Actually, from what I've seen, the uninsured are only a small part of the problem. In Maine, we took a bigger hit from Medicaid, than from uninsured patients. If you are uninsured and receive a huge bill, you may request to make payments. You actually have a large say in how much those payments are. At any rate these payments may have been low, but they were some money coming in. Medicaid wasn't making their payments. In fact they fell decades and hundreds of millions of dollars behind (this is quite substantial especially in Maine). Medicare often shortchanges hospitals by trying to regulate costs. They will pay $4,000 for a $9,000 procedure, because that's how much they think it SHOULD cost.

Insurance companies in general add substantial to healthcare costs in general. Think about it. You are adding lawyers for both the hospital and insurance companies, case managers, billing agencies, etc. to the healthcare staff. These people are getting paid while providing no care. There are several clinics that don't accept insurance, and same day doctor visits only cost $40 out of pocket.

Then there are drug companies, and money-hungry hospital management, and lack of preventive care (which you have brought up already) that are all adding to the rising costs and degrading care.

Perhaps. I am not naive enough to believe anything of that sort is impossible. From what I understand, the administration was warned several times that there was a situation coming. They were also warned that the militia they were relying on were inadequate for security. AND QRF was told to stand down in the beginning. These warnings came from higher ranking personnel. If this is all correct, it sounds like someone desperately didn't want anything done to stop it at any rate.

I do believe certain rules and provisions are made to extend wars. Can't begin to explain how many times we were told to stand down, and not help fellow soldiers who are getting ambushed, or not to shoot back at someone firing from a mosque, or stay away from the side of town we are getting mortared from.

Ok, i see where you are coming from now... I thought there was a CIA camp 2 or 3 blocks from the embassy though. They had been told to stand down instead of helping until things got bad. The impression I got anyhow. Haven't done much research on some of these hot issues, admittedly.

This may be old news, but the thought Hillary was gunning for presidency of the world bank... If this were still true, American presidency seems like a smaller position.

Couldn't have said it better...

I know few support him. But why is there little to no argument against his ideas? Instead other politicians throw slogans at him or call him a loon, but there is nothing constructive from the side of his opposition, nothing intellectual.

I guess what I am asking is, what is wrong with the notion of ceasing our payments to foreign countries and using the money on America instead? Does the president of Pakistan(Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and 170 other countries) need a billions o dollars a year from us? We end up fighting enemies that we fund, with weapons we gave them, using rules of engagement that are ridiculous and merely extend the fight...

Anyhow, I'm not saying there is no argument against Ron Paul's policy or there is no answer, but you can't say the whole idea is disastrous...

To say the least....

What i liked most about Dr. Paul was his information. He wouldn't speak in slogans like 90% of other politicians. Obama and Clinton sounded nice when they spoke, but they gave little to no information. GW didn't even sound intelligent... Ron Paul had information he was giving. This is something, it seems, the mainstream doesn't actually want.

Anyhow, I believe Ron Paul wanted to encourage the desire for independence and free thought, which are seldom bad qualities..

A much better standpoint than "Doing anything is better than nothing".

Metaphoric example: A house is on fire. Throwing gasoline on it is "doing something". It won't exactly put the fire out though...

Perhaps we need to think things through. Have more constructive debates. Allow people to take more responsibility in their communities...

What people seem not to understand is the fact that insurance companies became a huge problem in our healthcare. Non-medical personnel dictate medical procedures, so now the medical staff is no longer working in the patients' best interests. Also insurance is draining money out of the productive portion of healthcare and putting it in the pockets of their employees. An increasing number of lawyers are needed to fight for both sides, and as a result, more staff is required to deal with billing paperwork. This drains our a HUGE amount of money out or our healthcare system.

What does our government do? Require everyone buy insurance of course...

There seems to be little knowledge of the fact that medicare and medicade cost the system a huge amount of money as well. They often don't pay on time, they grossly underpay hospitals, and sometimes they don't pay at all. (this was a recent issue in my state)

Another huge cost in medical care comes from the outrageous markup on medical equipment and supplies (1000% markup in some cases).

What does our government do? Put a tax on medical equipment/supplies.

Another huge issue with our healthcare resides in pharmaceutical companies charging ridiculous prices for medications. Switching to generic meds whenever possible could save as much as 25% of the total cost of healthcare.

What does our government do? Nothing. (Not that i have heard of.)


Don't get me started on the salaries of medical staff. If we cut any salaries it needs to be administration, not the medical professionals.

Anyhow, ACA does not seem to address any of these issues. And how anyone could support a massive bill without reading it is beyond me...

I don't think it's so much a gipe about raising taxes, but inefficient use of this tax money that truely bothers people...



AND now certain people who could have afforded insurance can no longer do so... Not very comfortably at least...




This i find quite interesting as you seemingly advocating government making people buy insurance to boost profits... This is quite contradictory to the notion of helping those in need. (Again, note that I emphasize "seeming".

I know this information because i met these people and got to know them. Both parties. I also know people in the system who have admitted to having certain "numbers" quotas. No, no one ever called my friends and said "we decided to admit this person who had **** qualifications instead of you".

I agree. Except under circumstances like the one i brought up earlier. White man and black woman with the same credentials applies for a job, or loan, or anything of the nature. White man gets it. Many, if not most, would ASSUME racism. Racism is not easily proven, as it is largely subjective. Pursuing this avenue would anger the employer, who now has to spend thousands fighting this in court, and unless the manager is the business owner, he/she will likely get fired as a result of bad publicity. Now this could cause backlash, and/or over-corrective actions in the future, thereby creating discrimination against whites or blacks where there was none in the first place.

Luckily I have been exposed to very little racism. We don't teach it to our kids up here. I count my blessings for that. However I have been discriminated against in the work environment, on one job. Fortunately it was a retail job, and therefore a temporary situation.

I have also seen one or two instances where friends applying to college have been turned down for other, less qualified applicants, as the school needed (or wanted)to keep diverse numbers.

I have also heard from a close friend, of an accident he was in caused by a drunken driver, who had an open vodka bottle, no drivers license, and no insurance, yet was not arrested. (Turns out the driver was an illegal immigrant. So admittedly this situation had more to do with paperwork and bureaucracy than it did racism.)

Interesting how the least informative piece in the thread repeats itself...

To expand on my last comment... I had a liberal girlfriend who did a report on racism for college. Her conclusion was that "racism" could be found anywhere if one looked hard enough. Even if it didn't actually exists... So perhaps we need to ask ourselves from a philosophical standpoint; "Is looking for racism causing racism to exist where it otherwise wouldn't?" At least in part... And, "At what point are we finding things that aren't real?"

I Do remember how the jury ruled... And you attempting to point out facts, which may have been overlooked, that the jury has not considered. Anyhow, my point wasn't to introduce a "red herring" into the debate... I guess all im saying is, it doesn't always take concrete evidence to win a court case. And it costs money to fight allegations, no matter how truthful. Especially when the crime is largely base on assumption of thought. Also,I have seen affirmative action actually work against its original purpose on several occasions.

I Suppose it depends on the jury... One can bring a case based on emotion. And emotion can win a jury... Remember some of the claims about the Zimmerman/Travon case?

You, yourself have even been quoted saying about our current president; if one disapproves our current president while supporting another with the same policy, then racism is a logical assumption. Yet, one big difference between our president and the predecessors to him is not just race, but political party....

You can be brought to court,which costs money, right? Whether or not you are found guilty...

Funny... I see racism against blacks, and racism against whites. Sexism against men, and sexism against women. The only policy that can be put forth is the requirement that one cannot favor a particular sex/or race, over the other (which is supposedly a law in place). Even this is tough to uphold, as they are mostly based on assumptions. Micromanaging these situations likely result in the reverse effect. A white man and black woman apply for the same job, and have the same credentials. Employer decides to flip a coin and the white man gets a job. Looks like racism, but it's not.

In fact most people i know would hire the black woman for fear of lawsuits. Wouldn't that be racism as well?