Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-12-2004, 07:08 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
First to go negative?

Bush just put out a few adds recently attacking Kerry. The question I have is this, was Bush the first to start running negative adds against the other canidate? We all know we are going to have to put up with these adds for a while now....sigh.



One thing I found interesting is one of the adds said Kerry is going to raise taxes by $900 billion. Kerry has never said this at all, when the Bush team was asked about it they said they made that number up from what they expected his proposals to cost. Basically they completly lied, isn't this known as libel? And can't they get into a lot of trouble for this?
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-12-2004, 07:30 PM   #2 (permalink)
Modern Man
 
Location: West Michigan
This campaign was negative before either started running ads. Its going to be a new low this time around. Neither man will be the "big" man this time. And its only just begun.
__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues
Conclamo Ludus is offline  
Old 03-12-2004, 07:37 PM   #3 (permalink)
Boo
Leave me alone!
 
Boo's Avatar
 
Location: Alaska, USA
Personally I don't know how much taxes will go up if Kerry is elected. I do suspect that they will have to go up considerably to pay down the deficet, pay for education, infrastructure and welfare programs, no to mention the ongoing war efforts. I do expect tax increases no matter the party elected.

I personally don't care for dirty politics. It helps if they at least get the facts straight.
__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.
Boo is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 10:23 AM   #4 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Re: First to go negative?

Quote:
Originally posted by Rekna
One thing I found interesting is one of the adds said Kerry is going to raise taxes by $900 billion.
Kerry wants to [essentially] raise taxes by $400 billion by repealing Bush's tax cut. Plus, he wants to somehow magically implement a $900 billion national healthcare system -- where is that money going to come from? Taxes, taxes, taxes.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 11:42 AM   #5 (permalink)
Paq
Junkie
 
Paq's Avatar
 
Location: South Carolina
IIRC, kerry wants to repeal tax cuts made to people who make over $200,000 a year and make cuts to people in middle classes.

namely, we do need more tax money to pay for a certain war a certain president decided to jump into. not saying it's unjustified, just saying that it costs money...
__________________
Live.

Chris
Paq is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 12:49 PM   #6 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
Kerry wants to [essentially] raise taxes by $400 billion by repealing Bush's tax cut. Plus, he wants to somehow magically implement a $900 billion national healthcare system -- where is that money going to come from? Taxes, taxes, taxes.

Or, you know, something else. I'm sure if you use your imagination you can imagine where that money could come from. Cuts in other programs, perhaps. And it's not "plus $900 billion", you've already admitted he would get $400 billion from the repeal of the tax cuts, which he'd very likely use for the health care.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 12:52 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
How much does Bush's proposed manned mars trip cost? Why aren't people screaming about taxes taxes taxes here?
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 01:35 PM   #8 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally posted by Kadath
Or, you know, something else. I'm sure if you use your imagination you can imagine where that money could come from. Cuts in other programs, perhaps. And it's not "plus $900 billion", you've already admitted he would get $400 billion from the repeal of the tax cuts, which he'd very likely use for the health care.
It's been a very long time since I've heard of a Democrat cutting the funding of any program, so I wouldn't hold my breath there Kadath. It would be the fiscally responsible thing to do, but I guarantee that it will not happen.

Uhh, ok. So, instead of wanting to raise taxes by $1.3 trillion, he only wants to raise taxes by about $900 billion? Either way, neither candidate are planning on doing anything about the deficit. They both want to spend spend spend as long as they themselves are not footing the bill.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 02:54 PM   #9 (permalink)
Insane
 
I got this in my email from MoveOn PAC.
Quote:
Yesterday, Bush launched the first attack ads of the general election. Both ads contain blatant and outrageous lies about the Bush and Kerry records. Bush has been on the defensive for several weeks over jobs, Iraq, corruption and questions of personal integrity. And these ads are a desperate attempt to get the upper hand by any means necessary -- even by telling lies in ads personally authorized by the president. Candidates are expected to characterize their opponents' records and proposals in the worst light possible. But outright lying is not acceptable.

[...]

Attack Ad: "100 DAYS"

Lie #1: John Kerry will raise taxes by $900 billion in his first 100 days.

The Truth: John Kerry has promised to lower taxes on working families, not raise them. He will repeal the Bush tax cut only for families earning $200,000 or more, simply returning those families' taxes to pre-Bush rates. He will close corporate tax loop holes. And he will provide additional tax cuts to working families to help with health care costs which have increased dramatically under Bush. Click here for more.

Lie #2: John Kerry wants to weaken the Patriot Act used to arrest terrorists and protect America.

The Truth: John Kerry wants to strengthen the parts of the Patriot Act that actually fight terrorism, such as intelligence information sharing. However, he believes there may be some parts of the Act that take away our freedom without providing any protection against terrorism, and that those parts should be reviewed. We need a president who knows that standing up for freedom means standing against terrorism. Click here for more.

Attack Ad: "FORWARD"

Lie: "We can continue to go forward to work to create new jobs...and decrease the cost of health care."

The Truth: America has lost 2.4 million jobs since the Bush recession began in March 2001. [Source: Economic Policy Institute ] Bush has tried the same remedy for three years: massive tax cuts for the rich, and for three years that remedy has failed. Meanwhile, health care costs have increased by an average of $793 since Bush took office -- a stunning 49 percent increase -- according to a survey of Employer Health Benefits by the Kaiser Family Foundation. [www.kff.org]
hammer4all is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 04:15 PM   #10 (permalink)
Winner
 
As the incumbent, Bush should be focusing on the positive things he's done for the country. Its too bad he hasn't done anything positive.
So instead, he's going to try to win the election by exploiting 9-11 and attacking Kerry. Isn't politics fun?
maximusveritas is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 06:57 PM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally posted by maximusveritas
As the incumbent, Bush should be focusing on the positive things he's done for the country. Its too bad he hasn't done anything positive.
So instead, he's going to try to win the election by exploiting 9-11 and attacking Kerry. Isn't politics fun?
He chocked on a pretzel and made me laugh
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 07:11 PM   #12 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
who can tell who made the first attack? who can point out the first drop of rain in a thunderstorm?

folks, this is going to be cut-throat politics at its worst. i mean, it is only mid-march... 8 months to go. i'd love to defend the republicans... but can't say that they are much better in this area.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 07:43 PM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I just wish they would focus on their policy instead of eachother.
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 09:04 PM   #14 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Quote:
but I guarantee that it will not happen
How can you gurantee anything?

Anybody that goes into office after bysh wether it be this year or in another 4 years will have a lot of changes to make well at least i hope they will...
PoteMatic is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 09:09 PM   #15 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally posted by PoteMatic
How can you gurantee[sic] anything?
You caught me. I can't.

Quote:
Originally posted by PoteMatic
Anybody that goes into office after bysh wether it be this year or in another 4 years will have a lot of changes to make well at least i hope they will...
Major change is not something that is "safe" to a politician's career, so you probably won't see it happen anytime soon -- certainly not in the next term. You can expect an expanding government and slow deterioration of the rights of US citizens.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 10:06 PM   #16 (permalink)
Modern Man
 
Location: West Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by hammer4all
I got this in my email from MoveOn PAC.
MoveOn that hosted the Hitler/Bush ads is calling out negative ad campaigns. Honestly. Of course those ads were never paid for by a candidate, granted, thats about as negative a picture you could paint of someone. Ah well, Moving On...
__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues
Conclamo Ludus is offline  
Old 03-13-2004, 11:06 PM   #17 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: land of the merry
Quote:
Originally posted by Rekna
He chocked on a pretzel and made me laugh
tehblaed is offline  
Old 03-14-2004, 12:11 PM   #18 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
It's been a very long time since I've heard of a Democrat cutting the funding of any program, so I wouldn't hold my breath there Kadath. It would be the fiscally responsible thing to do, but I guarantee that it will not happen.
Assuming Kerry will follow the party line may be the smart bet, but it isn't anything but an assumption. Also, it's not as if the Republicans have been the party of fiscal responsibility, something they did used to be. How much is the debt supposed to grow?

Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis

Uhh, ok. So, instead of wanting to raise taxes by $1.3 trillion, he only wants to raise taxes by about $900 billion? Either way, neither candidate are planning on doing anything about the deficit. They both want to spend spend spend as long as they themselves are not footing the bill.
Ah, we agree.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 03-14-2004, 05:23 PM   #19 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Quote:
Kerry wants to [essentially] raise taxes by $400 billion by repealing Bush's tax cut. Plus, he wants to somehow magically implement a $900 billion national healthcare system -- where is that money going to come from? Taxes, taxes, taxes.
And it's disingenuous for Bush to just say Kerry is raising our taxes. He is removing irresponsible tax breaks on a very small percentage of the population who should have never received them. A large portion of which was stolen from funding that the middle class paid into SS.

The 900 billion for national health care. Not quite that number . And he isn't really even seriously proposing implementing it right now. Plus most of the money needed in taxation to support it would be the money we are paying in premiums and doctor payments right now, so there will be a negligible effect, if any in taxation, for a national health care system. Hell it will most likely end up being cheaper for us. Health care administration alone, as I have said before, accounts for 4% of this nations GDP. Government agencies operate much more cheaper than that. Individuals will be saving money under national health care.

Quote:
MoveOn that hosted the Hitler/Bush ads is calling out negative ad campaigns. Honestly. Of course those ads were never paid for by a candidate, granted, thats about as negative a picture you could paint of someone. Ah well, Moving On...
MoveOn hosted it unknowingly. Along with several thousand other 30 second spots. An individual, misguided person, posted it. It never won anything and when it was brought to the attention of the MoveOn organizers it was removed.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 03-14-2004, 09:15 PM   #20 (permalink)
mml
Adrift
 
Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life
As far as who drew "First Mud" ,it was the Democrats, including Kerry. They all started negative, anti-Bush ads during the Primaries. Bush started with positive ads, but got caught on the 9-11 issue and his numbers fell faster than before. So, he wisely went negative and my guess is that his numbers will level off.

The 900 billion is a bogus number. It refers to Kerry's healthcare plan which is scheduled to cost 900 billion over a ten year period. His funding mechanism is, frankly, a bit fuzzy, but is relies on repealing future tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans as well as cutting government waste. It is a much more in depth plan, but I don't have all the figures. The Bush campaign decided to just assume that he would add 900 billion and claim it to be his intention. Very spurious arguement, but I guess they are feeling the heat.

0ne thing most people are missing about what Kerry is saying about taxes, is that the bulk of what he wants to repeal has not yet gone into effect. (Each year the Bush tax cuts change and in some cases get larger and in others smaller, unless congress makes them permanent) The result is not that your taxes will go higher, it is that you will not necessarily get the tax cut that Bush is pushing for.

You know, you don't have to like Kerry, you don't have to approve of what he has done or stands for, but don't just take a commercial at face value and make your judgements without research. The same can be said for the things the Kerry campaign and DNC will say about Bush. We can agree to disagree about economics, social issues, foreign policy etc. but we should all try to use actual fact to make our decision.

(If my facts are wrong, let me know.)
__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams
mml is offline  
Old 03-14-2004, 09:26 PM   #21 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Something that bothers me about a national healthcare plan is the fact that most people get healthcare through their employer. Now, what happens when there is a national plan and we're all paying higher taxes to pay for it, and our employers drop health benefits? We pay more, and get less, while further lining the pocket of the management of the company.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 03-14-2004, 10:01 PM   #22 (permalink)
Junkie
 
or our employeers pay for the national plan, or since the employeers aren't playing for a private plan anymore everyone gets raises. Or fatcats get richer and the good employees leave because of lack of benifits.
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-15-2004, 05:26 AM   #23 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by mml


The 900 billion is a bogus number. It refers to Kerry's healthcare plan which is scheduled to cost 900 billion over a ten year period. His funding mechanism is, frankly, a bit fuzzy, but is relies on repealing future tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans as well as cutting government waste. It is a much more in depth plan, but I don't have all the figures. The Bush campaign decided to just assume that he would add 900 billion and claim it to be his intention. Very spurious arguement, but I guess they are feeling the heat.

0ne thing most people are missing about what Kerry is saying about taxes, is that the bulk of what he wants to repeal has not yet gone into effect. (Each year the Bush tax cuts change and in some cases get larger and in others smaller, unless congress makes them permanent) The result is not that your taxes will go higher, it is that you will not necessarily get the tax cut that Bush is pushing for.

Do you honestly believe that Kerry's programs will only be funded by keeping Bush's tax cuts from becoming permanent and by cutting government waste?

The problems I have with this theory is that the Bush tax cuts are not yet permanent, so if they do not become permanent that money will be earmarked to other already in the works projects and then we will need to add more money to the till for Kerry's initiatives.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 03-15-2004, 05:48 AM   #24 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
Something that bothers me about a national healthcare plan is the fact that most people get healthcare through their employer. Now, what happens when there is a national plan and we're all paying higher taxes to pay for it, and our employers drop health benefits? We pay more, and get less, while further lining the pocket of the management of the company.
Actually, less and less people are getting health insurance through their employers. Employers are decreasing coverage, forcing employees to pay portions of the premium, or simply dropping it all together. With a national health care plan, at least people would have something to fall back on.

Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Do you honestly believe that Kerry's programs will only be funded by keeping Bush's tax cuts from becoming permanent and by cutting government waste?

The problems I have with this theory is that the Bush tax cuts are not yet permanent, so if they do not become permanent that money will be earmarked to other already in the works projects and then we will need to add more money to the till for Kerry's initiatives.
So...what you're saying is if Bush decides to repeal his own tax cuts, the health insurance would be more expensive? That's an interesting point.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 03-15-2004, 09:52 AM   #25 (permalink)
mml
Adrift
 
Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Do you honestly believe that Kerry's programs will only be funded by keeping Bush's tax cuts from becoming permanent and by cutting government waste?


No, I do not think that. In fact, I stated the fact that his numbers are a bit fuzzy and that I did not have all the figures. I will try to get some better numbers (if anyone has them please post them) but I am a bit busy today.

Quote:
[i]The problems I have with this theory is that the Bush tax cuts are not yet permanent, so if they do not become permanent that money will be earmarked to other already in the works projects and then we will need to add more money to the till for Kerry's initiatives. [/B]
So basically, if we make the Bush tax cuts permanent we will only sink deeper and deeper into defecit spending. The idea is to repeal the tax cuts in order to help afford the program. Will that happen - who know's?

What many of us like is that Kerry is stating that he wants to see a program by which most if not all Americans can get health insurance(not a new one, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton all thought this idea had merit). His concept will obviously require more money than we currently have coming into the system. The long term effect is that people, across the economic spectrum, will have an increased amount of money to spend, as they are not hindered by paying outrageous sums for health care and/or health insurance. We are a consumption economy and this will allow the people who actually drive the everyday economy to have better/some health care and more money to help drive the economy. Yes this is way over simplified.


edited cause I screwed up.
mml is offline  
Old 03-15-2004, 11:40 AM   #26 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by mml
What many of us like is that Kerry is stating that he wants to see a program by which most if not all Americans can get health insurance(not a new one, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton all thought this idea had merit). His concept will obviously require more money than we currently have coming into the system. The long term effect is that people, across the economic spectrum, will have an increased amount of money to spend, as they are not hindered by paying outrageous sums for health care and/or health insurance. We are a consumption economy and this will allow the people who actually drive the everyday economy to have better/some health care and more money to help drive the economy. Yes this is way over simplified.
Health care costs are not significantly weighing down the economic growth of our country. Alleviating the supposed health care pressure across the spectrum will in no possible way generate enough economic growth to offset the costs.

There are three possible ways to fund such a program:

1. Continued economic growth for the life of the program resulting in more tax revenue into government coffers.

2. Less spending on other government programs.

3. Increased taxes.

#'s 1 and 2 are both impossible to guarantee and, by historical standards, unlikely to occur.

That leaves #3.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 03-15-2004, 11:43 AM   #27 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Alleviating the supposed health care pressure across the spectrum will in no possible way generate enough economic growth to offset the costs.
Kind of like tax cuts
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 03-15-2004, 11:48 AM   #28 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Kind of like tax cuts
How many people in the US currently pay a significant amount towards healthcare costs versus the number who pay taxes?

As it stands, the vast majority of employees are provided with healthcare from their employees. They are responsible primarily for copayments.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 03-15-2004, 11:56 AM   #29 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
How many people in the US currently pay a significant amount towards healthcare costs versus the number who pay taxes?

As it stands, the vast majority of employees are provided with healthcare from their employees. They are responsible primarily for copayments.
When you consider that the bottom 40% of wage earners pay virtually 0 in income taxes, I'd say there's a fairly equal number of folks who this applies to.

As it stands, employees' premiums have gone up an average of 750 bucks over the last three years, not just their copay's, in what amounts to a "hidden tax". Not to mention the growing and worrying trend by chains such as Walmart to cut health benefits to their non-union workers.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 03-15-2004, 01:07 PM   #30 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
When you consider that the bottom 40% of wage earners pay virtually 0 in income taxes, I'd say there's a fairly equal number of folks who this applies to.

As it stands, employees' premiums have gone up an average of 750 bucks over the last three years, not just their copay's, in what amounts to a "hidden tax". Not to mention the growing and worrying trend by chains such as Walmart to cut health benefits to their non-union workers.
I'm not talking about growing trends here. I am talking about instant real contributions to a wage earner's disposable income.

How long will it take for a national healthcare system to save the consumer money? Tax cuts are instant, the "savings" you're looking at will take years to come to fruition, if ever.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 03-15-2004, 01:09 PM   #31 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
How many people in the US currently pay a significant amount towards healthcare costs versus the number who pay taxes?

As it stands, the vast majority of employees are provided with healthcare from their employees. They are responsible primarily for copayments.
I suppose 61% could be considered a "vast" majority, if you're bad at math. And that number is from 2002. 25.7% were covered by government health insurance(generally Medicaid and Medicare). 2003 just might have seen a continuation of the trend from 2001-2002. Numbers are from here.


Also, assuming that everyone between the ages of 16 and 65 in the US pays taxes, 65% of the US population pays taxes.
Edit: That link will be dead from approx. 5:00 to 6:00 PM EST today (monday 3/15) according to the US Census website.
__________________
it's quiet in here

Last edited by Kadath; 03-15-2004 at 01:24 PM..
Kadath is offline  
Old 03-16-2004, 01:59 AM   #32 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
As it stands, the vast majority of employees are provided with healthcare from their employees. They are responsible primarily for copayments.
I don't think this is true. According to my work experience, most of the people I know (they are service workers), and my text books, most of the labor force is being worked at under capacity (I may be using an econ term incorrectly, my apologies, but I'm a criminologist, not an economist).

A few people are promoted or hired as managers, but most service workers (in fact, only organized labor and small (family) businesses are an exception to this) only work as part-time workers. Now I don't know what events occurred first, I have my belief, but some workers need to work part-time since they have multiple jobs. The result is that corporations have multiple workers who perform the same job, they can deal with unreliable workers, they have high turnover rates, and very few full-time or well-paid employees. I have seen both ends of this spectrum: people only given 4-6 hours per week to intentionally only giving 36 hours so the worker doesn't qualify for company coverage.

None of those workers receive health care unless it's out of the kindness of the CEO's heart--AFAIK, CEO's can't really abide by their heart, however, because they are responsible for generating profit for their shareholders.

As to the cost of implementing a national health care plan:

Reasonable people can differ on this. I don't share your value of the dollar. I value the quality of my life in terms of health rather than money. I pay more for quality food, and I adhere to what I believe to be an extremely healhty diet. I pay more for quality merchandise, and I try to find locally produced goods or at least spend my money at locally owned stores. I'm willing to pay more for guaranteed health care. In fact, given that our medical care is top-notch, I'd be willing to pay as least as much as Candadians or Europeans. I've heard that our medical care ought to be the envy of the world--I just can't afford to buy any of it.
smooth is offline  
Old 03-16-2004, 02:34 AM   #33 (permalink)
Paq
Junkie
 
Paq's Avatar
 
Location: South Carolina
just an update, i went to the emergency room on xmas eve with flu/bronchitis mix. loads of fun. I received 1 litre of fluids, 1 motrin, 1 small vial of antibiotics, 2 xrays and 4 hrs of observation

i have 20/80 coverage wtih $200 deductible. I ended up owing $470 for one visit AFTER insurance paid almost $1000....and that was AFTER the insurance got a $500 discount that i would not have been able to get.

So really, with insurance, i still owe $470, without insurance, my bill would be almost $2000....

let's just say i'm glad i picked up 3rd party insurance a few months ago...
__________________
Live.

Chris
Paq is offline  
Old 03-16-2004, 05:05 PM   #34 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: st. louis
no wonder USto has left this is just turning into a bush bash eventually this is just going to be demicrats fighting within their party
__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt
fuzyfuzer is offline  
Old 03-16-2004, 05:08 PM   #35 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
That was very coherent and useful.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
 

Tags
negative

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:07 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360