans government run health care programs who, upon experiencing their own health tragedy (or a family member), was not quickly humbled by the experience.

It seems to me that there are a lot of individuals who can't imagine walking in another's shoe. Those people actually have to be in those shoes to "get it".

p.s. I did watch the premiere of Newsroom, and while I am not at all sure I will like the program....that speech was spot on in stats concerning the U.S.

p.s.s. I think it's very wise to have a back-up plan if America implodes. I wish I had dual citizenship that I could rely on for that. In the interim, I can only hope to purchase property abroad in case we need it.

Well, marriage equality is making lots of headway - maybe polygamy will be next? You can marry DH and I for our French citizenship

 

[iheartscience]

From Futurama's Decision 3012:

Richard Nixon's head: I promise to cut taxes for the rich and use the poor as a cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel!
[The audience applauds.]
Fry: That'll show those poor!
Leela: You're not rich.
Fry: But someday I might be rich, and people like me better watch their step!

 

[ame]

From Futurama's Decision 3012:

Richard Nixon's head: I promise to cut taxes for the rich and use the poor as a cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel!
[The audience applauds.]
Fry: That'll show those poor!
Leela: You're not rich.
Fry: But someday I might be rich, and people like me better watch their step!

HAH DH and I JUST watched that the other day!!!

 

[iheartscience]

Buzzfeed compiled a list of people tweeting that they're moving to Canada because of Obamacare. That's just the place to avoid universal healthcare!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

 

[hlmr]

Buzzfeed compiled a list of people tweeting that they're moving to Canada because of Obamacare. That's just the place to avoid universal healthcare!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

 

[Haven]

Kenny: I'm liking (because I'm a shade more pessimistic than optimistic) your Oscar Wilde quote.

However, did you notice the irony of his last sentence and you choosing to use his quote? Or, perhaps that's the point.

I pointed out the same thing in another thread. I assumed i was on purpose though, and thanked Kenny for giving me a good laugh every time I see his signature. I think it's hilarious.

 

[justginger]

t2of2, that made me LOL. So many truly ignorant people - I'd love to see one actually move, and then discover the social policies of Canada.

Edited to credit the original poster.

 

[iheartscience]

t2of2, that made me LOL. So many truly ignorant people - I'd love to see one actually move, and then discover the social policies of Canada.

Edited to credit the original poster.

You and me both! The ignorance of some people is seriously breathtaking!

 

[miraclesrule]

I have never met a person who bemoans government run health care programs who, upon experiencing their own health tragedy (or a family member), was not quickly humbled by the experience.

It seems to me that there are a lot of individuals who can't imagine walking in another's shoe. Those people actually have to be in those shoes to "get it".

p.s. I did watch the premiere of Newsroom, and while I am not at all sure I will like the program....that speech was spot on in stats concerning the U.S.

p.s.s. I think it's very wise to have a back-up plan if America implodes. I wish I had dual citizenship that I could rely on for that. In the interim, I can only hope to purchase property abroad in case we need it.

Well, marriage equality is making lots of headway - maybe polygamy will be next? You can marry DH and I for our French citizenship

Excellent idea!! Then someone can help me change garage lights and a/c filters. Annnnd, have no problem deferring to the first wife. :->

 

[distracts]

About freedom - I would like to have the I freedom to have health insurance. Unfortunately, I have a pre-existing condition. I have experienced severe depression and anxiety issues since I was 12. This started when I was a CHILD, so I truly doubt it's because of something I did or didn't do, but rather just shit bad luck in terms of brain chemistry. I need medication and therapy in order to be a functional person. If I don't get it, I am unable to work and unable to even leave my house. With it, you cannot tell me apart from any other hard-working young person. The vast majority of it is paid for out of my own money, not insurance, but it's still on my health records which renders me far less insurable than the average person. So in a way I am being punished aliased for being responsible and taking care of my health. Even to get catastrophic insurance - which is not at all affected by my emotional state, for Christs sake - it is insanely expensive, to the point where I would have not enough money left over for cost of living expenses. The only way insurance companies will take me on is if they are forced to. And the only way they will agree to that is if they can pool risks by having everyone insured. You're not paying for me - I am being allowed to pay for myself. I don't see how that is entitled. Yes, my "risk" is being subsidized by your insurance premiums, but that is the way insurance works. It works that way for home insurance and car insurance, both of which you presumably have, yet I see very few people complaining about those.

Also, Beacon, if you come to Texas and have children, be prepared to pay $20,000-$40,000 a year per kid for pre-k to high school, because the the schools are so crap that if you care about your kid's education at all you'd better send them to private school. Taxes on small businesses are virtually crippling, so you'd better work for a major corporation. With your views you would do best in Houston, as it is more conservative than the other major cities. But all the major cities are still Democratic bastions. And the rest of the state will turn blue by 2040, due to the increasing influence of Hispanic voters. So I'm not actually sure Texas would be the best option for you. Oh, plus the economy is going to fail pretty soon since there are not enough educated workers to sustain an economy of growth. Due to the schools. The Texas Association of Business (a mostly Republican organization, in case you had any doubts) has several very good reports on this and has been quietly agitating for more funding for schools, to improve business prospects.

 

[beebrisk]

I feel there is a stigma attached to being opposed to Obamacare. The vast majority of those who oppose it aren't doing so because they don't care about the poor or uninsured. In fact, many want to make insurance more affordable for everybody, which is very difficult given that there is virtually no competition between insurance companies. But this only exacerbates that problem by making insurance more beurocratic and, thus, inefficient. The poor are penalized, small companies who currently can't pay for employees' health insurance are penalized (in an economy where many small companies are already failing) and larger companies will likely opt to pay the penalty in lieu of providing insurance to employees.

And the bigger (and IMO scarier) precedent being set by the SC in this decision:

1. The gov't can tax ANYTHING at this point. Although I know many would argue that taxes are NOT voluntary (because you'll go to prison if you don't pay them), they are based on behavior. If you don't want to pay an income tax, don't work. If you don't want to pay taxes for products, don't buy anything (though those are state taxes, not federal)...the taxes are based on taking some action. But now the gov't can tax you for NOT doing something they want you to do. And that is insane to me! Oh, you don't want to buy an American-made car? then you can pay a "tax". Don't want to buy 2 lbs. of fresh veggies every week? you're "taxed". I just can't wrap my head around why so many are willing to accept this kind of "tax".

The only slight good news is that because it is a tax, it can easily be repealed.

^^This!^^

One small step for "health" care (no one will be healthier on this system) and one giant leap toward tyranny.

 

[beebrisk]

I'm british so I don't really have the right to make much comment - 'cept that I can't understand how this could not be a good thing.

I heard a ranting guy on BBC Radio 4 news, in a report on this passing, saying it was a tragedy and that it was communism on US soil. Just seems so odd the people wouldn't want to pay tax for a fairer a society. Someone else said it was a blessing because it meant that, for example, the elderly wouldn't have to choose between meds or rent. If that really is a choice that is facing some citizens well.... in this day and age, in a developed country....

Ask any senior in the US who has been paying into Medicare their entire life how they feel about the program being cut by a half-billion dollars over the next few years. Ask them how "blessed" they are going to be when their doctors stop caring for them and opt out of the program because they'll no longer be reimbursed fairly by a keystone cop government that mis-managed and bankrupted the system in the first place!

This bill stinks to high heaven. We needed INSURANCE reform to ensure greater affordability and access. We did not need *health care* reform. But our elected officials, with their infinite wisdom and collective boners at the idea of further intrusion into our lives, passed a bill that no one had read.

The guy on BBC (who I assume was Daniel Hannan?) was right to rant. I wish I had a microphone, too!

 

[Dancing Fire]

beebrisk the right-winger...

 

[Maria D]

I'm british so I don't really have the right to make much comment - 'cept that I can't understand how this could not be a good thing.

I heard a ranting guy on BBC Radio 4 news, in a report on this passing, saying it was a tragedy and that it was communism on US soil. Just seems so odd the people wouldn't want to pay tax for a fairer a society. Someone else said it was a blessing because it meant that, for example, the elderly wouldn't have to choose between meds or rent. If that really is a choice that is facing some citizens well.... in this day and age, in a developed country....

Ask any senior in the US who has been paying into Medicare their entire life how they feel about the program being cut by a half-billion dollars over the next few years. Ask them how "blessed" they are going to be when their doctors stop caring for them and opt out of the program because they'll no longer be reimbursed fairly by a keystone cop government that mis-managed and bankrupted the system in the first place!

This bill stinks to high heaven. We needed INSURANCE reform to ensure greater affordability and access. We did not need *health care* reform. But our elected officials, with their infinite wisdom and collective boners at the idea of further intrusion into our lives, passed a bill that no one had read.

The guy on BBC (who I assume was Daniel Hannan?) was right to rant. I wish I had a microphone, too!

No, don't just ask *any* senior, be sure to pick one that watches Fox News exclusively. Because the facts don't bear out that medicare benefits will be cut by $500 million. Instead, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) says that the federal government spending on Medicare will continue to GROW, but the RATE of growth will slow down. The reason that the growth rate can be stemmed is because ACA will cut fraud and overpayments to private insurance. That *is* insurance reform. The $500 million savings will be spent to fund new benefits, including a gap in prescription medicare coverage that affects seniors.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2012/07/03/foxs-hume-advances-misleading-claim-that-health/186918

 

[Maria D]

Ok. So does this decision mean that people who can’t afford health care insurance now will be able to afford it in 2014? Or will they have to either forgo treatment or go into bankruptcy, should they become ill? I'm a little confused...

The bolded part is how it works in the US now if you don't have insurance.

The ACA as originally passed by congress was based in part on the principle that people who can't afford insurance now should be able to afford it in 2014 -- and pay a penalty if they choose not to buy what they could well afford. However, the recent Supreme Court decision could nullify this principle. There were two key provisions to the ACA, the individual mandate and the forced expansion of of state Medicaid programs to cover more (poor) people. The SC upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate but ruled that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to cut off all Medicaid funding to states who refuse to expand their programs. So, states that do refuse will likely have people who will not qualify for Medicaid and cannot afford insurance.

 

[beebrisk]

I'm british so I don't really have the right to make much comment - 'cept that I can't understand how this could not be a good thing.

I heard a ranting guy on BBC Radio 4 news, in a report on this passing, saying it was a tragedy and that it was communism on US soil. Just seems so odd the people wouldn't want to pay tax for a fairer a society. Someone else said it was a blessing because it meant that, for example, the elderly wouldn't have to choose between meds or rent. If that really is a choice that is facing some citizens well.... in this day and age, in a developed country....

Ask any senior in the US who has been paying into Medicare their entire life how they feel about the program being cut by a half-billion dollars over the next few years. Ask them how "blessed" they are going to be when their doctors stop caring for them and opt out of the program because they'll no longer be reimbursed fairly by a keystone cop government that mis-managed and bankrupted the system in the first place!

This bill stinks to high heaven. We needed INSURANCE reform to ensure greater affordability and access. We did not need *health care* reform. But our elected officials, with their infinite wisdom and collective boners at the idea of further intrusion into our lives, passed a bill that no one had read.

The guy on BBC (who I assume was Daniel Hannan?) was right to rant. I wish I had a microphone, too!

No, don't just ask *any* senior, be sure to pick one that watches Fox News exclusively. Because the facts don't bear out that medicare benefits will be cut by $500 million. Instead, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) says that the federal government spending on Medicare will continue to GROW, but the RATE of growth will slow down. The reason that the growth rate can be stemmed is because ACA will cut fraud and overpayments to private insurance. That *is* insurance reform. The $500 million savings will be spent to fund new benefits, including a gap in prescription medicare coverage that affects seniors.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2012/07/03/foxs-hume-advances-misleading-claim-that-health/186918

"The ACA will cut fraud and overpayments to private insurance".


Because our wise and beneficent federal government has a *stellar* history of cutting welfare and social security fraud.

 

[Maria D]

I'm british so I don't really have the right to make much comment - 'cept that I can't understand how this could not be a good thing.

I heard a ranting guy on BBC Radio 4 news, in a report on this passing, saying it was a tragedy and that it was communism on US soil. Just seems so odd the people wouldn't want to pay tax for a fairer a society. Someone else said it was a blessing because it meant that, for example, the elderly wouldn't have to choose between meds or rent. If that really is a choice that is facing some citizens well.... in this day and age, in a developed country....

Ask any senior in the US who has been paying into Medicare their entire life how they feel about the program being cut by a half-billion dollars over the next few years. Ask them how "blessed" they are going to be when their doctors stop caring for them and opt out of the program because they'll no longer be reimbursed fairly by a keystone cop government that mis-managed and bankrupted the system in the first place!

This bill stinks to high heaven. We needed INSURANCE reform to ensure greater affordability and access. We did not need *health care* reform. But our elected officials, with their infinite wisdom and collective boners at the idea of further intrusion into our lives, passed a bill that no one had read.

The guy on BBC (who I assume was Daniel Hannan?) was right to rant. I wish I had a microphone, too!

No, don't just ask *any* senior, be sure to pick one that watches Fox News exclusively. Because the facts don't bear out that medicare benefits will be cut by $500 million. Instead, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) says that the federal government spending on Medicare will continue to GROW, but the RATE of growth will slow down. The reason that the growth rate can be stemmed is because ACA will cut fraud and overpayments to private insurance. That *is* insurance reform. The $500 billion savings will be spent to fund new benefits, including a gap in prescription medicare coverage that affects seniors.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2012/07/03/foxs-hume-advances-misleading-claim-that-health/186918

"The ACA will cut fraud and overpayments to private insurance".


Because our wise and beneficent federal government has a *stellar* history of cutting welfare and social security fraud.

oops, I fixed a mistake in my quote, it's $500 billion, not million.

OK, let me get this straight: The complaint is that the feds are cutting Medicaid by $500 billion. But it turns out that's not true, the feds are actually going to INCREASE spending to Medicaid, just not as quickly as they would have without ACA. The feds claim that, while still spending more each year, they will be spending $500 billion less than they would without ACA because they will institute insurance reform, which you say is what is needed. Now your position is that they won't be able to cut fraud. So we need insurance reform but, forget about it, that's impossible because after all this is America we're talking about. Not very patriotic here, are we.

The federal government's history, stellar or not, does not change the fact that your argument about $500 billion cuts to Medicaid is bunk.

 

[MissStepcut]

Should have read deeper into the thread.

 

[iheartscience]

We do pay high rates, so for my family it is not misleading. At a certain point, based on the new taxes under consideration, we will work for half wages on the top income. My feeling is that I would rather see more of my husband than only receive half wages for 100% of the work.

The tax rates I mentioned are not including the new increases that will come to pay for the ObamaCare package. That is a new and extra cost. It will affect a number of people, not just the highest earners. For example, in America many employers offer a "flexible benefits plan", where you can put money in, pre tax, to pay for out of pocket health expenses that are not covered by your insurance, (things like co pays, eye glasses, etc). At present a worker can put in $5000. Under ObamaCare that will now drop to $2500. This not a hand out, this is money that you earned, but it will be used for healtcare and not taxed. It's very helpful to families who work but their insurance doesn't cover everything (and no one's insurance does, except Pres. Obama's!)

BTW, Ginger mentioned that in Australia she was only paying 20-22% of income, not 37%? So how's that?

I would like to point out that tax rate increases are coming due soon, not as part of ObamaCare, but instead as part of a return to the previous tax decrease that your family has been benefitting from during a time when gov't spending exploded. My family will also be paying a substantial portion of our income in the top tax bracket, almost certainly for more years than you since my husband and I are in our 20s, so we'll be paying for this Iraq war and for your tax breaks our whole lives.

As for the cost of ObamaCare, we'll see how it shakes out. Right now I know I am subsidizing a lot of other people's bad health decisions by paying increased health costs when they forego preventative care and seek out emergency care, then never pay their bills.

Great points, MSC. We're going to be paying for multiple unfunded wars for years to come.

 

[HollyS]

I'm british so I don't really have the right to make much comment - 'cept that I can't understand how this could not be a good thing.

I heard a ranting guy on BBC Radio 4 news, in a report on this passing, saying it was a tragedy and that it was communism on US soil. Just seems so odd the people wouldn't want to pay tax for a fairer a society. Someone else said it was a blessing because it meant that, for example, the elderly wouldn't have to choose between meds or rent. If that really is a choice that is facing some citizens well.... in this day and age, in a developed country....

Ask any senior in the US who has been paying into Medicare their entire life how they feel about the program being cut by a half-billion dollars over the next few years. Ask them how "blessed" they are going to be when their doctors stop caring for them and opt out of the program because they'll no longer be reimbursed fairly by a keystone cop government that mis-managed and bankrupted the system in the first place!

This bill stinks to high heaven. We needed INSURANCE reform to ensure greater affordability and access. We did not need *health care* reform. But our elected officials, with their infinite wisdom and collective boners at the idea of further intrusion into our lives, passed a bill that no one had read.

The guy on BBC (who I assume was Daniel Hannan?) was right to rant. I wish I had a microphone, too!

You forgot to add that our elected officials voted this program into being - - without reading it, or fully understanding it. An absolutely unspeakable act for our "elected" and "representative" government. But, they were in a hurry. They didn't have the better part of 4 years to get it right.

Tort reform. An end to lobbyists (for any reason, any cause, period). An end to campaign contributions by big drug and insurance companies. THAT will get you a system that works for everyone, lowers costs, and keeps insurers in line.

Conservatives aren't opposed to changes in health care. We're opposed to expedient stupidity.

 

[missy]

I'm british so I don't really have the right to make much comment - 'cept that I can't understand how this could not be a good thing.

I heard a ranting guy on BBC Radio 4 news, in a report on this passing, saying it was a tragedy and that it was communism on US soil. Just seems so odd the people wouldn't want to pay tax for a fairer a society. Someone else said it was a blessing because it meant that, for example, the elderly wouldn't have to choose between meds or rent. If that really is a choice that is facing some citizens well.... in this day and age, in a developed country....

Ask any senior in the US who has been paying into Medicare their entire life how they feel about the program being cut by a half-billion dollars over the next few years. Ask them how "blessed" they are going to be when their doctors stop caring for them and opt out of the program because they'll no longer be reimbursed fairly by a keystone cop government that mis-managed and bankrupted the system in the first place!

This bill stinks to high heaven. We needed INSURANCE reform to ensure greater affordability and access. We did not need *health care* reform. But our elected officials, with their infinite wisdom and collective boners at the idea of further intrusion into our lives, passed a bill that no one had read.

The guy on BBC (who I assume was Daniel Hannan?) was right to rant. I wish I had a microphone, too!

You forgot to add that our elected officials voted this program into being - - without reading it, or fully understanding it. An absolutely unspeakable act for our "elected" and "representative" government. But, they were in a hurry. They didn't have the better part of 4 years to get it right.

Tort reform. An end to lobbyists (for any reason, any cause, period). An end to campaign contributions by big drug and insurance companies. THAT will get you a system that works for everyone, lowers costs, and keeps insurers in line.

Conservatives aren't opposed to changes in health care. We're opposed to expedient stupidity.

miraclesrule|1341001134|3226138 wrote:
I have never met a person who bemoans government run health care programs who, upon experiencing their own health tragedy (or a family member), was not quickly humbled by the experience.

It seems to me that there are a lot of individuals who can't imagine walking in another's shoe. Those people actually have to be in those shoes to "get it".

Absolutely. Everyone should have access to good health care. No one should die because they cannot afford health care.

 

[nkarma]

Our world could be so much worse. We are SPOILED."

You know what, we have a lot of problems here in the USA. But there are so many wonderful things as well. Why do we complain so much?

we are spoiled by borrowing $15 trillion from other countries.no sucha thing as a free lunch,so soon or later we will have to "pay the piper"
shouldn't we learn something from what is happening in Europe now?..

DF you sound like one of the many talk show hosts who just spout off things in order to make their point but has no basis in fact. What is happening in Europe right now is directly related to the economic collapse of American companies with the globalization of finance. In my opinion, Europeans should be much more publicly upset at us then I have seen.

Also, unlike the EU the U.S. has a centralized government with a centralized currency. No point comparing apples to oranges.

 

[HollyS]

Our world could be so much worse. We are SPOILED."

You know what, we have a lot of problems here in the USA. But there are so many wonderful things as well. Why do we complain so much?

we are spoiled by borrowing $15 trillion from other countries.no sucha thing as a free lunch,so soon or later we will have to "pay the piper"
shouldn't we learn something from what is happening in Europe now?..

DF you sound like one of the many talk show hosts who just spout off things in order to make their point but has no basis in fact. What is happening in Europe right now is directly related to the economic collapse of American companies with the globalization of finance. In my opinion, Europeans should be much more publicly upset at us then I have seen.

Also, unlike the EU the U.S. has a centralized government with a centralized currency. No point comparing apples to oranges.

Hmmm. . . are you saying WE are responsible for the economic woes in Europe? Is that what you said? Which college professor told you that? Our own issues have contributed, to a tiny degree, since we are no longer isolated in this global economy. But their own policies, over the last century (not the last 20 years), have created the fertile ground from which their economic troubles spring.

DF has a lot more brain power than many on PS. Being a man of few words doesn't a fool make.