Texas capped the malpractice insurance to 1/2 mil.  But the cost didn't come down.  Hehe.

That is still being argued in courts by LAWYERS and the ACLU, who are afraid of losing all that money.

Surely, the decision will not come until the U.S. Supreme makes a ruling.  (Months to Years down the road of argument, and after some more lawyers stretch the argument out making money all along the way.)

True, the state did place that cap in Texas courts (not in effect yet: see above).

We already live in that society. Everyone already should earn a taxable income.

But some people don't.

But the utopian society where everybody *SHOULD* earn a taxable income already exists.

Canadian here.

Okay healtcare in canada is not the best in the world and anyone can know this. But I do know that the top 5 contries with the best healtcare rated systems in the world are Japan, Taiwan, Switserland, Germany and soem otehr contry I forget. All of those contries prior to havign the now best heatl care in the world had private for profit healthcare systems like the U.S. currently does. In their process for fixing their healthcare they all looked at teh Canadian healtcare system as others around the world and based their new system on those example whill fixing the problems they had. So they wetn from beignt he worth to beign the best prety much, all of those contries adopted healthcare systems were everyone was covered equaly.

in Canada our healtcare has 2 major problems, one is a Canadian problem the otehr is caused by the U.S. havign a for profit healthcare system.

Problem 1: Beauracracy, paper pushers, the Canadian problem, these represent a to substantical amount of cost. Thsi section of the healt care department in Canada is absorbing to many funds thus reducing the funds available for treatment. Currently last I saw in Canada the beauracracy is consumming 15% of the healtcare funds. In comparison Switserland onyl has a beauracracy cost of about 5% of the healtcare fund. They have the msot stramlined beauracracy.

Problem 2: Shortage of doctor, the U.S. problem, canada is experiencing a shortage of doctors for the simple reason that Canada is not the contry were doctors have the biggest paycheck. We can't afford such a big paycheck if we want to be able to care for all. However the U.S. is the BIGGEST pay check int he world if you are a doctor because it's a for profit privately own uncontroled system. Competition is feirce for for hospitals to higher doctors and give them the biggest fattes paycheck. Hell that is what you pay for the most in the U.S. system is the paycheck of your doctor and not the threatment he is giving you. So for that doctors beign people they go to the U.S. to make mroe money. So in the end if the U.S. were to reform their healtcare system and bring it under control it would fix half the problems in Canada.

The opposition to Obamas healtcare reform liek to point at the flaws of the Canadian system but they sure won't tell you what causes some of those flaws. And why would they, your best interest is not their best intrest, taking your money is their best interest. Private healtcare is not there to serve you it's there to get payed by you. Their just like you TV and Phone compagny if you don't pay they cut you lose, if you need healtcare that means your sicks and dieing and got no money they throuw you out in the street to die. Public healtcare system is there to serve you like the police or the fire department. Their like a family or none lucrative organisation, they will help you the best they can and trat you equaly to everyone else.

I can tell you I prefer a public healtcare system over a privete for profit one. Even if I have to wait atleast I will recive threatment and get taken cared ofve.

 Food for thought: Cuba has a better healthcare system then the U.S. and it's a 3rd world contry. Were as the U.S. system is one of the worst rated if not the worst.

That supports my claim that not everybody contributes. But it doesn't answer my question.

Shall we see if we can find stats on who voted for whom?

I remember that Draginol posted statistics that showed the percentage of tax payers and who they voted for.

If that isn't the proof that performance at work requires money & healthy conditions, nothing else ever will. We either live to be exploited or HAVE TO suffer trying to gain enough to simply survive when a specific 1% holds control of resources that most (as in extremely VAST majority) can't afford.

Your stashed fortunes already killed plenty.

BTW, the top 20% may have 50% of the "financial wealth" (though I'm dubious on how that amount is measured as it's extremely subjective).

But the top 20% pay about 80% of the federal taxes. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html) an amount that isn't subjective.

So one can easily make the argument that the wealthiest are already paying, even by the left's highly subjective valuation, more than their fair share of the taxes right now.

Also, most of the rich movie stars are NOT republicians.

That is true and it manifests in your society in many paradoxical actions -  on a local, personal level as well as on a global, geopolitical level. I don't want to elaborate because that will only invite hate speech. A rather harmless one: Freedom is (as I understand it) one of the american key values - yet you have the world's highest prison population, even higher than russia, which has plenty of political prisoners.

Politics is merely a way for a society to determine how to act as a whole. Political parties claim for themselves to fight for a certain set of values and goals and promise for a vote to accomplish their objectives. Occasionally it's wise to check if the party of your choice still acts upon their promise of if their values are still the same as yours.

I suppose you hint at communism? Is that what a public option sounds like to you? Taxing is confiscating property?

I never understood how that can be. Are 40% of americans unemployed or illegal immigrants?

HR 3200 doesn't state anywhere that private insurers will be outlawed. I can't point you to the exact page where it doesn't stand, but I'm pretty sure. Further, Obama stressed the point that the public option will be an option. You are one of the 13 out of 15 people with health insurance and are happy with it? Keep it. 

What I'm not sure about is if you have private insurance you don't have to pay the extra health care tax - like in germany.

I also don't know what happens to the non-illegal americans that don't pay taxes (due to reasons I don't understand yet). In germany, social welfare pays for the public health insurance. And yes, it's a drag on the federal budget, which gives heavy incentives to the state to get them working again.

They are advertised as moral. They usually stop being moral when you have a different opinion than your government. Let's say there are at least two different readings in operation Iraqi Freedom.

If both sides act on their beliefs then both sides act moral - even if the other side disagrees. This is not a statement anyone can refute. But this again comes down to the values - for only if you act according to your values (whatever they are) you act moral. Moral behaviour is highly subjective. Values on the other hand are absolute.

Everyone can ask himself this question: How many Little Match Girls are you willing to save?

1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.

If private insurers can't enroll new people, how do they stay in business?

*edit*

Okay, looked a bit more and I was wrong, the media has been running wild with this section.

The way new policies are created after Y1 is in participation in a "health insurance exchange." In spite of its unusual wording, as I suspected the bill goes on to explain how it's possible to keep creating those private policies.

So instead of focusing on this claim we should shift instead to what in the hell is a health insurance exchange and how will it affect things?

Obscenitor may be correct that insurers, under this language, can not enroll new members in existing non-qualifying benefit plans, but may be able to enroll (? roll over) members to new, qualifying plans which meet the requirements of the exchange after Y1.  This may mean that, technically, they aren't being denied new policyholders, just being told they will have to offer the same set of benefits as every other insurance company, no more no less, after Y1, and force those prior, so-called non-qualifying plans to wither on the vine.  Presumably, this would also prohibit anyone from buying a so-called 'rich benefits' plan after Y1.  

However, this clearly means that you or I would not be able to 'keep our existing plan' indefinitely, particularly if the insurer looked at the exchange qualification requirements & said screw it, we're outta here.  This is a classic example of 'having it both ways' - but the ultimate effect would be to make offering private insurance less attractive, which I believe is the objective.  Actually, I don't have to believe it, it's what Obama, Frank and a bunch of others have openly proclaimed is the objective.  Where's the incentive to compete when the referee's in the game & you know he intends for you to lose?

Whatever the end result, there's not a chance in hell it will be what candidate Obama said he was going to fight for as president: that everyone have a plan just as good as the one he had as a senator.