patrick.net

"Money supply doesn't matter" when talking about land scarcity and the unaffordability of land, no. Land will suck up ALL the money in the system, whether you print more or not.

Winston Churchill was describing the economics of land and speaking for the single tax program when the UK was astride the world and his nation had been solidly on the gold standard for almost 100 years.

http://www.landvaluetax.org/current-affairs-comment/winston-churchill-said-it-all-better-then-we-can.html

But it doesn’t solve the problems of the day, many of which are due to the FED and the corporatism it enables.

You've clearly got a Fed fixation that is clouding your appreciation of the true situation.

The problem is big money. This will exist Fed or no Fed. While left-libertarianism may not be enough to take it down, it's the best approach I've been able to find, and tends to work well where tried (post-war Japan, the Eurosocialists, Alaska).

As for Georgism itself, I consider it "necessary but not sufficient", though I am willing to be proved wrong about the latter proviso.

AdHominem says

elliemae says

The reason that it doesn’t work in reality is that you can’t afford your own medical care. You will be bankrupted overnight and become completely dependent on the state…

Lets assume you are correct. Why can’t I afford my own health care?

This topic has been beaten to death - yet here we go again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf

http://www.wowowow.com/politics/got-serious-illness-you-may-go-bankrupt-your-medical-bills-312694

In fact, in 2007, of those who filed for bankruptcy, about 80 percent had insurance. Consider these numbers: In 2007, medical problems contributed to 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies, and during the six years prior, the proportion of all medical-related bankruptcies rose by about 50 percent. Many others had to file because they lost much of their income due to illness, or mortgaged a home to pay their doctor’s bills. And these people aren’t poor — most, in fact, were well-educated, middle-class homeowners.

The Washington Post has the full study here. The New York Times notes that the health problems that left patients with the most out-of-pocket expenses were:

Neurologic (i.e., multiple sclerosis): $34,167
Diabetes: $26,971
Injuries: $25,096
Stroke: $23,380
Mental illnesses: $23,178
Heart disease: $21,955

The amounts are out-of-pocket expenses, not total expenses. Diabetes can cost as much as $1,000 per month, not counting the misc extras.

elliemae says

The amounts are out-of-pocket expenses, not total expenses. Diabetes can cost as much as $1,000 per month, not counting the misc extras.

I didn't mention the hospitalizations that can occur. And kidney failure; dialysis is very expensive. So is a transplant.

For the general healthy person, healthcare is an afterthought. However, any disease or medical condition can become huge and costly.

Then, there's the bizarre situations, the once in a lifetime ones. Like becoming impaled on a fence or object, or a spider bite that becomes infected and the next thing you know you've got necrotizing fasciitis (flesh eating bacteria), or being run over by a herd of wildebeests, or having your computer explode and geting a sharp fragment in your eye causing blindness...

"You either don’t know how the federal government budgeting process works or are being willfully ignorant and didn’t read what I wrote. The budget of the defense department is far far from the total amount spent on defense. Here is a link that gives some of the layout of how much defense really represents in the budget.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
There are many other articles out there that document the same things so it’s not single source. The records are public. If you don’t believe anyone’s numbers then go look up the information yourself.

There is no discretionary/non discretionary budget. There is THE BUDGET and there is ss/medicare. Politicians lump them together as one entiity to obscure the true spending in each part. "

Wow, you post a left-wing site that intentionally distorts things to support your point. What a surprise!
You deny there is such thing as "discretionary" and "non-discretionary," which shows your own ignorance of how things work.

But the the most telling of all is this, from your own link: "“Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt."

Therefore, we can only conclude that when you want to cut the "defense budget," you are calling for cutting the retirement and medical benefits of veterans! Thanks for clearing that up! Cut general social/socialistic entitlements? No way - that would be the "rich" soaking the "poor." Cut benefits to veterans? Has to be looked at as part of the whole "defense budget," although no one except leftwingnuts refers to all these other things as the "defense budget."

Paralithodes says

Has to be looked at as part of the whole “defense budget,” although no one except leftwingnuts refers to all these other things as the “defense budget.”

Where would you categorize veterens' benefits? They have to go under defense budget--it's deferred compensation for their prior service. Doesn't mean anyone wants to cut their pensions, but let's put the costs where they belong...

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

Has to be looked at as part of the whole “defense budget,” although no one except leftwingnuts refers to all these other things as the “defense budget.”

Where would you categorize veterens’ benefits? They have to go under defense budget–it’s deferred compensation for their prior service. Doesn’t mean anyone wants to cut their pensions, but let’s put the costs where they belong…

Military retirements fall under "mandatory" spending (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf) It reflects what the government is paying out for people who have already served. It is NOT part of any current "defense budget." Medical may fall under the VA, but the VA is a separate Department - it is not part of the Department of Defense.

The only way you can argue that all of these things are part of the "defense budget" is to use the term "defense budget" in a different way than is understood by anyone who has anything to do with it. The only reason to do that is to make some type of unobjective political argument by playing with numbers and twisting terms. If you are going to talk about cutting the "defense budget" but included all of those other categories, though those are not the categories that "anyone wants to cut," then why corrupt the meaning of the term in the first place, when clearly you then mean such things as materiel, facilities, and strength levels, which is generally speaking what the "defense budget" is really comprised of?"

Cutting the "defense budget" means cutting aircraft, strength levels, bases, etc. They are all legitimate things to discuss cutting. However, cutting them means cutting jobs, which is why the military often gets saddled with more aircraft than it wants, keeps programs alive it wants to kill, keeps a base open it wants to consolidate, etc.... Because every congressoinal rep *** regardless of party *** objects when it affects their district or state.

You may have an opinion on where these costs *should* be in the budget, but if one is going to use terms in meanings beyond their intended and understood context - without a disclaimer - one is engaging in propaganda.

Here is an example: Bob's link lists "Homeland Security (military)" as $35 Billion. What does this refer to? DHS's entire budget is, if I recall, $38 billion. Customs & Border Protection gets about $10.X Billion of that, and the Coast Guard gets about $10.X Billion of that. Defense Readiness (i.e., what you could legitimately argue is DoD-related) is only ONE of the Coast Guard's ELEVEN statutory missions. How does that link calculate how much of DoE's budget should go to military because of nuclear activities, etc.? And how do we validate it?

elliemae says

AdHominem says

elliemae says

The reason that it doesn’t work in reality is that you can’t afford your own medical care. You will be bankrupted overnight and become completely dependent on the state…

Lets assume you are correct. Why can’t I afford my own health care?

This topic has been beaten to death - yet here we go again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf
http://www.wowowow.com/politics/got-serious-illness-you-may-go-bankrupt-your-medical-bills-312694
In fact, in 2007, of those who filed for bankruptcy, about 80 percent had insurance. Consider these numbers: In 2007, medical problems contributed to 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies, and during the six years prior, the proportion of all medical-related bankruptcies rose by about 50 percent. Many others had to file because they lost much of their income due to illness, or mortgaged a home to pay their doctor’s bills. And these people aren’t poor — most, in fact, were well-educated, middle-class homeowners.
The Washington Post has the full study here. The New York Times notes that the health problems that left patients with the most out-of-pocket expenses were:
Neurologic (i.e., multiple sclerosis): $34,167

Diabetes: $26,971

Injuries: $25,096

Stroke: $23,380

Mental illnesses: $23,178

Heart disease: $21,955
The amounts are out-of-pocket expenses, not total expenses. Diabetes can cost as much as $1,000 per month, not counting the misc extras.

Yes, disease treatments are expensive. Why are they so expensive?

Paralithodes says

The only way you can argue that all of these things are part of the “defense budget” is to use the term “defense budget” in a different way than is understood by anyone who has anything to do with it. The only reason to do that is to make some type of unobjective political argument by playing with numbers and twisting terms. If you are going to talk about cutting the “defense budget” but included all of those other categories, though those are not the categories that “anyone wants to cut,” then why corrupt the meaning of the term in the first place, when clearly you then mean such things as materiel, facilities, and strength levels, which is generally speaking what the “defense budget” is really comprised of?”

No--the point is to put the costs where they belong. I'd argue that you are the one distorting the facts for an unobjective political political argument if you don't include soldiers' pay as part of defense. Really--how can you make a rational argument that they don't belong under defense? They are being paid to defend our country--that's pretty much the definition of national defense. If you're going to look at how much we spend on defense, then you have to include all the costs that are directly attributable to it. Are all of those costs waste? Of course not. Doesn't mean that you don't include them though...

Zlxr says

Disease is so expensive because today we treat mostly the symptoms - NOT the cause.
Our Drs. today understand prescribing drugs and surgery over other options.

You summed it up very well using an economy of words. Almost the entire "healthcare" system in the USA is designed to treat the "sick" patient without implementing a change in life styles that cause a full 70% of all illness in the USA. We bluster in this country about how terrible 2nd. hand smoke is, while the vast majority of illness can be eliminated if people weren't obese, or significantly overweight. I love to look at old photographs of sports crowds from the 1920s - 1950s.. One thing that always strikes me; you will find almost no one that is overweight. Take a photo of a typical crowd today at a sporting event, and in contrast, almost everyone is overweight. A pretty good illustration as to why so many people suffer with illnesses today that could easily be prevented. Nothing in Obamacare addresses any of this. The person that strives to eat healthy food, exercises, etc. will be forced to pay the same premium as the person that abuses his or her body to the point it can't take it anymore. How is this fair?

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

The only way you can argue that all of these things are part of the “defense budget” is to use the term “defense budget” in a different way than is understood by anyone who has anything to do with it. The only reason to do that is to make some type of unobjective political argument by playing with numbers and twisting terms. If you are going to talk about cutting the “defense budget” but included all of those other categories, though those are not the categories that “anyone wants to cut,” then why corrupt the meaning of the term in the first place, when clearly you then mean such things as materiel, facilities, and strength levels, which is generally speaking what the “defense budget” is really comprised of?”

No–the point is to put the costs where they belong. I’d argue that you are the one distorting the facts for an unobjective political political argument if you don’t include soldiers’ pay as part of defense. Really–how can you make a rational argument that they don’t belong under defense? They are being paid to defend our country–that’s pretty much the definition of national defense. If you’re going to look at how much we spend on defense, then you have to include all the costs that are directly attributable to it. Are all of those costs waste? Of course not. Doesn’t mean that you don’t include them though…

You attempt to re-define what I wrote into something that I did not. I answered your question regarding "veterans benefits" and now you are swapping terms to "soldiers' pay," which implies the costs of the pay of the current force. NO WHERE did I say soldiers pay - as in the current pay and benefits to those serving right now - was not part of the defense budget. Certainly they are, and I implied such when I referred to "strength levels," etc. I notice that you also now swap the term "defense budget" with "national defense." A little more honesty on your part would be good.

Zlxr says

Disease is so expensive because today we treat mostly the symptoms - NOT the cause.
Our Drs. today understand prescribing drugs and surgery over other options.

It is also expensive today because there are many more treatments - some of which happen to be expensive - that did not exist years ago. There are treatments, equipments, medicines, etc., that only came into existence within the lifetimes of many posting here.

Paralithodes says

You attempt to re-define what I wrote into something that I did not. I answered your question regarding “veterans benefits” and now you are swapping terms to “soldiers’ pay,” which implies the costs of the pay of the current force. NO WHERE did I say soldiers pay - as in the current pay and benefits to those serving right now - was not part of the defense budget. Certainly they are, and I implied such when I referred to “strength levels,” etc. I notice that you also now swap the term “defense budget” with “national defense.” A little more honesty on your part would be good.

Are you kidding? So you draw the distinction between current pay and pension? Pension is an earned benefit. It HAS to be counted the same as pay. How can you not count it as part of defense budget or national defense or whatever you want to call it?

Paralithodes says

Zlxr says

Disease is so expensive because today we treat mostly the symptoms - NOT the cause.

Our Drs. today understand prescribing drugs and surgery over other options.

It is also expensive today because there are many more treatments - some of which happen to be expensive - that did not exist years ago. There are treatments, equipments, medicines, etc., that only came into existence within the lifetimes of many posting here.

Could these prices be so high in the absence of third party (insurance and Federal assistance) that insulate the public from realizing the majority of the cost?

"Are you kidding? So you draw the distinction between current pay and pension? Pension is an earned benefit. It HAS to be counted the same as pay. How can you not count it as part of defense budget or national defense or whatever you want to call it?"

You implied that I claimed that current pay was not part of the defense budget. I did no such thing. My claim was solely about retirees. Nonetheless, after doing some more research, it looks like we are both technically correct and incorrect in certain aspects. The followng link provides detailed explanation: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/crs_ib85159.pdf, but basically:

* Decades ago, retiree pay was in fact included in the DoD budget.
* This was changed to an accrual method, where the current personnel cost includes a component to cover future retirement, and that component is put into a special fund (part of the general fund but outside of DoD).
* Now actual military retirements are paid out of the mandatory/non-discretionary portion of the general fund (or total budget), not out of current-year DoD budgets.
* The link above put outlays in 2004 at about $12.5B from the DoD budget but $36.7B from the total budget. Since the $12.5B is like a "tax" on DoD that eventually helps fund the non-DoD/mandatory budget for military retirements, it is not clear whether, when looking at a total defense cost, the net expenditures are actually $36.7B - $12.5B but I assume so. If the accrued money is coming out of the DoD budget back to the general fund, then counting the DoD budget + retirement costs as actual expenditures of taxpayer money would double-count the DoD "tax."

So... my arguments about which part of the budget retiree pay falls into was a waste of time and I apologize for that. For argument's sake, I accept that we can consider it for all intents and purposes part of the "defense budget" although technically it is not because it is not in DoD's budget (except for the accrual). My thinking on the matter - right or wrong - was that retiree benefits are fixed and cannot be changed from budget to budget without impacting those already retired, and that this does not contribute to current defense operations. Nonetheless, Let's round up the amounts in this paper to what might be a reasonable estimate today: (I have not checked, but the projection in the link is $37.6 in FY05): $50B. Let's even say $100B. These numbers are much smaller than I ever assumed them to be.

So how again does the defense budget come out to be over 1/2 of the Federal budget? Only with creative statistics like including the entire budget of DHS despite such a small portion that is relevant to it, including any possible component of any other agency that may somehow contribute to defense without offsetting defense contributions to non-defense functions or activities, etc.

The argument was that the "defense budget" was over 1/2 of the Federal budget. This is based on what, in real numbers? It is in reality, not even close.

AdHominem says

Paralithodes says

Zlxr says

Disease is so expensive because today we treat mostly the symptoms - NOT the cause.
Our Drs. today understand prescribing drugs and surgery over other options.

It is also expensive today because there are many more treatments - some of which happen to be expensive - that did not exist years ago. There are treatments, equipments, medicines, etc., that only came into existence within the lifetimes of many posting here.

Could these prices be so high in the absence of third party (insurance and Federal assistance) that insulate the public from realizing the majority of the cost?

Certainly not. I am only pointing out that there are other variables that contribute. I believe the separation of the health care consumer from the cost he/she is incurring on the system is a larger contributor. I can think of no one I know - liberal or conservative, and including myself - who is particularly concerned about what their individual health care actually costs the whole system because it is covered by insurance.

Paralithodes says

AdHominem says

Paralithodes says

Zlxr says

Disease is so expensive because today we treat mostly the symptoms - NOT the cause.

Our Drs. today understand prescribing drugs and surgery over other options.

It is also expensive today because there are many more treatments - some of which happen to be expensive - that did not exist years ago. There are treatments, equipments, medicines, etc., that only came into existence within the lifetimes of many posting here.

Could these prices be so high in the absence of third party (insurance and Federal assistance) that insulate the public from realizing the majority of the cost?

Certainly not. I am only pointing out that there are other variables that contribute. I believe the separation of the health care consumer from the cost he/she is incurring on the system is a larger contributor. I can think of no one I know - liberal or conservative, and including myself - who is particularly concerned about what their individual health care actually costs the whole system because it is covered by insurance.

So we are seeing that socialism is pushing up prices, because no one is accountable for the true cost of their own care and therefore there is little or no incentive to keep costs down, live a healthy lifestyle etc...

Socialism is failing us again.

Here's one explanation:

The "Real" Defense Budget
A number of budget analyst point out that the "real" defense department budget should include $7.1 billion for the Coast Guard and a number of other defense related items included in the $33 billion Homeland Security budget. From the Energy Department budget, we should also add $6.4 billion for operating America's arsenal of nuclear warheads and $795 million for maintaining the nuclear reactors on U.S. Navy ships. The $80 billion authorized for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is also not included. This amount was approved in a "supplemental" spending bill outside the annual budget authorization.
Added together, real annual spending on U.S. defense is well over half a trillion dollars. According to Dr. Cindy Williams of M.I.T., this means the U.S. spends more on its military than all other governments in the world combined spend on their militaries. A more radical organization, the War Resisters League, says U.S. military spending is actually over $1 trillion every year... because they add in the current cost of past wars including all spending on veteran's retirement and healthcare plus 80% of the interest paid on the national debt (since the debt was accumulated largely for military spending).

Here's another take.

http://www.borgenproject.org/Defense_Spending.html

I could find others if you'd like...

Zlxr says

I’m all for Health Care. I just want Well Care and Alternative Care to be included.

Absolutely.

Zlxr says

My Grandmother raised her own food. My Mom said that everything they ate was picked and cooked about 2 hours or less before they ate it. She also did not use chemicals and she understood the use of herbs if an ailment should arise.

There is something intensely un-American about this, or at the very least, something un-Obamabot. If you don't eat junk food, you might be healthy and you won't be able to be fixed by Obamacare. And not using chemicals in your food? That sounds radical. Your entire family should be hauled away for re-education and forced to eat dozens of Big Macs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/09/Planting-the-Garden/

Obviously, your constant criticism of has worn them down. Retroactively.

Nomograph says

As I’ve said before, the distorted and convoluted arguments ALWAYS distill down to a single point: somebody might get health care who they feel do not deserve it for whatever reason.

Once again you are wrong. It is not about who gets "care". It is about personal choice, the freedom to pursue or not pursue the care of your own choosing. It is also about the freedom to use the fruits of your own labor as you see fit.

You try to pigeon hole everyone in this neat little diagnosis out of your text book or lizard brain. The world is much bigger than your way of thinking. Freedom includes the freedom to fail or succeed. When government/PtB decides that no one can fail to get health care, they take away the right to fail, (or even succeed seeing as how gubmint care will very likely not be the best care available but rather some bureaucrats wet dream) let alone the right to choose alternatives to Obamacare and use your income as you see fit.

AdHominem - FREEDOM is kryptonite to liberals. They can't stand it. It destroys them.

Abe

I'm a Victim says

You try to pigeon hole everyone in this neat little diagnosis out of your text book or lizard brain. The world is much bigger than your way of thinking.

I'm sure that Nomo appreciates your input, as well as your baseless accusations and relentless inability to have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks.

Dishonest Abe says

AdHominem - FREEDOM is kryptonite to liberals. They can’t stand it. It destroys them.
Abe

Kryptonite? Really? A fictional element is what you use to assert your opinion? Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

Elli May says

without resorting to personal attacks.

Like Rambo said, "You drew first blood."

But beyond that your way of thinking is so warped that you cannot accept the fact that others (indeed the founders of this very nation) thought very differently than you. In fact they fought to escape an environment that people of your stripe are trying to recreate. You deserve the America we have today with all its inequalities, injustices and debts, because you did not seek to protect the ideals this nation was founded on.

I guess if enough people mark your posts as impolite you'll be forced into moderation hell.

I guess if I'm impolite you are the devil's mistress.

like ellie said in another thread she is capable of even lower lows.

But I have a feeling this is all about the fact that you have no legitimate response to the revelation that your liberal utopia is all about using force to take from someone else. You can't handle freedom, in fact it scares you into submission to the PtB.

"I could find others if you’d like…"

No thanks, you've provided enough propaganda. Your numbers are complete stretches and your explanation is loaded with baggage. $7.1B for the Coast Guard should be part of the "defense department budget" despite that it's entire budget last year was about $10.5B and defense readiness is only 1/11 of its missions? For all we know, this $7.1B was the entire Coast Guard budget when it was written. What other parts of DHS should go towards defense? Why list the $33B (which includes CG already) when the remainder would be extremely small? Are costs at other agencies (including retirement costs) adjusted to reflect payments from DoD to those other agencies or funds? If not, why not, because the numbers are double-counted? And 80% of the interest is attributed to military spending though 80% of the budget is not military-related? Talk about lying with statistics....

BTW, the borgenproject link claims that national defense takes up 50% of the DISCRETIONARY budget.

So again, if you are going to make an argument that "national defense" takes up over 50% of the entire budget, please define what you consider "national defense" and provide clear numbers with the proper ajustments, not generalities like that the Coast Guard's budget is mostly (or all) "national defense."

Honest Abe says

AdHominem - FREEDOM is kryptonite to liberals. They can’t stand it. It destroys them.
Abe

That is a good one. So, are you then implying that liberals are Supermen?

^ I am SO stealing that

tatupu70 says

That is a good one. So, are you then implying that liberals are Supermen?

I'm sure you've offended elliemae with your politically incorrect use of "superMEN." Was this just a slip or were you attempting to offend? I don't know. I think "Superpersons" would have been much more appropriate.

AdHominem says

So we are seeing that socialism is pushing up prices, because no one is accountable for the true cost of their own care and therefore there is little or no incentive to keep costs down, live a healthy lifestyle etc…
Socialism is failing us again.

The origin of the "moral hazard" term everyone loves so much? It comes from the 19th century fire insurance industry where the worry was too much fire insurance led to carelessness about fires. The phenomenon you describe is more correctly attributed to any sort of INSURANCE but particularly comprehensive with low deduductibles. So it's not at all an aspect of socialism and is present in capitalist insurance as well. The term has spread to be used in pop culture now for just about anything.

Ellie,elliemae says

AdHominem says

elliemae says

The reason that it doesn’t work in reality is that you can’t afford your own medical care. You will be bankrupted overnight and become completely dependent on the state…

Lets assume you are correct. Why can’t I afford my own health care?

This topic has been beaten to death - yet here we go again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf
http://www.wowowow.com/politics/got-serious-illness-you-may-go-bankrupt-your-medical-bills-312694
In fact, in 2007, of those who filed for bankruptcy, about 80 percent had insurance. Consider these numbers: In 2007, medical problems contributed to 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies, and during the six years prior, the proportion of all medical-related bankruptcies rose by about 50 percent. Many others had to file because they lost much of their income due to illness, or mortgaged a home to pay their doctor’s bills. And these people aren’t poor — most, in fact, were well-educated, middle-class homeowners.
The Washington Post has the full study here. The New York Times notes that the health problems that left patients with the most out-of-pocket expenses were:
Neurologic (i.e., multiple sclerosis): $34,167

Diabetes: $26,971

Injuries: $25,096

Stroke: $23,380

Mental illnesses: $23,178

Heart disease: $21,955
The amounts are out-of-pocket expenses, not total expenses. Diabetes can cost as much as $1,000 per month, not counting the misc extras.

Yes Elli, disease treatment is expensive. Why is it so expensive?

AdHominem says

Why is it so expensive?

How much is your health worth to you? In a free market, service providers will attempt to set that price level, to varying degrees of success.

Nomograph says

Do you actually expect us to believe that your hobby is looking at old photographs of crowds from 1920 to 1950, RayRay?

I didn't say it was my "hobby" NomoNomo. Try to comprehend what you are reading.

Nomograph says

Personally, I’m more concerned about the 99% of Americans who DO deserve health care. I don’t spend much time worrying about the other 1%, but if that is what you want to spend your life on, be my guest. I’m sure it will work out wonderfully for you.

There you go again with your imagination. I don't "worry" about anything. You claim 99% of Americans "deserve" health care. What are you basing that assertion on? Please be specific. LOL

Ad homo:

You asked wAdHominem says

Lets assume you are correct. Why can’t I afford my own health care?

...and I answered. As I mentioned, this topic is a dead cat on the road of life. The more you run it over the flatter it gets - but people still run it over and then apparently expect it to jump up and run away or something. Maybe this topic has 9,000 lives?

Yet you ask why healthcare is so expensive. You are fully capable of finding out the answer - feel free to search Patnet for answers. Or go online to find out this info. You will believe what you want, and will make personal attacks on those who disagree with your point of view. But it doesn't change the system.

Healthcare should never be an option. EVER. Not for the poor, not for the rich. Not for the illegals, not for the pillars of the community. People who choose to work in the field should be paid; and those who devote years of their lives honing their skills should be paid accordingly. We spend an awful lot of money on people whose responsibility it is to deny benefits and commissions to people who call an 800# to sign up for a certain type of insurance - this is money that could be used to pay for actual care.

RayAmerica says

I didn’t say it was my “hobby” NomoNomo. Try to comprehend what you are reading.

Seriously, "comprehend?" I'd say that he does. I love the english language. You might want to try learning it.

elliemae says

I love the english language. You might want to try learning it.

Obviously, you've been sitting by the phone all this time and Brad Pitt hasn't called. It has made you very, very bitter. Give it up and move on dot org.

elliemae says

This is a constructive criticism, not a verbal attack such as you use (”very, very bitter”).

A fine example of a very sincere leftist that is offering "constructive criticism" out of the goodness of a caring, sharing, leftist warm and fuzzy heart. LOL

Aw, you like me!