LadyJazzer wrote: You talk as if ALL doctors are refusing Medicare, when it's a very, VERY tiny percentage...
You got PROOF?...You got a SOURCE, (other than the usual teabagger talking-points)?.... Put it up... Oh, wait... You don't believe in sources.
I wouldn't use sources either if all anyone ever complained about was the source, rather than whether the content has merit or not. Our system in general is sick and there's no partisan solution and there's no single partisan cause either, and no, you haven't seen the last Republican president of our lifetimes because the Democrats are screwing up just as badly.
archer wrote: Yep.... I paid into medicare all my working life to pay for others.... I also paid into BC/BS for decades without using it much and that too paid for others who used it more, that is how insurance works. Far different than paying for those who don't have any insurance through higher costs for medical care.
Medicare isn't insurance - it is an annual appropriation of tax revenue by Congress. None of the taxes you paid were to care for you, all of it was to care for others who were no longer employed. You had a contract with BC/BS, you have no such contract with the federal government. BC/BS owed you a benefit as a result of that contract, the current taxpayers owe you nothing. That, whether you like it or not, is the reality of Medicare.
One wonders if we will ever see the day when Americans will stop falling for the hostage-taking narrative consistently put forward by those whose job it is to defend the indefensible. At the first suggestion of finally putting a chink in Wal-Mart’s policy of profiting at the taxpayers’ expense—a practice that should have every American thinking about what passes for free-enterprise in the United States today—the response is to always threaten to take away jobs if we dare to challenge their business practices, even if those practices cost us billions.
What I always find fascinating is that the very people who are so critical of the subsidies provided by Obamacare to lower-earning Americans (how many times have these people reminded us that “someone is paying for these subsidies”) never seem to have much of a problem with the subsidies we pay to support Wal-Mart’s massive profits by picking up the healthcare tab for so many of the company’s employees. But then, those who support taxpayers doing the job that Wal-Mart should be doing tend to be the same folks who are quick to suggest that nobody is forcing workers to take a job at Wal-Mart. Apparently, these people are operating under the opinion that a Wal-Mart worker earning below the federal poverty level wouldn’t readily move to a better paying job if such a job were available to that worker.
Gee...Truer words were never spoken.... Y'all get out your official AynRand pocketbooks and insert your favorite Grover Norquist talking-points here: ________________.
I can hardly wait for other states to start passing the same laws.
Wal-Mart's policies don't cost anyone anything. It is the desire of collectivits to take from some and redistribute it to others that has the price tag attached to it, not Wal-Mart's business model. If the taxpayer doesn't wish to foot the bill, then they should be electing representatives to government who won't constantly be raiding their pockets to provide for the individual welfare of others at their expense.
