 I guess she can't keep a SECRET.
hypocrisies?!?!?!? this is the GOP!!!!ELEVENTYONE!!1!!
if you haven't seen a trend in the 10 house owning man who calls his opponent elitist, or the son of a president who runs as an outsider, or the party of oppression of women complaining about sexism, or the party of racism complaining about the race card, or the party that had special purple heart band-aids to mock a wounded war hero so they could vote for one the next year, or the party that declares that their theme is service so they can make fun of community service, or the party where a man can use someone else's sex life for gain while leaving his 3rd wife on her deathbed, or the party that campaigns on anti-gay platforms right up until they are caught having gay sex, or.....
lets face it, i could go on ALL DAY and still not have to reach back to before 1995.
ethics, honor, and morality are not their "do best" k?
 How many multi-millionaire democratic congressman and senators hire tax attorneys and CPAs to avoid paying "too much" tax? Why doesn't Obama and his wife give a little extra in taxes since they make several million dollars a year?
If they really believed that the rich should pay more, why don't they?
You're apparently unaware of how our tax structure works...
Income up to $8,025 is taxed at 10%.
From $8,026 to $32,550 is taxed at 15%.
From $32,551 up to $78,850 is taxed at 25%.
From $78,851 to $164,550 is taxed at 28%.
Anything over $164,550 is taxed at 33%.
The point being... our tax structure is set up so that people that make a lot of money do, in fact, pay a little more if they aren't cheating the system.
Lets look at a party whose mantra is "tax the rich, they don't pay enough"...
...If they really believed that the rich should pay more, why don't they?
Ah, the old "build an extreme parody of the other guy's position, then call him a hypocrite for not conforming with it" trick, that's the third time I've fallen for it this week.
btw - if you have a look at the 2006 tax details Steen linked to, you'll see the Obamas gave over $5,000 per month to charities in 2006, that could be seen as voluntarily "paying more tax".
Hello nibbler, whatever happened to your former id "chesty"?
Your post certainly makes me feel fear for that oppressed and suffering minority, the billionaires should Obama come to power. However the super rich can take comfort from the fact that before the current downturn, though they amount to less than 1% of the working population, they appear to the only group in US society, that was better off than they were at the start of the Bush presidency. So I think they will get by.
______________________- Lets cut to the TRUTH. Business and Business interests run the USA. So those high rollers and their allies (GOP) will not do any thing that will hurt the bottom line on the profit sheet.
If you work for a paycheck, you are not part of the elite. So if you don't get to make the choices about where or how the company spends it's money, why would you vote (GOP). You are working for the "MAN" that gets the Tax breaks.  Must be.
Your post certainly makes me feel fear for that oppressed and suffering minority, the billionaires should Obama come to power.... though they amount to less than 1% of the working population.
Is the problem really that "the government needs to collect more taxes"?
Why isn't "more efficient first" the better choice?
from "Mc Cain picks running mate"
The point of the McKinsey report is that the US spends a lot more than other OECD countries for outcomes that are... often worse than theirs. It is not unreasonable to conclude that there must be a better way.
PS: Your statement "the US spends a lot more than other OECD countries for outcomes that are... often worse" easily supports the premise that spending more does not mean "better."
FYI: To find out if a doctor bills for more than 24 hours of work in a day (as an example), you need to take all the cases (patients) he worked on, and add up the hours billed for each case (unless the doctor bills something like "yesterday I worked for 27 hours on a patient, and today I worked on the same patient for 27 hours also").
Gee... maybe fraud and waste aren't all that bad.
"Liberal" Idiot: If the government is allowed to search all medical records (claims) to investigate the billions of dollars of fraud and waste in medical care, then the invasion of privacy will be even worse than wire-tapping. Just spend more money without looking where it goes!!! It's the right thing to do!
I'm pretty sure it's because our politicians are greedy bastards who allow their votes to be bought by special interest groups who have no interest in efficiency since those they represent are the ones who directly benefit from government waste?
You seem to be unaware of how this works. They can already investigate medical claims. That's what that paper you sign that authorizes your doctor/hospital/whatever to release records to your insurance is for. If you want to file a claim, you have to give that authorization. No way around it.
But it's votes that the politicians really want, and "the public" (voters) already know about fraud and waste in health care programs like Medicare. The news has even revealed "other countries get better health care without spending as much money."
You seem to be unaware of how this works. They already can investigate medical claims. That's what that paper you sign that authorizes your doctor/hospital/whatever to release records to your insurance is for. If you want to file a claim, you have to give that authorization. No way around it.
They don't "investigate" medical claims. The government looks at the claim: Is the name in a database? Is the ID number in a database? Is the hospital approved for the service? Is that a service we pay for? Ok! Give them the money!!!
Second, you sign to give the hospital/physicians access to your records (so they can get their money). If they're the ones scamming the system, then having them report fraud is like the fox guarding the hen house.
Currently, the government trusts the hospitals and physicians. The government doesn't say "we want to verify that patient _x_ received this list of treatments on the following dates" -- partly because the patient is supposed to authorize access to records first. Only if criminal charges are filed can the government ask for medical records (subpoena).
The total benefits paid per individual is only thing the government keeps track of (so they know when to stop paying).
There's no national medical record database yet, and one point of concern is the risk of such a system being compromised and violating privacy rights (which is a legitimate concern).
With respect to US health care, a major problem (IMNSHO) is the "we-can't-let-them-die" mentality. As a cynic, my question to the hospitals/physicians is: Do you care about the patients, or are you using them to get every dime you can from the government, the insurance companies, and everyone else?
Only ASM could describe the culture of waste and fraud that has flourished for 8 years under the Bush regime, then blame it all on "liberal idiots".
Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it.
Bwahahahaa... try getting a physician to treat you without singing forms to allow the release of records to your insurance company (which includes Medicare and Medicaid) so that they can submit claims. Some doctors will do it, but then you will pay every cent of the bill and you'll hav to submit the claims to your insurance company on your own. The insurance companies (including Medicare/Medicaid) will promptly send you a form to sign that gives them authorization to access your records. Until you sign that form, they won't pay your claim.
Look... the fact that Medicare and Medicaid can investigate a claim does not mean that they do. Indeed, most of the time, they don't. This arrangement is very profitable for the medical groups that do this sort of thing, and they pay lobbyists to get congress to make sure that any legislation passed will keep them profitable.
Do you really believe that it's the "liberal idiots" concerned with privacy who keep things the way they are now, ensuring that money flows from government medical programs to the medical industry?
... and the money goes to BOTH Republicans and Democrats.
If you plan to vote against Republicans because they accept lots of lobbyist money, you better vote Ralph Nader for President because the Democrats "accept lots of money" also.
Part II: The Daily KOS Said Better Things About Republicans?
"The bad news is that Republican senators and Congress people are all over this, while Democratic politicians remain to be seen and heard from. Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, lead the way in predicting upcoming hearings into bedeviled Medicare, a $466 billion program.
What's being done to address the mess? Once again, it's Republican