Sicko

[slappy's son]

Universal health care in other countries is a nightmare!! How would you like to make a doctor's appointment for something that's hurting you, and they tell you the earliest they can see you is 6 months!!???? THAT'S what's happening in other countries. Then, since the costs are regulated, the good doctors are leaving for other practices. They cannot simply charge what they are worth, so they leave. What you get is the run-of-the mill G.Ps. Is THAT who you want to go to for a serious issue? Not me. Universal healthcare run by the government would be a nightmare, and an end to medical care as we know it. And the costs are astronomical, as is everything the government handles themselves. Say "NO" to universal healthcare!!

[flarendep1]

I just saw this film by Michael Moore and am curious as to why we don't have national health care in this country....I mean shit if we are the richest country in the world why cant we treat our sick people without breaking them a new asshole

PEACE

Marty, I wonder how much Michael Moore donated to the poor in our country for health care seeing how he has made millions with his propaganda? Maybe he spent it at MacDonalds??

[tonynico]

I dont think they bailed out many homeowners.I read a report that it's homeowners who bought a house from 2005-2007,was not late on payments and people who are capable of affording the higher rate.So the 750,000 homeowners it was supposed to help is now around 250,000.

I think it sucks that they would bail out one, but I also see the bigger picture. The dates you mention are correct, not late on preadjusted payments too. I also think they are trying to make sure it's only owner-occupied houses too. I don't agree with the "people who are capable of affording the higher rate". If they could afford it, they wouldn't need to get bailed out.
And here's my biggest complaint about it. This scenario is very real. You have a fixed rate mortgage while your neighbor irresponsibly bought on an exotic mortgage. They are now going to freeze his for 5 years. So what happens if rates go up and you need to move and buy a different home? You will now be paying more (all the while doing the responsible thing) while someone is getting their lower rate frozed for 5 years. No fairness there at all.

[vols fan]

I think it sucks that they would bail out one, but I also see the bigger picture. The dates you mention are correct, not late on preadjusted payments too. I also think they are trying to make sure it's only owner-occupied houses too. I don't agree with the "people who are capable of affording the higher rate". If they could afford it, they wouldn't need to get bailed out.
And here's my biggest complaint about it. This scenario is very real. You have a fixed rate mortgage while your neighbor irresponsibly bought on an exotic mortgage. They are now going to freeze his for 5 years. So what happens if rates go up and you need to move and buy a different home? You will now be paying more (all the while doing the responsible thing) while someone is getting their lower rate frozed for 5 years. No fairness there at all.

I agree.Time for these people to trade in there Lexus and BMWs they have been driving instead of saving up for the adjustment.

[BettorsChat]

Marty, I wonder how much Michael Moore donated to the poor in our country for health care seeing how he has made millions with his propaganda? Maybe he spent it at MacDonalds??

He's actually paid for peoples health care that had no insurance. There has been numerous ones that he's done this for.

[BettorsChat]

I dont think they bailed out many homeowners.I read a report that it's homeowners who bought a house from 2005-2007,was not late on payments and people who are capable of affording the higher rate.So the 750,000 homeowners it was supposed to help is now around 250,000.

I thought it was more like 1.2 million people?

[BettorsChat]

I just saw this film by Michael Moore and am curious as to why we don't have national health care in this country....I mean shit if we are the richest country in the world why cant we treat our sick people without breaking them a new asshole

PEACE

There should be any reason that the 47+ million cannot have health care coverage. I'm talking about health care for those that can't afford it. Not a plan for everyone that has it already.

Both Democrats and Republicans passed a bill for children, but Georgie Boy vetoed it, because it didn't have war funds in it.

[tonynico]

There should be any reason that the 47+ million cannot have health care coverage. I'm talking about health care for those that can't afford it. Not a plan for everyone that has it already.

Both Democrats and Republicans passed a bill for children, but Georgie Boy vetoed it, because it didn't have war funds in it.

That's funny. But I do think he vetoed it after increasing the SChip budget by 5 billion, and the Democrats wanted 50 billion. He vetoed it b/c of fiscally irresponsibility. A little late though if you ask me!

[BettorsChat]

That's funny. But I do think he vetoed it after increasing the SChip budget by 5 billion, and the Democrats wanted 50 billion. He vetoed it b/c of fiscally irresponsibility. A little late though if you ask me!

Explain what's funny? You mean Bush vetoing a bill that both Democrats and Republicans agreed on, because there wasn't War funds in there?

I guess both D and R were both fiscally irresponsible.

Gee I can't believe that we can't afford health care for children when were the richest Country in the World. Not to mention spending $1.6 trillion on a war and climbing.

[tonynico]

Explain what's funny? You mean Bush vetoing a bill that both Democrats and Republicans agreed on, because there wasn't War funds in there?

I guess both D and R were both fiscally irresponsible.

Gee I can't believe that we can't afford health care for children when were the richest Country in the World. Not to mention spending $1.6 trillion on a war and climbing.

I thought your comment about not including war funding in the Schip bill was funny!
Yes, both D and R were irresponsible in my opinion. Not just one side. But one side did want 50 billion and came "down" to 35 to be "closer" to the Presidents 5 billion increase.
And I'll write it again. Many (myself included) assert we can't afford the war and adds to future debt to our children/grandchildren. So how can we supposedly use that money (which we can't afford) for universal health care?

[Celtics86]

Again, I don't have enough knowledge to speak on the health care.
But if the government didn't bail out homeowners today, there would be devastation in this country. Do you know the financial obligations the government has committed? Medicare, SSI, prescriptions, etc. These are MASSIVE programs. I believe in the US, but I don't think we can grow ourselves out of it either. The US has gone from a manufacturing nation to a nation of outsourcing. What do we produce anymore? Tech is the future and most of those jos are overseas, so they already have a head start. And I agree it doesn't sound to good, and tough decisions are going to have to be made to meet those obligations.

Less than 5 percent of all tax dollars go to welfare and food stamps.... Programs, are not where all your damn money is going.......

[tonynico]

Less than 5 percent of all tax dollars go to welfare and food stamps.... Programs, are not where all your damn money is going.......

And I wrote welfare and food stamps where?

[Celtics86]

Marty, I wonder how much Michael Moore donated to the poor in our country for health care seeing how he has made millions with his propaganda? Maybe he spent it at MacDonalds??

You how much Moore donated? No shit you wonder... If you weren't really afraid of the truth, you might do the research and find out for yourself..... But no, it's easier to just on BC and talk trash and make completely absurd Limbuaghish comments..
You are calling Moore a propagandist....... You feel the way you do because you have fallen into believing the tv propaganda.... You attack someone for trying to help people... That is what is so sick about this right wing christian pharasee movement..... It's the pride you take in wishing everyone a hard time. When someone actually does something good, you say they did wrong. When someone has proof that your conservative leader might have lied, you don't believe it. Go back to the rest of the herd, you sheep.

[BigWeiner]

I thought your comment about not including war funding in the Schip bill was funny!
Yes, both D and R were irresponsible in my opinion. Not just one side. But one side did want 50 billion and came "down" to 35 to be "closer" to the Presidents 5 billion increase.
And I'll write it again. Many (myself included) assert we can't afford the war and adds to future debt to our children/grandchildren. So how can we supposedly use that money (which we can't afford) for universal health care?

There's a difference with spending trillions on bombs that vanish into thin air, or spending trillions on healthcare, social security, schools etc. The later actually benefits this country.

[tonynico]

Where the money goes

Do you wonder what your tax dollars buy? As the deadline for filing federal income taxes rolls around again this year, you may well wonder where those hard-earned bucks you've forked over to Uncle Sam actually go. The answer might surprise you.

This year the federal government expects a haul of about $2.7 trillion -- give or take a couple hundred billion or so, depending on the economy, corporate profits and Wall Street and of course, how honest everyone filing a return is.

The Biggest Chunk is Already Spent

In theory, at least, the White House and Congress work together -- or battle it out -- to decide how to divvy up every dollar paid to the federal government. In fact, most of it is already as good as spent.

About 70 percent of the annual budget pays for commitments already incurred -- everything from Social Security benefits to interest on the national debt. Neither President Bush nor Congress has much say over that.

The Social Safety Net

The biggest single chunk of that so-called nondiscretionary spending -- more than 20 percent of the total budget -- is used to pay Social Security benefits to existing retirees.

Another 15 percent pays the tab for Medicare health benefits. An additional 7 percent goes for Medicaid, 3 percent for veterans benefits and 1.3 percent for supplemental security income used to assist the aged, disabled and blind.

All types of aid to the needy -- Medicaid, housing subsidies, aid to poor families with children (welfare, which accounts for about 1 percent of the budget), food stamps, school lunches and so on, plus unemployment benefits -- account for about 16 percent of the budget.

In fact, all government payments to individuals amount to about 58 percent of the budget. That's twice the share of the budget such payments claimed 40 years ago. And the percentage continues to climb -- giving those pushing reform of such entitlement programs a powerful argument.

The National Debt

Interest on the debt claims about 10 percent of the budget. When President Bush took office, the national debt was $5.6 trillion, but deficits have pushed that number closer to $9 trillion today.


Where's the red ink coming from? Depends on who you ask: Democrats blame Bush's tax cuts and wasted defense spending. Republicans say that's not so, claiming that Bush's tax cuts boosted the economy and increased revenue. They blame increased deficits on wasteful social programs and spending necessary to fight the war on terrorism.

The Military's Slice of the Pie

The military gets the biggest piece of what's left -- the 30 percent of the budget called discretionary spending because it's the part of the budget that Congress and the White House can control from year to year.

About two-thirds of this spending (20 percent of the total budget) pays for the tanks, jets, ships, missiles, rifles and other paraphernalia of defense, not to mention the salaries of our country's soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. In the next fiscal year, which begins on Oct. 1, this will amount to nearly $600 billion, possibly more if costs in Iraq and Afghanistan climb higher than expected.

Some big-ticket Defense Department projects, such as purchase of new combat fighter jets, Navy shipbuilding and space weapons research, may be trimmed in light of the war costs. But that would barely dent the Pentagon's share of the overall budget, especially with more funds sure to be added to support medical and other needs of Iraq war veterans.

You might think a fifth of the federal government's total spending is a lot to put into defense. But in comparison to some earlier periods in our country's history, it's actually a smaller share. During President Ronald Reagan's defense buildup, the military claimed 26 percent of the budget. And at the height of the Vietnam War in 1968, 46 cents of every tax dollar Americans paid was for defense.

Of the remaining discretionary spending, the Department of Homeland Security claims about 1.5 percent of the budget, or $43 billion. Foreign aid spending, though it raises the ire of many taxpayers, accounts for just half of one percent and is likely to be reduced by Congress even further.

And Everything Else

The last 8.5 percent of Uncle Sam's budget pays for everything else: Transportation -- federal highways and bridges, support for Amtrak, funds to help states with other roads, bridges, railroads, airports and so on.

Science and medical research. Food and drug safety. Guarding the environment. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Export promotion. Import protections. Space exploration. Air traffic controllers. The FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the rest of the Justice Department. Federal education funding.

And an alphabet soup of federal agencies tasked with helping to keep Americans safe, healthy and, sad to say, honest -- from the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) to the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) to the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission).

And when all is said and done, the $2.7-trillion tax revenues aren't enough to pay all of Uncle Sam's bills. This year, the federal government will spend about $200 billion more than it will take in.

Next year, the deficit will run about $300 billion. Coincidentally, that's just about the same amount that the government figures it's being stiffed by individuals and companies who don't pay all the taxes they owe, either by intent or by error.

Copyrighted, Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc.