August 25, 2009
-
It’s not fair
I have been reading so many people crying about health care not being fair. Generally the story goes like this. I have great health insurgence myself but it is not fair that 35,000,000 people do not have it.
That got me thinking about all the unfairness in the USA. Unfairness that most people who do not have health insurance would likely have addressed first if given a choice.
Why is it that all those champions of the people in the legislator avoid being effected by their own legislation?Explain to me why you would even think of calling businesses bad and corrupt when these things stare you in the face everyday?
Congressmen, Senators and the President all send their children to private schools, all while passing laws that have the approval of the National Education Association? It is also telling that NEA members, tend to do the same thing when they can afford it. The laws they pass effecting education are good enough us little people, but not for them. Oh lord they do not want their own childern being educated in the public schools.
This latest health care legislation is going to be great I’m told. So great that no one working in the federal government will be effected by it. We would not want little Sasha or Malia being treated just like us little people.
I wonder why billions of dollars, of that huge amount of the money we spend on medicine every year, actually goes into the pockets of lawyers? Seems tort reform is a great place to lower health care costs and do so by a lot. I wonder if the reason nothing happens along those lines is that 50% of our legislators and our president are lawyers? Can you say corruption? Maybe they have a real big conflict of interest that we the people stupidly ignore.
And the biggest unfairness of all? The one that by far is a bigger inequality than health insurance could ever dream of being. And if this one issue were taken care of. If this unfairness alone were addressed it could solve the health care issue once and for all. And so many other issues as well.
The per person income (all men woman and children who breath) where I live is over $38,000 a year. That means the average family should make about $120,000 a year on average. The real average is $55,591 a year per family.Should we redistribute income to make life fair?
If not why not?
Oh before you say anything, are you one of those really rich people taking in more money than what is fair?
Last thing, if you think income redistribute is wrong. I’m just going to assume you’re not a total hypocrite. I assume you do not support a socialized health care system.
Comments (90)
i thought about doing a comparison to education too. particularly to the voucher program that gets shot down every time it’s introduced. not only are our schools not good enough for their kids, our kids arent good enough for their schools. and yet we want these people making health care decisions for us? no thank you.
imagine this in the form of credits on xanga. i demand a redistribution of credits on xanga! errr wait nevermind I make more credits than the average blogger.. ill shut my trap here…
@Paul_Partisan - Exactly I have a years premium I paid for with them, and gave away a years worth to a friend and still have 54,000 credits left. It is not fair I tell you
i think the education comparison is entirely inapposite.
education: 2 choices – public and private
1. public option for those who can’t afford/choose not to send their children to private school
2. private option for those who see an increased value and are willing and able to pay for it
private school vouchers are still essentially a public option – it’s a tax subsidized approach.
health care: 1 choice – private
1. private option for those who see a value and are willing and able to pay for it
2. no coverage for those who are unable to pay for it
redistribution of income = total red herring.
@ionekoa - Oh but don’t you know its the insurgence companies that are corrupt
Your assumption is correct. I do not believe in universal health care, redistribution of wealth, or that life is fair. I don’t have a lot, and most of what I do have is not top-of-the-line, but I had to work, and work hard, for every bit of it. So if Joe Schmoe across the street sits on his ass drinking beer and watching tv all day thinks he deserves some of what I worked for, let him try to come and take it. No one owes anyone anything in this life. You have to be willing to go out and earn it yourself.
@WyomingSheepRanch - No totally the same thing redistribute income and all problems are solved right? Wait are you one of those rich people making more than your states average income?
Supporting nationalized health care and not supporting income redistribution is not hypocrisy. The first is a belief- right or wrong- that the government should provide for people’s basic needs, which include health care. The second is a belief- right or wrong- that the government should for some reason make everyone’s income equal. I believe there is a need to provide for those 40+ million people in the US who are either uninsured or underinsured- this doesn’t necessarily demand nationalized healthcare for everyone, but perhaps a raising on the income limits for medicaid… which would probably result in the same overal amount of taxation increase. I certainly do not believe that income should be redistributed, although I do believe that wealthy Christians have a responsibility to the poor that they often neglect.
@Irish_Russian - You’re so unfair. What would Jesus say about you
@PastorSZ - Sorry supporting the redistribution of income of some peoples income, or one industries and not your own well. (Yes I know that pastors make very little)
Charity is another story no one puts a gun to my head and takes my property then puts me in jail if I do not give to charity.
Well, the American people voted in a president, knowing full-well that he intended to bring a socailized health-care system… so, I say, if that is what the American people want, that is what they should get. Also, under the plan, if you like your health insurance, you get to keep it. You just have to pay more taxes… but it’s like the saying goes, “There is nothing certain in this world, but death and taxes.”
Personally, I can benefit from socialized health-care. I mean… it’s better than no insurance at all, and at the moment, I can’t get a job that will give me a better plan!
Really though, I’m not all that much for it. I believe that is the job of the church to redistribute the money and making sure everything is “fair”. It would be a sin to watch a brother in Christ suffer, knowing full well that I can do something about it.
@jmallory - No argument from me, none at all
@WyomingSheepRanch - false. the public schools are the “public option”. that’s why they call them “public schools”. the voucher program is basicly saying “so you dont want to be stuck with the public option but cant afford private school, well, we’ll take your alotment and essentially give it back so you can.”
the big difference being, you are already taxed for school. it’s there(we can debate wether it should be or not at some other time), it’s been there it’s already happening. all the voucher system is doing is taking the $X that goes toward timmy’s tuition and giving it to his parents so they can send him to the school of their choice.
really, the only corollary i could see being drawn here is in the way the government handles it. they say that they won’t limit our choices with health care and yet that’s exactly what they do with education.
In an ideal world everyone would get together to solve the problem. The insurance companies are part of the problem and so are the trial lawyers. People on both sides of the fence are to blame. The bills tat are on the table are just the start of the whole thing. I am myself for health reform and if one of the current versions go through and don’t work, I will be the first to say I was wrong.
As far as our education system goes, I am totally for Vouchers, with no strings attached.
@trunthepaige - Yes, we do make very little, but if I made very much, I would probably voluntarily reduce my income to the point of paying for needs, rather than excess. The government already redistributes some of our income- that’s what taxes are all about. The main argument is not whether the government should be permitted to access our income, but how much and for what purpose? I’d rather see billions of dollars paying for the health of our country than invading country X, but diff people have diff priorities.
There is something here that I think should be addressed- if you feel that taxation on behalf of creating health benefits qualifies as income redistribution, then you should be opposed to many, many of our existing taxes- such as the ones which pay for TANF, EBT, Medicaid, Medicare, the ridiculous salaries of government officials, and a whole lot of military spending that pays overpriced contractors. In reality, you could only be in favor of taxation which pays a livable wage for Gov’t employees, maintains infrastructure and education benefits, and perhaps keeps our military as #1 in the nation.
You and I are both agreed that charity should be the means by which people’s needs are taken care of, but what happens when everyone refuses to give to charity? How many times have you heard “being poor is their fault,” or “they should rise above that,” or “handouts only hurt,” or countless other similar phrases, and those from wealthy Christians? I may be among the poorest full-time employees in the nation (my salary is actually less than minimum wage), but IMHO there is a whole lot of Christian responsibility that no one is being responsible for, and while I’m opposed to legislating morality, I don’t know how much longer the alternative (waiting for people to voluntarily loosen the purse strings) can be seen as a good idea.
@trunthepaige - How do you think Jesus felt about unrepentant sinners?
@ionekoa - are you suggesting that there is a dollar for dollar reduction in the tax dollars going to school X for child A when child A’s parents use vouchers? i highly doubt that, mostly because private schools probably cost more than the per student tuition at public schools. but also because that sounds waaaay too efficient. and nevertheless, if it’s still coming out of the “allotment,” it’s a public option.
@trunthepaige - redistribution of income is a perverse incentive that would effectively cause a society to crumble. so, wrong. problem not solved. tax rates do not remove the incentive to work hard and earn more. you may well be taxed more if you earn more, but you will also have more money in your hand at the end of the day.
and yes, yes i am. unapologetically.
i think @PastorSZmakes great points.
Jimmy Carter sent his daughter Amy to D.C. public schools. I’ve always wondered how that worked out.
Lawyers have no interest in the truth or ethical behavior. Theirs is to define the truth and to live by lawful behavior – because lawful behavior allows for vices, especially when the truth is flexible.
@WyomingSheepRanch - I find your priorities odd, food and housing being by far more important than health care. And states pay a given amount per student to puplic schools. That same monmy could be a vocher. In washington state that amount is $9,500. That does not include the building buses or meals. The most expensive private school in Seattle costs $22,000 Bush School. But $9,500 will get you into most private schools and even the Bush school if you have the grades and a financial need. Oh our reps in Washington. The public schools in DC spend $24,600 per pupil per school year – roughly $10,000 more than the average for area private schools.
@trunthepaige -
1. i’ll give you my next paycheck if you show me where i said health care is more important than food and housing.
the correlation you are trying to make is incredibly far fetched. like i said, red herring.
2. states pay a given amount per student to public schools = tax dollars.
delivery of that money to parents in voucher form = tax dollars.
it’s still being publicly funded.
@JJ_Ames - on the stupid scale of 1-10, that’s about 10,000
Isn’t a sliding income tax an attempt at redistributing wealth? That’s why people in the top bracket give up the most (sometimes an astonishingly high percentage – 94% during the war, though desperate times, of course) and those at the bottom are taxed less. The money is then redistributed – via the government – to where society needs it most.
@WyomingSheepRanch - you make excellent points, 1) you are correct that a $ to $ would only reduce and not elimintate the burden of private tuition. 2) there is NO reduction because legislators refuse to allow vouchers. their behavior with the education control that they have is a good indicator of what they would do with healthcare.
i suppose we should clarify what the term “public option” really means. perhaps that’s where the confusion comes from. “option” makes it sound like you actually have a choice. you dont. just like insurance companies choose which proceedures, doctors, hospitals clinics, etc. they will cover, government insurance will do the same thing. perhaps we should take a look at the state version of what you are wanting to force on us fedraly. Oregons got a great plan. if you get cancer they’re even willing to pay for your physician assisted suicide so you wont be a burden to friends and family… or them. just dont ask them to help you get better. dont believe me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70KcaXbkJw4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fstr8tguy69%2Exanga%2Ecom%2F%3Funi41243369%2Ddirection%3Dn%26uni41243369%2Dnextdate%3D8%252f21%252f2009%2B10%253a31%253a30%2E370&feature=player_embedded
luckily for her, the evil pharmigiant was willing to provide her with the potentially lifesaving medication her doctor recomended without government coersion. but hey, if that doesnt work, im sure Oregon will be more than happy to still pay for her to die.
@ionekoa - i agree that i was using “public option” incorrectly.
i was using public option to describe something funded by the government. i think the more correct definition (esp. as pertaining to healthcare) is obtaining services from a government program. in that respect, using a voucher for private school wouldnt’ be a “public option,” although it is publicly financed (and that’s what i should have said before).
ftr, i support voucher programs.
@WyomingSheepRanch - your point? On a scale of camel to goat your reply is a possum.
@JJ_Ames -
[insert social group/religious group/gender/race/profession] + [insert disparaging truism] = rhetorical nonsense
but i will take the “possum” as a “not bad”
@WyomingSheepRanch - what do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start. Why don’t sharks eat lawyers? Because they’re the same thing.
Oh, you’ve wounded me – I’ll clutch at this wound and fall over now. Your logic is so terribly sharp I’ll be forced to bleed my pride all over these nice carpets. What a tragic waste of carpets! If only I’d based my rhetorical nonsense on more factual things like terrible experiences with lawyers and their fondness of money and truth bending! My kingdom for a violin to sadly mark this disastrous day! Oh! There’s one!
*plays for you the smallest violin EVER*
@WyomingSheepRanch - Since we both think vouchers are a good idea I will drop that. And I will not press you to get lawyers out of the medical field where they are nothing more than leaches.
You didn’t say food an housing was of less importance, but one normally funds the more important things first. Shouldn’t we deal with food, housing, and income first? And if income was equalized couldn’t that cure the medical problem all by itself?
@JJ_Ames - your experiences are merely anecdotal things. sucks that you had a bad one. as in any profession there are sleazebags. maybe even (probably) more so in law than other.
ethics, truth, and the law are 3 very different things. truth IS sometimes fluid. that’s the simple…truth. the law IS flexible. however, adherence to ethical standards is extremely important for lawyers. if your experience left you feeling that ethical violations occurred, you really should alert the state bar of the offense.
define mixed emotions. watching your attorney drive off a cliff in your new car.
@trunthepaige - the medmal issue is grossly misunderstood by the public and distorted by the insurance/medical industries. many of the issues relating to high insurance premiums are entirely the fault of insurance companies. should doctors not be accountable for negligent errors in their treatment of patients? why should they get a free pass when builders, attorneys, engineers, or other service providers would all be on the hook for their negligence? eliminating (or even arbitrarily capping) medmal would have the same effect as removing radar guns from cop cars or giving all speeding tickets a flat rate of $5 per offense.
your redistribution of income question is fallacious. however, we do deal with food, housing, and income (though i suspect you actually would have, at best, limited support for any of them). food stamps, section 8 housing, and a minimum wage all address the things you mention.
Redistribution would not make life fair. I have also never understood why many people seem to think this is fair: “I have a dollar.” *the government takes ten cents* “I have two dollars.” *in that case, the government will be taking a dollar.*
@WyomingSheepRanch - So you are a lawyer? Who else would defend spending billions on lawyers instead of medicine
@trunthepaige - i don’t practice medmal. never have, never will. i think it’s sleazy for a variety of reasons. i have no vested interest in medmal. i am, however, fairly knowledgeable on the ins and outs of it.
but i guess you’re not concerned about quality of care. just so long as it’s “being spent on [ostensibly shitty] medicine instead of lawyers.”
@WyomingSheepRanch - Lawyers do not make for better medical care, they just make for $100,000 a year medical mal practice liability insurance bills and roughly 50% of all OB/GYN having claims filed against them.
@WyomingSheepRanch - If I tell another lawyer joke will you feel picked on?
@trunthepaige - medmal premiums are so high in large part due to prior mismanagement by insurance providers.
have you inspected the validity of those claims? what constitutes a claim? is that a statistic based on the total number of OBGYNs vs. the total number of claims, or is it saying specifically that half of all doctors have had a claim filed against them?
is your problem with an overly litigious approach, or is it with lawsuits against doctors in general? they’re two different things with two different solutions.
maybe we should get rid of lawsuits against truckers too. they have big insurance rates which makes the cost of our goods increase. let’s just get rid of lawsuits altogether! who needs civil accountability?
@trunthepaige - no juay. do eet
what do you have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in sand? not enough sand.
ftr, i don’t see how anyone could take issue with the cases/practice area i’m in. i selected such an area for a reason.
@WyomingSheepRanch - civil accountability can be handled with a cap on punitive damages (not actual)and maybe a loser pays legal fees. And it 50% of all OBGYN’s have been hit.
If doctors rates were in a league with truckers all would be well
@WyomingSheepRanch - What is the difference between a dead rattle snake in the middle of the road and a dead lawyer in the middle of the road?
There are skid marks in front of the snake.
@trunthepaige - caps are arbitrary.
you would find it appropriate where negligence resulting in the death of a baby would be capped at $250k?
only under very rare circumstances do american courts impose legal fees on a loser. for cases vs. doctors, it would create a situation where insurance companies/doctors could squash even the most valid claims by racking up huge legal fees. even wealthy plaintiffs could be unable to realistically pursue a claim. for the second time in this post we have hit the perverse incentive.
so what is a “claim”? you didn’t answer my other questions
@trunthepaige - one of my favorites
@WyomingSheepRanch -Why not someones got to pay them. If a weak case is filed a norm in the building industry, why should the innocent pay legal fees?
@WyomingSheepRanch - Best one ever I think is http://trunthepaige.xanga.com/530596000/back-by-popular-demand-todays-joke/
@trunthepaige - well there is a problem here but i don’t think your way is the best solution. legal fees is a mucky ethical area. 3 types: flat fee, hourly fee, contingency fee
medmal attorneys typically work on contingency fee. in a healthy system, they should not accept “bad” cases because if they don’t win, they’d have to absorb the costs. this is perverted though where insurance companies don’t evaluate the merits of a case and will settle to avoid trial.
if it were an hourly rate, then there would be a disincentive for frivolous claims because alleged victims would be out of pocket for the fees. this makes more sense, until you realize that an unintended consequence is also that victims even with great cases would be unable to bring suit because they would lack the capital to pay the attorney’s fees.
the type of cost we’re talking about for insurance defense would
make plaintiffs hesitate to bring even claims with a great certainty of
success. even the best cases involve a risk of loss – if some family is already very poor, a lawsuit would simply not be a viable option.
it gets worse where a cap was involved as well. why would anyone bring a lawsuit where the MAX reward is say 250k, where they are CERTAIN to incur 100k+ in legal fees if they lose the case? it’s a vessel for creating de facto impunity for alleged wrongdoers.
i agree that there is a problem, but abandoning medmal torts isn’t the solution, and neither is a cap on damages.
Oh, a health-care post.
I’m cool with redistributing income.
@WyomingSheepRanch - In the world of medicine if the people are going to mandate it and take it over. Lawyers need to by cut out completely. That is the way it is. Medical quality can be governed another way.
@SerenaDante - I love the totally honest.
@Justin_DeBin - Ok I should have meta blogged like everyone else
Medical malpractice accounts for about 1% of Medical Care costs. This is dwarfed by administration, profits and advertising.
@tendollar4ways - Overhead and is profit 20% but you are way low on legal costs. That 1% figure comes for lost court cases Most legal costs disappear into ones mal practice insurance premiums and gets called overhead.
@trunthepaige - that doesn’t make sense and you’ve done nothing to offer a viable alternative.
Most cases never make it to trial. If a doctor screws up and amputates your wrong leg or perscribes two medicines that interact, they need to be held accountable. Sueing is a reasonable resort. Sooooooo strange you republicans always wanna let people with money skate scott free with no accountablity but when it comes to poor folks…..lock um up and throw away the key forever for the simplest of infactions.
@WyomingSheepRanch - And if in all my entries on health care. I had put them all together, I still would not have touch systems that are in place now, compared them or offered different plans.
Yet it still would have been to long for a single entry
@tendollar4ways - And you want the lawyers rich. As if that help anyone except them.
@WyomingSheepRanch - whatever makes you think I was referring only to my experiences? Defining what truth is so that the law can protect what is unethical is abominable. The idea that truth is flexible is simply an excuse to manipulate it into the shape and form that best suits a quick and sharp tongue. I won’t say there aren’t any honest lawyers but I will say that there are many who use their intelligence to change truth into a monstrosity that serve their interests and makes a mockery of both justice and truth.
@trunthepaige - I really don’t understand your thinking. Tort Reform is vague. What the hell does that even mean. Our right to sue is taken away? This is your solution. First you say…..tough if you don’t have insurance die says the Paige Death Panel. The panel say you are poor die. Also same story if your insurance is canceled if you get sick…then you want to take away any right you might have to hear your side in court. You can no longer sue the insurance company because this will save money.
I don’t see what this gets…..I must add that your attitude refects poorly on your religion. This is neither neighbor loving or rational.
I would like to see all of these politicians live on what the rest of us have to live on.
Many people don’t realize we have had a gross redistribution of income in the past 30 years–more to the wealthy! It used to be that the wealthiest Americans earned 75X the average worker, and that only 15% of our gross national product was in “finance.” Now the wealthiest earn 400X times the average worker and 40% of our gross national product is “financial.” What are these financial “products” that America “makes”? Well, obscure stuff like credit default swaps, collaterized debt obligations, and other things that nobody can understand. China and other developing countries have most of the factories that manufacture real products–the U.S. doesn’t do much of that any more.
But these geniuses at investment banks that produce “financial products” must be 400X smarter than us, because they make 400X the money, with millions in bonuses. And, they receive bonuses even when they blow up the company and the taxpayers bail them out–who would want to risk losing all that “talent.”
So, go ahead and talk against “socialism.” You are blind if you think we don’t already have it. We have lax regulatory laws and tax loopholes that favor the rich, and a stock market so ill regulated that it resembles a casino. We have CORPORATE SOCIALISM! This is what is unfair.
I would be curious to know where you got the facts that NEA members send their kids to private schools when they can afford them.
Redistribution of wealth and the equality of health care are not the same thing. Equality of health care benefits all when epidemics and diseases can be checked to prevent the prevalence in the general populace. Your dollar bills will not protect you then. Redistribution of wealth is the leveling of the playing field in order that all the influence and resources are not held by a small group of individuals. In this country 70% of the valuable land and resources are held by 10% of the people. 90% of the people are behind the eight ball when trying to improve their lot in life before they even make the effort. The common assumption is that redistribution of wealth gives money to those who haven’t somehow earned it. Redistribution of wealth actually means giving those who are willing to work more access to lines of credit to establish businesses and industry which in turn will give more individuals the methods to improve their lives.
All this and I make more money than your average family.
The government mandates, mandates, mandates educational programs with a promise to pay for them. BUT seldom do they ever catch up on their share of paying for said programs. On my tax bill 37% of my taxes are alloted for my local school district, yet in addition to purchasing school supplies for my child I had to pay 80 bucks when I registered her last week. Why, because the district can’t run on the money it has received from the state or the feds. It’s not that they couldn’t it’s just that they don’t pay up on a timely basis. The school board has to pay it’s bills and in order to do so we pay registration fees to offset the money the government fails to pay for it’s mandated programs. Private schools can not operate in such a manner.
@brokenbindings2 - http://www.blackinformant.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/psteachers-ownkids.pdf
There are lots of studies that show the same thing and none that say different. Of course they are studying pubic school teachers and not NEA members, but as NEA memebr are public school teachers.
Actually you’re not unusual so far as supporting socialistic ideals and being of higher income.
@redhairedgrrl - Exon paid $30 billion in taxes in 07, explain to me were the goverment gave them anything at all, let alone qualifying for any form of welfare
@stixandstonz - What a novel concept living under the laws they write
@JJ_Ames - uh…
If only I’d based my rhetorical nonsense on more factual things like terrible experiences with lawyers
gee, yeah. where would i get such an idea that you were basing it on your own experiences? i guess from your own quote? in any case, no matter whose experiences you were referring to, you’re citing anecdotal “truths” to justify your absurd argument.
The idea that truth is flexible is simply an excuse to manipulate it into the shape and form that best suits a quick and sharp tongue
8 people witness a car accident at an intersection. how many different accounts do you think there will be? i guarantee you there are at least 10 different accounts of the sequence of events, and those accounts are likely to change over time. so how do you discover the TRUTH of what happened? like i said, truth is fluid. it’s frequently a matter of perspective, experience, etc. the fact of the matter is that lawyers more frequently manipulate legal positions to fit their facts than manipulating facts to fit into a legal “rightness.” this is the bedrock of the common law.
you clearly don’t know how the process works if you think advocacy, the legal process, a trial, negotiation, or anything else in the legal world, is about having a “quick tongue”
I am sick with the flu, I am hoping it’s not swine flu because it’s reached my area now. I won’t know for sure because I can’t afford to go to the doctor. My mom works for medical insurance billing, she has no insurance though. She also can not go to the doctor. A lot of us are wasting away because it’s impossible to pay those crazy medical bills. I am broke as a joke, but I still don’t believe in income redistribution. Those people make more than me because they went to school like good little boys and girls and got better jobs. That’s life.
you need to change effecting to affecting.
@supsoo - At least it was not were where this time
@trunthepaige - =)
our representatives were suppose to be a part time servants who served their terms went back to their normal life. it has turned into a career. when something becomes a career then you do not care for the lives that you are serving. you only care about what is more beneficial to you in the long run. that i believe is the basis for all this partisan bickering that we see. they are positioning themselves for what will get them re-elected. that is why a representative can say i’ll vote against my constituents even though they want me to vote certain way.
@tendollar4ways - I wonder why in a system that is all about treating sick people, you’re so insistent on putting money into the pockets of lawyers? And just for one second I thought you actually had something else on your mind other than you personal faith
@trunthepaige - I wonder why in a system that is all about treating sick people, you’re so insistent on putting money into the pockets of lawyers?
whether you agree with the tactic or its effectiveness, you should at least be able to acknowledge the idea that a public policy tool underlies the tort system. a system of accountability can help to assure better care. and typically at least 2/3 of the money goes into the pockets of the victims.
you are rather coulterish sometimes. too smart to believe the oversimplified crap you say
@WyomingSheepRanch - There are other far cheaper ways. We are being pushed into a publicly financed system and 1/2 the medical care in the USA already is. That means suing the doctor is really suing all the people. Actual damages due to mistakes can be paid for and the quality of doctors can be governed without a single lawyer making a penny on it.
@trunthepaige - Actual damages due to mistakes can be paid for and the quality of doctors can be governed without a single lawyer making a penny on it.
actually no they can’t. even if it was a different system (i.e. a medical review board), a doctor would still need representation before an adverse party that would be seeking to punish them.
why are you so focused on lawyers? it’s a joke to me that the issue of medmal is twisted into an issue about lawyers. a testament to the power of the medical lobby. what about doctors raking in high six figure salaries with impunity from negligence claims? what about the patients who are left unwhole because of the doctor’s negligence?
@WyomingSheepRanch - Lawyers do not treat the sick, they are parasites on the medical industry. Doctors do treat the sick they are productive parts of the system. It is rather easily understood. Lawyers are not needed and cost to much
@trunthepaige - lol ok. i guess you refuse to get it.
@WyomingSheepRanch - No I refuse to accept that lawyers are the one way to protect patience when they know nothing of medicine. Nor do they even care about it other than as an income stream.
@trunthepaige - see comment above
@trunthepaige - Thank you for the link. Some observations on the data: 1. Only urban teachers were surveyed. Rural teachers are far less likely to send their children to private schools for several reasons: immersion in the district in which they teach, lack of choice, preference for public resources, etc. 2. Not all public teachers are members of the NEA. Current memberships of NEA and AFT (American Federation of Teachers) are 3.2 million and 1.4 million respectively. A careful reading of the methodology of the survey shows that even the authors noted that a small number of teachers were surveyed.
@brokenbindings2 - I could point you to about ten more they all say the same thing.
@trunthepaige - I would appreciate the links, please don’t print them out. I’m a teacher, I can read. :>)
@brokenbindings2 - You can also google. You don’t really doubt it do you? Look around you ask around you, unless the teacher lives in a very good district they send their childern to private schools.
@trunthepaige - interestingly enough….in this part of PA it is a very small minority of teachers who send their kids to private schools. Pride in where you teach runs rampant around here and I am cognizant of the five districts that surround the one in which I teach. A rough estimate would be 5-7% sending their students to private schools, often because the private school is located within the boundaries in which they teach, making it easier to get to parent teacher conferences, events and the like. I’m really not trying to pick a fight here. I know that some teachers do send their kids to private schools, but I’m just not convinced that most do, that’s all.
btw, why are you so defensive about this? I just wanted a dialogue…..
@brokenbindings2 - First I was not trying to be a snot. I am at work sometimes i have lots of time, and others times I should not have been on xanga in the first place. That last reply looks snotty on rereading
Second all states are different in Washington state NEA membership is very close to mandatory and it is nearly universal.
I will be back
@trunthepaige - the American rule still gives people a day in court. There are enough other tactics that insurers can employ to cripple you fiscally to bring about a settlement as the best route.
My Google Research on Exxon
Exxon paid $30 billion in total taxes in 2007, on pre-tax profit of $70.6 billion, which would be a 42% tax rate. Of course, this is after the accountants have deducted or excluded or stashed overseas every possible cent. The $30 billion in taxes can also be viewed as about 7% of Exxon’s total revenue, $405 billion. Do you pay 7% in income taxes?
Need some deductions? The U.S. federal tax code contains more than $17 billion in breaks to benefit the oil and gas industry for fiscal years 2007-11. Additionally, oil companies now pay reduced royalty fees for use of federal lands and waters, costing taxpayers about $11 billion per year.
What do they use the profits for? Not R&D but stock buybacks. The main economic use seems to be to keep the stock price high for top employees to cash out lucrative stock options in the future. Guess those people at the top really know how to take care of themselves.
Speaking of top dogs at Exxon, in 2006, compensation to CEO Rex Tillerson included $13 million in salary, $13.5 million in stock grants, and $480,000 in perks including $100,000 for “personal use” of the corporate jet. And, he has the right to $20 million any time he decides to “retire.”
Finally, Exxon has $33 billion in cash but refuses to pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages to Alaskans permanently harmed by the negligent Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. Imagine what Exxon’s lawyers are being paid, year after year, on this case.
http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=18698
@redhairedgrrl - Your not much on taxes are you. A business spends money to make money. That 42% rate is dead accurate. If it costs $99 to make $100 you made $1 and that is all. The 99 dollar write off is not some speical deal, it is money that was never a profit. As to hiding money what good would that do them? A corruption is not a human it can’t enjoy life and spend its money on personal things. Every dime ether is sent to investors who them are taxed on it as individual income. Or it is put back into the company to try and make more money. Or paid out as income to it employees who again are taxed on that as individuals.
It is all taxed no matter what they do with it.
Do you really want to know what is not fair? Well I will tell you…
It is not fair that my dad failed a grade in grammer school because he was sick. It is not fair that he studied hard to make it up and eventaully applied to the veterinary school at Cornell, and was rejected. It is not fair that he had to apply to the medical school and take an extra year of course work before he could get into the veterinary school. It is not fair that he was drafted into the armed services after graduation. It is not fair that after his tour was up that he had to work for some schmuck for 10 years before being able to buy his own practice. It is not fair that he had to pay nearly $1,000,000 over 15 years to the guy he bought his practice from. It is not fair that he wouldn’t pay my way through college. It is not fair that even after graduating from college I still I had to work like he did, to care for my wife and children, to provide them with food, clothing and shelter. It is not fair that after decades of hard work and wise spending that both he and I get to spend time together building a log cabin on a large open tract of forest and meadowlands. It is not fair that he has the best health insurrance he can afford.
Nope not fair at all. He certainly doesn’t deserve the best care that his money can buy.
Waaaaaaaaa.
Oh yes and, he does qualify for and receive VA health benefits and medicare, but quite frankly, even under those two plans combined… he would be dead right now.