PDA

View Full Version : November



J Hoggatt
03-21-2010, 09:40 PM
November will come..............

It is up to us to take our government back......

BonMallari
03-21-2010, 09:59 PM
I hope you are correct, a lot of Congresspeople sold out and prostituted their vote for a handful of gold. I was very proud of the speech John Boehner delivered....but how a guy like Bart Stupak can claim he is pro life but yet vote for legislation that will essentially fund what he is opposed to...

I hope that the anger that the American public has for their elected officials translates to voting incumbents out of office in the fall....unfortunately we are just as guilty for having put many of these "public servants" in office by the way we have voted or not voted in the past

the Democrats may have won the battle but the American people lost in a big way tonight

waterdogutah
03-21-2010, 10:13 PM
Nov. will come.....just not soon enough!

Henry V
03-21-2010, 10:42 PM
Health care reform - check
Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act - check
Removing Barriers to Responsible Research with Human Stem Cells - check
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - check
Rededicated mission for success in Afghanistan - check
Continued success in Iraq - check
Continued and renewed actions to prevent great depression - check
Banks repaying bailouts - check
Reinstating PayGo principles - check
Beginning stages of recovery from the great recession - check
Jobs bill - check
Energy bill - to be determined
Earmark reform - to be determined
Immigration reform - to be determined

Yes, November will be interesting and it is still 6 months away. 2012 even more so.

Franco
03-22-2010, 06:42 AM
November will come..............

It is up to us to take our government back......

What's going to happen in November? Both parties are just as gulity with mismanaging the country and has been for the last 60 years.

The only way we may ever see some real change is if an Independent willing to shrink the Fed Government were to get elected President as well as voters throwing 90% of those in Congress out on thier ears.

dnf777
03-22-2010, 06:54 AM
What's going to happen in November? Both parties are just as gulity with mismanaging the country and has been for the last 60 years.

The only way we may ever see some real change is if an Independent willing to shrink the Fed Government were to get elected President as well as voters throwing 90% of those in Congress out on thier ears.

Couldn't agree more!

Did anyone else find Boehner's speech a little "howard deen-ish"? Or a little "chicken-little-ish"?

He really has no room to complain, as he and his party had 6 (really 8) years to bring about change, and failed to act. The Amercian people did act to "re-take their government", but unfortunately, put the wrong replacements in.

Terry Britton
03-22-2010, 07:17 AM
A big part of the problem is how we get canidates for such meager pay. We should use conscription to obtain canidates, and vote in the best of the best. The best of the best do not want the jobs because they are running big corporations or their own very succesful businesses. These guys will be competitive enough to do a great job if they were forced into office. :)

Imagine the possibilities.

Goose
03-22-2010, 08:38 AM
Health care reform - check
Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act - check
Removing Barriers to Responsible Research with Human Stem Cells - check
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - check
Rededicated mission for success in Afghanistan - check
Continued success in Iraq - check
Continued and renewed actions to prevent great depression - check
Banks repaying bailouts - check
Reinstating PayGo principles - check
Beginning stages of recovery from the great recession - check
Jobs bill - check
Energy bill - to be determined
Earmark reform - to be determined
Immigration reform - to be determined

Yes, November will be interesting and it is still 6 months away. 2012 even more so.

Are you delusional? If not then why don't you tell us where all the money to pay for this crap is coming from.

In February our nation took in $107 billion, but spent $328 billion. Now I know big numbers make leftists dizzy but if you get your calculator out you'll see that's a $221 billion shortfall...in just one freaking month!

If your neighbor earns $107 a month but spends $328 a month would you loan him money? Would anybody on this board loan him money? Any of you lefties? Our debt rolls every 4 years or so and that disaster is just around the turn. Hell, it's no wonder Obama bows to all the global leaders. We owe them a ton of money...and we'll never, ever repay it.

The country is bankrupt and all you want to do is print/borrow and spend? We're on a death train to hell.

We live in Cuba now.

zeus3925
03-22-2010, 09:14 AM
A big part of the problem is how we get canidates for such meager pay. We should use conscription to obtain canidates, and vote in the best of the best. The best of the best do not want the jobs because they are running big corporations or their own very succesful businesses. These guys will be competitive enough to do a great job if they were forced into office. :)

Imagine the possibilities.

Not to mention the vilification and crap they are taking. Would you like to run ? Not me!

david gibson
03-22-2010, 09:56 AM
i am just sick. i am sick of hearing the dems say how this is a win for the american people and insult the republicans that are against it when the majority of americans are against it as well!

bush had - still has - more class in his pinkie toenail that obama and pelosi combined. it is so classless for a president to point fingers and call out names like he does.

such a divisive matter should not be settled like this when the majority of americans are against it and it wins by the skin of its teeth by last minute deals and arm-twisting, and who knows what else.

and if you think federal funds wont ever be used for abortion in this bill you are delusional. Stupak sold out to save face, thats all.

YardleyLabs
03-22-2010, 10:18 AM
Are you delusional? If not then why don't you tell us where all the money to pay for this crap is coming from.

In February our nation took in $107 billion, but spent $328 billion. Now I know big numbers make leftists dizzy but if you get your calculator out you'll see that's a $221 billion shortfall...in just one freaking month!

If your neighbor earns $107 a month but spends $328 a month would you loan him money? Would anybody on this board loan him money? Any of you lefties? Our debt rolls every 4 years or so and that disaster is just around the turn. Hell, it's no wonder Obama bows to all the global leaders. We owe them a ton of money...and we'll never, ever repay it.

The country is bankrupt and all you want to do is print/borrow and spend? We're on a death train to hell.

We live in Cuba now.
Interestingly, that is equal to the deficit incurred in February 2009 and not dramatically higher than the $171 billion deficit in February 2007. I believe that the deficit needs to come under control. The single most effective thing that can be done to reduce the deficit is to get the economy moving. That has been happening and more work is needed. However, February is also historically one of the lowest months of the year for Federal receipts and routinely generates massive deficits.

However, we are now facing two problems. First, spending has increased dramatically because of the Bush bailout program and the Obama stimulus bills. Those increases are spread across two years ending late this year. They incorporate both short-term tax cuts (revenue decreases) and short term expenditures for a total deficit contribution of about $1.5 trillion or $750 billion per year.

Second, we have experienced a massive decline in Federal receipts. The combination of tax cuts and recession reduced Federal receipts by $400-500 billion per year in 2008, 2009 and 2010 as compared with prior years. Some of this will come back because of economic turnaround. However, as a result of tax cuts, Federal receipts as a percentage of GDP are declining by almost 15%. In fact, Federal receipts now are running at about the same levels as during the last year of the Clinton administration in absolute dollars or less than that in real dollars.

If you separate those changes between non-budget programs such as Medicare and social security, vs. on-budget programs such as defense and Federal agencies, the results are much more dramatic. General on-budget receipts from things like personal and corporate incomes taxes have declined in absolute dollars while receipts from off-budget sources (primarily payroll taxes) have increased by almost 30%. Off budget activities are still operating at a surplus.

To eliminate deficits for on-budget items would require a cut of about 50% in these activities th achieve balance without deliberate efforts to increase revenues (i.e. taxes). Unfortunately, Americans have gotten used to having a not just a free lunch, but also a free dinner. It will be very unpleasant as we relearn how to either pay for all our meals or go hungry.

zeus3925
03-22-2010, 10:29 AM
i am just sick. i am sick of hearing the dems say how this is a win for the american people and insult the republicans that are against it when the majority of americans are against it as well!

bush had - still has - more class in his pinkie toenail that obama and pelosi combined. it is so classless for a president to point fingers and call out names like he does.

such a divisive matter should not be settled like this when the majority of americans are against it and it wins by the skin of its teeth by last minute deals and arm-twisting, and who knows what else.

and if you think federal funds wont ever be used for abortion in this bill you are delusional. Stupak sold out to save face, thats all.

You don't remember Harry Truman do you? "...that Joe Martin and his do nothing Congress." "McCarthy says he has a list right there in his briefcase. Well I'll tell you what is really in that briefcase. Its a fifth and he kills one of them every damn day."

luvmylabs23139
03-22-2010, 10:32 AM
Health care reform - check
Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act - check
Removing Barriers to Responsible Research with Human Stem Cells - check
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - check
Rededicated mission for success in Afghanistan - check
Continued success in Iraq - check
Continued and renewed actions to prevent great depression - check
Banks repaying bailouts - check
Reinstating PayGo principles - check
Beginning stages of recovery from the great recession - check
Jobs bill - check
Energy bill - to be determined
Earmark reform - to be determined
Immigration reform - to be determined

Yes, November will be interesting and it is still 6 months away. 2012 even more so.

Socialism check
comunism check
destroy the US as we know it check

M&K's Retrievers
03-22-2010, 04:15 PM
My heartfelt thahks go out to DNF for his future contributions to new health careless plan. Thanks for his higher taxes he will pay. Thanks for the fee reductions he will enjoy. And thanks for his increased patient load.:D:D

Gerry Clinchy
03-22-2010, 05:40 PM
A big part of the problem is how we get canidates for such meager pay. We should use conscription to obtain canidates, and vote in the best of the best. The best of the best do not want the jobs because they are running big corporations or their own very succesful businesses. These guys will be competitive enough to do a great job if they were forced into office. :)

Imagine the possibilities.

You could call it "community service" :-)

OTOH, would we have to be concerned about "meager pay" if it wasn't considered to be a lifetime career as it has become in modern times?

I've felt for a long time that it should be a requirement to hold a real job in private industry for at least 5 years before one can hold public office. Might be instructive on how to read a balance sheet & live within one's means.

dnf777
03-22-2010, 05:59 PM
My heartfelt thahks go out to DNF for his future contributions to new health careless plan. Thanks for his higher taxes he will pay. Thanks for the fee reductions he will enjoy. And thanks for his increased patient load.:D:D

You're welcome. But if I'm getting gov't wages, then I'm working gov't hours, and taking gov't holidays. I love what I do, and won't quit due to lower pay, but will work more "normal" hours and days.

What we all need to worry about is the future crop of bright, intelligent, motivated doctors who are still in HS and college. We need to worry that this next generation of fine doctors will say, "F%#K it!" and go into some other, high paying job that will compensate them accordingly and not be sued in a free-lottery system for less than perfect outcomes.

Haven't seen or heard any tort reform in this bill, but then again, I'm only on page 978 of 1800.

zeus3925
03-22-2010, 06:26 PM
You're welcome. But if I'm getting gov't wages, then I'm working gov't hours, and taking gov't holidays. I love what I do, and won't quit due to lower pay, but will work more "normal" hours and days.

What we all need to worry about is the future crop of bright, intelligent, motivated doctors who are still in HS and college. We need to worry that this next generation of fine doctors will say, "F%#K it!" and go into some other, high paying job that will compensate them accordingly and not be sued in a free-lottery system for less than perfect outcomes.

Haven't seen or heard any tort reform in this bill, but then again, I'm only on page 978 of 1800.

Like getting a MBA which is becoming a license to raid and pillage.

Leddyman
03-22-2010, 06:48 PM
You're welcome. But if I'm getting gov't wages, then I'm working gov't hours, and taking gov't holidays. I love what I do, and won't quit due to lower pay, but will work more "normal" hours and days.

What we all need to worry about is the future crop of bright, intelligent, motivated doctors who are still in HS and college. We need to worry that this next generation of fine doctors will say, "F%#K it!" and go into some other, high paying job that will compensate them accordingly and not be sued in a free-lottery system for less than perfect outcomes.

Haven't seen or heard any tort reform in this bill, but then again, I'm only on page 978 of 1800.

Shut Up! You are starting to make sense and its scaring the hell out of me.

dback
03-22-2010, 06:57 PM
Shut Up! You are starting to make sense and its scaring the hell out of me.

It was the "Undocumented Psychologist" exam :-)

Hew
03-23-2010, 05:38 AM
Health care reform - check
Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act - check
Removing Barriers to Responsible Research with Human Stem Cells - check
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - check
Rededicated mission for success in Afghanistan - check
Continued success in Iraq - check
Continued and renewed actions to prevent great depression - check
Banks repaying bailouts - check
Reinstating PayGo principles - check
Beginning stages of recovery from the great recession - check
Jobs bill - check
Energy bill - to be determined
Earmark reform - to be determined
Immigration reform - to be determined

You lefties can't seem to get your stories straight. I thought Obama was being thwarted at every turn by the Party of No and that the rules of the Senate had to be completely rewritten to get around all that unprecedented obstructionism.

YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 06:53 AM
You lefties can't seem to get your stories straight. I thought Obama was being thwarted at every turn by the Party of No and that the rules of the Senate had to be completely rewritten to get around all that unprecedented obstructionism.
And yet, as it turns out, the rules are being followed to the letter. All it took was an outrageously undemocratic decision to pass a bill already adopted by the Senate with a vote of 60-39 that will now be signed into law in 1-2 hours.;-) Maybe Republicans will use that trick instead of rewriting the rules helter skelter the next time they are in the majority. Would you like to take bets on how long it will take the Republicans to use parliamentary tricks to overcome a Democratic filibuster after the Republicans once again have a majority in the Senate? I'll take the "under six months" option and even bet that you will be one of those cheering them on.:rolleyes:

Hew
03-23-2010, 07:31 AM
And yet, as it turns out, the rules are being followed to the letter. All it took was an outrageously undemocratic decision to pass a bill already adopted by the Senate with a vote of 60-39 that will now be signed into law in 1-2 hours.;-) Maybe Republicans will use that trick instead of rewriting the rules helter skelter the next time they are in the majority. Would you like to take bets on how long it will take the Republicans to use parliamentary tricks to overcome a Democratic filibuster after the Republicans once again have a majority in the Senate? I'll take the "under six months" option and even bet that you will be one of those cheering them on.:rolleyes:
Your partisan hackery is showing. It's "following the rules" when the Dems use Congressional procedure to their advantage and "parliamentary tricks" when the GOP does it. You like the rules when the Dems get to make them and detest the rules when the GOP uses them to their advantage. I'll take the "under six minutes" until you make your next partisan statement shillin' for your homies.

badbullgator
03-23-2010, 08:11 AM
You're welcome. But if I'm getting gov't wages, then I'm working gov't hours, and taking gov't holidays. I love what I do, and won't quit due to lower pay, but will work more "normal" hours and days.

What we all need to worry about is the future crop of bright, intelligent, motivated doctors who are still in HS and college. We need to worry that this next generation of fine doctors will say, "F%#K it!" and go into some other, high paying job that will compensate them accordingly and not be sued in a free-lottery system for less than perfect outcomes.

Haven't seen or heard any tort reform in this bill, but then again, I'm only on page 978 of 1800.

You also have to worry about a lot of the 48-60 year olds that feel it is not worth it to continue. One of the groups I work with is made up of 4 doctors that are all 50-60 and all have told me that depending on the actual change that occurs they are more than willing to walk away and live life without the hassles. Fishing in the Keys all summer long vs working for 21+% less…. All of them love what they do, but all have been in the business long enough to be able to retire and not worry about much for the rest of their days. I am also sure there are a lot of docs in this age group that are burned out already and while they still are great doctors, they would have less than no problem walking away as they are holding on for a few more years of income rather than the love of the job (note that is not saying they are bad doctors or anything, but as with any profession there comes a point for many that it is about a few more years of income rather than “the love”). The loss of these docs also affects the future docs coming up because the good old experiences and best in their field will not be around to mentor and train the new kids.

YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 08:27 AM
Your partisan hackery is showing. It's "following the rules" when the Dems use Congressional procedure to their advantage and "parliamentary tricks" when the GOP does it. You like the rules when the Dems get to make them and detest the rules when the GOP uses them to their advantage. I'll take the "under six minutes" until you make your next partisan statement shillin' for your homies.
The rules were the same. The shenanigans were different. Cases in point:


welfare reform -- which I supported -- was passed entirely through reconciliation. This was a massive rewrite of Federal laws that had been standing for 60 years. How was reconciliation appropriate as a tool?
2001 tax cuts -- which I opposed -- were passed while PayGo rules were still in place. Those rules prohibited passage of programs that created significant deficits beyond a 10 years period. To overcome this limitation, all the tax cuts were structured to sunset after 10 years laying the framework for the largest tax increase in history.
2003 tax cuts -- which I opposed -- were passed after PayGo rules were rescinded but using reconciliation and a vote of 50 Republicans plus the VP to pass. Reconciliation is not supposed to be used except for actions that reduce deficits. Hard to say about a program that increased the deficit by almost $400 billion (the administration had sought $750 billion but a couple of moderates held out).
Medicare Prescription program -- which I supported in concept but opposed because of the way it was structured -- was passed through reconciliation despite the fact that it represented a net increase in Medicare trust fund deficits of more than $500 billion with no offsetting source of revenues.Obviously, Republicans were outraged by the adoption of the Senate bill by a 60 vote majority. How undemocratic! Their one consolation was that they knew the House opposed the bill as adopted and were confident that it would never be ratified without amendments that would force a new vote in the Senate.

In the interim, Brown was elected and the Dems lost their 60 vote edge. It looked like the Dems might use the period prior to searing in Brown to pass a modified bill, but Obama said that he would not support such passage until after Brown was sworn in. Unlike the situation in Minnesota, where Republican protests prevented Franken from being seated, Dems allowed Brown to take his seat even before the election had passed all hurdles for certification in Massachusetts. It could easily have been held up for as much as a couple of months, allowing a bill to pass. Would Bush and a Republican controlled Congress have taken advantage of that opportunity? I leave that answer to you.

So what did the Democrats do? When they first decided to consider reconciliation, numerous Democratic member said that anything done had to conform with a strict interpretation of the rules since they did not want the types of distortions that had been supported in the past. They sat with the parliamentarians to determine the limits of those rules and then began to craft a deal based on acceptance of the Senate bill into law with fixes using reconciliation. Health reform is not being adopted through reconciliation. It has already been adopted. The reconciliation process was to be used for modifications that would change the timing and structure of revenue sources, eliminate some of the special deals, etc., with each change being measured against a rule requiring that it help reduce the deficit and that it be related to financing.

Initially the fixes were to be passed as part of the same bill as the adoption of the Senate bill using "deem and pass." This "radical" procedural move had only been used to pass 20-30% of all rule changes when the House was under Republican control from Newt Gingrich on. The Senate parliamentarian said that the Senate bill had to actually become law before reconciliation could be used to change it and Republicans expressed outrage over efforts to link the bill and the changes together. Democrats backed down and adopted the Senate bill as is and then took a separate vote on the fixes.

My question to you is where is the abuse of the process? From a personal perspective, my major complaint is that the Democrats are fighting with 12 ounce gloves while Republicans are using brass knuckles.

road kill
03-23-2010, 08:39 AM
And yet, as it turns out, the rules are being followed to the letter. All it took was an outrageously undemocratic decision to pass a bill already adopted by the Senate with a vote of 60-39 that will now be signed into law in 1-2 hours.;-) Maybe Republicans will use that trick instead of rewriting the rules helter skelter the next time they are in the majority. Would you like to take bets on how long it will take the Republicans to use parliamentary tricks to overcome a Democratic filibuster after the Republicans once again have a majority in the Senate? I'll take the "under six months" option and even bet that you will be one of those cheering them on.:rolleyes:


Really, so now you are an expert on congressional procedural law as well.

I think time will tell if there were any illegalities, I will leave that to the people who KNOW and practice such.

When the dust settles and the STINK subsides and we find out the extent of the backroom deals, shady tactics, arm twisting & coercion to force these votes there my be some questions.

Let's see how it plays out.

To make the assumption and assertion you made is absurd and unrealistic.
No one knows all the facts yet, not even you, the sole possessor of the truth!!:D





rk

Goose
03-23-2010, 09:11 AM
"The public will have five days to look at every bill that lands on my desk." - Barack Milhous Obama

Obama will go down in history as a bigger liar than Dick Nixon.

We live in Cuba now.

YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 09:29 AM
"The public will have five days to look at every bill that lands on my desk." - Barack Milhous Obama

Obama will go down in history as a bigger liar than Dick Nixon.

We live in Cuba now.
Actually, the Senate bill as passed has been available for public inspection since before December 24, 2009. Obama's actual statement was that the public would have at least five days to review bills online before they were signed. He did not say that he would wait five days after they were passed before signing them. While today's signing is consistent with his campaign promise, others have not been. Personally, I thought it was a ridiculous thing to promise.

zeus3925
03-23-2010, 09:51 AM
I think I will follow the good advice of this thread in November. My congressman is a freshman conservative republican that voted against the health care bill. No matter, he sat in congress and didn't stop the bill. So, in accordance to the advice of the sages here, I should vote him out anyway, right?

Goose
03-23-2010, 11:32 AM
"I also have a healthcare plan that would save the average family $2,500 on their premiums" - Barack Milhous Obama

I'll just sit back and wait for my premium reduction notice in the mail. I'm sure it will come in the mail next week like the President promised.

Franco
03-23-2010, 12:45 PM
You also have to worry about a lot of the 48-60 year olds that feel it is not worth it to continue. One of the groups I work with is made up of 4 doctors that are all 50-60 and all have told me that depending on the actual change that occurs they are more than willing to walk away and live life without the hassles. Fishing in the Keys all summer long vs working for 21+% less…. All of them love what they do, but all have been in the business long enough to be able to retire and not worry about much for the rest of their days. I am also sure there are a lot of docs in this age group that are burned out already and while they still are great doctors, they would have less than no problem walking away as they are holding on for a few more years of income rather than the love of the job (note that is not saying they are bad doctors or anything, but as with any profession there comes a point for many that it is about a few more years of income rather than “the love”). The loss of these docs also affects the future docs coming up because the good old experiences and best in their field will not be around to mentor and train the new kids.

Most of our doctors are coming from the middleeast and India. No matter how bad it will get here, here is still much better than there, for them! We will get to witness the destruction of the finest medical care in the world.

dnf777
03-23-2010, 04:55 PM
"I also have a healthcare plan that would save the average family $2,500 on their premiums" - Barack Milhous Obama

I'll just sit back and wait for my premium reduction notice in the mail. I'm sure it will come in the mail next week like the President promised.

Perhaps you prefer a 20-40% increase, or outright cancellation? The largest portion of newly uninsured are working middle-class, not street bums or billionaires.

M&K's Retrievers
03-23-2010, 07:01 PM
You can look for the rate increases to start immediately to help offset the unknowns the future has to offer for perexisting conditions and the carriers inability to decline acceptance of uninsurables who apply. for coverage. It's going to be interesting. One question I have is if the insurance companies can rate up an individual based on their medical history.Uninsurable risk pools in most states charge very high rates compared to what is available in the standard market. These pools are subsidized by the premiums charged and the balance of the losses being absorbed by the carriers who underwrite business in that state. I have several questions that I'm sure have not been addressed by the "experts" in DC.

YardleyLabs
03-23-2010, 07:07 PM
You can look for the rate increases to start immediately to help offset the unknowns the future has to offer for perexisting conditions and the carriers inability to decline acceptance of uninsurables who apply. for coverage. It's going to be interesting. One question I have is if the insurance companies can rate up an individual based on their medical history.Uninsurable risk pools in most states charge very high rates compared to what is available in the standard market. These pools are subsidized by the premiums charged and the balance of the losses being absorbed by the carriers who underwrite business in that state. I have several questions that I'm sure have not been addressed by the "experts" in DC.
The insurance companies will love it. Now they can claim an excuse for 20-40% premium increases that were going to be implemented anyway.

dnf777
03-23-2010, 07:22 PM
The insurance companies will love it. Now they can claim an excuse for 20-40% premium increases that were going to be implemented anyway.

The insurance companies haven't shown us their cards yet. I doubt our wildest imaginations can predict the stunts that will be enacted in the coming months and years to prevent losses while complying with the new bill. Surcharges for everything, (akin to baggage fees charged by airlines), intentional and welcomed unintentional delays in care and claim processing, and a-la-carte policies too confusing to navigate, just to name a few guesses. How about -900 numbers for claims service and customer service calls billed to your phone? The examples Jeff gave from years ago will be the tip of the creative iceberg!

Buzz
03-23-2010, 08:44 PM
The insurance companies will love it. Now they can claim an excuse for 20-40% premium increases that were going to be implemented anyway.


This has been on my mind for some time now. You can expect every single increase instituted from this day forward to be blamed on the Democrats.


The insurance companies haven't shown us their cards yet. I doubt our wildest imaginations can predict the stunts that will be enacted in the coming months and years to prevent losses while complying with the new bill. Surcharges for everything, (akin to baggage fees charged by airlines), intentional and welcomed unintentional delays in care and claim processing, and a-la-carte policies too confusing to navigate, just to name a few guesses. How about -900 numbers for claims service and customer service calls billed to your phone? The examples Jeff gave from years ago will be the tip of the creative iceberg!


They will be inviting medicare for everyone.

M&K's Retrievers
03-23-2010, 09:28 PM
The insurance companies will love it. Now they can claim an excuse for 20-40% premium increases that were going to be implemented anyway.

Yes, the surviving few will love it because they will no longer be risk bearers. They will just administer the single payor system for the government. The single payor system is what really passed this weekend. It's just going to take a little longer to get there but when the carriers realize they cannot possibly make a profit under this system, they will drop like flies.Oh, by the way, does anyone have this "list" of 1300 companies that write health insurance? It's much closer to 13.

dnf777
03-23-2010, 09:34 PM
Yes, the surviving few will love it because they will no longer be risk bearers. They will just administer the single payor system for the government.

Bingo. What you describe is close to what TriCare is for the military. A single-payor, privately administered gov't funded system. Either that will (d)evolve, or a two-tiered system will emerge, which may be a way to provide for the masses, and allow those who want designer waiting rooms (where you don't have to wait!)

J Hoggatt
03-23-2010, 10:35 PM
You've got it too easy.......all you have to do is write: fear, hate, lies....on your hand like Sarah Palin and you have all the talking points of the neo-con's

You are correct Bruce---

FEAR - that are country's debt load is out of control............

HATE - Hate the our government is no longer for the people by the people- when congress goes against the will of the people.

LIES - Obama - no middle class tax hikes, for one. Hope and Change - everything will be on CSPAN - etc....

IT IS EASY........ This administration is corrupt as Nixon was paranoid. - Save this and re-read is about 5 years.. Mail it back to me with an apology how wrong you were.

Isn't amazing how a one term US Senator - who voted present more often than voted yes or no - NEVER served in ANY executive position - public or private sector - gets elected to President of the United State. -- AND what is REALLY Sad --- That my Son and My Son-in-Law have to call this " " Commander and Chief --- he had to be shown how to properly salute.................

Hew
03-24-2010, 03:39 AM
The rules were the same. The shenanigans were different. Cases in point:

welfare reform -- which I supported -- was passed entirely through reconciliation. This was a massive rewrite of Federal laws that had been standing for 60 years. How was reconciliation appropriate as a tool?
2001 tax cuts -- which I opposed -- were passed while PayGo rules were still in place. Those rules prohibited passage of programs that created significant deficits beyond a 10 years period. To overcome this limitation, all the tax cuts were structured to sunset after 10 years laying the framework for the largest tax increase in history.
2003 tax cuts -- which I opposed -- were passed after PayGo rules were rescinded but using reconciliation and a vote of 50 Republicans plus the VP to pass. Reconciliation is not supposed to be used except for actions that reduce deficits. Hard to say about a program that increased the deficit by almost $400 billion (the administration had sought $750 billion but a couple of moderates held out).
Medicare Prescription program -- which I supported in concept but opposed because of the way it was structured -- was passed through reconciliation despite the fact that it represented a net increase in Medicare trust fund deficits of more than $500 billion with no offsetting source of revenues.Obviously, Republicans were outraged by the adoption of the Senate bill by a 60 vote majority. How undemocratic! Their one consolation was that they knew the House opposed the bill as adopted and were confident that it would never be ratified without amendments that would force a new vote in the Senate.

In the interim, Brown was elected and the Dems lost their 60 vote edge. It looked like the Dems might use the period prior to searing in Brown to pass a modified bill, but Obama said that he would not support such passage until after Brown was sworn in. Unlike the situation in Minnesota, where Republican protests prevented Franken from being seated, Dems allowed Brown to take his seat even before the election had passed all hurdles for certification in Massachusetts. It could easily have been held up for as much as a couple of months, allowing a bill to pass. Would Bush and a Republican controlled Congress have taken advantage of that opportunity? I leave that answer to you.

So what did the Democrats do? When they first decided to consider reconciliation, numerous Democratic member said that anything done had to conform with a strict interpretation of the rules since they did not want the types of distortions that had been supported in the past. They sat with the parliamentarians to determine the limits of those rules and then began to craft a deal based on acceptance of the Senate bill into law with fixes using reconciliation. Health reform is not being adopted through reconciliation. It has already been adopted. The reconciliation process was to be used for modifications that would change the timing and structure of revenue sources, eliminate some of the special deals, etc., with each change being measured against a rule requiring that it help reduce the deficit and that it be related to financing.

Initially the fixes were to be passed as part of the same bill as the adoption of the Senate bill using "deem and pass." This "radical" procedural move had only been used to pass 20-30% of all rule changes when the House was under Republican control from Newt Gingrich on. The Senate parliamentarian said that the Senate bill had to actually become law before reconciliation could be used to change it and Republicans expressed outrage over efforts to link the bill and the changes together. Democrats backed down and adopted the Senate bill as is and then took a separate vote on the fixes. Blah, blah, blabbity blah. You could have saved a lot of typing by just writing, "Yes, Hew, you're right...I do have a nakedly partisan double-standard and I think that when the Democrats force their will in Congress it should be said they're just "following rules to the letter" and when the Republicans do it it should be called "parliamentary tricks." BTW, all those "parliamentary tricks" that you gripe about (only when the Repbulicans use them, of course) were taught to the Republicans during 40+ years of Democrat iron-fisted rule of Congress.

My question to you is where is the abuse of the process? From a personal perspective, my major complaint is that the Democrats are fighting with 12 ounce gloves while Republicans are using brass knuckles. I assume by "personal perspective," you mean, "as a de facto apparatchik for the Democrat party who must first remove his pom-poms before typing...." I mean, really, what more can be said when you offer some lame, semantics-twisting defense of Obama's broken campaign promise that the "public will have five days to look at every bill that lands on my desk."


......................

Hew
03-24-2010, 03:49 AM
The largest portion of newly uninsured are working middle-class, not street bums or billionaires.
Got link? That flies in the face of the uninsured demographics that I've read which claim that about two thirds of the uninsured are low income.

Hew
03-24-2010, 03:58 AM
The insurance companies haven't shown us their cards yet. I doubt our wildest imaginations can predict the stunts that will be enacted in the coming months and years to prevent losses while complying with the new bill.
Good grief, where has this country come to when efforts to stay in business and remain profitable despite the government's best efforts are characterized as "stunts." Then again, you are the guy who argued that a hospital that was losing $10 million a year and had less than 50% of its beds occupied should remain open.

BTW....the healthcare insurance industry has profit margins well below most other industries in this country...like in the lower single digits. But hey, the Dems shouldn't let the facts get in the way of some good demonizin'.

Hew
03-24-2010, 04:02 AM
This has been on my mind for some time now. You can expect every single increase instituted from this day forward to be blamed on the Democrats.

....and....


They will be inviting medicare for everyone.

You have touched on what is the fear of many....that this healthcare bill is designed to do EXACTLY what you described...to either drive the industry out of business or create conditions whereby they can be further demonized; thus making government-run healthcare an attractive/logical solution down the road.

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 06:10 AM
Got link? That flies in the face of the uninsured demographics that I've read which claim that about two thirds of the uninsured are low income.
Statistics on the uninsured generally (not just the newly uninsured) are available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf. Check out table 7 on page 21.

24.5% of people without insurance have household incomes under $25,000, 21.4% are from households with incomes of $25-50,000, and the balance come from households with income over $50,000. When considered based on age, 9.9% of children are not covered by insurance, 28.6% of adults aged 18-24, 26.5% of those aged 25-34, 19.4% for ages 35-44, and 16.1% for those over 45.

Both sets of statistics reflect the fact that people at or near the poverty level are generally covered by Medicaid, that there are a number of Federal and State programs to provide coverage for children, and that those over 65% (with few exceptions) are covered by Medicare.

EDIT:

Gallup reports that 40% of the "underemployed" (who represent about 20% of the population) do not have health insurance and many have gone without medical care because of cost.


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/eybiecfk4uwcmzmnuj0csg.gif

dnf777
03-24-2010, 06:17 AM
Got link? That flies in the face of the uninsured demographics that I've read which claim that about two thirds of the uninsured are low income.

The largest portion of newly uninsured are working middle-class, not street bums or billionaires.


Thought I'd help you out a little bit with the reading comprehension difficulty. ;-)

dnf777
03-24-2010, 06:24 AM
Good grief, where has this country come to when efforts to stay in business and remain profitable despite the government's best efforts are characterized as "stunts." Then again, you are the guy who argued that a hospital that was losing $10 million a year and had less than 50% of its beds occupied should remain open.

BTW....the healthcare insurance industry has profit margins well below most other industries in this country...like in the lower single digits. But hey, the Dems shouldn't let the facts get in the way of some good demonizin'.


What is good or accepted business practice in most arenas, are not acceptable in health care. You should be very happy most doctors who perfom necessary procedures agree with this. Nose and boob jobs are a different story. But if the medical field used the same business models as your mechanic does, when you show up with acute appendicitis, better have cash, visa, or mastercard out! Do you REALLY want the medical field to use such approaches to care? Oh, it's flu season, and just like hotels in conference and travel season, the fee for a flu-shot just doubled! These ridiculous examples illustrate why you cannot merge the delivery of healthcare to the sick into a pure business model. The health industry has had a social contract in place for years, whereby physicians have indeed enjoyed a high income and lifestyle, and in return are there for you at 3am, or on Sunday morning when the need arises....and treats without regard for ability to pay.
Unfortunately, that contract is being eroded from both sides, and that is a BAD thing for all involved, especially the sick.

Hew
03-24-2010, 07:55 AM
Thought I'd help you out a little bit with the reading comprehension difficulty. ;-)
Thanks, but I comprehended just fine. I was kinda hoping for a link to a story, statistics, or better yet, a nice chart, indicating that a majority of those who who are newly uninsured are working middle class. At first, second and third blush your claim doesn't pass the smell test (unless of course the smell that we're testing for consists of what's been thrown against the wall yet again).

Hew
03-24-2010, 07:58 AM
What is good or accepted business practice in most arenas, are not acceptable in health care. You should be very happy most doctors who perfom necessary procedures agree with this. Nose and boob jobs are a different story. But if the medical field used the same business models as your mechanic does, when you show up with acute appendicitis, better have cash, visa, or mastercard out! Do you REALLY want the medical field to use such approaches to care? I want them to profit so that the United States remains the gold standard for medical care (some oft-quoted, decade old UN study aside).Oh, it's flu season, and just like hotels in conference and travel season, the fee for a flu-shot just doubled! These ridiculous examples illustrate why you cannot merge the delivery of healthcare to the sick into a pure business model. The health industry has had a social contract in place for years, whereby physicians have indeed enjoyed a high income and lifestyle, and in return are there for you at 3am, or on Sunday morning when the need arises....and treats without regard for ability to pay.
Unfortunately, that contract is being eroded from both sides, and that is a BAD thing for all involved, especially the sick.
................

M&K's Retrievers
03-24-2010, 10:07 AM
.... Nose and boob jobs are a different story....

There you go using those big medical terms again.:D

dnf777
03-24-2010, 10:27 AM
................

I want them to profit so that the United States remains the gold standard for medical care (some oft-quoted, decade old UN study aside).

Yeah, me too, so I can keep my hobbies alive! But we can do that and not become ruthless businessmen in the process. I don't ever want to become like the insurance execs in Jeff's story, that congratulate themselves for putting the royal screw to their clients in the name of profit. Yes, its a cut-throat jungle out there, but somewhere you must draw the line and have a little human compassion. God help us if we all forget that!

ducknwork
03-24-2010, 11:02 AM
You forgot the birth certificate talking point!

Which part was not true?

M&K's Retrievers
03-24-2010, 11:16 AM
[I]..... I don't ever want to become like the insurance execs in Jeff's story, that congratulate themselves for putting the royal screw to their clients in the name of profit.....

I hope your not implying that all insurance companies operate that way because that's just not the case. Every business must make unpopular decisions for the sake of profit or in many instances just staying in business - layoffs, plant closures, benefit reductions, relocations, forced early retirements, product elimination, etc. While I certainly don't doubt Jeff's story, I find it odd that no policyholder nor agent saw fit to complain to the state insurance department nor could I find any articles of consumer outrage. That kind of consumer screwing is very hard to keep out of the media especially in today's climate. My educated guess is that they were members of a dwindling block of business that was being phased out and these people were offered alternative(s) which may or may not have been attractive. Also, in Jeff's case, it sounds like administrative FU (better get used to them) that probably could have been resolved if pursued.

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 11:26 AM
Which part was not true?


HATE - Hate the our government is no longer for the people by the people- when congress goes against the will of the people.

Ultimately, both the President and Congress are responsible for acting based on their belief of what is right for our country regardless of day to day fluctuations in public opinion. The opinion that counts is the one expressed in the voting booth when it is time the elect a new representative. During the vote, Republicans made constant comments about the treachery involved in voting for a bill opposed by most people. However, they also opposed the legislation last fall when polls indicated that the majority favored it, and pundits have been quick to say that they fully expect the kind of bounce shown by the Gallup polls (where people favor the billls by a 49-42% plurality) as something that will be reversed once they can "educate" the public better about the future evils that are sure to arise.

LIES - Obama - no middle class tax hikes, for one. Hope and Change - everything will be on CSPAN - etc....

By Washington standards, the administration has been very open and responsive. When I went back to the videos, what I heard Obama saying was that things would be more open, and they are. Personally, I'm still waiting to see who attended secret energy meeting with Cheney.

IT IS EASY........ This administration is corrupt as Nixon was paranoid. - Save this and re-read is about 5 years.. Mail it back to me with an apology how wrong you were.

Certainly there were no deals made in passing the health bills that were much worse than those made in prior bills of comparable importance. The closer the vote, the more deals get made. I'm not sure what corruption you are talking about, but i would be surprised if the level in this administration stands out positively or negatively when compared to others.

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 12:40 PM
I hope your not implying that all insurance companies operate that way because that's just not the case. Every business must make unpopular decisions for the sake of profit or in many instances just staying in business - layoffs, plant closures, benefit reductions, relocations, forced early retirements, product elimination, etc. While I certainly don't doubt Jeff's story, I find it odd that no policyholder nor agent saw fit to complain to the state insurance department nor could I find any articles of consumer outrage. That kind of consumer screwing is very hard to keep out of the media especially in today's climate. My educated guess is that they were members of a dwindling block of business that was being phased out and these people were offered alternative(s) which may or may not have been attractive. Also, in Jeff's case, it sounds like administrative FU (better get used to them) that probably could have been resolved if pursued.
In case there is doubt, my experience with insurance companies overall has been very positive -- as a client, as a consultant to different companies, and as a consultant performing reviews of insurance company practices for major corporations. HealthNet was an unfortunate exception and we would have fired them long before but could not get another company to accept our group. I did look further into th specific events in 2007 when we had our problems. The change to the Guardian/HealthNet joint venture were completed in May 2007,, which is when service totally disintegrated (ann9oucement at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_May_31/ai_n27259293/?tag=content-inner;col1). In November, HealthNet had to settle a number of class action complaints in NJ for $297 million. That was also when it announced that it had awarded bonuses to staff for their effectiveness in canceling different policies. That press release is still referenced on BNET but has been removed. However, the company then had to settle a number of complaints in California arising from those cancellations and agree to halt the process of paying such bonuses to staff in addition to paying a substantial fine.

dnf777
03-24-2010, 12:43 PM
I hope your not implying that all insurance companies operate that way because that's just not the case. Every business must make unpopular decisions for the sake of profit or in many instances just staying in business - layoffs, plant closures, benefit reductions, relocations, forced early retirements, product elimination, etc. While I certainly don't doubt Jeff's story, I find it odd that no policyholder nor agent saw fit to complain to the state insurance department nor could I find any articles of consumer outrage. That kind of consumer screwing is very hard to keep out of the media especially in today's climate. My educated guess is that they were members of a dwindling block of business that was being phased out and these people were offered alternative(s) which may or may not have been attractive. Also, in Jeff's case, it sounds like administrative FU (better get used to them) that probably could have been resolved if pursued.

No, that's not what I was implying, but I do see patients and docs getting shorted on a daily basis by insurance companies. I got it from both ends when my kids went for routine lab tests at my wife's practice. (she's a FP doc) We jumped through a bunch of stupid hoops filling out questionares (none of which which was any of their business) screening forms, etc...in order to get our annual family deductible waived for in-network care. Well, of course, we got bills for our deductibles, despite the cust-serv reps telling us we shouldn't be getting them. (after 30 minutes of elevator hold music) Well, the bills continued, and got nastier, and so finally, we just paid the GD things as to not get our credit rating dinged. Then, my wife comes home to find out they grouped the pre-authorized lab tests into one screening DRG and paid $12 out of a $86 bill. So we got screwed as the patient, and as the doc, all within about a week. It's such a wonderful system. When everyone else I talk to relates the same experience with the "waived deductibles", you can't convince me that some bean-counter is getting pats of the back and a bonus for coming up with that one!

M&K's Retrievers
03-24-2010, 01:46 PM
No, that's not what I was implying, but I do see patients and docs getting shorted on a daily basis by insurance companies. I got it from both ends when my kids went for routine lab tests at my wife's practice. (she's a FP doc) We jumped through a bunch of stupid hoops filling out questionares (none of which which was any of their business) screening forms, etc...in order to get our annual family deductible waived for in-network care. Well, of course, we got bills for our deductibles, despite the cust-serv reps telling us we shouldn't be getting them. (after 30 minutes of elevator hold music) Well, the bills continued, and got nastier, and so finally, we just paid the GD things as to not get our credit rating dinged. Then, my wife comes home to find out they grouped the pre-authorized lab tests into one screening DRG and paid $12 out of a $86 bill. So we got screwed as the patient, and as the doc, all within about a week. It's such a wonderful system. When everyone else I talk to relates the same experience with the "waived deductibles", you can't convince me that some bean-counter is getting pats of the back and a bonus for coming up with that one!

Could it be that if we just had a calendar year deductible followed by coinsurance and stop loss it would be easier and cheaper for all- insureds, providers and insurance companies alike? What a concept.

dnf777
03-24-2010, 03:37 PM
Could it be that if we just had a calendar year deductible followed by coinsurance and stop loss it would be easier and cheaper for all- insureds, providers and insurance companies alike? What a concept.

that's exactly what they advertise, and if you play their games, they'll even waive the deductible. Then they do whatever the hell they want, stick it to ya, and ya better pay or risk having your credit rating take a hit.

J Hoggatt
03-24-2010, 06:54 PM
Thank you Jeff.........I think we all do fear the extent of the nation's debt but I think the Obama opposed folks want to hang it on him.....when you cut taxes on the wealthy, start 2 wars-without an end game plan, deregulate banks and Wall street plus not enforcing regulations (and they take too much risk to satisfy greed)......a perfect storm was indeed created by Obama's predecessor and his cronies in the West Wing and in the legislature.

There are over 200 Republican amendments in the Health Care Bill.......just remember the vote could have been the same without a single one.......accepting those amendments is evidence of a willingness to have an open government

Bruce-
Please-
"Deregulate Banks" - in particular community banks??? - are you serious??!!! and I know you know better!!! - please.... I know you know but you leftist view want let you admit it.......i don't have the patients to debate or educate you on this... sorry - (not worth my time).

2nd - Taxes- Actual Case study:(My daughter and son-in-law - paid in $2,000 in fed. income taxes and got a $6,300 refund..... (that is called income re-distribution)- not taxation.) - KEEPING IT REAL. ( btw- I like to think it was my tax dollars that they got....because I pay a ton more than that...)

3nd -
WAR--- agree with you.... we have to "borrow" money to finance wars..... and should have an end game --- The Vietnam War comes to mind - let not get too partisan on the war issues--- shall we!!! BTW - originally one of the most important functions of the Federal Government. - PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE. - not RULING THEM.

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 07:43 PM
...
WAR--- agree with you.... we have to "borrow" money to finance wars..... and should have an end game --- The Vietnam War comes to mind - let not get too partisan on the war issues--- shall we!!! BTW - originally one of the most important functions of the Federal Government. - PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE. - not RULING THEM.
I actually disagree with the notion of borrowing to finance wars. As with any "capital" expense, you have to make a decision on whether the level of expense involved is a short term thing that will be followed by many more years without similar expenditures, or part of an on-going activity.

Based on experience, we seem to always be preparing for war, fighting war, or rebuilding following a war. If that pattern is consistent, we have no decades of peace in between to pay off the bills and should therefore pay as we fight. At the beginning of the Iraq war, knowledgeable people pointed out that we would be likely to spend over a trillion dollars and that the effort and cost would go on for many years. Those people were accused of being ignorant and even unpatriotic. As it happens, they were also right.

Had we started from the beginning paying our bills as they were incurred, I suspect we would also have followed very different policies. It's sort of like health care. The majority of people want the benefit; they just don't want to pay the bill. It's time to make paying the bill a part of every decision including the decision to go to war.

J Hoggatt
03-24-2010, 07:56 PM
You know damn well which banks I was talking about and that my background is banking. It is ironic that the Republicans have you fooled in to thinking they are pro business when in fact community banks were only/are only a headache to the government.....a double standard was applied by the last admin. big banks vs community banks. A blind eye was turned to the big boys and a microscope was applied to the community bank (same thing happened under Ronnie Reagan and it cost my family our entire life's savings and jobs).......the sooner community banks are gone we can have a smaller gov't which should make you happy. I am doing my banking at Chase for a reason.

2nd....... I assume the tax case you cited was from the first time homebuyer tax credit????????

3rd.......I won't go too far on the war deal out of respect for your son's and son-in-law's service to this country, but you should really go see the movie "Green Zone"

Agree- I did know- but others sure the hell didn't... (can we agree on that?) -- and your are correct to distinguish between the Big Boys and Community Bank!! - and that was my point as well. --- Pro-Business that my have me fooled- that being the Rep. - but I KNOW the Dem's are NOT Pro-Business.......Have you heard about the "Salary Czar"?

#2 - NO-- didn't buy a home -- it is true income redistribution. They didn't make much - he was out of the country (not taxable income - a huge benefit--LOL) and they have a dep. my grandson.

Banking- no sure of your family situation - but my career in banking started in 1983 (in the mail room btw) --- but by 85 I was the Comptroller for a 100 million bank..... The ag recession was caused by hyper inflation of the late 70's (aka Carter admin.). Oh did I mention how Carter and Obama are similar. Pretty familiar with the ag crisis of the 80's.-in this part of the country. Some economist say- an ag recession follows a national recession in 24 months.......... how about that for some good news.

Propaganda is on all side – including this forum. -- Was told by my son-in-law not to go the the "HURT LOCKER" because it is left wing propaganda. I just started reading :Lone Survivor.

Nice debate - I know you will always feel like you win it..... I just don't care to type as long as other.... (may have A.D.D......probably do). I remember our debate in Nov. of 2008- so far I think I have been MORE Right -than you Mr. Optimism! -LOL- but a year or two will soon tell!!!!!! ---

BTW -all the Bush Bashers----He isn't the President now- and this isn't a campaign - it is time to take Ownership...............(he is gone- please quit "running" against him- is was old a year ago.)

J Hoggatt
03-24-2010, 08:13 PM
I actually disagree with the notion of borrowing to finance wars. As with any "capital" expense, you have to make a decision on whether the level of expense involved is a short term thing that will be followed by many more years without similar expenditures, or part of an on-going activity.

Based on experience, we seem to always be preparing for war, fighting war, or rebuilding following a war. If that pattern is consistent, we have no decades of peace in between to pay off the bills and should therefore pay as we fight. At the beginning of the Iraq war, knowledgeable people pointed out that we would be likely to spend over a trillion dollars and that the effort and cost would go on for many years. Those people were accused of being ignorant and even unpatriotic. As it happens, they were also right.

Had we started from the beginning paying our bills as they were incurred, I suspect we would also have followed very different policies. It's sort of like health care. The majority of people want the benefit; they just don't want to pay the bill. It's time to make paying the bill a part of every decision including the decision to go to war.

Here is a fundamental difference between you and me...... ready.......!!!!!!

1. I Don't believe it is the governments responsibility to provide health care for me!. (No guarantee of "happiness" - just the pursuit of happiness... )

2. I Do believe that the federal government is responsible to protect our country and our country's interest from our enemies. (interest are very debatable - I know).

J Hoggatt
03-24-2010, 08:15 PM
ps..

Go visit a VETERAN's Hospital - and then you would never vote for a Government Health Care.

YardleyLabs
03-24-2010, 08:26 PM
Here is a fundamental difference between you and me...... ready.......!!!!!!

1. I Don't believe it is the governments responsibility to provide health care for me!. (No guarantee of "happiness" - just the pursuit of happiness... )

2. I Do believe that the federal government is responsible to protect our country and our country's interest from our enemies. (interest are very debatable - I know).
Well, my post had nothing to do with health care.

All I said was we should pay our bills as we go, including paying bills for war. I agreed with our invasion of Afghanistan. I disagreed with our second invasion of Iraq. I agreed with our first invasion of Iraq along with our activities in Bosnia and Kocovo. I wish we had done more in Darfur. In case you are not paying attention, I am NOT a pacifist. I simply thought our invasion of Iraq was unjustified and incompetently managed from the top.

None of that has anything to do with the issue of paying the bill. I see no justification for borrowing money for the next many, many years to fund a war that should have been paid for now. Instead, to gain support for an otherwise unpopular invasion, we were told that the best thing we could all do was to go about our important business of consuming. We can see where that got us.

If we pay as we go -- whether the benefit is in the form of spending, tax cuts, or regime change in Canada -- we will think a little more carefully about what things we do. i don't believe in Voodoo economics any more than I believe in the tooth fairy.

PS; When have I ever advocated government run health care? In fact, it can work perfectly well. However, I believe it is an inefficient way to provide services and results in inferior care. I say that as the former Director of Management for the NYC Health & Hospitals Corporation, which operated 18 hospitals with 42,000 staff at the time.

K G
03-24-2010, 09:11 PM
The current administration FORCED many banks to take bailout money, and then wanted them to pay a fee for taking it....and there's no ignoring the unemployment rate that is continuing to rise. Reality can't be ignored.

k g

Franco
03-24-2010, 09:22 PM
I think most of us in hindsite agree that the invasion/rebuilding of Iraq is a terrible mistake. Not only have we upset the balance of power in the region, we have spent blood & treasure, way beyond sanity.

What we've had is a perfect storm of economic blunders. From Clinton's appointment of Rick Ruben to the Fed, the encougement of subprime lending, the wars, medicade etc.

The question is; What the hell are we going to do now? Spend money like there is no tomorrow? Continue to allow illegal immigration and paying for thier Healthcare? How many billion do we send abroad to Egypt, Haiti etc. in Foreign payoffs? No one talks about the vast government waste is paying for this huge Federal government, whith thier benefits. Government needs to cuts themselves by 75%! We the people should no longer allow them to waste money and they need a spending cap. Smaller government is the answer or we'll be just another socialistic republic.

M&K's Retrievers
03-25-2010, 12:36 AM
that's exactly what they advertise, and if you play their games, they'll even waive the deductible. Then they do whatever the hell they want, stick it to ya, and ya better pay or risk having your credit rating take a hit.

That's my point. Those Mickey Mouse charges should have been your responability and applied to your deductible (I know that's not what you think your employer bought). Have a deductible that all charges go against, then have the next $10,000 paid at 70% or 80%, then the balance paid at 100% for the rest of the year. Simple. No bull shit, straight forward. No co-pays. no PPO, no mandatory second opinions (how do you like having your recommended treatment "approved" from some nimrod nurse on the phone?), no pre certs. Dave, it's not the cost of health care, it's the cost of the bull shit associated with the "managed care" we have been forced to live with the last 20 years and it is only going to get worst with the crap they just passed. Hell, it's only been one day and it's a cluster f**k.

Also, my guess is that you are complaining about insurance reimbursments from a plan that didn't cost you a dime. What would your cost have been without the insurance? All of it I suspect.

My clients don't bitch as much as you do and they foot the bill.

Quite frankly, tired of the moaning and groaning, poor poor pitiful me regards,

ducknwork
03-25-2010, 06:24 AM
There are over 200 Republican amendments in the Health Care Bill.......just remember the vote could have been the same without a single one.......accepting those amendments is evidence of a willingness to have an open government


Willingness to have an open government?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Wow, put down the shine, brother...Did you hear what your boy said about the amendments? There was never ANY intention on the Dems part to consider any of the R amendments.


"All of the amendments we'll take care of. Points of order — we'll see what they do," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"How serious could they be offering an amendment on Viagra for rapists?" Reid said.

dnf777
03-25-2010, 08:09 AM
That's my point. Those Mickey Mouse charges should have been your responability and applied to your deductible (I know that's not what you think your employer bought). No, its what I have in writing, and what the company itself told me via customer service! Have a deductible that all charges go against, then have the next $10,000 paid at 70% or 80%, then the balance paid at 100% for the rest of the year. Simple. No bull shit, straight forward. No co-pays. no PPO, no mandatory second opinions (how do you like having your recommended treatment "approved" from some nimrod nurse on the phone?),Just slightly better than a nimrod bean counter! no pre certs. Dave, it's not the cost of health care, it's the cost of the bull shit associated with the "managed care" we have been forced to live with the last 20 years yeah, and who created that mess? Insurance companies! I can tell you from first hand experince as a patient and provider, that medicare, although they don't pay as much as I'd prefer, is MUCH easier and efficient to deal with than private companies who deliberately construct road blocks to payment!and it is only going to get worst with the crap they just passed. Hell, it's only been one day and it's a cluster f**k.

Also, my guess is that you are complaining about insurance reimbursments from a plan that didn't cost you a dime. Well, guess what? You guessed WRONG! I pay just under 20k for it. Try again.What would your cost have been without the insurance? All of it I suspect. DUH!

My clients don't bitch as much as you do and they foot the bill.

Quite frankly, tired of the moaning and groaning, poor poor pitiful me regards,

If you're really tired of moaning and groaning, what are the past 15 threads regarding the healthcare bill been????? LMAO at the hypocrisy and double standards set by the right!

And remember, this whole discussion we've had, and the idiocy you pointed out, were all set forth by the insurance company. Not me, not the government. Just sayin....

Hew
03-25-2010, 08:27 AM
And remember, this whole discussion we've had, and the idiocy you pointed out, were all set forth by the insurance company. Not me, not the government. Just sayin....
Yeah, I can't wait until the government is doing it their way. It's gonna run so much more efficiently than any insurance company could ever do it. :-P

dnf777
03-25-2010, 08:39 AM
Yeah, I can't wait until the government is doing it their way. It's gonna run so much more efficiently than any insurance company could ever do it. :-P

Look at the overhead administrative costs fo medicare. Your point is truer than you realize, and well taken.

If you're talking about corporate profits, then yes, private companies do it better, at the cost of the patient's well-being. If you're talking about providing health care to those who need it, not even close.

Henry V
03-25-2010, 08:53 AM
Speaking of November, I wonder how many times this video will be played.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpOUctySD68&feature=player_embedded

dnf777
03-25-2010, 08:55 AM
Look at the overhead administrative costs fo medicare. Your point is truer than you realize, and well taken.

If you're talking about corporate profits, then yes, private companies do it better, at the cost of the patient's well-being. If you're talking about providing health care to those who need it, not even close.

Edit: that's "cost OF medicare". I wasn't typing in eubonics.

Hew
03-25-2010, 09:29 AM
Look at the overhead administrative costs fo medicare. Your point is truer than you realize, and well taken.
Ah yes, the old canard about medicare being run more efficiently than private insurance. Talk about an apples to bowling ball comparison. :rolleyes:
Here's a pretty thorough debunking of that fairy tale: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/06/Medicare-Administrative-Costs-Are-Higher-Not-Lower-Than-for-Private-Insurance

Hew
03-25-2010, 09:34 AM
Speaking of November, I wonder how many times this video will be played.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpOUctySD68&feature=player_embedded
Probably lots. It's got all of the elements of standard DNC fare....gobs of race baitin', some braindead celebrities to impress the kids, lots of Goebellsesque repetition and just the right mixture of Obama hero worship.

M&K's Retrievers
03-25-2010, 09:36 AM
!

And remember, this whole discussion we've had, and the idiocy you pointed out, were all set forth by the insurance company. Not me, not the government. Just sayin....

I guess I must not be clear or your left wing bias won't allow you to comprehend my posts. It's the government mandates that are the problem. You of all people should be keenly aware of the governments intrusion in your business. The insurance companies didn't dream up this sh*t. Get ready to whine some more. It's gonna get worse.

YardleyLabs
03-25-2010, 10:21 AM
Ah yes, the old canard about medicare being run more efficiently than private insurance. Talk about an apples to bowling ball comparison. :rolleyes:
Here's a pretty thorough debunking of that fairy tale: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/06/Medicare-Administrative-Costs-Are-Higher-Not-Lower-Than-for-Private-Insurance
Pretty weak "study", even by Heritage Foundation standards. It's basically an apologia for having higher administrative costs and an argument that costs should be considered on a per capita basis rather than a claims paid basis even though the activities associated with administration are primarily linked to claims. In fact, I believe that there are some legitimate arguments to be made explaining the higher costs of private plans, but the Heritage "study" doesn't address them. First, in administering claims, institutional claims (e.g. hospitals and nursing homes) are much cheaper to handle as a percentage of dollars paid. I suspect that Medicare has a higher percentage of its costs paid for institutional claims than private plans. This is a major source of cost discrepancies. Two other sources, however, fall into a different category. Private insurers have much higher costs for evaluating eligibility than Medicare because there is always the possibility that one insurance company can prove that another company is primary payer or that the client actually is not covered because of non-payment or violation of rules that would permit rescission. These assessments are costly. By contrast, Medicare knows that it is liable for bills 99%+ of the time and that it is always primary. The calculation of administrative costs for private companies is typically based on the difference between premium income and claims paid. What this ignores is earnings on premiums in hand and reserves which are a primary source of insurance company revenues. A true accounting of private company administrative cost plus profit would consider the sum of premium and investment income as compared with claims paid. This would increase the difference.

dnf777
03-25-2010, 10:42 AM
I guess I must not be clear or your left wing bias won't allow you to comprehend my posts. It's the government mandates that are the problem. You of all people should be keenly aware of the governments intrusion in your business. The insurance companies didn't dream up this sh*t. Get ready to whine some more. It's gonna get worse.

I really don't understand your fetish with assigning political biases with these issues. If anything, I tend to be more in a right-wing frame of mind at work, dealing with these issues. Add to that, my wife just called saying she wrote out an additional check to the IRS that could have paid for a year's tuition for one of my kids. Apparently the hunk of flesh they took each month wasn't enough. So you can call me Ray, you can call me Jay, but don't call me left-biased when I'm gettin' it from both ends at the same time! :shock:

M&K's Retrievers
03-25-2010, 03:00 PM
I really don't understand your fetish with assigning political biases with these issues.I believe Socialism is far left. If anything, I tend to be more in a right-wing frame of mind at work, dealing with these issues.Wonder what your coworkers would say? Add to that, my wife just called saying she wrote out an additional check to the IRS that could have paid for a year's tuition for one of my kids. Apparently the hunk of flesh they took each month wasn't enough.You should have increased your withholdings. Damn sure better increase it from now on. So you can call me Ray, you can call me Jay, but don't call me left-biased when I'm gettin' it from both ends at the same time! :shock:

..................

dnf777
03-25-2010, 03:23 PM
My partner is a flaming liberal, who is convinced I voted for GWB and just won't admit it!

M&K's Retrievers
03-25-2010, 03:27 PM
That's a hoot! Two liberals in the same practice. Down here it's hard to find any.

menmon
03-25-2010, 03:34 PM
According to Jack Welch (former CEO of GE), he does not think the republicans are going to have that easy of time of it, because he believes the economy will be alive and well come November, and most people will credit the current congress for that.

So now you can chastize Jack Welch, because he does not agree with you.

dnf777
03-25-2010, 03:40 PM
That's a hoot! Two liberals in the same practice. Down here it's hard to find any.

Thanks! As long as the extreme righties call me liberal, and the extreme lefties call me conservative......I'm right where I want to be! I wouldn't want either group of wackos claiming me! :D

ducknwork
03-26-2010, 06:32 AM
I wouldn't want either group of wackos claiming me! :D


Yeah! You should be proud to be your very own class of wacko!:p

dnf777
03-26-2010, 01:33 PM
Yeah! You should be proud to be your very own class of wacko!:p

Thank you very much, I am!

I try not to hurt others, I try to make my corner of the world a better place for those that I share it with, and I go to work and pay taxes. I don't look for reasons to hate others. I wouldn't fit in either party. But I'm not alone here.