So doctors, who incur ridiculous debt to go to school ...then scrape by on nothing for years while they intern ...then hopefully get a job that actually pays before they're 30 should work for free? All this to have a job that could very likely get them sued for millions?

You'll find the number of doctors fall like a rock, if any at all.

People don't mind spending $100/mo for cell phones, $50/mo for high speed internet, $400/mo for a car they don't need, $??? for alcohol and makeup and designer clothes ...but it's immoral for doctors to charge? You said doctors should not make a profit, guess you want to keep that money in the hands of the people to pay for useless crap.

Makes no sense. Get your priorities straight.

 

You implied that rich people did not earn the SS payments, do you really think so?

By making the statement you infer that they are taking away from what others should get.

 

Why doesn't this surprise me? But why stop there? Why not let you keep your tax money, and then YOU can decide whether or not you want to educate your children?

They system you describe allows affluent people to opt out of the public school system, leaving the school districts with a MANDATE to educate everyone else, including those students who are less gifted, those who speak little or no English, those who have less educated parents. That's not competing on a level playing field -- it's more expensive to teach children under those conditions. People like you would then be quick to point out that the public schools get poorer results, with more money per student. Ultimately, the public school system would cease to exist.

 

Yes, but what I hear you saying is that government is incapable of doing it right, not that it isn't doing it right. That's your mantra.

 

I doubt that he was referring to doctors making money. He was referring to insurance companies, who do NOT treat sick people, who add no value, and who make money by denying people coverage.

 

Huh! Think what you are saying! Doctors do make money under socialized medicine. Doctors are highly respected for the talent and skill they provide.

How well they can provide their services and how to give the most effective service is the priority of the agency which oversees their services and PLANS the effective provision of health care!

Health care really only for the wealthy is not fair!

 

I've come to the conclusion that I have been wrong about Joe Liberman for many years. I watched a video clip of him opposing the public insurance option this morning and he completely contradicted himself. It was obvious to me he's actually more interested in grand standing and trying to be a big shot than he is in solving problems.

 

How ridiculous.

How does an insurance company MAKE money from refusing coverage. Most insurance companies are owned by the policy owners, they pay for losses according to a set of conditions set forth in the various policies.

Therefore to deny coverage, the claim must be outside of the conditions set forth. If an insurance company violates the conditions, they are in violation of their charter.

So if the insurance companies refuse to pay a claim, they are SAVING the policy owners money, not MAKING money.

 

tenguy, you're intelligent enough that you just might have an ace up your sleeve here. I am under the impression that insurance companies are like any other companies, and that they distinguish between customers, employees, and stock holders.

 

Insurance companies make money by selling policies, and by NOT paying on claims. You're average insurance company has scads of employees dedicated to the job of selling policies, and a few people whose cushy job it is to deny claims. And that's what makes the executives and stockholders happy.

 

I think Lieberman has got the red ass over what he perceives to be disrespect on the part of Democrats. They dared to criticize him for his position on Iraq, and then they dared to run a primary opponent against him. The whole thing drove him right into the arms of the Republican Party, out of nothing but spite and malice.

Good riddance, if you ask me. What they should do now is what they should have done then -- strip him of all of his committee assignments. Let him caucus with his new friends, and see how he fares in his next election.

 

And lest we forget Wendell Potter when you started this thread explained exactly how denying claims and getting unhealthy people out of their insurance pool is a key to keeping their stock prices up on Wall Street.

I agree. I've come to see him as a complete phony that is really acting out of nothing more than his own ego and desire to make headlines for being an obstructionist.

Like I said he completely contradicted himself this morning and sounded like a fool to me.

 

One can say the same thing about Ralph Nader. When he published Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile in 1965, and for about a decade later, he scared our corporate masters half to death.

If Nader had not run in 2000 Al Gore would have been elected. 9/11 may have happened, but the invasion of Iraq and the tax cuts for the rich, which together did serious damage to the economy, would not have happened.

Lieberman and Nader are like over the hill boxers, who were contenders long ago, and who do not know when it it time to retire.

 

More if only's and what if's.

 

Oh they earned them alright. Should they take them back? I don't think so. The main reason being that they really don't need it. It really doesn't provide security to them like it does others.

 

And if Carter and Clinton hadn't been such pussies, 9/11 never would have happened. And if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. If, if, if.

Actually, I like Joe Leiberman. He seems to be the only senator left who considers his duty to his constituents and the country to outweigh his committment to party dogma, and thinks it's more important to tell the truth than to score political points. If the Gore/Leiberman ticket had been reversed, they would have had my vote.