Universal coverage for pregnant women and children = 9 days of DOD spending - page 9

but even if schip is fully funded, millions of children will still be excluded from health care coverage. up until now, medicaid and the schip program have made great strides in providing children... Read More

  1. by   pickledpepperRN
    Who is profiting from our nursing work?


    ■ Hospital profits-$28.9 billion (2005), a record. Hospital revenues, 544.7 billion. (Modern Healthcare, Dec. 18, 2006) NURSING CARE is the only reason for a hospital to exist. Yet they cut nursing care to make a profit.

    ■ The 20 largest HMOs in the U.S. made $10.8 billion in profits in 2005. The top seven U.S. health insurers made a combined $10 billion, nearly triple their profits of five years earlier. 12 top HMO executives pocketed $222.6 million in direct compensation in 2005 (Institute for Health and Socio-economic Policy). It takes a lot of money to find reasons to deny care.

    ■ William McGuire, CEO, UnitedHealth, the nation's second leading health insurer, had $1.6 billion in stock options at the end of 2005 (IHSP). (This is the corporation for AARP and many employee plans)

    ■ Donations from healthcare industry to Democratic and Republican campaigns for 2006-$72.3 million (Modern Healthcare, Dec. 18, 2006). If you have health insurance you are forced to contribute to political candidates.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05233/557458.stm
    http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0510-22.htm
  2. by   rngreenhorn
    I got a decent paycheck today.
  3. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from rngreenhorn
    I got a decent paycheck today.
    My paycheck on Thursday would have been MUCH more decent if Uncle Daddy hadn't taken 648 dollars out of it first. . .

    This is especially true in that, when you eliminate bridges to nowhere in Alaska, L. Welk museums, and the slavery Uncle Daddy NOW sees fit to impose (in other words, if gov't were actually limited to its enumerated powers), such confiscations of my labor should have been less than half that.

    Why, with THAT kind of money, I could devise a retirement for myself that could dwarf some lousy social security check that likely won't be there in 35 yrs, in any case. Or, if I didn't have healthcare, I could actually afford it on my own. . .

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 10, '07
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    If you have health insurance you are forced to contribute to political candidates.
    As opposed to a proposed scheme that would 'force' me to contribute to the health care of deadbeats that don't choose to get their own. (NO, I didn't say that meant everybody not on health insurance now, just the majority, anecotal evidence aside.)

    When the political goal of such reforms is to encourage dependence upon gov't, isn't that ALSO contributing to the campaigns of political candidates that wish to pay for their votes with MY dollars?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 10, '07
  5. by   Cosper123
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    As opposed to a proposed scheme that would 'force' me to contribute to the health care of deadbeats that don't choose to get their own. (NO, I didn't say that meant everybody not on health insurance now, just the majority, anecotal evidence aside.)

    When the political goal of such reforms is to encourage dependence upon gov't, isn't that ALSO contributing to the campaigns of political candidates that wish to pay for their votes with MY dollars?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    You are forced to contribute? I must somehow of misunderstood social contract theory. I do believe you have a choice to leave if you are not happy with how your "uncle daddy" or whatever you call it is mistreating you.
    Anyhow, I don't see how children are deadbeats. I mean I guess you could come to that conclusion, given your false analogy of slavory to universal health care. But before you throw out any more logical fallacies please consider this: The entire point of the OP was to highlight health care for prego women and children.

    Who does this benifit? children. Should people be allowed to go willy-nilly with it? No...of course not. But instead of working on solutions to this issue, you would just deny it outright, and completely villify, demonize, and belittle the very idea with colorful fasle analogies about slavory

    Extended from that....consider this about universal health care in general...the poor are covered...and the ones who REALLY suffer are lower and mid middle-class. Should we want them to bear some personal responsibility? Of course...but to expect them to do it alone with health costs being what they are...versus what these people make...is insane.

    And yeah...your 648 dollars taken out by your "uncle daddy" would have netted you a great retirement. Good luck spending that though in some backwater country with no foundation, general infrastructure, or reliable health care to speak of. Oh yes, and in this world where your taxes didn't go to support the necessary evil government, you probably wouldn't have a job where you'd be making enough to be taxed nearly that much either. There's a bit of a trade off that goes with those taxes, and it doesn't all go to welfare programs and illegal aliens spitting out babies on your porch, in spite of what you may beleive.

    Like I said earlier, preventative care is much cheaper than the acute care we are having to provide ANYHOW when things are much worse and expensive.

    I must ask, why sign with "faith" in each post? Mind if I ask which religion here, if that is in fact what you are referring to? I am not aware of a God that condones such selfish behavior, who would not support us treating our brothers and sisters in their time of need. I imagine my Lord would prefer that I work towards plugging the loopholes rather than denying all.

    But, maybe that's just me. Or him.....
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Cosper123
    But instead of working on solutions to this issue, you would just deny it outright, and completely villify, demonize, and belittle the very idea with colorful fasle analogies about slavery.
    The comparson between (historical) slavery and (currently proposed gov't coerced) slavery is not a false dichotomy at all. Read on:

    "I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other. Broad and general as is this assertion, it is fully borne out by history. This is not the proper occasion, but, if it were, it would not be difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share given to the non-producing classes. The devices are almost innumerable, from the brute force and gross superstition of ancient times, to the subtle and artful fiscal contrivances of modern. . . I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe—look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse."

    - John C. Calhoun.

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Slavery_a_Positive_Good

    The import of this argument: better to be provided for by the 'superintending care' of a master then be left to the vagaries of being poor. It is important to note, however, that this goal, to substitute being poor by the superintending care of a master, was made during the SAME speech that Sen. Calhoun declared, "(Slavery) is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good."

    How many times have I heard that universal healthcare is a 'positive good', for the same exact reason . . . better to have a superintending master (in the form of gov't) then to be left to the vagaries of being poor.

    Sigh. Same arguments, different generation.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 10, '07
  7. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Cosper123
    You are forced to contribute? I must somehow of misunderstood social contract theory. I do believe you have a choice to leave if you are not happy with how your "uncle daddy" or whatever you call it is mistreating you.
    In THIS case, instead of leaving at the prospect of the creation of evil in the name of compassion, I instead choose to combat such destructive ideas, in the defense of the liberty my country has long stood to uphold.

    As far as misunderstanding 'social contract theory', OUR social contract theory involves the concept of limited, enumerated powers of gov't. You did indeed misunderstand our 'social contract' if you thought it meant that the gov't holds all rights and merely gives some to you, at its leisure.

    Our social contract was expressed in limiting the government from doing the very thing you propose.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 10, '07
  8. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from Cosper123

    I must ask, why sign with "faith" in each post? Mind if I ask which religion here, if that is in fact what you are referring to? I am not aware of a God that condones such selfish behavior, who would not support us treating our brothers and sisters in their time of need. I imagine my Lord would prefer that I work towards plugging the loopholes rather than denying all.

    But, maybe that's just me. Or him.....
    No its not you, its the segment of society that has somehow twisted religous teachings for their own good, never mind all the teachings of Christ about our responsiblities to the poor.I almost starting quoting a bunch of bible passages about this but thought I would use this instead- "It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf ". Walter Lippmann
  9. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Cosper123
    I must ask, why sign with "faith" in each post? Mind if I ask which religion here, if that is in fact what you are referring to? I am not aware of a God that condones such selfish behavior, who would not support us treating our brothers and sisters in their time of need. I imagine my Lord would prefer that I work towards plugging the loopholes rather than denying all.

    But, maybe that's just me. Or him.....
    Coerced confiscation of wages is NOT charity. How well you contrive to spend MY money is not a mark or measure of how charitable YOU are.

    Charity is how you choose to spend YOUR money, not everybody elses.

    I reject completely the notion that being entitled to the fruits of my labor is 'selfish'. It is the essense of freedom. Otherwise, you are just somebody's slave.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 10, '07
  10. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    No its not you, its the segment of society that has somehow twisted religous teachings for their own good, never mind all the teachings of Christ about our responsiblities to the poor.I almost starting quoting a bunch of bible passages about this but thought I would use this instead- "It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf ". Walter Lippmann
    Any Bible quote you could summon up about the concept of charity is not at issue - AT ALL - to the power of a confiscatory gov't.

    Your taxes will not be considered 'charity', by ANY definition, to any source.

    Jesus did indeed give remarkable quotes about charity. He also said to give to Ceasar what is his. The two thoughts were not intended to be in tandem. You cannot satisfy the New Testament call to charity by simply being a good taxpayer. That misses the point entirely.

    To illustrate this point, Jesus made a remarkable comment about JUST such an exercise. Many during his day were counting their contributions to support their elderly as part of their tithes. Jesus railed against that concept. If you ask, I'll find the quote.

    How I choose to be charitable is between myself and God. It has nothing to do with gov't. Indeed, helping people to avoid the consequences of their decisions is neither charitable, nor compassionate.

    I conceive the concept of charity as an effort to enable others to become better people. I do NOT conceive such concepts along the lines of enabling co-dependent behaviors. I disagree with the gov't managing MY charitable contributions precisely because the gov't, by long experience, has proven itself incapable of making such distinctions.

    However, if you REALLY want to bring religion into this, doesn't the so-called 'separation of Church and state' prohibit the religious rewards of charitable giving, as a gov't exercise? Mind you, that 'separation' farce is not MY principle, but I suspect that it is yours.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 10, '07
  11. by   Simplepleasures
    give no bounties: make equal laws: secure life and prosperity and you will not need to give alms. ralph waldo emerson
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    give no bounties: make equal laws: secure life and prosperity and you will not need to give alms. ralph waldo emerson
    and thank god that the united states of america has done more to promote this concept, throughout the world, with the prosperity that comes with its enlightened ideas of capitalism, than any force in the history of the world.

    i actually sleep well at night knowing this (or rather, during the day - night worker, don't you know).

    we discussed this in a recent thread. over the last 40 yrs, thanks to a wave of capitalist ideas that repudiated social communism, the number of deaths related to starvation has decreased worldwide by almost 2 billion over that 40 yr span. that did not come from gov't mandated socialism. it came by repudiating such mandates, and throwing off tyranny rather than embracing it.

    there's a reason why 'eat, there are starving children in china' doesn't carry the weight it did 40 yrs ago. that reason: capitalism.

    have you thanked milton friedman today?

    ~faith,
    timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 10, '07
  13. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    And thank GOD that the United States of America has done more to promote this concept, throughout the world, with the prosperity that comes with its enlightened ideas of Capitalism, than any force in the history of the world.

    I actually sleep well at night knowing this (or rather, during the day - night worker, don't you know).

    We discussed this in a recent thread. Over the last 40 yrs, thanks to a wave of capitalist ideas that repudiated social communism, the number of deaths related to starvation has decreased by almost 2 billion. THAT did not come from gov't mandated socialism. It came by repudiating such mandates, and throwing off tyranny rather than embracing it.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Yeah I thought you would like that one, BUT your ideas of equal laws and mine will probably be lightyears away from each other.

close