The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: Dear Democratic Party Members?

  1. #21
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    ...but I've seen support numbers in the upper 60s to low 70s for this bill.
    Where was this poll taken? Pelosi's staff? Links please
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  2. #22
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    .

    ......if Obama really screws things up......
    Hypocrisy!
    If ???? President Peter Principle may just be the first black president to resign.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  3. #23
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dback View Post
    I would like you to point out a single individual on this board that was happy with everything Bush and any of the given Congresses he had did. Anyone!!!! You and a couple of others here can't seem to grasp that concept. I don't want to forget any of it....the parts that were done wrong especially. Your current 'sweetheart' ran on a platform of 'no backroom deals', 'no buying votes', 'open discussion', 'no "questionable" procedures', 'no "funny" math' etc., etc.........."CHANGE"....remember that???? No business as usual in DC...... You're right, HYPOCRISY is the word of the day. Your defense of the Dems ... in any form leaves it stamped on your forehead.
    And likewise, I'd like to see you point out where Obama is my "sweetheart". I can't get in the minds of others, rather just go by what I see posted here. All I've seen lately is many attacks on Obama for the EXACT same things Bush and his cronies did for the last 8 years.

    A few people are so very bothered by the fact that there are independant voters out there. In fact, I've been told more times than I can count: who I voted for (incorrectly), what my beliefs are, etc... It must be the old Bushism...you either with me or against me, mentality. Its black and white thinking. Something most grow out of somewhere in their teen years, and begin to see much of the world is in the gray zone. Life doesn't have many simple answers. For the crime of looking at issues from different angles, and going so far as trying to see someone else's points, you get labeled a flaming liberal and attacked. Have at it.

    I respect all others points of view, except when they become violent or trample the rights of others. (flying planes into buildings, clubbing gays to death because they're gay, shooting doctors in the head in church)
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  4. #24
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,271

    Default

    Dback -- Read a little closer. I am ticked at the Dems for playing kumbiya with the Republicans. They should have gotten everyone on their side lined up, then introduced the bill. Let the Republicans whine and groan. The Democrats owned the hammer in both houses and they could have and should have got her done.

    If the Republicans were serious about participation in forming a bill they would have sat down with ex-Senator Dave Durenberger, who is arguably the Republicans' best man on health care.
    Last edited by zeus3925; 03-20-2010 at 08:49 AM.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  5. #25
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    Where was this poll taken? Pelosi's staff? Links please
    The latest poll by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation found 46 percent of Americans support the healthcare bill and 42 percent oppose it.


    The latest numbers have evened out.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  6. #26
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    If ???? President Peter Principle may just be the first black president to resign.
    What does his being black have to do with it? Have your forgotten Nixon, or is he above being placed in the same boat with Obama?
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  7. #27
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    If ???? President Peter Principle may just be the first black president to resign.
    You are smokin' some good dope, there, M&K
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  8. #28
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,313

    Default

    Should we maybe get back to debating the factual material?


    Congressman John Fleming:
    According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), under the Senate version of Health Care Reform being negotiated, private health insurance premiums in the individual market would rise by as much as $2,100.
    http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc1078...0-Premiums.pdf
    This is dated Nov. 2009. Truthfully, I'm not entirely sure what the reconciliation amendments will change, but this is based on the Senate bill.


    Policies would have to cover a specified set of services and to have an "actuarial value" of at least 60 percent (meaning that the plan would, on average, pay that share of the costs of providing covered services to a representative set of enrollees). In addition, insurers would have to accept all applicants during an annual open-enrollment period, and insurers could not limit coverage for preexisting medical conditions. Moreover, premiums could not vary to reflect differences in enrollees’ health or use of services and could vary on the basis of an enrollee’s age only to a limited degree
    Is this possibly a key point? Of the 30 million uninsured, how many are in the young/healthy group v. how many in the pre-existing condition group?

    If everyone pays the same premium (can't be different based on age or health), then it surely appears that those young/healthy people will pay a whole lot more than they would today. Actuarily, you cannot increase benefits & retain fiscal soundness without increasing the gross income to the funding.


    Among other changes, health insurance plans: could not impose lifetime limits on the total amount of services covered; could rescind coverage only for certain reasons; would have to cover certain preventive services with no cost sharing; and would have to allow unmarried dependents to be covered under their parents’ policies up to age 26. Those changes would also apply to new coverage provided by large employers, including firms that "self-insure"—meaning that the firm, rather than an insurer, bears the financial risk of providing coverage.
    I don't see why all co-pays are verbotten. Even $5 or $10 on a co-pay is manageable for almost every insured; and even small co-pays can go a long way to adding to fiscal soundness when multiplied by 30 million.

    However, current policies that had been purchased in any of those markets or that were offered by self-insured firms would be exempt from all of those changes if they were maintained continuously—that is, policies held since the date of enactment of the legislation would be "grandfathered."
    I can understand what about self-insured programs, but might not some employees withdraw from those plans if possible to get enhanced coverage in some other way? Wouldn't those employees be ticked off if their present plan fell short of the mandated plan. In that way, it could cost business more than they are paying now, depending on what plan the company presently offers. ... I think, but would not swear to the fact that I am interpreting this as the employees or the govt would interpret it.


    and penalize certain employers if their workers received subsidies through the exchanges
    So, if an employee gets a subsidy because its income is too low to pay for its premiums (grandfathered in?), the employer will be penalized. That seems to sort of negate the concept of being grand-fathered into the new plan.

    Does that mean that if an employer is providing a very good plan, but the cost of the plan is high, the employer will then have to absorb more of the cost so that his employees don't need to be govt-subsidized.

    If this wouldn't push the whole concept of health insurance to total govt control, given a little time, I'd be very surprised.


    substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law);
    But will Congress have the courage to reduce the Medicare reimbursement rates to do this? Don't necessarily believe that is the right thing to do, but seems to be a "requirement" of the available CBO evaluation of the Senate bill.


    Each of those components of the legislation has the potential to affect the premiums that are charged for insurance, directly or indirectly; some would increase premiums, and others would decrease them.
    The question would be whatt is the NET result of increases v. decreases?

    This Adobe file is 29 pages. I only have quoted from the first 3 since I have to work today ... There is a table on page 29 that shows the %-ages of income that will be expended by various income ranges (for a single person & family of 4).

    It would be interesting to see what %-age of income members of this forum now pay for health insurance v. the tables shown; and whether you would come out ahead or behind.

    Addressing the question of why a lot of people may be Johnnie-come-lately to observing how Congress has exploited "hanky-panky" in the past: I think this very high-profile legislation has made the ugliness of the legislative process more visible. Awareness has been raised. Personal involvement has been increased. The fact that some of us were too uninvolved earlier is not, in and of itself, an indictment of integrity. Anyone who would choose to move from a state of ignorance to a state of more knowledge is good for a republic, not a bad thing.

    And I do agree that I have seen no one on this forum who has defended every item of Bush's administration. It IS possible to discuss issues based on the process used (regardless of by whom), and whether the process as related to the issues was beneficial or not to the outcome. If the process was used to advance negative-impact, then we should take heed to assess the issue.

    I don't think anybody, here or in Congress, believes that the US healthcare system is perfect. The disagreement lies in how to make it better. It will never be perfect. We can clearly see that universal health care in those countries that have it is not perfect either.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  9. #29
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,818

    Default

    Bumma should be charged with treason!!!!! End of story!!!!!! He cares nothing for the constitution. He wants to ram his socialist crap down our throats no matter what.
    Everyone knows he is truly a commie at heart!

    OH now he is using his power to block protesters from getting near the capital.
    Why should non income tax payers be allowed to dictate the sttealing of other peoples money?
    \Pay income taxes then you can vote.
    I stongly suport I revolt !!!!
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  10. #30
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    What does his being black have to do with it? Have your forgotten Nixon, or is he above being placed in the same boat with Obama?
    DUH. First black pres because he can't be the first president to resign because of Nixon. Liberals seem to read bais into everything.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •